Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Daniels: Tax hikes might be necessary (Mitch - 'we need to be grownups about it')
gop12.com ^ | Saturday September 11, 2010

Posted on 09/11/2010 8:41:55 PM PDT by Bigtigermike

From Andrew Romano's great new profile of a Mitch Daniels he portrays as pragmatic and principled (kind of oxymoronic, but one of Daniels' principles appears to be pragmatism).

To wit, his suggestions:

Let’s raise the retirement age, he says. Let’s reduce Social Security for the rich. And let’s reconsider our military commitments, too.

When I ask about taxes—in 2005 Daniels proposed a hike on the $100,000-plus crowd, which his own party promptly torpedoed—he refuses to revert to Republican talking points.

“At some stage there could well be a tax increase,” he says with a sigh. “They say we can’t have grown-up conversations anymore. I think we can.”

(Excerpt) Read more at gop12.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; elections; mitch; mitchdaniels; notmymanmitch; ourbetters; politicalclass; rulingclass; taxhikes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last
Ok....what do you think?
1 posted on 09/11/2010 8:41:58 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Cripes.


2 posted on 09/11/2010 8:44:14 PM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Taxed Enough Already


3 posted on 09/11/2010 8:44:14 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

He’s toast. First, the GOP should focus on fiscal issues and table social issues.

Then, fiscal issues means raise taxes? He is not a social conservative, and now evidently he’s not a fiscal conservative.


4 posted on 09/11/2010 8:44:33 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
Steerike threeee!!!!!!!

He's outta there......

5 posted on 09/11/2010 8:44:52 PM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

I say NO—cut spending please


6 posted on 09/11/2010 8:44:52 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Can someone PLEAAAAAASE, toss this nincompoop under the bus... then back over him a dozen times... just to be sure.


7 posted on 09/11/2010 8:46:01 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Welcome to "The Hunt for Red November".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
Well, we could raise taxes, OR we could cut spending ...

It's always so tough to figure out which way the politicians will decide to go ...

8 posted on 09/11/2010 8:46:41 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Things will change after the revolution, but not before.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Groan, but he’s a darling in DC. Figures.


9 posted on 09/11/2010 8:47:15 PM PDT by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
Bye, Bye, Presidential possibilities.
10 posted on 09/11/2010 8:47:37 PM PDT by smug (tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
If he can cut spending in Indiana he can cut spending in Washington. According to this article all he is thinking of is ways to suck more money out of me and my kids.
11 posted on 09/11/2010 8:49:16 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
Nonsense on stilts. At the end of the day, it may be that, hypothetically speaking, we will have to raise taxes; however, there are way too many other things we can do first before that possibility can even be considered, let alone put into place.

I'll certainly go along with reconsidering most or all of the social entitlements - which are, by the way, where most of the budget goes to these days, our military commitments pale in comparison to those, which is simply another reason why somebody who wants to lead with a reconsideration of our military commitments first simply cannot be taken seriously.

Anyone who starts blathering on about raising taxes before they've actually managed to cut out the wasteful, uneconomic, economy-destroying, initiative-destroying social entitlement programs is nothing more than a neo-fascist mole.



12 posted on 09/11/2010 8:49:52 PM PDT by Oceander (Tag. You're it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Do you realize our vacations are now only at half pay????

You greedy, worthless taxpayers need to open the spigot some more!

/sarc


13 posted on 09/11/2010 8:49:59 PM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
How about immediately reducing the size and scope of the federal government first and foremost!
14 posted on 09/11/2010 8:50:15 PM PDT by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert

Remember when a lot of FReepers were giddy about Mitch? I asked then “do we really know much about Mitch? he is fiscal in some areas but he is unknown in a lot of other areas


15 posted on 09/11/2010 8:50:47 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Is that wild? YES! Just weird, wild stuff. YOU ARE CORRECT,SIR!

Governor Palin leads the opposition to this Rockefeller branch of the GOP.


16 posted on 09/11/2010 8:52:26 PM PDT by ansel12 ([fear of Islam.] Once you are paralyzed by fear of Mohammedanism...you have lost the battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

stop the spending....take back the spending...


17 posted on 09/11/2010 8:53:42 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith

only if he takes Huckadope with him!


18 posted on 09/11/2010 8:53:50 PM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Al B.

How about cut taxes and spending while at the same time drill for oil, natural gas and mine our nature resources.

I know it want happen IT’S a commonsense solution. DUH.


19 posted on 09/11/2010 8:59:00 PM PDT by Clyde5445 (Gov. Sarah Palin: :"You have to sacrifice to win. That's my philosophy in 6 words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
Oooops....Mitch has been hitting the

hard again.

20 posted on 09/11/2010 9:00:30 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: acapesket

Maybe we can just LOAD UP a bus and take it off a cliff?

= D


21 posted on 09/11/2010 9:01:31 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Welcome to "The Hunt for Red November".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

It’s not that we tax too little, but that we spend too much. In my house, we spend based on our income. The government, taxes based on what it spends. Can you imagine going to your boss and telling him that he needs to give you more of his money since you can’t be responsible with yours?


22 posted on 09/11/2010 9:01:58 PM PDT by festusbanjo (Remember in November. Dismember in November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

We need a through cleansing of the GOP. Nov ‘10 would be just the beginning.


23 posted on 09/11/2010 9:07:48 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
So let me see--this bum is calling for a "truce" on social issues, and is ok with tax hikes.

This guy is a Republican???
24 posted on 09/11/2010 9:07:59 PM PDT by Antoninus (It's long past time for conservatives to stop voting for Republican liberals. Enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Why do we constantly hear about the need to change Social Security but never hear about the need to cut the moochers’ and spongers’ off their government freebies and handouts?

Before politicians gut and/or change Social Security they should take all the able bodied baby machines, crack ho’s and crack sellers, pimps, immigrants, ALL ILLEGALS, and other moochers off public benefits, food stamps and medical care and kick them out of taxpayer paid housing.

These people pull down more than most retirees on Social Security and many (most) have never worked a day in their lives and make no effort at all to support themselves.

Social Security may need some reconfiguring but that should not be the first step toward reigning in costs. It should take place after the spongers and moochers are taken off the taxpayers’ backs.

At least retirees on Social Security have worked and paid something into the system.


25 posted on 09/11/2010 9:10:26 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The extravagance of his hype is matched by the inadequacy of his performance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
CUT SPENDING !!

CUT SPENDING !!

CUT SPENDING !!

CUT SPENDING !!

CUT SPENDING !!


26 posted on 09/11/2010 9:20:06 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: festusbanjo
The government, taxes based on what it spends

That's a myth. A complete myth. The government first taxes whatever it can get away with and then thinks what to do with it. Once they have the money, they will find a need for it. For example at the end of Clinton's term we had a "surplus". What really is a surplus ? It's simply what the govt had overtaxed. Since the govt had more money than they needed, were they going to return it ? Hell no. If algore was elected, he would have identified "underfunded" programs to spend the money on, and then raised taxes on top of that.

And today they have gone two steps further. They are on a spending binge like never before without regard to what they have or what they can get in the short term through taxation. The little clip below from the immortal BBC show 'Yes Minister', summarizes it perfectly. One of the characters is the chief bureaucrat who explains to the PM what taxation is about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVwMaZ05GV4

27 posted on 09/11/2010 9:24:44 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Daniels is a real piece of sh|+.
He has certainly flushed himself out of any presidential talk, Lancey sighed.


28 posted on 09/11/2010 9:27:02 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

I am sorry to say I have seen FReepers post that tax cuts must be “funded” first before they would endorse them.

That is ridiculous.

It is even more bizarre that Daniels and others refuse to admit that tax cuts increase revenue to the federal government. You would think this would make them happy.

If there were any truth to there views, how did the US not become a super jugernaut when tax rates were in excess of 70% prior to Reagan?

We should have been rolling in the dough throuhgout hte 1970s.


29 posted on 09/11/2010 9:35:55 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smug

Well he could have Brokeback Mountain with Tim Pawlenty as they snuggle up on global warming.


30 posted on 09/11/2010 9:37:09 PM PDT by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

...and yet another potential Palin primary race opponent trips on his shoelaces and falls on his face with his shorts at has ankles before he can even find the starting line...


31 posted on 09/11/2010 9:40:48 PM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Governor Palin leads the opposition to this Rockefeller branch of the GOP.

These days I think we refer to them as the ruling class.

32 posted on 09/11/2010 9:45:57 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

“Since 2005, Daniels has slashed Indiana’s budget by $440 million and more than halved its rate of spending growth”

Huh? How can he slash the budget and still have ANY spending growth?


33 posted on 09/11/2010 9:47:05 PM PDT by Moral Hazard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

This is typical Republican moderate milquetoast s—t! More moving the goalposts to the Left. Whatever happened to bold conservative ideas such as eliminating the Dept of Education, ending welfare, reforming the tax code, and reducing foreign commitments? Now’s the time for bold, decisive action and not more of the same old Republican crap that’ll just sustain socialism.


34 posted on 09/11/2010 9:50:38 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
It's easy to say "cut spending."

To actually cut spending and stop the looting many federal departments and programs must be completely abolished. Not kept on a life line for a decade with the promise that they'll be finally ended ten years down the road. I say give these programs and departments six months to clean up the loose ends an then goodbye! Fire the employees and tear down the buildings if you must, to finally put a stake through the heart of these looter programs and organizations.

35 posted on 09/11/2010 9:51:12 PM PDT by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Why don’t we collect the billion dollars in taxes owed by government workers, and play hardball in pursuing all the tax evasion cases with UBS (in addition to cutting spending and slashing government agencies) instead of killing even more jobs with tax hikes, Mitch?


36 posted on 09/11/2010 9:51:17 PM PDT by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StormEye

To me “cut spending” can (and should) include all the options you mentioned. But the bottom line is just that, the bottom line, so CUT SPENDING !!


37 posted on 09/11/2010 9:55:12 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

I like the guy..
First and foremost, HE IS A REALIST...
And if you had lived through Gov. O’Bannon’s corrupt reign, you would understand exactly what I mean by that.

You just cannot take away many of the handouts Democrats have procured without massive civil unrest, which would be even more harmful to the economy. Greece anyone?

You have to wean them off of them slowly, like you would a heroin addict, a little bit at a time, and as the economy can absorb the workers.


38 posted on 09/11/2010 10:01:18 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Obama White House=Tammany Hall on the National Mall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Idiots. All of them. You don’t get more revenue by raising taxes anyhow. The rich will only pay so much before they find ways of moving their cash around to avoid the penalties (or just cheat like the current Secretary of the Treasury). If you want more revenue, you need more tax-payers. You get more tax-payers when people start making more money-i.e. move into the income levels where people actually have to pay taxes.


39 posted on 09/11/2010 10:17:07 PM PDT by SMCC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

He’s done as a national candidate. Finished.


40 posted on 09/11/2010 10:19:54 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." Thomas Mann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
Ok....what do you think?

I think Daniels is a RINO that has as much chance of winning a primary as Rudyn Giuliani.

41 posted on 09/11/2010 10:55:52 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Well, we could raise taxes, OR we could cut spending ...

Or we could cut taxes, spur economic growth and reduce the deficit at the same time, just like Reagan did.

42 posted on 09/11/2010 10:56:52 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

The problem is that there are a few anti-Christians among the “fiscal” conservatives. They hate everything to do with social conservatives and will latch on to anyone that seems to be one of them. Ol’ Mitch thought social conservatives should be quiet and move to the back of the bus. These fiscal so-called “conservatives” thought they had a champion.

You have to be leery of anyone who claims to be conservative in the fiscal area only, because if they don’t support all of conservatism fiscal, social, and constitutional “smaller” govt., chances are good they are not really conservative at all. Looks like Mitch has outed himself completely.


43 posted on 09/11/2010 11:17:06 PM PDT by Waryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
'we need to be grownups about it'

Go to hell, Mitch! If you don't have a meat cleaver to apply to spending, you are worthless.

Scratch another contender.

44 posted on 09/11/2010 11:21:46 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
If there were any truth to there views, how did the US not become a super jugernaut when tax rates were in excess of 70% prior to Reagan?

The tax code was also riddled with loopholes, many of them small enough to fit only a single person. In general the only people who paid the full rate were poor suckers who weren't able to protect their earnings by tax time.

Then the AMT was devised as a "fix" to ensure that people paid at least some tax, no matter how well covered they could be by loopholes and other deductions.

President Reagan knocked down the tax rates and knocked out most of the loopholes. Unfortunately, he left the AMT in place and now it is hitting a lot of people that it was never aimed at.

The whole tax code is a crock. Always has been. There's nothing fair or reasonable about paying a higher percentage from a higher base income. A straight percentage still means that the more income you have, the more tax you pay. Targeted tax cuts are as bad as targeted tax increases. It's social engineering and socialism by any other name will still smell bad.

45 posted on 09/12/2010 1:09:33 AM PDT by altair (Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent - Salvor Hardin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

CUTTING IS NECESSARY. PERIOD.


46 posted on 09/12/2010 2:54:43 AM PDT by The Wizard (Madam President is my President now and in the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

I want massive civil unrest. Let’s settle property rights and freedom in the streets and cut out the middle guys, the politicians. ( Matter of fact, put them on a cruise ship for a year so they can all oil them selves up and have a big, year long policy wonk orgy. ) Meanwhile, if the local losers, spongers, disability scammers, fakes, frauds, grafters, layabouts want a fried egg breakfast and hot coffee, they can clean the alley and throw the crap in the dumpster, shovel and sweep, or ......get off my lawn.


47 posted on 09/12/2010 3:02:58 AM PDT by Leisler ("Over time they create a legal system that plunders and a moral code that glorifies it." F. Bastiat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Meat cleaver? How about a diesel powered chipper?


48 posted on 09/12/2010 3:04:29 AM PDT by Leisler ("Over time they create a legal system that plunders and a moral code that glorifies it." F. Bastiat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
I think that he is articulating the classic Beltway position -- that it is politically impossible to cut entitlement spending, therefore the only alternative is to raise taxes.

Aside from the philosophical issue, the problem with that formulation is that there simply isn't enough money to be had by taxation that satisfies that shortfall. At some point, we simply MUST reform the entitlement scheme. The system is simply not sustainable in its current configuration.

The longer the GOP refuses to confront the real problem, the longer we will flounder in this fiscal hell. Some "get it" (like Paul Ryan); some don't (like this guy).

49 posted on 09/12/2010 3:10:10 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Rempublicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

The only reason for a tax hike is to expand the empires of government.


50 posted on 09/12/2010 6:00:13 AM PDT by RoadTest (Religion is a substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson