Republicans are acting like vandals

Badmutha said:

People that are actually entertaining raising taxes in this economy are seriously trying to make this Depression Great...............and our debt and deficit an even bigger problem.
.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

Again, raising taxes on the few that are actually prospering in this economy will have very, very minimal effect on the recovery. People are not going to shut down or hinder a business that is making good profits because their taxes go from 35 to 40%. OTH, cutting expenditures means the government buys less, which is literally taking food off of the table of the guy that sells to the government...and food off the table of each of his employees and vendors. This is why tax increases to the wealthy is the best method to reduce deficit... if you want to reduce deficits, which Republicans really could care less about.

OpportunityCost said:

Ill tell you what, why dont you find out what real relation there is between revenue and GDP. As GDP growth declines, so does revenue---no matter how hard you tax people, because its a disincentive to effort. When the economy is down, raising taxes has a real possibility of making the recovery worse or even pushing the economy into a depression.

The 2009 budget is somewhere in the 20s in percentages of GDP and revenues are rarely over 17% of GDP. That should tell everyone cuts have got to happen.

For Randel and Upsideguy, be specific exactly which "loopholes" you want to cut. Im curious as to what you think is bad or greedy tax code. I bet you can find more wasetful spending than you can bad tax code, but if you want to find the most tax loopholes, I suggest you start with GE's tax form, their chummy relationship with Obama seems to coincide with a huge drop in their tax expense. (Btw thats a hint that a lot of tax cuts are in the green industry sector)

Click to expand...

Fair enough.... I would raise the marginal rate on earned income over $1M to 50%. Earned income is salary. High salaried individuals are not investors, but rather remove money from a business that could otherwise be used to expand that business.

I have created 50 jobs in the past two years on a start-up I am doing. Salary and taxes are irrelevant to my pursuit. I am doing this because I see a market (demand) for my service. My financial incentive will be to build the business and sell it to someone that can take it to the next level. I am only interested in favorable capital gains treatment on my investment, not protecting my salary (which, right now, is non-existent)

Under that current tax schema, we have created an incentive for high salaried workers. They are not the risk-takers... they are high priced managers that really add nothing. We had are greatest industrial growth when marginal rates on earned income were the highest... largely because we created an incentive to re-invest and a dis-incentive to pay out. Investors should be encouraged to look for the long-term capital gains (grow a business and sell it years down the road). Keep cap gains low, create jobs creation tax credits and tax the hell out of high salaries... Our economy currently is far too focused on today, this quarter or this year.... not enough focused on 5 to 10 years.

Badmutha said:

One would think that after Obama spending more money than Gawd and all previous administrations combined........which only made the economy worse........not a sane soul would still believe in the fairytale that government spending somehow benefits an economy. You are proof there are exceptions.........



Bring down the handful that are doing well........brilliant...........



Only after they are first REMOVED from the economy...........Government doesnt have money........they only have what they steal.



Which would be akin to saying tax increases only affect the economy as a hypothetical.........we could raise tax rates on everybody to 90% and it wouldnt hurt the economy one bit.......in your imagination.
.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

Arguing the hyperbole is somewhere between disingenuous and childish. While I argued that tax increases on the ones benefiting most from this economy made sense , I never once suggested that we should tax them at 90%. Moreover, what I would propose would hardly "bring them down" but, instead would rely on the group that is doing well to do their civic duty in tough times. Whatever is done to fix the deficit will be painful. Asking those that most benefit to carry their fair share of pain seems not only natural, but right. ".... to whom much is given, of him much shall be required..." Luke 12:48

As to Obama spending.... he only increase spending by 10% over his predecessor... and most of that was a stimulus bill designed to fix the stagnant economy left by his predecessor.

A dollar of government spending goes DIRECTLY to a vendor or employee of the government, who in turn pay their bills and their vendors and their respective taxes on that income. A dollar of tax cuts goes.... well, why don't you explain. (hint: virtually every credible economist will tell you that government expenditures have a much more measureable economic impact than a tax cut)

upsideguy said:

Fair enough.... I would raise the marginal rate on earned income over $1M to 50%. Earned income is salary. High salaried individuals are not investors, but rather remove money from a business that could otherwise be used to expand that business.

I have created 50 jobs in the past two years on a start-up I am doing. Salary and taxes are irrelevant to my pursuit. I am doing this because I see a market (demand) for my service. My financial incentive will be to build the business and sell it to someone that can take it to the next level. I am only interested in favorable capital gains treatment on my investment, not protecting my salary (which, right now, is non-existent)

Under that current tax schema, we have created an incentive for high salaried workers. They are not the risk-takers... they are high priced managers that really add nothing. We had are greatest industrial growth when marginal rates on earned income were the highest... largely because we created an incentive to re-invest and a dis-incentive to pay out. Investors should be encouraged to look for the long-term capital gains (grow a business and sell it years down the road). Keep cap gains low, create jobs creation tax credits and tax the hell out of high salaries... Our economy currently is far too focused on today, this quarter or this year.... not enough focused on 5 to 10 years.

Click to expand...

Isn't the marginal rate going to about 45% already, with the Bush/Obama tax cuts expiring in 2012 and a 5% surcharge from the health care plan due in 2014. Also if you five in the state of Minn. didn't the state tax just rise to 10.95%. So if you are in a high tax state you are already on the hook for a 50% + rate.

Badmutha said:

Democrats cant even bring themselves to cut a Cowboy Poetry Contest or NPR............its an empty table........
.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

Yet they've basically agreed to $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years. Your inability to even read the news is disturbing.

Furthermore, anyone who argues this can be done solely with spending cuts is absolutely delusional and does not understand basic math.

I never thought I would live to see the day when a simple statement like "there are two sides to a budget" would be subject to political attacks on the person expressing that basic reality of Bookkeeping 101 would be vilified, demonized and attacked for being a socialist, marxist, communist or generally anything but a good American.

When are the wackos going to understand that if you raise taxes you stifle growth and increase uncertainty, both have helped get us in the mess, along with huge nasty dose of Obama's idiotic policies.

The problem is more complicated than most Liberals who post here seem to be able to grasp.

I have dealt with many difficult issues in my life having to do with fiscal problems and the general public almost never get it, this issue is no different.

Perhaps you have some solution to get that pesky and ignorant "general public" moved out of the way so that 'proper action' can be taken?

Councilman said:

When are the wackos going to understand that if you raise taxes you stifle growth and increase uncertainty

Click to expand...

Try again. Raising taxes may stifle growth, it depends what kind of tax and who it's on. Furthermore, raising taxes and making the actual proposals known reduces uncertainty. What increases uncertainty is lack of actual solid legislation.

Furthermore When are the wackos going to understand that if you dramatically cut spending you stifle growth and increase uncertainty?

both have helped get us in the mess, along with huge nasty dose of ObamaBush's idiotic policies.

Click to expand...

Fixed. If you were honest, you'd recognize that Obama is little more then Bush's Third Term. But you are not honest.

The problem is more complicated than most Liberals who post here seem to be able to grasp.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The problem is far more complicated then partisan hacks who post here seem to be able to grasp. Fools like you think that cutting 70% of budget is a good idea and won't have any side effects...like massive depression.

I have dealt with many difficult issues in my life having to do with fiscal problems and the general public almost never get it, this issue is no different.

Click to expand...

Then why are so many of your posts so fiscally ignorant that 5th graders demonstrate higher levels of expertise?

Councilman said:

When are the wackos going to understand that if you raise taxes you stifle growth and increase uncertainty, both have helped get us in the mess, along with huge nasty dose of Obama's idiotic policies.

The problem is more complicated than most Liberals who post here seem to be able to grasp.

I have dealt with many difficult issues in my life having to do with fiscal problems and the general public almost never get it, this issue is no different.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, calling those of us who disagree with you 'wackos' serves no useful purpose now, does it.

BDBoop said:

However, you are misinformed as the democrats already agreed to over $2 trillion in cuts.

Click to expand...

how do you know? all the meetings have been secret - if you have solid evidence of this, I think that many news organizations would be very interested in compensating you for it.


ohhh.... wait, Obama refused to back any deal that didnt' push the next debt ceiling safely beyond the November 2012 elections, and then went on a rant about corporate jet owners using a tax loophole that he created.

cpwill said:

how do you know? all the meetings have been secret - if you have solid evidence of this, I think that many news organizations would be very interested in compensating you for it.


ohhh.... wait, Obama refused to back any deal that didnt' push the next debt ceiling safely beyond the November 2012 elections, and then went on a rant about corporate jet owners using a tax loophole that he created.

Click to expand...

You have Google just like me. Don't you use it?

Oh, fine. But kindly bookmark, so we don't have to go through this again.

"It appears that Cantor has obviously had enough of these negotiations and Kyl followed suit, but there has been progress made. It's not as if nothing has happened," Reid said.

Negotiators had reached tentative agreement on more than $2 trillion in cuts covering wide swaths of the federal budget, according to an aide familiar with the talks, affecting health programs, annual spending, benefits like farm subsidies and tuition aid, and automatic limits on future spending.

Click to expand...

News Headlines

Councilman said:

When are the wackos going to understand that if you raise taxes you stifle growth and increase uncertainty, both have helped get us in the mess, along with huge nasty dose of Obama's idiotic policies.

The problem is more complicated than most Liberals who post here seem to be able to grasp.

I have dealt with many difficult issues in my life having to do with fiscal problems and the general public almost never get it, this issue is no different.

Click to expand...

When are the wackadoos of the right going to understand that tax policy, at least income taxes, has very little to do with economic growth or recovery, nor do they contribute to uncertainty? This whole idea that cutting taxes contributes one iota to economic growth is somewhere between hypothetical and fantasy. It is theory that includes many leaps of faith. It defies the logic of how investment decisions are actually made.

I like you have dealt with lots of financial issues in my life. I have had a career in finance that includes buying and selling businesses and starting businesses. I can tell you from years of investment analysis that investment decisions are made primarily on the basis of demand for a product and service and market share, cost of delivering the product or service and the capital necessary to achieve the objectives. Taxes are, a best, a secondary or tertiary consideration. People do things because they can make pre-tax profits (also note the most international companies do not actually pay income tax, hence tax considerations are moot except to the extent they affect the book-tax number, which is not real tax.) If there is no demand for the product, they are not making the investment, regardless of tax policy. In our current economy, there is low consumer demand for most things. That is why there is no investment and no job creation. No change in tax policy is going to change that. Cutting government spending may change it, but by making the economy worse... as you will be taking money directly out of the hands of consumers. It is a reverse stimulus.

Sorry, but direct government expenditures go directly into the economy and contribute to demand. The relationship between tax cuts and demand is only hypothetical when you are talking about tax cuts to the investor class. You can cut their taxes and increase their take home, but so what? Explain to me how the money is certain to work its way back into the US economy.

That said, tax cuts aimed at those that have a high propensity to spend (which are those, believe it or not, with lower incomes, as every one of their dollars gets spent) have a much more discernible impact. That is why the stimulus included cuts in payroll taxes.

I will grant you that if you had exceptionally high marginal tax rates and reduced them, tax cuts would have more of an impact. But we do not have high marginal tax rates, so tweaking them will have very, very little effect on the economy, but could have a big impact on the deficit.

If taxes are fixed, there is no uncertainty. Moreover, given their low place in investment analysis taxes do not contribute to uncertainty. Though, I guess you are right: The problem is more complicated than most Regressives who post here seem to be able to grasp.

BTW.... while you may not like Obama policies, there is no way you can intelligently make the argument that he got us into this mess unless you weren't paying attention on the day of his inauguration. You can argue that he did not fix the mess or further entangled us, but suggesting its all his fault is a bit intellectually dishonest.

obvious Child said:

Yet they've basically agreed to $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years. Your inability to even read the news is disturbing.

Click to expand...

My willfully ignorant friend..........when the Democrat Party--A Party that has never made a significant spending cut in US History......actually signs its name onto legislation that actually cuts spending.......you let us know ok?

Furthermore, anyone who argues this can be done solely with spending cuts is absolutely delusional and does not understand basic math.

Click to expand...

Well let me help you..........

$1,400,000,000,000.00 Deficit......

....now I just cut $1,400,000,000,000.00 from the Budget......balancing the Federal Budget in under two seconds.........
.
.
.
.

upsideguy said:

Again, raising taxes on the few that are actually prospering in this economy will have very, very minimal effect on the recovery.

Click to expand...

Please tell me who these select few are........and what defines them.......and how their money has minimal effect in their hands........

People are not going to shut down or hinder a business that is making good profits because their taxes go from 35 to 40%.

Click to expand...

My W-2 Liberal friend........have you ever ran a business? Or is your butthole doing all the talking?

OTH, cutting expenditures means the government buys less, which is literally taking food off of the table of the guy that sells to the government...and food off the table of each of his employees and vendors. This is why tax increases to the wealthy is the best method to reduce deficit... if you want to reduce deficits, which Republicans really could care less about.

Click to expand...

....and before ANY OF THAT TAKES PLACE.........government took the money from the guy that sells to the people.......THERE IS NO NET GAIN OF ANYTHING IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING.........besides (D)ebt.
.
.
.

upsideguy said:

Arguing the hyperbole is somewhere between disingenuous and childish. While I argued that tax increases on the ones benefiting most from this economy made sense , I never once suggested that we should tax them at 90%. Moreover, what I would propose would hardly "bring them down" but, instead would rely on the group that is doing well to do their civic duty in tough times. Whatever is done to fix the deficit will be painful. Asking those that most benefit to carry their fair share of pain seems not only natural, but right. ".... to whom much is given, of him much shall be required..." Luke 12:48

Click to expand...

You said tax increases had minimal impact.........and now your admitting they do have a substantial impact......please tell us what the cut-off point is.

As to Obama spending.... he only increase spending by 10% over his predecessor... and most of that was a stimulus bill designed to fix the stagnant economy left by his predecessor.

Click to expand...

So much for his plan to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term huh?

...........The Kenyan Turd tripled it.......

A dollar of government spending goes DIRECTLY to a vendor or employee of the government, who in turn pay their bills and their vendors and their respective taxes on that income. A dollar of tax cuts goes.... well, why don't you explain. (hint: virtually every credible economist will tell you that government expenditures have a much more measureable economic impact than a tax cut)

Click to expand...

ONLY AFTER THAT DOLLAR IS FIRST REMOVED FROM THE ECONOMY.........get that through your head.......
.
.
.
.

Badmutha said:

Please tell me who these select few are........and what defines them.......and how their money has minimal effect in their hands........



My W-2 Liberal friend........have you ever ran a business? Or is your butthole doing all the talking?.

Click to expand...

Nice try...Well, if you actually read what I wrote, I told you I started several businesses. I have also created 50 jobs in the last two years. I have only received 2 W-2's since 2001. How about you?

Again, no one is going to shutter a business because their marginal tax rate increases 5%.

As to "what defines them"... we already have a working definition... politically, people have talked about the over $250K taxable income crowd (which is more like the $325K total income crowd). Let the marginal rates return to post 2001 levels and then have a separate 50% rate on wage income north of $1.0M.... The high wage earners are not business investors. You can offset that with job creation tax credits and holding cap gains at 15%. We should be rewarding those that are actually contributing rather than this silly shot guy idea that may or may not include those that are actually contributing to the recover.

Badmutha said:

....and before ANY OF THAT TAKES PLACE.........government took the money from the guy that sells to the people.......THERE IS NO NET GAIN OF ANYTHING IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING.........besides (D)ebt.

Click to expand...

Actually, the government has taken money for the anyone, they have been printing it. They can do that. Your argument is not at all true in the short-run (that is the essence of stimulus... you get money moving through an economy and shore up confidence and thus demand) Your argument is worthy of discussion in the long-run, but fixing an recession is a more immediate termed thing. Cutting off government spending will slow the economy, and at a much faster rate than raising taxes ever would.

The June employment gains were held down by 38,000 jobs lost in the government sector. Those households will immediately reduce consumption and thus slow demand.
.
.

Badmutha said:

My willfully ignorant friend

Click to expand...

I do not consider you a friend.

when the Democrat Party--A Party that has never made a significant spending cut in US History......actually signs its name onto legislation that actually cuts spending.......you let us know ok?

Click to expand...

So you are saying that the $2 trillion is a lie?

now I just cut $1,400,000,000,000.00 from the Budget......balancing the Federal Budget in under two seconds.

Click to expand...

Care to address how that won't push us into a recession? Which will reduce tax revenues and boost automatic stabilizer outflows? It's pretty obvious you do not understand how the budget works.

This needs said again: $2trillion over 10 years isnt ****. Its $200billion a year, that wont even slow our deficit down at this point. Stop acting like $2 trillion is a big deal when everyone knows its a very tremulous start and nothing more. Its not serious budget reduction, its not "draconian", its not even harsh---hell its not even 2008 spending levels which is closer to where we need to be. 2000 would be a better bet.

Those of you on the liberal side, try saying $200billion and see if it seems like that much with the budgets we have had lately. The stimulus was how much again? How much was TARP? How much have we bailed out Fannie and Freddie for? How much went to the Auto Industry? $200billion is a sick joke.

BDBoop said:

You have Google just like me. Don't you use it?

Click to expand...

I do and I read the news on this rather obsessively. but the fact is that we have seen only one plan - it came from Senatorial Democrats and it suggested $2 Trillion in cuts and $2 Trillion in Taxes. Hilariously, I understand that they also included some new spending in the form of a Third Stimulus Package - raising questions on whether or not they have ever heard of the famous definition of insanity.

Everything else is leaks and conjecture and hints and rumors and we have non complete picture.

obvious Child said:

Yet they've basically agreed to $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years. Your inability to even read the news is disturbing.

Click to expand...

$200B y/r. 1.5T deficit. Leaves $1.3T deficit. Over 10 years, that adds $13T to the debt rather than $15T.
Obama, our savior.
:roll:

Furthermore, anyone who argues this can be done solely with spending cuts is absolutely delusional and does not understand basic math.

Click to expand...

On the contrary - it is perfectly possible to reduce federal spending by $1.5T in the next fiscal year -- all you need to do is pass a budget to that effect.

upsideguy said:

When are the wackadoos of the right going to understand that tax policy, at least income taxes, has very little to do with economic growth or recovery

Click to expand...

Explain to us why then The Obama forced the Democrats to renew GWB's tax cuts.

PzKfW IVe said:

$200B y/r. 1.5T deficit. Leaves $1.3T deficit. Over 10 years, that adds $13T to the debt rather than $15T.
Obama, our savior.
:roll:


On the contrary - it is perfectly possible to reduce federal spending by $1.5T in the next fiscal year -- all you need to do is pass a budget to that effect.

Click to expand...

I am reminded of a classmate in grade school who claimed he had a bad case of diaharrea and wanted to go home. The teacher told him to "think solid".

cpwill said:

I do and I read the news on this rather obsessively. but the fact is that we have seen only one plan - it came from Senatorial Democrats and it suggested $2 Trillion in cuts and $2 Trillion in Taxes. Hilariously, I understand that they also included some new spending in the form of a Third Stimulus Package - raising questions on whether or not they have ever heard of the famous definition of insanity.

Everything else is leaks and conjecture and hints and rumors and we have non complete picture.

Click to expand...

Oh. So - when you told me no such thing had ever happened and I should contact the media, because apparently I was privy to insider information, you already knew the truth of the matter??

No Boop, hes saying no one is on the record and its "unsubstantiated sources" or "insiders". If no one is on the record, its hearsay at best, unsourced and usually "leaked" intentionally to the news to affect negotiations.

Don't take it as gospel truth, because it probably isn't.