There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
And if you don't think that they're definitely going to have a significant impact, there was really no reason to try and throw out such an emotionally charged argument as to why it can't be done.
So they should've just ignored their constituents? You're creating a self fulfilling prophecy when you lament that people have no power and then basically are saying politicians should ignore the people. Not to mention, the top 2% were set to expire just the same as anyone elses, so not dealing with that now was just as foolish if you felt it was an issue than not dealing with all of it, because doing nothing defaulted to letting it raise. If they felt that NO ONES taxes should raise then they had to act NOW because by doing nothing about it the default was that it would raise.They still could have handled this differently. It's not like the top 2% were facing a crisis. That's what the GOP was fighting for.
Not a strawman, it was hyperbole to match your ridiculous hyperbole of the rich having all the power and using it for nothing but their own greed.I didn't call them evil. You keep reverting back to that strawman. Not facing a crisis is not equal to evil.
Your made it out that you had an issue that "2% of the population" was controlling what we do about revenue. You then went on to say Politicians and Spin doctors fell in that 2%. I'm simply pointing out that its rather hypocritical for you to complain about the 2% controlling revenue when, by your definition of that 2%, EVERY government issue is controlled by that 2% and that 2% is actually representing both sides of the revenue issue right now...because there's politicians and spin doctors arguing on both sides.There are those in the top 2% that are fine with their taxes going up. I didn't say that those in control were the whole top 2%.
You were attempting to instill negative emotions by invoking classism by complaining about the "top 2%" controlling what happens when revenue which is a rather irrelevant comment to make considering by your own definition the top 2% control EVERYTHING that the government does in EVERY instance. Its the political equivilent of shouting at someone for spraying your chest with a squirt gun in the middle of a down pour. Its obvious disingenuous and being done for ulterior reasons.Only if you strawman my statements to mean that the top 2% were a homogenous group ideologically.
And again, as I said, its a difference in philosophy. I'll take a small portion, relative in time, of people being severely harmed for the (highly plausable in my mind) possability of a large portion being comfortable in the long run. The alternative, based on what you're suggesting, to me is harming a huge amount of people over a long period of time with no real hope for improvement, just not as bad of pain as quickly.I think too many people would be harmed by a complete immediate collapse of our economy and government. Of course, they really haven't proposed any remedies either way yet. Time will tell.
To give an analogy...if we have two groups of 10 people taken hostage. There's a choice where you could do one of two things:
1. The 10 will be housed in bad conditions for five years, with two of them dieing and two being severely injured with it being 50/50 if they live or die. However, after 5 years, they're all are freed.
2. All 10 get routinely beat, but never to the point of serious injury or death. They are given moderate living conditions but will be held there for the rest of their lives, as will any of their kids, and their kids kids, and onward.
To me, in such a theoritical, I'd go with number 1. While more life, in a technical sense, is preserved in number 2 I would actually prefer number 1. This is because that while some life is lost, the majority of others are actually able to LIVE their lives to the fullest and those that come from them in the future will be free to do so as well. On the flip side, number 2 is perpetually living in a crappy existance, with the number of people exposed to said bad existance increasing each time new children are born into it. They're alive, but they have no real way to truly live to the fullest.
At its hearts its the great difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives and the reason I think there will always be a divide in this country. To me the difference is clears. Conservatives want people to be able to reach the highest of highs and accept that to have that people will also hit the lowest of lows, with the distribution of the rest falling along that trajectory in between. Liberals want people primarily to be comfortable and equitable, wanting a relatively steady middle baseline with little deviation up or down. And I think often when it comes to economic type issues that's the real heart of contention.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Did the treasury dept. stats show the real revenue, or the revenue before inflation?
As for your question earlier, I am concerned with tax specifically because we're talking about the effect tax cuts have on revenue...
The tax cuts we're talking about extending were legislated in 2001, not 2003. That was a different bill entirely. The "compromise" they came to was to pass the cuts if they expired in 10 years.
The graph shows an obvious decrease in tax revenue. While total revenue only dropped by something around 150bn (about 10%), tax revenue dropped by 150bn also (about 14%), social insurance and retirement payments increased a good 75bn to compensate.
Therefore I question that extending the same tax cuts would have an effect you describe. Note that I am for extending the cuts for 80% of the population or so.
Let me ask you how do tax cuts affect you? Do you have more or less take home pay after tax cuts? Then what?
The tax cuts legislated in 2001 were the same as Obama's rebate checks, the withholding cuts came in July 2003 AFTER the GOP Took Congress, notice the revenue change?
If you are for extending cuts for 80% of the people and based upon your concern for the deficit how much does that add to the deficit vs. raising taxes on the 3 million or so that are so called rich? The 80% amount to millions more.
These are red herring tax cuts. Which means, you have to hire an employee and pay him 30 grand a year, just to get a $3,000 tax deduction.
So, IOW, no business in the country, actually saw an actual tax cut. No corporate income tax was cut, no self employment tax was cut, nothing.