Second, I believe in both a balanced budget and lower taxes

Ah, and how is that accomplished?
Rush, you can rail all you want about expenditures being the only problems. But if you can't get support for lowering expenditures on military from the right, or on medicare and medicaid from just about anyone over 50... Then you aren't having a real discussion.

The radical idea that deficits don't matter, that debt can be kicked down the hall for later generations, thats not a problem that is expenditures only. Responsible conservatives understand that taxation and expenses are inexorably linked.

Paragraph 1
“began to slow in the mid-1960s”. Lets see what happened in the mid-1960s, oh yes, the Vietnam War. Thank you JFK and LBJ.
“beginning in the mid-1970s…government debt began to grow. Thank you Jimmy Carter
“low of 24.6% in 1974 to 26.2% in 1980. Again thank you Jimmy Carter
Paragraph 2
President Reagan did increase military spending (see paragraph 3) and lowered tax rates ending the Jimmy Carter disaster that he inherited. (Much like the disaster that Obama inherited except in Reagan’s case the economy got better, faster)
More importantly, though is the increase in social welfare spending. Tax rates can be changed (sometimes with difficulty) but once a government program is put in place it ALWAYS expands. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid

The third paragraph is the most interesting.
I have no great love for Bush 2. We can argue on both sides of the necessity/unecessary wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I have mixed feelings. The Medicare Part D was a political piece of crap.
decrease in military spending after Cold War-Thank you President Reagan
budget deals-1993/1997 President Clinton dragged kicking and screaming to the table.
gridlock-absolutely. Our government functions best when it does nothing to interfere.
Dot.com bubble which we paid for eventually.
While we seemingly must give Clinton credit because he was the president at the time and would have gotten the blame if things turned out differently. The truth is that as at other times the economy flourished IN SPITE OF him not BECAUSE OF him.

Paragraph 4
Nowhere is the economic disruption caused by the 9/11 attacks mentioned (partially due to the dismantling of our security forces under Clinton and the inaction also of Clinton after earlier terrorist attacks)
Again Bush Medicare Part D and the Republican Congress that started to act like Democrats when they got in control. Which only goes to show that you can’t really trust too many people in Washington (or really any government) and so that eliminating as much government as we can is the best thing we can do.

Nowhere is the economic disruption caused by the 9/11 attacks mentioned

That's because it was trivial. It was a one-off shock event which did cause damage and depress the stock market for a time but didn't cost that much really. Certainly not in comparison to the self-imposed costs of the two wars and vastly increased defence budget. This is not to say that the wars can't be justified or that the extra spending was entirely unnecessary, but you can't blame the short term economic shock of 9/11 for your economic woes.

no, just one more thing added to a fairly lengthy list of things mentioned. Many things were left out. Community Re-Investment Act may be the main culprit. Thank you again Mr Carter, Andrew Cuomo, Dodd, Franks, et al. But you won't ever hear that from many people. Repeal of Glas-Steagal, thank you Mr Clinton. Generally, mostly government interference in a free economy. WHich we have not had for quite some time. GREECE move over here we come.

9/11 had less of an economic impact as an event by itself than did the dotcom bubble-pop.

hmm, odd how the only people on your 'thankyous' are Democrats, rtml... I thought you said you were an open minded chap...

And no, you ain't nowhere near Greece. I se enough of that lame hyperbole over here. If anything, Greece's problems were down to people not paying taxes and working in the grey economy.

I hopefully am open-minded although I don't recall saying that. Did include Bush(2) on my list of things I am not entrely happy with.

As for Greece, not being there and only hearing what I hear (which seems fairly factual), outrageous pensions, vacation, benefits, etc seem to be a huge problem. Taxes also, from what I hear evasion runs close to 50%. I guess that is because of high tax rates (US here we come) Welfare state social services account for about 30% of the entire budget. We sem to be here already. Our revenues are about 2.5T. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for over 50% of that amount. This does not take into account other welfare programs, government provided health-care and pensions which are not contributed by emplyees. So to say that there is no comparison is quite far-fetched. I hope that you are an open-minded person also.

Yeah, but you are one of those guys who will tell me that Bush was not really a conservative...

The main difference between Greece and the USA is the state of the economy. There really is a massive difference there. Oh, they only became a democracy about 40 years ago. Oh, and they didn't have control of fiscal policy because they were in the Euro.

Check the bond rates. The USA is amongst the most stable sovereign debtors out there. The market is telling you that you ain't Greece.

I understand what you are saying. And Bush, either one, was not a true conservative. And yes our economy is better. Our history is different. And as far as the Euro is concerned, that was probably what caused most of their problems. They skated by when they shouldn't have been.

And yes, we are not Greece, not yet. But look at the fundamental problems that we have here and if you care to see them, that is where we are heading. It is impossible to borrow 50% over your income indefinately. As one of the best leaders of recent times said, sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

Greece is a canary ... we watch it keel over and can't manage to figure out a way (via compromise) to get out of the coal mine.

rush

I guess that is because of high tax rates (US here we come)

Are you on drugs?
The last time US federal tax rates were as LOW as they are now was ???? (HInt, before WWII)

Low taxes are not the problem. We take in 2.6TRILLION dollars, I think that is close. And as I was implying, high tax rates are coming. They will not do ANYTHING to solve our problems. Just give the government more money to spend. Individuals can manage their money much better than a bureaucrat thousands of miles away who needs to spend money to keep his job and show how important he is. Politicins need to pay back favors. The only solution is to starve to government.

I am sure you are correct about tax rates. Was just looking at the attached so am not sure if it is correct or not or maybe I am just reading it wrong. But it seems that late 80s early 90s rates were lower.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicatio ... 51.htmlU.S

You're reading it wrong.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2 ... u-s-taxes/

The far right part of this chart is where US taxes are at....
The points made:

Federal taxes are the lowest in 60 years, which gives you a pretty good idea of why America’s long-term debt ratios are a big problem. If the taxes reverted to somewhere near their historical mean, the problem would be solved at a stroke.
Income taxes, in particular, both personal and corporate, are low and falling. That trend is not sustainable.
Employment taxes, by contrast—the regressive bit of the fiscal structure—are bearing a large and increasing share of the brunt. Any time that somebody starts complaining about how the poor don’t pay income tax, point them to this chart. Income taxes are just one part of the pie, and everybody with a job pays employment taxes.
There aren’t any wealth taxes, but the closest thing we’ve got—estate and gift taxes—have shrunk to zero, after contributing a non-negligible amount to the public fisc in earlier decades.
If you were structuring a tax code from scratch, it would look nothing like this. But the problem is that tax hikes seem to be politically impossible no matter which party is in power. And since any revamp of the tax code would involve tax hikes somewhere, I fear we’re fiscally doomed.

Rickyp. I agree with,at least, your last few statements. But one point of agreement/disagreement. Payroll taxes are regressive but they do need to be taken out of the equation. Social Security and Medicare taxes, and all of the other employment taxes on your chart, (first of all are government mandated and by now you must know how I feel about government doing ANYTHING) are monies taken out of a paycheck BUT will be given back with HUGE interest in the future. At least for the people collecting now. I probably will get back a huge return on my investment. But 20-30-40 year olds are going to get screwed. Personlly I think corporate income taxes should be 0%. As for estate and gift taxes, I am not sure how I feel about them. On one hand I do not particularly like inherited wealth; it gives the recipient less incentive to work on his own. On the other hand I don't want the government taking much of anything from its citizens. Inclusion of these is an LSD strategem meant to confuse the underlying issue. Tell the Big Lie often enough and loud enough a large number of people will eventually believe you. There was no holocaust, we never landed on the moon, etc.

"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have"

As for your tax chart, it is rather meaningless as far as I am concerned. This seems to be a revenue chart not a rate chart. When the economy tanks, income goes down, income tax revenue goes down. Seems simple to me but again I may be wrong The chart I showed was actual rates.

As for tax reform, one main disagreement I have with many of fellow conservatives are the fair/flat tax proposals or even VAT or consumption taxes. They sem to be very regressive. SOmeone making 1M/year can easily pay a 10 or 20% tax, someone making 30K won't. Everyone that earns any money should pay something, even if its $5/wk. This way when the talk of raising taxes is brought up everyone has skin in the game. Now the feeling among many is "Sure, raise HIS taxes just send me MY check"

rush

Payroll taxes are regressive but they do need to be taken out of the equation. Social Security and Medicare taxes, and all of the other employment taxes on your chart, (first of all are government mandated and by now you must know how I feel about government doing ANYTHING) are monies taken out of a paycheck BUT will be given back with HUGE interest in the future

Sir, a bucks a buck.
It doesn't feel any different or have any different affect when taken from a tax payer based on how you label it... Or how it gets calculated. Its the bottom line that matters.
Thats why most Americans agree with the Buffett rule. (And understand its symbolic, not a stand alone solution) They understand that its the bottom line on taxation that matters not how you label the taxes and tax breaks.

rush

As for your tax chart, it is rather meaningless as far as I am concerned. This seems to be a revenue chart not a rate chart. When the economy tanks, income goes down, income tax revenue goes down. Seems simple to me but again I may be wrong The chart I showed was actual rates

Because you are confused. You can't look only at marginal rates (Which by the way, when you read carefully in the chart you provided show rates much higher through 45 to 99) but also at deductions and methods of taxation... WHich you seem to pick and choose according to the way you feel about them...
When, by labelling one kind of income differently Romney gets to a taxation rate of 13% ... but a working stiff can't ...it becomes a question of why? Why is that dollar taxed differently? Why should someone have that advantage?
Over the years Conservatives have abandoned the common sense idea that a bucks a buck ...and the common sense idea that budgets need to be balanced (at least in good economic times. )
When you can look at the actual record of taxation reciepts and say "it is rather meaningless" it suggests that you share this strange conception that somehow what one labels taxes is more important that who pays, how it affects their personal economic well being and their share of income, and how it generates the governments working capital.
It also indicates the disconnect between services and taxation. Which is why, as soon as there is a debate about what to cut, nothing happens... Or when it does happen, there's no clear understanding about what happens to the quality of life, or state of the nation. Its why Texas can lay off teachers in order to balance the books, whilst having one of the worst school systems in the nation. And brag about being a low tax state.
Today, incorporating all frms of taxation, which is the only fair way to calculate the level of taxation, your nation is taxing its citizens and corporations at the lowest levels since WWII. Therefore you borrow money because you don't want to 1) tax people or businesses enough to balance the books 2) cut corporate subsidies that have long out lived their purpose and effect 3) Agree on Cuts to spending - because each cut is ideologically sancrosanct to one or the other OR because the cuts would affect a significant enough portion of the populace directly that they would be political suicide. (cuts to medicare or Social Security for instance)