So is it your contention that only Republicans have followed the approved tax laws on investment income? For example, has Pelosi written a check to the Tres. for the difference?
For the umteenth time folks, my problem is not with Romney or Pelosi or any who pays what they are supposed to pay. My problem is with the tax code itself, which is supposed to be progressive (even Brookings Institute agrees with me and I posted it earlier, post 155 above), but it allows Romney who reported 22 million of income one year to pay a lower effective tax rate than me and millions of americans who earn much less. That's wrong. Obama wants to improve that situation, the republicans beginning under Reagan made big changes to give advantages to the rich by easing taxes on LTCG and dividends, and Bush II took it farther in 2001 and 2003. That's wrong.
mike2810 said:
While I won't disagree with you that the tax code needs overhauled. I will disagree that it is one parties fault over another. I would bet that all "rich" politicians who have investment income use the current tax laws. There are many long term politicans from both parties. Our tax code mess is not just one parties fault.
I have said it before. Congress and the President need to show they can get the fiscal house in order first. Then lets talk about having more tax dollars. Until then, how confident are you that if Congress changes the tax code to receive more revenue from the "rich", that Congress won't just spend it away? I have seen no effort by either party to really put forth a deficit reduction plan, produce a balanced budget, and work towards retiring the national debt.
I generally agree with this.
However, in the middle of a great recession is NOT the time to do big spending cuts, you'll kill the economy. Look at Greece, Germany (through the ECB) has imposed tough austerity on the Greeks (balance your budget NOW) and Greece is deeper in recession (probably depression), and now even Germany is moving to ease the tight spending restrictions. Greece needs to fix their deficit problem but they can't do it too quickly without killing the economy (cure worse than the disease).
The govt. borrowed $1 trillion in Bush II's last year in office, fiscal 2008. Clinton gave Bush II a balanced budget to start from, Bush II took it up to $1 trillion a year borrowing, he cratered the housing market, the financial system, started one disastrous war in Iraq, and started the great recession that took DOWN IRS tax receipts by 400 billion a year. Now 4 years later, the deficit is back to $1 trillion a year or so, which is not a bad performance given the terrible situation the republicans put the country in.
This is what Bush II did to the budget to produce the huge deficit:
2 tax cuts = increased the deficit
100 billion per year for 10 years (extended by Obama for 2 more years due to great recession)
Increased defense spending from 350 billion a year to 650 billion a year = added another
300 billion to the annual deficit.
Passed Medicare part D (prescription drug coverage) with no tax to pay for it = add
70 billion a year to the deficit
induce Great Recession = reduce tax receipts by
400 billion a year because people lost jobs, people lost money in the stock market so no capital gains, and Sr. earn no interest income due to low interest rates.
That's pretty much where we are now.
Obama spent 300 billion a year on the stimulus, but it is spent and no longer contributes to the deficit.
Obama's other spending measure will be heath care, and it has not kicked in yet.
In recent times, most of the problem has been the republican "borrow and spend" mentality.
I also want to see us move in the direction of a balanced budget, I support Simpson Bowles. I am guessing Obama did not pursue it because the spending cuts and tax increases would not have worked out well in the sick economy we have been in (see Greece and how austerity worked out there, and Spain was given much more lenient terms by the ECB than Greece so they don't pull all of Europe into recession/depression).