Thought Charles Krauthammer had a nice article this morning concerning the fiscal cliff negotiations - or lack of negotiations. It’s becoming apparent that Obama wants to go over the cliff, see taxes rise - with the hope that the GOP receives the blame for higher taxes, along with possibly causing a civil war within the GOP.
“GOP Should Stop Concessions And Let Obama Take Us Over The Fiscal Cliff”
Snippet from the article:
“…Obama has never shown interest in genuine debt reduction. He does nothing for two years, then spends the next two ignoring his own debt-reduction commission.
In less than four years, he has increased U.S. public debt by a staggering 83%. As a percentage of GDP, the real marker of national solvency, it has spiked from 45% to 70%.
Obama has never once publicly suggested a structural cut in entitlements. On the contrary, he created an entirely new entitlement ? ObamaCare ? that, according to the CBO, will increase spending by $1.7 trillion.
What’s he thinking? Doesn’t Obama see looming ahead the real economic cliff ? a European-like collapse under the burden of unsustainable debt?
Perhaps, but he wants to complete his avowedly transformational social-democratic agenda first, and let his successors ? likely Republican ? act as tax collectors on the middle class (where the real money is) and takers of subsidies from the mouths of babes.
Or possibly Obama will get fiscal religion and undertake tax and entitlement reform in his second term ? but only after having destroyed the Republican opposition so that he can carry out the reformation on his own ideological terms.
What should Republicans do? Stop giving stuff away. If Obama remains intransigent, let him be the one to take us over the cliff.
And then let the new House, which is sworn in weeks before the president, immediately introduce and pass a full across-the-board restoration of the Bush tax cuts.
Obama will counter with the usual all-but-the-rich tax cut ? as the markets gyrate and the economy begins to wobble under his feet.
Result? We’re back to square one, but with a more level playing field.
The risk to Obama will be rising and the debt ceiling will be looming. Most important of all, however, Republicans will still be in possession of their unity, their self-respect ? and their trousers.”
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]
It never has in the past.
However, lowering taxes in the past has created a booming economy. The top 1% on income earners are already pay 37% of all taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. And most of those people are small business people who run S and LLC corps. How much do you think you can tax this group before they decide to…
Raise prices on their customers.
Pay their employees less.
Who suffers in the end?
I promise you this, if Obama gets his way and raises taxes there will be another recession. And the very people that he claims to want to help will be hurting far more than any of the rich people he relentlessly pursues.[/quote]
Unforunately history and evidence do not bear this out. This is an ideology nothing more nothing less. It has no congruency with the truth.
Who is Obama pursuing? He certainly isn’t going after the 1%.
And taxing the rich along with massive cuts in the military will go much farther in curing the problem than cutting social programs that people depend on just to make it.
I’m coming around to that way of thinking. But allowing the dems to raise taxes will send us into another recession and there is a lot of pain involved when the economy slows to that point. But then again if the pea brains who voted for Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company get a really good taste of what it’s like when the left gets their way perhaps they will vote for more conservative candidates next time. Rand Paul is making sense…unfortunately.
On the other hand if they hold out and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for everyone that will send us down even faster. And I think in the end Obama will still get the blame as he is the President. [/quote]
Bwhahaha…the Bush tax cuts! They have been in effect for 12 years. Where are the jobs that are supposed to be created? Why were the taz rates during the Clinton Admin higher and we had a better economy?
We can have democracy in this country," Louis Brandeis accurately said, “or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”[/quote]
Robert Reich is about as close to a straight-up socialist as you can get and still be labeled mainstream.
If you think socialism is the answer, he’s the right guy to look to, because he is pretty sharp. [/quote]
Call him what you want, but those are the facts. During the Eisenhower (A socialist?) administration nominal tax rate was 91% and the economy grew much better than today. So this non-sense of cutting taxes on the rich spurs economic growth is one of the biggest lies propagated on the U.S. public. We’ve had 12 years of Bush tax cuts for the rich. Where are all the jobs it was supposed to create? Letting them expire just puts the tax rates back to where they were under the Clinton administration and we had a much better economy then than we do now.
[/quote]
During the Eisenhower years there were an abundance of loopholes and not just for the super rich, but for upper income as well. This allowed people more money than the average Joe to sometimes skate without paying a dime. I would return to those rates in a heart beat as long as all the exemptions and loopholes went with it.
By the way that is one very ugly ass that you have as our avatar…but then you know that.[/quote]
Nominal tax rate was 91%. The effective tax rate was 70% with deductions and loopholes. BTW, the loopholes during that time frame were never like what they are today. So an economy with a much higher tax rate on the wealthy provided a much better standard of life for all.
Those are histroic facts that are in direct contrast to the trickle down theory.
And I like big booties. So don’t look if ya don’t like.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my take on it is the republicans want every one to benefit from the Bush Tax Cut, The Democrats want the bottom 98% to benefit from the BTC so the Republicans would rather see everybody’s tax go up to protect 2%. Negotiation means not getting everything you want and the Republicans get 98%[/quote]
I’d personnally prefer everyone’s tax to go up.
Let everyone feel the pain of the bloated mess Obama and Bush have created.[/quote]
We agree if you and I ran this country we would raise taxes cut spending and be in good shape short order
I understand your position but you have to differentiate between programs. Medicare and things of that nature are not causing the problems. But the military budget - which includes the wars - are a major contributor. Other programs can be kept without any fiscal issues. But the military, corporate welfare and taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]
The US federal government was never able to tax at a level higher than about 18-20% for a sustained period of time, no matter what the nominal tax rate was.
So, no, “taxing” the rich wont solve anything, they simply will not get more money out of it.
[/quote]
Totally untrue. The U.S. nominal tax rate was much higher than 20% and it was collected. What were the tax rates between the 1950’s thru the 70’s? Far higher than today and we had a much stronger economy. This flies direstly in the face of “cut taxes on the rich and you will spur job growth” crowd. It is one of the U.S. greatest propaganda stories.
Taxing the rich will help along with butchering the bloated military budget. Cutting corporate welfare and helping the housing market stablize.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]
It never has in the past.
However, lowering taxes in the past has created a booming economy. The top 1% on income earners are already pay 37% of all taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. And most of those people are small business people who run S and LLC corps. How much do you think you can tax this group before they decide to…
Raise prices on their customers.
Pay their employees less.
Who suffers in the end?
I promise you this, if Obama gets his way and raises taxes there will be another recession. And the very people that he claims to want to help will be hurting far more than any of the rich people he relentlessly pursues.[/quote]
YAWN:) eye roll The Top 1% of wage earners mostly work for some one else. And if business could raise the price of the goods and employers pay their employees any less they would do so . It would have nothing to do with tax rates . Come on Zeb who do you think you are talking to a bunch of Republicans
I’m coming around to that way of thinking. But allowing the dems to raise taxes will send us into another recession and there is a lot of pain involved when the economy slows to that point. But then again if the pea brains who voted for Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company get a really good taste of what it’s like when the left gets their way perhaps they will vote for more conservative candidates next time. Rand Paul is making sense…unfortunately.
On the other hand if they hold out and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for everyone that will send us down even faster. And I think in the end Obama will still get the blame as he is the President. [/quote]
Bwhahaha…the Bush tax cuts! They have been in effect for 12 years. Where are the jobs that are supposed to be created? Why were the taz rates during the Clinton Admin higher and we had a better economy?[/quote]
Because Clinton had 2 fake bubbles to help him.
The tech boom, and the real estate boom, both of which created no real wealth at all. Adding a new coat of paint to a home does not increase it’s value by $50k. Nor does a website create anything other than pure advertising.
The states that relied on these fake booms suffered the worst when they crashed (California, Nevada, Florida, NY).
On more interesting news, should Obama get his tax increases, “the rich” in California will be paying 52% of their income to taxes. Can’t wait to see that caravan of people get the hell out of dodge.
The effective tax rate was 70% with deductions and loopholes.[/quote]
Links? Because I am under the impression you are straight talking out of your big booty here.
I know you are talking out of your big booty here. This is laughable actually.
In what way was the standard of life better than it is today?
Also, please outline the differences in the global market place between then and now… I’ll wait, it is a long list.
[quote]Those are histroic facts that are in direct contrast to the trickle down theory.
[/quote]
Oh… You are one of those.
Nevermind, I won’t get any details at all from your responce.
Links? Because I am under the impression you are straight talking out of your big booty here.
As one of the biggest pieces of the pie, I’d START the slicing by looking at military waste. Now look out because all the righties heads are about to explode and the terrorists are taking over the US because of this. God knows if we spent just 1 dollar less on defense every hour would be 9/11 right?
[/quote]
We have to cut everything, there is no other option, everything. Social programs too, and look out because all you lefties are about to explode because god forbid a social program was cut because grandma would be starving in the street right?
As one of the biggest pieces of the pie, I’d START the slicing by looking at military waste. Now look out because all the righties heads are about to explode and the terrorists are taking over the US because of this. God knows if we spent just 1 dollar less on defense every hour would be 9/11 right?
[/quote]
We have to cut everything, there is no other option, everything. Social programs too, and look out because all you lefties are about to explode because god forbid a social program was cut because grandma would be starving in the street right?
[/quote]
^ They do not understand this brother.
You either do massive cuts, tax EVERYONE, or both.
I like to think of math as being the most honest form of language.
I understand your position but you have to differentiate between programs. Medicare and things of that nature are not causing the problems. But the military budget - which includes the wars - are a major contributor. Other programs can be kept without any fiscal issues. But the military, corporate welfare and taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]
The US federal government was never able to tax at a level higher than about 18-20% for a sustained period of time, no matter what the nominal tax rate was.
So, no, “taxing” the rich wont solve anything, they simply will not get more money out of it.
[/quote]
Totally untrue. The U.S. nominal tax rate was much higher than 20% and it was collected. What were the tax rates between the 1950’s thru the 70’s? Far higher than today and we had a much stronger economy. This flies direstly in the face of “cut taxes on the rich and you will spur job growth” crowd. It is one of the U.S. greatest propaganda stories.
Taxing the rich will help along with butchering the bloated military budget. Cutting corporate welfare and helping the housing market stablize.[/quote]
Setting aside the potential “benefits to the economy” for a moment, at what point, in your opinion, does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?
They are going to have to, if they want this paid off. Which begs the question, does anyone (in government) want this debt paid for ?
[/quote]
IMO no , there are too many people getting rich off America , Industrial Prison , Industrial Military , Industry that specializes in America. They pull the strings and the partisan parties pull their constituents right along
They are going to have to, if they want this paid off. Which begs the question, does anyone (in government) want this debt paid for ?
[/quote]
IMO no , there are too many people getting rich off America , Industrial Prison , Industrial Military , Industry that specializes in America. They pull the strings and the partisan parties pull their constituents right along
[/quote]
Many of those industries are Unionized, a bit of a quandary for both parties eh ?
Corportions get rich and can fund their candidate. Unions do the same. Then both point the finger at each other and accuse one of doing the same the other is doing ? Americans scream about Democrat-this or Republican-that, and we have FUBAR. Sound about right ?
The Top 1% of wage earners mostly work for some one else. And if business could raise the price of the goods and employers pay their employees any less they would do so . It would have nothing to do with tax rates . Come on Zeb who do you think you are talking to a bunch of Republicans