Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pat Toomey and Howard Dean debate the ‘fiscal cliff’
Humaan Events ^ | 7/23/2012 | John Hayward

Posted on 07/23/2012 9:51:42 PM PDT by neverdem

Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) guest-hosted the “Squawk Box” on CNBC this morning, and held an illuminating exchange with former governor and Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean concerning the approaching “fiscal cliff” of our swelling national debt, combined with tax hikes on January 1 that could very well push this fragile economy all the way into recession:

Dean offered the standard Democrat party line that massive tax increases would be necessary to rescue us from the profligate spending habits of yesterday’s liberals – who were, according to this line of thinking, imposing stealth tax increases on the unlucky citizens of the future. They didn’t have to admit they were jacking up taxes, because all of their programs were funded with magical deficit money. This allowed them to pretend they were showing the populace with “free” benefits that no one had to pay for. They didn’t have to confront the dependents of other government spending programs and regretfully inform them that scarce government resources were being diverted to new spending priorities. They simply ran up the national credit cards, and now they present the flaccid bulk of their unsustainable debt as leverage to demand more taxes.

One reason it’s important to give liberals absolutely zero in new taxes is the importance of sending the message that their profligacy will not be rewarded. The tactic of busting the budget, and then whining about “greedy millionaires,” must never be validated.

“Frankly, we don’t have a tax problem,” Toomey said on CNBC. “The current tax regime, that’s been in place for 12 years now… as recently as 2007, we had a deficit that was only 1.2 percent of GDP.”

Dean countered with a perfect recitation of the socialist death spiral: it’s silly to say we can’t have tax increases in a recession, because recessions increase dependency on government programs, so we’ve got to pull even more money out of the collapsing economy to fund them. In fact, the Associated Press had a story today about how the official poverty rate is about to hit a half-century high. Is our goal to reduce the number of poor people with economic vibrancy, or cripple our economy to provide a more extensive social safety net?

And at any rate, it’s silly to characterize Barack Obama’s mad spending spree, or the tidal wave of money shoveled out by the Democrats since they took over Congress in 2006, as welfare spending for the destitute. A great deal of that money went to well-heeled business interests, hungry for politically fashionable subsidies.

Howard Dean is a perfect representative of the dead-end Democrat future, in which the limitless greed of a failed government transcends common sense to make increasingly shrill demands. He’s even deranged enough to try claiming the Democrats don’t control the Senate! And he says, with a smirk, that going off the fiscal cliff would be “a good thing,” because his power-hungry Party thinks the resulting economic devastation will subdue the American people’s resistance to further government expansion.

To hear Dean talk, you wouldn’t think a small minority of high-income people are currently paying most of the taxes in this country. You’d almost forget the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress for the first two years of the Obama presidency, and squandered their influence on the horrific failure of ObamaCare – a program designed to hook the middle class into government dependency, rather than helping the poor and destitute.

Compare what Dean and Toomey say in this clip, and ask yourself which of the two sounds intransigent, ideologically rigid, and out of touch with reality.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
There's a video at the source.
1 posted on 07/23/2012 9:51:48 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Liberals all use the Dialectic to force change.

Change is progress. Except when conservatives try to change things, liberals always frame it as going backwards (turning back the hands of the clock),....

Change requires lots of money. Liberal change equates to more money and new programs.

If you cut spending, you are destroying liberal progress. Without more and more money, liberal change cannot continue further.

That is why liberals are never for spending cuts to social programs. Cuts destroy progress. Eliminating liberal programs destroys progress. Turns things in the opposite directions of liberal progress, because that’s what was there BEFORE the liberal programs existed - no spending.

Liberals will say “and now with no money the problems will still exist.” One must quickly counter that the liberal solutions of the last 40 years spending trillions of dollars tackling these problems have not only left us with the very same problems we were assured would be fixed for far less money but now we have the same problems PLUS mountains of debt generated by these liberal “solutions”.

But this is why the spending must end. Programs must be pared back and ended. The richest and most ungrateful poor in the world live here. They demand to be taken care of, they expect it, they believe they are entitled to it because of any number of reasons. That is other peoples’ money who work, being confiscated and transferred to them for no other reason is that they were for any number of reasons not able to earn it on their own.

This is why no liberals are for any social spending cuts and will never work to reduce baseline budgeting. Any reductions negates liberal change/progress because all liberal progress requires more spending via social programs. They never will cut anyt social programs because this will negate liberal change/progress. It’s why they don’t even keep things at the same levels year to year, they add in automatic increases each year.

2 posted on 07/23/2012 10:06:51 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South Hawthorne; brityank; Physicist; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; GOPJ; abner; baseballmom; Mo1; Ciexyz; ..

PA Ping!

If you want on/off the PA Ping List, please freepmail me. Thanks!

3 posted on 07/23/2012 10:11:51 PM PDT by randita (Either the politicians fix our fiscal insanity, or the markets will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I’m, more and more, coming to the conclusion that conservatives and Republicans should wait until the new Congress convenes in January 2013 to address the tax extension issues. There’s no way we should compromise with the Democrats and Obama either now or in the lame duck session. 2013 would not be the first time that a tax reduction/tax reform was passed and was retroactive to the first of the year.

Let’s not give the anti-American Democrats a DAMN THING other than to show them the door.

4 posted on 07/23/2012 11:34:58 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

—”I’m, more and more, coming to the conclusion that conservatives and Republicans should wait until the new Congress convenes in January 2013 to address the tax extension issues.”

Good point I hadn’t thought of. Of course, some people could have parents die in January 2013 and lose a load of their inheritance to taxes, but overall, this is probably a wise strategy because we’ll take a lot of seats in congress and hopefully ObamaThug will be ousted.

5 posted on 07/24/2012 12:22:23 AM PDT by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

i don’t know if i should laugh, cry or glock his rear end

6 posted on 07/24/2012 2:04:25 AM PDT by genghis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Democrats and their crack-pot economist trying to sell, raising taxes will create an economic expansion. Wrong. It's pretty simple logic, the more taxes on the private sector, the smaller the private sector.

Just ask a Democrat supporter, if I took 40% of the cash from your earnings quarterly, would you be left with more options?
7 posted on 07/24/2012 4:50:23 AM PDT by Son House (The Economic Boom Heard Around The World => TEA Party 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

They’ll be debating as they are falling off the cliff. Maybe the sudden stop at the bottom will end the debate.

8 posted on 07/24/2012 7:13:44 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: genghis

May not be the smartest thing to talk about “glocking” people. Just FRiendly advice.

9 posted on 07/24/2012 7:16:39 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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