Free Markets, Free People

Bill Clinton: No new taxes until economic upturn

This is so “Econ 101” I’m surprised it has to be stated out loud, but of course it does because the Democrats insist on raising taxes now.  Bill Clinton, for heaven sake, on the David Letterman show last night:

“Should you raise taxes on anybody right today — rich or poor or middle class? No, because there’s no growth in the economy,” Clinton said on the “Late Show.” “Should those of us who make more money and are in better position to contribute to America’s public needs and getting this deficit under control pay a higher tax rate when the economy recovers? Yes, that’s what I think.”


I disagree with his final bit of collectivist nonsense, but his point about raising taxes now is simply common sense, something which seems to be in short supply on the left these days.

Look, the problem isn’t one of revenue, it’s a problem of spending.  More revenue won’t solve the problem.  It  may slow the debt accumulation a bit, but until these yahoos face up to the fact that the rich aren’t the problem -they are -we’re going to see the same spending patterns that have gotten us into the mess we’re in now.

Like it or not, soaking the rich for more taxes won’t change a thing in terms of debt unless Congress kicks the spending habit and restores fiscal sanity.  This class warfare meme the Democrats are running is just another version of kicking the can down the road because they want to spend just like the old days.

This nonsense is directly out of Karl Marx’s “‘Critique of the Gotha Program” which outlines this deadly principle of socialism – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

We continue to be told we’re not a socialist nation and we’re not headed in that direction, but observation and listening to what certain politicians say gives lie to that claim.  The first part of the Clinton quote may be “Econ 101”, but the second part is “Marxism 101”.

We need to quit tiptoeing around and call it what it is.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

13 Responses to Bill Clinton: No new taxes until economic upturn

  • Let’s take up “his final bit of collectivist nonsense” at the end.  How is it “fair” or “balanced” for only the “rich” to pay ?

    • I mean, I’m sure the good professor gives his top “A” students extra work so they can maintain their “A”

    • At least as important a question (which nobody tries to answer) is, “How is it even good civics for half the working population to NOT pay for their government?”.

  • Why listen to him, his second statement contradicts his first.
    And he thinks it makes perfect sense.
    If these freakin rich liberals are so eager to pay extra money to the government, exactly WHAT is stopping them?  I mean other than they’re being liars and hypocrites.
    There are so many emperors these days who have no clothes, and so many media lackeys who allow them to run around naked.

  • “Look, the problem isn’t one of revenue, it’s a problem of spending.”
    I hear this a lot but it isn’t quite true.  When you look at federal income, it’s really depressed compared to where it was before the recession because the economy is in the toilet.  The deficits are not just caused by excessive new spending, they’re also caused by revenue shortfalls from previous levels.  Once the economy recovers, those revenues are going to go back up by a considerable margin.
    This issue is that you’re not going to balance the budget by raising taxes in a recession.  And frankly the feds don’t seem to have any clue about how to get the economy rolling.  Which means they should shut up and get out of the way.

    • When your income drops what do you do?

      Why would it be different for a mob?

    • I think you’re missing my point, Jeff. It’s an institutional problem, a structural problem … call it what you like … but even in fat times will all the revenue at max we were spending more than we took in. THAT is the spending which must be stopped. Spending must be tied to revenue. No more borrowing. And if that means cuts in programs, so be it. That is the point I was driving at.

      • Agreed.  The US government has not been fiscally responsible for far too long.  But you can’t overlook that at least $400 billion dollars of the current deficit is caused by revenue shortfall not unfounded sources of new spending.
        As for no borrowing, the US government has never operated that way.  Hamilton balanced the first budget by selling treasury bonds.  Perhaps it should start, but it’s still unprecedented.

        • Not quite;
          “The United States has had a public debt since its founding in 1791. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation amounted to $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. From 1796 to 1811 there were 14 budget surpluses and 2 deficits. There was a sharp increase in the debt as a result of the War of 1812. In the 20 years following that war, there were 18 surpluses and the US paid off 99.97% of its then debt.
          Another sharp increase in the debt occurred as a result of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and reached $2.7 billion by the end of the war. During the following 47 years, there were 36 surpluses and 11 deficits. During this period 55% of the national debt was paid off.
          The next period of major increase in the national debt took place during World War I, reaching $25.5 billion at its conclusion. It was followed by 11 consecutive surpluses and saw the debt reduced by 36%.”

  • This is very much like the post after this.  The problem is that they truly believe the rich (which really is anyone with a job) are hoarding their wealth like Ebeneezer Scrooge, in their mattress.

  • The mindset of a parasite.