E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNearly 90 percent of Americans will see their taxes increase in 2013 if Congress and President Barack Obama can’t find a way to renew tax policies that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said in a report issued Monday.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., joins Morning Joe to discuss the impending fiscal cliff and sequestration and why he thinks it will be dealt with in the lame duck session of Congress.
The average tax increase will be $3,500 per household if the current tax policies expire, the report estimated.
It isn’t necessarily an all-or-nothing decision Congress confronts – it could choose to extend some of the tax provisions but terminate others – but it’s precisely the complexity of picking and choosing from the items on the menu that will make bargaining difficult as the days dwindle down to Dec. 31.
At stake are several different tax provisions enacted at different times by different Congresses and presidents, some provisions as old as the estate tax, which began in 1916, and some as new as the temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax. In 2010, Congress lowered the payroll tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent but it is set to revert to the higher rate on Jan. 1.
Win Mcnamee / Getty Images
House Speaker John Boehner answers questions during a press conference September 21.
Analysts refer to the looming tax increases and spending cuts required by the Budget Control Act as “the fiscal cliff,” which the Congressional Budget Office has said would cause a recession and an increase in the unemployment rate to 9 percent (from its current 8.1 percent) by the second half of 2013.
For most households, the two biggest tax increases – assuming Congress doesn’t act by year's end – will be the expiration of the payroll tax cut and the expiration of the 2001/2003 tax law, which included some provisions which target specific groups of Americans, such as the increased child tax credit and the increased standard deduction for married couples who file joint tax returns.
Most of the imminent tax increase – more than 60 percent of it – will be paid by people in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. The average tax increase on people on the top 20 percent of the income distribution would be $14,173 next year.
Those at the bottom end of the income scale, in the lowest income quintile, will see an average tax increase of $412 next year, while those in the middle quintile will see nearly a $2,000 increase.
For those in the bottom group, “some people who are (now) paying zero tax will be paying a little bit of tax, and some people who are getting refundable credits and paying negative taxes (in effect, getting cash payments from the Treasury) will see those refundable credits shrink,” said Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center.
A congressional battle brews in Massachusetts as Joe Kennedy III, the first of his generation to enter the business of politics, vies for an open seat representing suburban Boston in Congress. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
“If you think about the history of tax policy over the last 12 years, you could characterize it as an accumulating snowball of temporary tax provisions,” said Donald Marron, director of the Tax Policy Center who served as a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.
“As we get ready for policy discussion in the latter part of this year, after the election, everyone is going to want to dig deeper into the numbers and see that we’ve got all these various things in the snowball of expiring tax provisions, plus the new taxes coming on (due to the tax increases in the Affordable Care Act). To have a debate about this, we’re going to have to draw careful distinctions” among the different tax policies, he said.
He added, “If we go over the fiscal cliff we’ll end up with a tax system which no one has designed intentionally and that I think no one will actually want. I think that means that Congress and the president, whoever that is, will strike a deal to prevent that from happening. Whether they do that before Jan. 1 is an open question.”
Congress may not act before Dec. 31 but then in 2013 retroactively undo some of the tax increases that took effect on Jan. 1. “I don’t think anyone would recommend that as intelligent way to make tax policy because it creates a certain amount of chaos and uncertainty, but that’s a possibility,” Marron said.
But for Congress to simply do nothing and let all the tax provisions expire on Dec. 31 does have one compelling argument in its favor. It would raise a huge amount of revenue: $500 billion more in revenue in 2013 – enough money to pay for most of the Medicare program for a whole year.
Partly because of the temporary tax cuts, but more importantly due to the large number of Americans who aren’t working or who are involuntarily working part-time and are paying minimal or no income tax, federal revenues have still not returned to the level they reached in fiscal year 2007, before the fiscal crisis and the recession.
Leave a Comment:
It's Bush's fault!!!!
The funny thing is, these ARE "the Bush Tax Cuts" that Liberals have loved to hate so much these past 4 years! So now that the much maligned Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire, the result is now a "Fiscal cliff"?! So which way do you want it? Are the Bush tax cuts evil things that favor the wealthy, or are they a necessary thing that Congress must preserve? Which is it, liberals? You can't have it BOTH ways, you know.....
Its both sides fault, so many tax breaks have been put in the system now that its turned into an entitlement for all as this headline has greatly proved it. Getting $3500 tax hit only mean the breaks come to an end and people pay their fair share. Nothing more, nothing less.... its an entitlement we all enjoy and don't want to give up blaming everybody else..
Suck it up and drive on....
Just bring on the "fiscal cliff".
There's no other way that these politicians will ever get started on reducing the massive over-bloated defense budget.
The defense budget needs cut not by 10% but by 90%.
At least the "fiscal cliff" cuts it 9%. And to hear the whiners you'd think that the whole defense budget was cut.
As I said, "Bring on the Fiscal Cliff" !!
.
The same ole taxation without representation! Vote them all out next month!
USSR1776 - The defense budget is, constitutionally, one of the few items that the federal government ought to be funding.
These politicians don't know doodly squat about economics and how to repair an economy. They have opinions formed by ideology. The loss of the credit rating, the fiscal cliff--all man made problems created by elected officials who put party before country. Pathetic. If you keep voting these jokers into office, you get what you deserve. Give them one term to create a record, examine results, vote them in or out based on their job performance.
If you were hired on your job to solve problems and repeatedly went on vacation to make your competitive colleagues look bad, I don't think your employer would give you 4 years on the job much less rehire you.
The fiscal cliff will be if Willard/ Pauley win the White House and the crashing on the rocks below will be if the Republicans win the House and Senate! They have driven this nation into near Bankruptcy and they have the audacity to say that they have a plan...for what.... TOTAL BANKRUPCY!!!!!
If our politicians could work together, there'd be no fiscal cliff to worry about. Apparently those overpaid "representatives" of ours are so dysfunctional, this is the only way we can address our financial difficulties.
Kill the tax and payroll cuts, and all those other "temporary" tax incentives, make everyone begin paying at least something, and trim the federal budget to something we can afford, even if we have to do it the hard way.
You probably disagree with many of the current Tea Party objectives, but in the course of blocking the debt ceiling hike last summer, they may have inadvertently inserted the only fiscal sanity on the Hill we'll ever see.
Yes Colorado, they should be funding defense, just not at its current bloated, wastful, deceitful, lying, cheating, keep the gov't contractors rich levels.
The 1% also needs to pay more taxes, not just the middle class.
US76- unfortunately, when they cut the defense budget, they'll be cutting soldiers' pay instead of getting rid of useless or redundant spending. Although if we quit blowing up countries and rebuilding them, we'd save quite a bit.
The Republican Defense budget is billions for the Contractors and screw the vets when they come home!!! Tell ya what Republicans - the next WAR - Let the service dodging Republicans fight it!!!
The only thing republicans did to create this problem is they acted like liberals. If they had been conservatives as they should have been, then we wouldnt be in this issue, but when you have two parties spending like liberals, you get what we have here right now.
No you liberal monkey, noones taxes should need to go up to be spent on more garbage, why should anyone need to pay more, we can burn the money ourselves.
ScottW430- because having Obama helps.... tell me one successful fiscal plan he in-acted that worked? What stimulus package worked? What about all the touted companies he had talked so highly of that are now bankrupt? He has 0 proven business savvy skills, wonderful speaker however couldn't turn 2 pennies into a dollar to save his life. His rival is a proven businessman that has a great business track record. Questionable moral bearing with abortion and other conservative values but what we need is a businessman, not a community leader....
As a fiscal conservative with liberal values, I will be voting for Romney this year.
Where is our Celebrity in Chief? Like most key issues when the Dems and Repubs cann't agree Obama sits on the sidelines until all hell breaks loose so he can blame. I thought leaders were supposed to lead get involved, bring the parties together. Our Divider in Chief seems to think appearing on The View and Letterman are more important than issues like this. Listen, you can here it coming, blame, whine, blame whine, no solutions no envolvement.
Well, Christie said Romney will make the rich pay the same, so why the argument?
Let the tax cuts for the rich expire and keep the middle class tax cuts. cut some military, medicare and medicaid and call it a day.
All is solved. Bada Bing, Bada Boom.
f Congress will not reduce spending then taxes must and should go up. It has to happen sometime why not admit it now and let the the voters decide if they approve of the crazy spending. Its time for the weasels in Washington to face the music, you cannot have it both ways anywhere else.
Didnt those bastards (congress) go fishing?
I wish they would remain there permanently so the American people could vote for people who are going to get something done.
This fundamentalist quagmire by the Teatalibans and the Republitards is getting old.
This is one of the primary reasons for our stagnant and failing economy. When businesses and consumers don't even know what their taxes will be in less than 3 MONTHS they do not invest and do not spend. When government creates uncertainty then businesses and consumers "wait".
The solution is government needs to extend the current tax rates for a minimum of 3 years. This gives businesses and consumers certainty. Also, Obamacare, actually called the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is creating MASSIVE uncertainty in the business private sector. Government needs to tell consumers and businesses that implementation of the ACA will be delayed 3 years. This gives businesses and consumers certainty.
Notice I did NOT say repeal ACA. I think that is the BEST thing to do but in a sign of compromise just delay the implementation so businesses can know what to expect. Since they have NO idea what problems it will cause (in less than 3 months) they "wait". And it will NOT get better for a couple years if ACA is implemented. So why don't we delay the implementation so doctors, hospitals, businesses, and consumers can plan accordingly and know what is going on?
This fiscal cliff, combined with Obamacare being implemented, will throw this economy not into a recession but a depression. I also do business consultation and I know several companies that are currently "on hold" just waiting for the election because if Romney is elected they know things will get better. But these same individuals are planning to either cut significantly their workforce and reduce their size of their business or close down if Obama is reelected. They know with Obama in office they will not be able to make a profit suitable for their risk - so will cut way back. And many others will do the same which will push us into a massive depression not seen in almost 100 years.
There a few things that are simple to understand when wanting to raise taxes.
1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2) What one person recieves without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3) The governmnet cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from someone else.
4) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Congress should keep the tax breaks going then do a comprehesive tax reform next year.
If the tax cuts expire, then after Jan 1, the Republicans can actually vote for lower tax rates (that would still be higher than today's rates) without violating their sacred oath to Grover Norquist.
Oh, and just in passing, they would not have to violate that silly mumbo-jumbo about defending the Constitution.
It could be a win-win
Wait a minute.....Mr. Obama stated during the 2008 campaign there would be 'NO TAXES ON THOSE MAKING LESS THAN $ 250,000".
Another PROMISE BROKEN.
Guess that fulfills Senator Murray's (chairperson of the FAILED Budget Deficit Reduction committee) statement:
"If the Republicans don't agree to a tax on the rich (our way or the highway), then I could care less about America going over the Fiscal Cliff."
Shucks, and just think.....States ARE NOW wanting the Federal Government (TAXPAYERS) to pay for their bloated pensions (mainly teachers). Then, there is the United Nations trying to impose GLOBAL TAXES ON EVERYONE and to pass their Law of the Seas Treaty (LOST) (more taxes) for World Redistribution of Wealth.
Stopthecannibals: Bada bing? Bada boom? Like that SOLVED something? It didn't.
Do you know what we borrow every year? About $1.5 Trillion.
Do you know how much additional tax revenue comes in IF only the "rich" taxes increase? $50 Billion.
And that is IF we assume it doesn't further damage the economy - which is a false assumption and the economy WILL be negatively affected. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume the economy is NOT affected and we bring in another $50 Billion by taxing JUST the rich.
But that leaves a problem: If we do that we STILL borrow $1.45 Trillion (instead of $1.5 Trillion) but who do we borrow it from? Who will continue to lend to us? In other words taxing the "rich" is a ploy and not a solution. Nowhere NEAR a solution. Obama speaks like if the rich only paid their "fair share" all would be fine. It is not because it doesn't even make a dent in our deficit.
So when you say "bada bing bada boom" do you mean the "boom" is our economy blowing up because this president STILL is not addressing the problem? So what is the problem - it is NOT that we tax too little it is because we spend too much........
Bahh, its just a bump in your road!
It's about time the poor pay their fair share. How's that wonderful wealth redistribution that Obama is sooooo fond of working out for you now?
So Doc, are you saying there are NO Democrats in the House or Senate? Oh, frabjous day!!!!! IF there are NO Democrats in Washington, then you may have a point; otherwise, no point whatsoever. I'm getting a little sick of people like you calling names and being unwilling to admit that there are 2 sides to the spending problem.
The Social Security payroll tax cut, which is the lions share of the increase that most people will see was implemented by Obama, not by Bush. I guess the liberals here are so intent on blaming everything on Bush they forgot that little fact. With the state the Social Security, it was a stupid move to start with and never should have been implemented, let alone extended to two years from the original one. Letting this expire only returns the tax rate to what it was just a few years ago. This cut needs to expire if there is to be any hope of Social Security remaining solvent. The idea of cutting the income to a program that was already in financial trouble was just one of the idiotic moves that the current president and his party have been responsible for. Now they are trying to blame the impact of this unwise cut expiring on the Republicans who had nothing to do with it. It just goes to show the extent the Democrats will go to try and blame others for the problems they created.
Very interesting...I thought the libs/Dems were all in favor of raising taxes to fund all of those "crucial" Government programs. Oh, I see they don't want THEIR taxes raised, just the taxes of the evil rich 1%.
Why don't we just do the really fair thing and pass either a flat tax or a national sales tax on all new goods and services?....you know, where we all pay our fair share!
A vote for Obama will mean no fiscal cliff, as he's stated he'll leave the tax breaks for those whom make under $250.000......just that the wealthy($250,000 or more) will pay slightly more like under Clinton.
ScottW430 You are so right!
And, all of this pro-gunrunners' biased article espoused by none only that Ronnald Marron--Director of tax policy for bush. He is the guy that led the way with Bush to squander $triilions of America's budget surplus leading The U.S. into financial ruin. Anything he says is just the opposite of what needs to be done.
But, but, but, they were the ones who agreed to this "cliff" and pushed for it. Now, not only do they want Bush's tax breaks for the super rich made permanent and tax increases for the common U.S. citizens, they also want their pet Republican weapons industry to receive even more funding (even if the pentagon doesn't want it).
This is why the republican-feared fiscal cliff will allow the huge debt to be paid off with a much lower liability passed on to the 99%. That's why the republicans are screaming to high heaven. They only want the lower middle class and below to pay for it all and not those riche that benefited the most from the wild government spending.
They dont want to pay their fair share hehe. It is easy to vote for other people's tax increases isnt it? This is why everyone should have skin in the game. If everyone is invested in our system, they will make better decisions on how that should be collected and spent.
trudat6445
"The only thing republicans did to create this problem is they acted like liberals. If they had been conservatives as they should have been, then we wouldnt be in this issue, but when you have two parties spending like liberals, you get what we have here right now."
Guess you know less about history... the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act that reversed the Glass-Steagall Act caused the Financial meltdown... two wars, two tax cuts and a Pharma bill all on credit led us to approx 6 trillion in debt!!!! why is it that the so-called Fiscally Conservative Republicans have constantly led this nation into debt and it's the so-called Liberals that get us out of it!!!!
Read.... don't just listen to Fox and those right wing pundits!!!!
US1776 your id don't match your attitude, you must be exempt from duty. Hope the sand pile your head is in protects you.
All this bickering between Republicans and Democrats.... Let's face it, Obamney doesn't want to to do any real cuts and even proposes increased spending. Balance the budget now and cut out the nonsense....
Gary Johnson/Jim Gray 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html?_r=1&
No problem to me..I can afford the $3,500 tax hit...I'm part of the 53% Romney cares about..even though I'm voting for Obama still!
OBAMA 2012
This is a lot of money that people don't have,
if you think there's crazy chit happening in the country now.
Matt: Wrong. Taxing "the rich" is a ploy and doesn't mean a thing (read my post above at 1.23). What you fail to recognize is this is EXACTLY what Obama wants and he planned it this way. He knows that just taxing the rich doesn't make a dent and needs more money. So he claims he is looking out for the "middle class" when HE is going to be the one that raises your taxes - and then blame Republicans. So let's be honest and look at the facts:
Republicans have suggested (and Obama agreed just two years ago) that you don't raise taxes when an economy is trying to recover. So Republicans suggest keeping the current tax rates for three years to give businesses and consumers some certainty for three years.
Democrats say unless Republicans agree to raise taxes on the rich then EVERYBODY will get a tax increase.
So what are our options? Support Republicans your taxes DON'T go up. Support Democrats and your taxes WILL go up. So tell me again WHO is for the middle class and who is NOT?
what they dont say is that the tax increases will not be affecting the people making less then 250,000 dollars a year. the bush tax cuts where not for the middle class but for the upper wealthy. they make this seem like a problem for everyone by dividing the tax increase with total population instead of just saying it will effect the top 20% of earners in the US like it should. we have had the lowest taxes in the history of the US, while having the highest debt. how has that helped us any? it has not, when ever a country has had a large debt it has deflated its currency and increased inflation. we want our economy to get better we need to pay our debt off. we need to make the hard choice of higher taxes while also cutting back spending on all fronts of our government. what happens if we dont do this soon the collapse of the US caused by unsustainable debt. as our debt goes down the value of our dollar will rise, the price of goods will lower, so we will not notice the extra taken out in taxes in the long run.
President Obama knows that raising taxes now is wrong. He knows he can say raise taxes on the rich for political purposes because the other side won't let it happen. If he had full control of both houses he would not bring it up...........pure politics. Even Clinton thinks it's wrong.
Pro Biz please go get a life as you don't have a clue now do ya!
The HOUSE of representatives have been given just opportunities to raise taxes on the wealthy but failed to comply as they projected and sustained their SAY NO AGENDA.
Now the majority is screwed because of a personal GOP agenda that they lost the past election to Black Man!
Sorry but such personal prejudices and the Role Modeling of POOR SPORT ATTITUDES have only harmed this country to potentially un retrieveable limits!Do they care no> Do they care only that the GOP wins who represnets doesn't matter for he/she will be told waht to do and fail as a leader without a clue!
which is why i say Ron Paul for 2012 write him in people. he was the only one that wanted to make the hard choices and get to america first. he would have had us out of debt his first 4 years.
The best line I've heard on this front was from Harry Reid about a month ago- vowing that nothing will happen in Congress until the election is over.
Firstly, when is Congress actually productive- between 3-4 week vacations, trips, etc.?
Secondly, just imagine what's going to happen in a lame duck Congress or an end of the term Congress- Massive spending, a lot of quick votes, and setting up the next year's overspending.
Thirdly, just think about what's going to happen when the mortgage interest tac break disappears, along with the many other expiring tax cuts. Answer- A LOT of people will no longer be able to make ends meet, a lot of people will decide against buying property potentially sending the real estate market back down, a lot of people will find themselves without money for the growing expenses of food and other daily living needs (not saying cellphones, cable tv, etc.). Guess how many more will jump to government programs (foodstamps, etc.).
While I absolutely believe that we need fiscal responsibility in DC, I can't imagine anything good coming from letting these tax cuts expire.
LET THE CUTS EXPIRE! It's time for all of us to stop kicking this can and pay the piper. Some businesses will go under because they were unstable anyway; But for the majority, no one will starve by paying a few percent more in taxes. The repugnant ones say the want to pay down the debt, PROVE IT! Bring on the cliff! Sure it will hurt for a while, but SUCK IT UP! What will cause the most grief is the automatic spending cuts. That's where the jobs will be lost. All the huge defense contracts will dry up over night. That should be delayed of implemented over three years or so. OBAMA2012!
The USA will eventually solve this quandry somehow. After all the pain and sorrow, can we prevent it from happening again? You just know these politicians will repeat deficit spend history because it's so much fun being greedy with taxpayers' money. Balanced budget amendment anyone?
So what if they expire! Go off the so-called "fiscal cliff", let taxes go up for everyone, including the wealthy, then the day after pass a bill that cuts taxes for the middle class. Taxes go up for the wealthy -- like the vast majority of people in this country favor -- then get lowered for the middle class, the Republicans can't b*tch because it's a tax cut...and Grover Norquist becomes nothing more than a pathetic footnote in American history...
Sorry, folks. I just woke up and am still fuzzy about this:
Is "redistribution" like Social Security? Or is it like the oil depletion allowance? Or is it like medicare? Or is it more like taxing income at twice the rate of capital gains and dividends? Or maybe it's like when GE Corp gets to not pay taxes.
I'm just kind of muddle-headed about how a capitalist economy functions without the redistribution of wealth that must occur when capitalists create wealth. I mean how does anything get created without distributing it (or redistributing it)?
I sure could use some help here with these really big words like "redistribution". I like to be the know, and apparently, redistribution will cause the ultimate collapse of America - and in just four years.
If redistribution is what you call taking from the rich and giving to everybody else, what's it called when everybody else ponies up the resources to keep the rich from losing their bank rolls from bad investments?
GimDan,
Just what the hell is a "fiscal conservative with liberal values"????
You claim that the Stimulus didn't work…. Well them why did we stop losing 750K jobs a month? Why did we start to see unemployment go down after the stimulus was dispensed? Why did the following Republicans ask for stimulus money…
Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA)
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA)
Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA)
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA)
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT)
Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN)
And let's not forget the biggest hypocrite of all Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)- wrote two letters to Secretary Steven Chu asking for clean energy loans for a plant that would build electric cars. The letter, sent in June of 2009, claimed that the company could create 4,000 jobs.
You also stated "What about all the touted companies he had talked so highly of that are now bankrupt? My guess is that you're talking about Solyndra…but what about all those viable companies that Willard took over, loaded with debt and then bankrupted leaving the debt to be paid by the taxpayers, guess you think that makes Willard a savvy businessman!!!! Now, as for Obama not having business savvy skills – what about working to save the auto industry by making "LOANS" to them that for the most part have been paid back in lieu of Willard's business skill of letting them go under!!!
You say that you're a fiscal conservative liberal…whatever that means… but you have the let the country go bankrupt, let the people fend for themselves, give the rich and corps tax cuts for nothing and have the rest of the country pay for it written all over you – because if you are willing to Vote for Willard then that is what you believe – so don't try to BS into thinking that you're a Liberal because you aren't!!!!!!!
What, specifically has Obama proposed for you to love his policies so? Please, enlighten us.
As to being a liberal and voting for Obama, so what else is new? Liberals love big government, they need big government to take care of them from cradle to grave. They think money grows on trees and profits and companies and business is evil so of course they vote for Obama. He promises the moon and when he fails to deliver, well, they gin up more excuses. Thank God for republicans, the liberals need a scapegoat to cover for Obama's ineptitude.
Obama's actions speaks louder than words. He says he won't raise taxes on the middle class but he will raise our taxes by letting this expire plus when Obamacare rolls around the middle class will be hit with even more taxes. Nonpartisan groups have even said that the middle class will get hit.
Obama is living in lala land. Just yesterday he had the nerve to say on the campaign trail that terrorism is no more. What???? I'm sure he has heard about the US consulate terrorist attack in Libya. Most people sitting behind him didn't even clap when he made that stupid remark.
Listen to Obama carefully. The clues are all there. He really doesn't mean what he says. Scary.
I would rather be a monkey and not a coackroach that enjoys living in the garbage. Me, personally, prefer to have the sanitation department "clean you out" -and I mean the union-
Looks like we, the middle class, will foot the bill again.
Thanks for posting!
16 trillion in deficit? What? Who caused that:
A) Anyone but Pres. Obama
B) Automatically blame the Republicans for everything
C) All of the above (Because Pres. Obama is responsible for nothing.)
Take the ear plugs off and listen to Mitt Romney, again. REFRESH YOUR MEMORY. Unless you belong to the 1% -which I doubt- he is trashing you TOO. Be "scared"or real things, not the "fantasy"boogie man thaT the GOP have created. REMEMBER: THE PRESIDENT OF THE GOP DOES NOT EXIST, JUST LISTEN TO CLINT EASTWOOD TALKING TO AN EMPTY CHAIR!!!!
dUH!
Not really. Yes, business uncertainty is a big role, but the primary reason why the economy is sluggish is because median wages have been stagnant and unemployment is high, leaving aggregate demand too low and expanding the gap between actual and potential production. The government could easily pump $300 billion into the economy in 2013 via spending bills to jump-start demand and increase employment.
How odd it is, ProBusiness, that when it comes to the debt conservatives like you blame Obama for not doing anything, but when an opportunity arises to do such a thing (aka the fiscal cliff), you flinch at the last moment. I could care less about the uncertainty the ACA is causing; I'll take business uncertainty over 30 million uninsured any day of the week. But extending the tax cuts will simply "kick the can down the road," and we will get downgraded AGAIN. I say let all of the tax cuts expire, cancel all of the spending cuts except for $600 billion for defense cuts and $300 billion for social spending. That will reduce the impact to $350-400 billion in 2013, and either way it will reduce debt to GDP and the deficit for the rest of the decade, buying us time to reform entitlements.
But healthcare reform is need NOW. Healthcare costs are roughly 17% of GDP right now; if we want to know if the ACA works or not we should do it now instead of when the situation is worse. If it works, keep it and fix it; if not, scrap some of it and piece together another bill. But we need to see if it works or not; businesses need to understand that the federal government will not be held hostage to the whims of accountants and corporate balance sheets.
In case you haven't already noticed, the vast majority of America is already in a depression. The past 30 years of deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy have practically hammered away at middle and low income Americans. The pain is just evident right now because the credit lines are wiped clean. Letting Obamacare and the fiscal cliff happen will merely show it to the world and help persuade ourselves that we have an inequality problem and that we must fix it now. Most businessmen around the world favor OBAMA over Romney because they know that tax cuts, deregulation, and austerity don't create jobs. If only their American counterparts were as smart. And Romney won't make things better; the debt will hit $20 trillion by the time he's out, and the economy will only improve if he does nothing (and that will be because of Obama's policies). If Romney passes the Ryan budget, the economy will lose up to 4 million jobs and we could go BACK into a recession. And by the way, how come you conservatives argue that spending doesn't create jobs, but when we're about to cut spending you bitch about how many jobs are going to be lost????
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
What's it called when everybody ponies up the resources to keep the rich from losing their bankrolls from bad investments?
Your Federal Government at work. You love your big government? Crony-capitalism at work. Think that self-same government is going to spend the money you want it to 'redistribute' for paying down the debt or not starting another war? Boy, talk about naive. Think Obama will be smarter and wiser and less of a spendthrift if he gets another term? Why? He hasn't done it yet, what magic will make him change the second go-round especially if he's given the checkbook again.
Please let us know when you awake from your COMA
Let's just get it over with.
I never understood the negative tax return. Nobody should have ever got a refund for taxes they did not pay. Does the IRS even have authority to issue checks?
OFF THE CLIFF! Let the damned things expire for everyone, then recoup for the bottom 95%. That way the few remaining reasonable republicans in congress will be freed from the Norquist pledge and get back to the business of working for their constituents.
Mygirl1,
Oh, That was sooo funny!!!!
if you believe that Government is the problem why don't you move out of the US... I'm sick of people claiming to be Americans and blaming the Government for their problems... the problem isn't Government...It's the morons form the republican party that you elelct who screw it up by passing everything on credit that includes a trillion in defense...defense of WHAT??? tax cuts for the rich that are to be paid for by the rest of us and you claim that we have cronyism???!!!!
Why don't you righties get out of the way and let us fix the mess you created... you can get elected down the road and screw it all up again....LOL
Since Obama extended the tax cuts shouldn't they now be Obama's tax cuts?
Proof positive that Republicans at any level CAN NOT GOVERN. All they can do is impede progress and increase pain and suffering in the world. They created this monster deficit and stole the social security trust fund so they could claim that SS was responsible for the deficit.
It was Republicans refusing to balance the books, to pay for their social agendas or their two wars. That is right, look it up: the Republicans never paid for any of their initiatives, they just put it all on the deficit.
Now, they blame President Obama for their lack of economic skills. If you have been paying attention to the news, you know that Bush started with a balanced budget, and left us with a house on fire.
Thank God that President Obama was able to reduce the economic downturn as much as he has, imagine how much more we could have accomplished if the Republicans were not acting like spoiled brats, voting no on everything good and beneficial to America... just to insure that President Obama could be blamed for the lack of opportunities.
ABAR 2012* Anyone But A Republican for any office!
EVERYONE: We need to get real. We are borrowing $1,500,000,000,000 per year. And we are now doing it at record low interest rates. How is borrowing at record low rates bad? Ask the guy who with the ARM that he took out in 2002 for a home at then low rates. In 2007, after his 5yr lock ran out, the interest went up and he couldn't afford to make the payments. His house was repossessed (this is what kicked off the whole mess to begin with). Once our economy does get going (it's a when, not an if), everyone will be happy, until they realize that the once low interest rate on our Untied States of American Express card is skyrocketing (that's what happens when the economy gets better, interest goes up). Then the Treasury will have very little money left over after they pay the interest on our MASSIVE debt.
Please stop thinking this is fear mongering. And please don't chalk this up to some crazy Republican spewing scare theories. Bill Clinton is saying the SAME thing. In fact, that's what got me to look into it. This shouldn't be a Left/Right, Red/Blue, Repub/Dem. thing. Whether you want more money for social programs, defense or to be kept by the tax payer, this effects all of us. We can debate how much taxes we pay and what they should be spent on. But I think we can all agree that none of us want to spend TRILLIONS on interest payments. There has to be a way to get our debt down without one side thinking the other screwed them over or took away from something that is necessary.
Nice try at a scare tactic. How much would the average household be getting in extra money had worker pay went up at the same rate that CEO and investor pay did? At 50k a household average if you increased it by 127% Would that not be 113.5K? I bet they could pay $3500 if they had an extra 63.5K laying around. Raise those taxes, it is the only way to limit greed.
@Probusiness how many times do I have to tell you and others stagnation is caused by letting people make 1000 to 1 ratios over others. If you let them make 1000 to 1 ratios only 0.1% of the population can make that amount for any length of time. If only 0.1% of the population can "win" how is that providing an opportunity? How does that not promote stagnation? If the ratio is 100 to 1 then 1% of the population can win and if the ratio is 10 to 1 then 10% of the population can win. Why am I and others not rewarded for work, but the top percent is?
How can you all sing the praises of capitalism, but ignore basic math? How can you make unlimited amounts of money again? Where else does the extra money come from again? What happens when we print more? Do we not have to borrow that from the Federal Reserve and pay F***ING interest on it? Why is our debt so high again? GROWTH, GROWTH, MORE, is all you understand. We are already overpopulated, running out of water, food, gas, etc. on this planet as it is and all you addicts can think of is MORE.
How can ten time the house, ten times the cars, ten times the boats, etc. all not enough of a F***ING reward for you? How much more do you want? Let me guess, IT ALL...yeah we are going to let that happen. Ten times is more then fair and what the ratio USED to be.
DEAL WITH IT CRY BABIES! "I am not going to have enough money boo hoo hoo, am going to throw a fit, and move to another country" when I have ten times of what others have /cry. The money will run out sometime, they will have to work sometime, and they cannot sit there doing nothing forever now could they hypocrite? It is against their nature, they could not just enjoy life before, and had to be "better then everyone" else. Why do they think they are so much "better' then the rest of society? Since when are they perfect and without faults? Why do they not want to be part of society, but live to prey on it? Should you not be like Shepherds taking care of the flock? Sheep are dump and need to be taken care of, BUT THEY FEED THE SHEPHERD. Without the sheep the Shepherd would be in a world of hurt. Take care of the sheep morons...
When Bush cut taxes in 2000 tax revenue did go down the first year. The next year revenues were up over the pre-cut levels and increased every year until the financial meltdown.
I ask you - if you ran a business who's sales were faltering and you cut the price - causing sales to increase and bringing in more revenue than before - are you going to start griping about all the money you would have gotten had you made those sales under the old pricing? Of course not. The tax cuts resulted in more revenue to government, not less. If they expire there might be an initial bump in revenue but it will cause another recession and will cost the government more down the road.
He can't control what others do (or, in this case, don't do).
Here we have that blithering cry baby john boehnor and his 9% approval rating republican congress spreading fear and proclaiming the sky is falling....once again. As far as I'm concerned, let the bush tax cuts expire permanently and let the sequestration begin. It's time we all bellied up to the bar to help get ourselves out of this mess!!!
Recalling that category gives me great hope after the recent failure of the badly misnamed supercommittee to reach an agreement on a deficit reduction deal after four months of meetings and partisan wrangling. The only thing the committee could agree on was a short statement issued at the group's legislative deadline that said they had given up: "We end this process united in our belief that the nation's fiscal crisis must be addressed."
Although united in that belief, they failed to produce the $1.2 trillion in cuts needed to avoid sequestration — automatic cuts that will be triggered in January 2013 if there is no budget deal by then. Committee members failed to "go big" by aiming for $4 trillion in cuts, as they were encouraged to do by the White House and others. They failed to agree on a balanced package of long-term spending cuts and tax increases to begin bringing the deficit down. They failed to agree on short-term measures to boost the economy. They failed even to clarify the issues or suggest new areas of common ground that could pave the way for a deal down the road.
And now they are poised for success. How? On Jan. 1, 2013, sequestration kicks in, making $1.2 trillion in predetermined budget cuts with half coming from the Defense Department and none from Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits. Those Pentagon cuts, when combined with other reductions agreed to earlier, would reduce military spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has called such reductions a doomsday scenario. Of course, DOD officials and outside experts say it is just the beginning of a prolonged fight over which items to cut.
On that same date, the George W. Bush-era tax cuts also expire, producing almost $4 trillion in additional revenue. If you count reduced interest payments, some Medicare cuts and the expiration of stimulus programs, the nation's fiscal picture will improve by about $7.1 trillion in the next 10 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That is beyond "going big." It is far more than anything the supercommittee, President Barack Obama or House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) ever considered proposing.
What is needed for this rather balanced and progressive package of budget reductions and revenue enhancements to take place? Nothing. Congress simply needs to do nothing for the next few years. With a presidential election coming and Republicans eyeing the possibility of taking control of the Senate, that seems quite doable. In fact, it's what our government does best these days.
Call me an optimist, but I think we have them right where we want them.
How the supercommittee succeeded without even trying
Flat tax - fair to ALL
Balanced budget - moral to ALL
Pipe dream - believing our CORRUPT government will do either
It is called the Earned Income Tax Credit and it was instituted by a Republican administration (Ford). And, yes, the IRS has the authority. What makes you think that it doesn't?
I guarantee you that if you raised taxes on the rich the household average would go up not a penny. and if everyone making $50k made $113k then the inflation that followed would make everything cost 127% more.
Freshieee you said
Just one freaken question.....where do you think the damn 300 billion would come from? It is just that uncertainity that stops business from expanding. Also we have dumped a trillion dollars into this economy along with QE1 and QE2 and what do we have to show for those brilliant moves? You're dreaming and it has become a nightmare.
You realize that most of that $4b will come from people making far less than $250k per year.
@ Irrespond.
According to the article the top 20% will pay 60% of the tax increase. Ergo, the top 1% will shoulder the majority of the tax increase. Last cycle the Republican's wanted the payroll tax holiday to expire, the Democrats wanted to extend it. Now there is no support from either party to extend the payroll tax. Your argument to tax the top 1% and not the middle class is misplaced, unless you specifically are arguing that we should permanently reduce the payroll tax.
Well Tea Party you took this country right down to its knees util you got this written up, NOW LIVE WITH IT..... Yes, Taxes will go up for some..... Thats Life in the fast lane so learn to life with it...... We really are not going to get rid of our DEBT without raising Taxes as well as Cutting Expenses...... So grow up and get it done.....
trudat6445
Its not FAULT when it's fact :). Also amazing that the GOP can introduce 400+ bills in the 112th Congress, but not once of them addresses would could happen here. They are more concerned with who I marry, what my religion should be, my family relationships, and making Obama a 1 term president.
Hey R$MNEY, I bet you are not concerned about this at all. This is the AVG Tax Increase per household. I bet your Taxes wouldn't be IMPACTED, and you'd find a way to get out of paying them anyway.
The top 20% includes every household that makes over $88k. Definitely not the rich
Only if your'e a deadbeat and use the emergency room as your primary physician, just to skip out on the bill.
So, unless you do not have health insurance and stiff the tax payers with the bill, you deserve to pay the penalty.
If you have health insurance like you should, since everyone will need medical treatment, you pay no additional money. Doesn't making sure you pay your own medical bills fall under personal responsibility?
Why is holding people to it such a bad thing?
Twisted ScottW, I won't touch your comment on the number of conservative Rep's and Senator's that accepted stimulus, because I think your wrong, you failed to list the ones that didn't, you failed to list democrats who accepted (no less than 95%, I'm sure), and you failed to mention the Democrats that did not accept. Your simply typed a bunch of your BS to be intentionally deceitful.... how typical, you must work for MSNBC, or CBS or ABC or NBC or CNN or HLN, etc. etc. etc.
As to did the stimulus work, well, that all depends on how you want to look at it.... SHORT TERM or LONG TERM. Is it a SUSTAINABLE or NON-SUSTAINABLE solution. In a nut shell, and to kill your BS with a single bullet, here's a little graph of the US Unemployment Rate. I'll even through in the first 5 months of Obama's presidency and let you falsely blame it on Bush.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tstart=1167631200000&tend=1343797200000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
You can play with the slide bar at the bottom to zero-in on the last 1yr, 2yrs, 3yrs , 4yrs; etc. etc. etc
Now, go eat yourself a big heaping plate of crow, you inbred liberal liar, and save your BS stories for your gullible family and friends.
Me: Bingo! Good post.
The Quote of the Decade: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
Pleeeeeease, let me pay more taxes so we can get the Republicans to STFU about the deficit that they mostly created!
Itis truly amazing how the liberals have foolishly bought into the concept that Obama will only raise taxes on the wealthy ? (HINT: "You'll have to read the bill to see what's in it")
Just reading the latest copy of The Kiplinger Tax Letter about new taxes kicking in for 2013, courtesy of Obamacare:
A .9% Medicare surtax on wages exceeding $200k/$250k per year ... oops, no Millionaires or Billionaires here !
A 3.8% Medicare surtax on unearned income (above $200k/$250k) .. no Millionaires or Billionaires here !
Raising the AGI floor for medical deductions from 7.5% to 10% ...oops, hitting ALL who pay taxes !
Payments to health flexible spending accounts capped at $2,500 ... hitting all who use this cafeteria plan !
A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices takes effect... grandma's new wheelchair will cost her more !!
Tighter rules on over-the-counter refunding under medical reimbursement plans.
Then, of course, the penalties for NOT BUYING FEDERALLY MANDATED health insurance kick in for 2014 !
Sure we can: Retain the tax cuts and provisions that benefit the bottom 80% (except for the payroll tax cut), let the upper bracket revert to the pre-Bush level for the 81-99% quintile, and set a new top bracket equal to the first Reagan tax cut (50%) for the remaining 1%. That should come pretty close to having it both ways.
Actually the Left does it want both ways. This is all part of their Class Warfare tactic. They want the Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire but only want to extend the middle class ones. They are not extending them because they don't want to extend all the taxes breaks. They want to demonize the Rich not to take theirs even when the Rich pay most of the taxes in this country. So the Left will only be happy if the Rich pay all the taxes. The sick part is that the Left wants the Rich to pay 100% the taxes but don't want them to have any say how their taxes are spent. Spending is better left to the people who pay NO taxes. I'm not rich but I am part of the 53% who DO pay taxes and want spending cuts and don't want my taxes spent on Elected Officials jetting off to Las Vegas or given to Left supporting organizations that use my taxes as slush funds. Point in fact, In Wisconsin $600 million of $701 million in Stimulus to that state was given to Obama supporting unions, in the name of saving jobs. In turn the Union spent $8 million trying re-call GOP Scott Walker. I'm not taking sides on the Union issue in WI but only to point out how the Left tries to pit one segment of tax payers against another, only to use those gained taxes against the people actually paying taxes.
As so often happens, Fresheee beats me to a good answer....
ProBusiness said:
Extending and delaying just causes MORE uncertainty! Who knows if there will be a futher delay in three year's time! That's the CAUSE of uncertainty in the first place!
The only thing uncertain about ACA is the promise to REPEAL it if Republicans get in power, otherwise, there is no uncertainty. Business can get used to it just like any other rule.
Extending the tax cuts for 3 years will "cost" another 2 Trillion. So which is it, do you want fiscal reponsibility or not?
I say "suck it up" too. Everybody just needs to pay their taxes. I'm going to pay a lot more with 4 kids of "credit" age. I'm OK with that if everybody else is paying too. I say we go back to the Clinton tax rates across the board. We'll be in better financial shape in no time (less than three years, people will accept this as the new normal). Guess what, since a large proportion of the Bush tax cuts went to the well-off, the expiration will also make them pay more too. I'm all for sharing the pain. I don't expect only the rich to pay more. Let's all do it!
Give me Your Money, I want my Freeloading Paycheck !
Obama 2012 Cradle to the Grave !
Pulueeeze! Don't insult the hard-working American taxpayer. We will be taxed out of our homes when big ears is re-elected in November. Everyone just collectively get ready to bend over and take it like a good ole' citizen of the former United States of America. Nothing new and movin' on.
These talking points from the wealthy sound good, but are all false. Take some economics. First of all, look at Mr Romney's income. Its almost all from investments. Investment income doesn't come from someone's "work". Their money is working.
Sound like somebody needs their diaper changed. I'll eat crow while you eat sh$$. You upset because Romney's losing and will lose. He is part of the Rethuglican Taliban trying to bring the country to it's knees. Not working out so good for you is it. Gloom and Doom,Whine and Cry is the only thing the Rethuglicans are good at. You proved what a bunch of cry babies you are. Americans,I mean real Americans now see through your BS. It won't be long before there is no Rethuglican Party. You hung yourselves.
How could the average American's taxes increase by $3500, if (as Liberals, Progressive Democrats and the Lame Stream Media claim), the Bush era tax incentives were Tax-Breaks for the wealthy.
Does that make any sense? It doesn't to me, and if your counter is that they benefit the most, well Duh!!! dumbshyt, they pay the most, so of course the stand to save more in taxes. It's not rocket science, they pay more taxes, the provide more jobs, they keep America employed and out of the reach of you socialist pigs looking only to riddle this country with debt.
And if you really mean what you say, then why the hell haven't you been paying more taxes all along. Stop pretending to be a patriot, and try actually being one.... otherwise, accept the fact that your a liar and a hypocrite.
And bitch'in about the nations deficit was your big thing during Vietnam, Iraq-I & II and Afghanistan, but when one of your own like ole Barry Soetoro wastes $16 Trillion in less than 2 yrs. (more than both Bush wars) on his Union Buddies and Wall Street Banker Exec's who all flew-the-coop with golden parachutes, because Barry was too stupid to cover our asses with loan provisions (some fk'ing lawyer he is), he then blew the top off the debt ceiling, enjoyed 19 lavish, luxury vacations, 98 rounds of golf, made bad loans on Green Company's who are now bankrupt,.... yet there you are, asking for 4 more years and claiming to want to pay more taxes..... Your so full of shyt.
Fed up in Seattle,
Tax rates for the "rich" are lower than they have been essentially....forever... in the 1950's the top bracket was 90%. They were reduced to 70% during Kennedy and down to 50% in the 1970's, then down to as low as 28% for a short time late in Reagan's term before creeping back to to 39.6% during Clinton. Still relatively low at 35% now. The bigger deal is the 15% long term capital gains rate. that is where the REALLY rich people get a good deal. They don't collect wages, so they never pay the 35% rate. Those of us people who actually work for a living have to pay that. People who make a good living--those are who are screwed. People making $250 to $1M. They pay the highest percentage in various taxes.
I personally think THAT is wrong. You might even agree.
I don't want to pit one group agains the other. I think the tax code should be transparent and upwardly progressive thoughout the income range. If you make more, you should ALWAYS pay a higher rate. I'm sure there are many, many ways to do it, but hodge-podge that exists now is ridiculous. How hard would it be to have a continually increasing rate, up to a maximum of, say 40%? Totally fair. You make $10,000, pay 4%. Make $50,000, pay 12%, make $200K, pay 23%; make $1M, pay 32%; make $10M, pay 35%; make $100M, pay 40%.
Wakehead
The socialist premise of wealth redistribution is a failure, you do not create an equal society taking from Paul and giving to John, because Paul will discouraged in some point stop making wealth , so for John will stop getting money from him. Now , you create dependency and you must continue giving money even you can't raise more taxes from the rich and the Government has no money at all. Socialist governments already collapse everywhere , Europe with his bigs social programs and high taxes are going to the cliff. The real solution is provide jobs, help the investors, create a pro business environment instead to attack the success , make clear simple rules and put the government out of the way.
Here are some of the highly important things the government is spending our money on:
Amtrak: 9,271,422
Agency for International Development(foreign aid): 10,891,845,120
Environmental Protection Agency: 4,391,370,115
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 53,124,517
Foreign Agricultural Service: 225,484,148
Geological Survey: 349,814,946
Institute of Peace:23,000
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 14,719,633,358
National Endowment for the Arts: 115,343,171
National Endowment for the Humanities: 105,565,073
National Science Foundation: 3,916,092,101
Overseas Private Investment Corporation: 16,581,749
Peace Corps: 89,680,800
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: 12,312,826
Planned Parenthood:26,000,000
Obviously, these are all vital programs that we could not possibly live without. Surely cutting any of it is not an option. We must raise taxes on the rich, that's how important this spending is.
Let's see...hmmm...who do we think the Democrats will blame for this...(think, think, think)...uhh, well, who do we think the Republicans are going to blame for this...(think, think, think)...who do we think the "rich" are going to blame for this...(think, think, think)...and the "poor", who will they blame for this...(think, think, think)...and upon which householdswill the "$3500 tax increase" actually fall upon...(think, think, think)...WAIT, I GOT IT!!! We'll let the politicians provide the answers to these questions!!! Thank goodness we elected them into office.
Rich-298746
Sound like somebody needs their diaper changed. I'll eat crow while you eat sh$$. You upset because Romney's losing and will lose.
Not mine that need changing, your the one who's full of shyt. I made no false statements, can you say that, hell, can you say you even contributed anything? NO!
As for Romney losing, I would prefer to wait and see, it too premature (like you with your woman) to make any calls. Row call only counts on Nov. 6th.
But let's get one thing clear, I can't stand Romney. I only know he's better than what we've had, and at least he won't be just another fking lawyer in the White House. Romney's not as tree-like as Al Gore, but he's pretty fking close. Barry is much more of a pure-bred politician (just your type), and will out talk Romney any day of the week, Barry can sling shyt with the best crap throwers in the business, and do it with a smile, especially if he has a teleprompter... I'm hoping for different when the gate open up and the mic's go on, but either way, the debate results won't make a difference. Anyone who thinks they will is just fooling themselves. This race is run, it's all just a matter of time.
And every American already knows that Barry's rhetoric of (HOPE, CHANGE & YES WE CAN) have been deep fried in the nastiest political lard there is. His words are useless to win over new voters, the best he can do is pray he's able to keep just enough. People who actually voted for HOPE & CHANGE, got neither... People the voted to see the first Black American President (the real racist) got it, and now the circus show is over, they know what they got, versus what they were told they would get.
And if you're one of the continued supporters, why don't you tell us why your going to give Barry your vote again (if your even old enough to vote that is). Surly you can at least do that, I'd love to hear the reason for your continued support.
I still believe the Federal Income Tax to be unconstitutional but the government represents a pot of water getting warm and we the American people are the frog who will be slowly boiled alive... even though we had ample time to jump.
Small: The old 90% brackets were filled with loopholes, you could even deduct interest on credit cards. I think a flat tax is infinently more fair: No loopholes or deductions— get rid of govt social engineering. Everybody pays, no 47% voting and not having skin in the game. This would make elected officials more accountable. Something they haven't done for generations. Give small business security in their futures and we will break out of this recession.
The $300 billion would be borrowed (so as to nullify part of the effect of the immediate fiscal cliff in 2013). Yes, we have dumped trillions into the economy via stimulus and QE, but the problem is that we need both monetary and fiscal policy to have a major effect. Right now, we've only had monetary policy on and off again. And even monetary policy has its limits, particularly when the economy is in a liquidity trap. We need fiscal policy to create jobs, spurring demand and restoring confidence into the private sector. And by the way, imagine what would have happened without the stimulus and QE 1.....
While I agree with the concept of a progressive tax code (and progressive tax reform), I don't think your rates are high enough to reverse income inequality and restore progressivity to the tax code. My personal proposal would be: >$25,000, pay 8%; >$40,000, pay 12%; >$75,000, pay 18%; >$120,000, pay 24%; >$180,000, pay 27%; >$225,000, pay 33%; >$280,000, pay 39.6%; >$350,000, pay 45%; >$500,000, pay 51%; >$1 million, pay 58%; >$8 million, pay 64%; >$15 million, pay 76%. Capital gains would be either 35%; dividends would be 45%; and a 5% VAT.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. I can afford a tax increase, don't want one, but my wife and I live within our means and have no debt.
Go ahead and enjoy your government bennies for another generation. When the national debt hits $30Trillion and the world dumps the Dollar as the reserve currency I hope you all have a good generator and a pocket knife.
It is not that we have taxation without representation, but worse. We have representation without taxation. Unfortunately, I offer this solution. If you do not pay federal income tax, you cannot vote in a federal election.
If Romney suggests taxes and closing cutting loopholes so no one "actually pays" more in taxes, how does that address the deficit?
Here is what needs to be done:
Keep all tax cuts permanently
Allow for an additional 3 to 5% in tax cuts for those small businesses that pay taxes as personal income tax
Eliminate food stamps
Eliminate rent subsidies
Repeal earned income tax credit
repeal child care tax credits
repeal real estate interest rate credits on first home. Keep it on vacation homes.
Take away "Obama Phones"
Repeal the ACA. Allow insurance companies to go back making 50%+ in profits and cut THEIR costs by denying services to those who paid for insurance for years then have a need for it later. Also only charities or well meaning people who want to donate to a charity should pay for those who can't or won't pay for their own insurance. Stop medicare for those who are 57 or younger. No more medicaid period! Give current medicare recipients a $5500 voucher to go buy private insurance with no guaranteed increases to account for not only regular inflation but healthcare bloated inflation. Make congressmen and all elected officials pay for their own insurance, or not if they don't want it. Cut the waiting ambulances at the capital building out.
Cut inport duties to 0%. Would make goods cheaper at Shopko. (I would have said the better known Walmart, but people seem to be so sensitive when WallyWorld is mentioned)
Give parents a $3000 voucher to send their kids to grades 1 to 12. Cut pre-school and kindergarten out all together. The parents can teach the kids the alphabet, numbers, tie their own shoes and finger paint. Again, no provisions for normal inflation or bloated inflation in education.
Cut unemployment pay (no since in allowing anyone sitting on their a$$es and "dropping out of" the work force being paid) then cut unemployment tax to business.
Increase military budget 30%. Lots of people will be needed to make more bombs and drones. The state governments will be needing those to help stop the rioting from the hungry homeless. With all the money saved in the above suggestions and many more, the added military budget won't be that bad.
I am sure this list can be added to. Biggest thing is NO TAX INCREASES!
rednawt3,
So, would you say that the government should provide citizens with cell phones?
Hey Duphas... LOL....Perfect name for you!
The problem with you self-proclaimed, seldom exercised, conservatives is there is nothing "YOU PEOPLE" have done in the last 40 years that can ever be considered Conservative… Reagan (your GOD) ran the debt higher than all the Presidents before him, Big Bush added another trillion to it and little Bush doubled it yet again…But according to YOU – it's never the Republicans who are at fault!!! The difference between us on the left and you on the right is that we hold our party responsible when they are wrong while you on the right blame everyone else… it's the liberals, it's the poor, it's the immigrants, it's the…it's the…it's the!!!! You call everyone else liars, yet what truths has your side told – other than not caring for 47% of the country!!! LOL - that is the ONLY truth Willard has told in the last 6 years!!!
The problem with this country isn't that there are republicans…it's that there are (I'll quote you) inbred morons who vote for them under the illusions that either they will one day become wealthy or that there will be some chance of upward mobility…. Good luck DUPHAS…LOL!!!! Let me know how well it works out for you as you are just another one of the above people who are working against America rather than for it!!!
I notice a lot of the usual suspects of far left posters are absent here. I wonder why? Why wont the far left liberals with their numerical superiority on NBC stand up and defend Obama?
Obama is like every other politician. I got mine so blank you.
well then scott please let us know how one can work for America and not against it
The sky is falling. The sky is falling. Woe is me, the sky is falling! Just a few questions.
Why did deficits not matter during 8 years of the Bush administration when the debt ceiling was raised repeatedly? Why did the very same people (that eagerly voted to raise the debt ceiling repeatedly during the Bush years) find it absolutely horrifying to do so in the Obama administration?
The 2010 Republican candidates for Congress rallied on jobs, jobs, jobs as their cause. Just days after the election, their battle cries changed to debt, debt, debt. What happened to jobs, jobs, jobs? What catastrophic event occurred in those few days to change their primary focus entirely? Did you find it peculiar that most of the followers of the conservative right fell immediately in lockstep with these politicians that our debt is now our number one priority over jobs?
The next question is addressed to all of those "Chicken Littles". Has it ever entered your tiny little minds that the most effective way to deal with the debt, debt, debt is jobs, jobs, jobs. Putting millions of hard working Americans back to work does two crucial things. It removes them from the compassionate social network (put in place for emergencies such as this) and lessens the burden on our national budget. Their employment will make millions of people taxpayers once again to pay off our debt.
You have the world at your fingers with the Internet. Look at historic facts concerning the Great Depression of the 30's. Republican President Hoover tried and failed miserably with the very same austerity measures proposed by many today. Democrat President FDR saved the day by putting the American people back to work and jump starting those jobs with government jobs programs.
ScottW430,
I am, was, and always will be pissed at Bush for his financial recklessness. I DID email my congressmen and tell them not to pass TARP. I am a Conservative, I do not claim the Republican Party.
Wrong, FedUp. We want the first $250,000 to be taxed at the same rate. Over that, rates go up to Clinton era levels. Nobody will die because of it, trust me.
Regardless of the fiscal cliff or not I'm sure Romney will still be paying only a 14% rate. Such is the tax structure that the wealthy write. Of course the Republicans are just waiting to be thrown out of office anyway so we can get back with growing our economy and building America.
Commonsense101
Um, Obama voted against and spoke out about raising the debt ceiling while he was a Senator. It is a game that both sides play. The fix is in, they are playing games with our future. Personally, I don't like being a toy. You may be just fine with being a plastic sheep.
F the rich and the tea party azzholes. On a $500,000 wage the total tax is $7500. You scum bag miserable middle class conservatives have absolutely no skin in this game and it would be best if you all just die. I and America have no use for you what so ever. Hell, you have no use for yourselves. F-ing conservative Coke suckers.
Spending on socialist programs a pointless war in Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union.
Why are we here in the U.S. so determined to take the same road?
Wake up, I said to take away the Obama Phones.
I should add to my list of solutions. Until we have paid down the debt, everyone should take a 50% pay cut to allow business to profit more, thereby having them pay more $$$ in taxes. That would also make us more competitive to China. I don't think lowly workers should be making upwards of $25/hour with even more benefits. Of course, that would leave less for people to buy their bare essentials from Shopko, but if their workers would take a 50% pay cut, they could lower their prices so people could afford to shop there. (again, I resist using Walmart in this example)
Wake up, that was your ONLY question about my sugestions?
ScottW430 - You conveniently forgot that the deficit Bush left us, after 8 years, was $1.4 trillion. After less than 4 years Obama has rung it up to $16 trillion+. Check your facts on that and the fact that Obama has spent more money in less than 4 years than every single President from George Washington on down combined. He has alienated some of our closest allies whom we need. His Executive Orders imperil our freedoms under the Constitution. Obamacare will bankrupt the taxpayers and the country within 10 years and includes the most massive tax increases ever foisted on this nation in it's history. He is turning our military from the finest in the world into a politically correct, terrorist loving force who have to be indoctrinated in understanding Islam. He has never admitted when he's been wrong and is still blaming Bush for all the woes of his bumbling, incompetent self. It will be a welcome change when he leaves OUR house.
rednawt,
Sorry for my confusion, I thought you were being sarcastic. I have never heard anyone propose cutting wages %50 and being serious.
No, we have a tax and spending problem. If revenues are below 18-19% of GDP, we have a tax problem. Currently, revenues are at about 14-15%. The ideal goal is to get revenues to 20-21%, and then seek spending cuts to lower it to that range. And I don't @!$%#ing care if you don't want a tax increase; nobody does. But wanting a tax hike and needing it are two different things. So go ahead and say that you don't want a tax increase; talk to me when the debt hits 150% of GDP and the water pipe to your house blows up...
Technically, it doesn't matter what nominal number the debt totals; what matters is the debt to GDP ratio, which accounts for both inflation and economic growth. Debt is roughly 75% of GDP (minus intra-government debt), which is high but not high enough for the dumping of the dollar. You are actually leading us down the path to a debt crisis by refusing to compromise on how to reduce the deficit. Any deficit reduction plan needs additional revenues on the table, and those revenues have to at least hit 19% of GDP. I say let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, save $3.8 trillion over 10 years, cut $800 billion from defense, $300 billion from social programs, and entitlement reform (including revenues and cuts to outlays).
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
This is a good thing.
BTW, there is no "Left" in this country, and what exists is on the moribund side. A real, actual leftist wouldn't settle for letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich -- he or she would support a guaranteed income and confiscatory tax rates.
Freshieee,
I understand you have some valuable points but countries are already using alternative currencies besides the Dollar and there is a movement to create an alternative reserve currency. Even the IMF said that an alternative should be established. You say that $800 Billion needs to be cut from Defence and only $300 Billion for social programs. How do you account for Social programs that are growing at a much larger rate than defence? Those cuts will be offset in only a few years.
Since there is no way to hit all of the junk that has been written, let me hit a couple. ScottW430, the unemployment rate would be considerably higher except that the people who were on it and got cut off do not get counted anymore. That's how they can smirk and say we did this. I will give the party one thing. Bill Clinton balanced the budget. It took two terms. Obama is no Clinton and even if he gets a second term, it will not matter. As far as tax cuts, I have heard people for years brag about getting 2,3,and 5k or more back in returns when they made less than I did. My annual return was around 11-1200 a year, never more than I paid in and that is the problem. If you are spitting out kids for a tax credit, you suck and you are a drain on this country. If you get back more than you pay in, it is a scam and should be illegal. A hand out is a hand out regardless of who gives it and it is high time that people get off their back sides and work for what they have. Flat tax would solve the problem. If everyone paid 16-18% on the dollar, things would slowly start to turn. I already pay that, plus all of the food tax, sales tax, fuel tax, and sometimes there is even a tax for the tax. My favorite is when they tax an insurance policy when it is liquidated, then they want to tax it again when you take any out of the bank. There are tax laws that are garbage, but they line someones pockets. Cut military spending?? How about cutting the life time retirement package that a Congressmen gets for serving one term and they haven't done a thing to earn any of it over the past 12 years. At least the military earns the pensions they receive.
Obama has done nothing good , nada, zero to get the economy back. If Obama let the economy get back by itself , the economy could be better. Bush already help the automakers , Ford start getting back, the problem was the union in GM who did not want to see any benefit gone. Banks start giving back the bailout money , but Obama fail with the porkimulus, did not create any sustainable job, they all are gone. Unemployment 12 % u-6 and no plan to create job, his only plan is union governments job that plan was rejected in congress because there was no policy for private jobs.The housing problem remain the same, tuition went high, gas went high , no energy policy ,our national debt increase 6 trillions . The economy is getting because we the Americans do not want it to fail, but Obama is putting rocks in the road. Obama need to go, we need someone that understands economy, not an amateur with socialist ideology.
oskar,
You are forgetting that calling a liberal a socialist is a badge of honor. Socialism is now publicly endorsed and actively pursued by a large group in this country.
Joan-1991647,
You conveniently left off the two wars, two tax cuts and the Pharma Bill that were all done on CREDIT that amount to another 5 trillion combined…. Glad you don’t do my taxes :)... did you do Willards:)
Do you on the right actually believe the garbage you write? are you paid by the word or paragraph?
Wake up now!
Senator Obama wisely voted against an unjust and expensive war in Iraq. Why would he vote to increase the debt ceiling to support this unjust War? The Republicans voted for that increase and many others.
President Obama sought an increase to repair a severely depressed American economy. The very same Republicans that increased the debt ceiling over and over to support the Iraq War refused to increase it once more to support millions of distressed Americans.
You dug that old shoe out of the closet. Now wear it.
Here's an idea of how to reduce the deficit a little.....put a 1% tax on every financial transaction that occurs with respect to trading in the markets: equities, bonds, options, derivatives. If the companies that make thousands of trades a day had to pay 1% on every transaction, then we might put a dent in 2 problems, the deficit and the robo-trading that led to the flash crash. I'd also like to see us cut spending to defense contractors, and while we're at it, throw in a little extra tax on the personal incomes of financial industry executives(investments and salaries). If we're going to be penalizing a group of people for the overblown deficit and waste of taxpayer $, maybe we should direct that energy towards the parties that actually helped create the problem in the first place, not the middle class that has already taken a huge hit. On that note, I'd support the elimination of wages and benefits for all of the members of the senate and congress as well. They don't need a government salary or benefits to do their job because they aren't doing their job now anyways.
do yourselves a favor and enlighten yourselves to the Cloward-Piven Strategy , the lefties of this nation from the top down are implementing it as you post , enjoy
Commonsense101
Obamas spending does not even compare to George Bush's. Obama has already in 3.5 years spent more then Bush did in the first 6. The last 2 years of Bush was the liberal congress getting a headstart for Obama.
In case you missed it we just got our 2nd credit downgrade a couple weeks ago. China and Japan have stopped loaning us money. The only one left is the federal reserve. We are only about a year or less away from bankruptcy.
What will the 47% do when the checks stop???
If they were really smart they'd vote for Romney. He's the only one that will insure the 47% keep getting their checks. Obama is about to pull the rug out from under everything.
FORWARD??????
Wake up Now..... It's time you heed your own advice.
Ever heard of social security, or crop insurance, or federal disaster emergency funding? I don't recall any of those socialist ideas being implemented in the last few years. Yet they help support people in this country by spreading around tax dollars, and not one of them is based on free market principles, just social utility. I bet you also enjoy watching NFL games, but then again I know you'd be a raging socialist for doing so, since the league engages in profit sharing. Yea just us crazy socialists trying to enjoy some football games on Sunday and collect social security benefits that we've paid for with every single paycheck we've ever earned!
@Commonsense101
"Senator Obama wisely voted against an unjust and expensive war in Iraq"
the war started in 2003 , Bozo Obama was elected to the Senate in 2005 , he did NOT vote on the war
that makes your post pretty much moot , Nonsense101
How about firing all the Republicans and in particular the TEA Party EXTREMISTS who forced this vote in order to extend the TEMPORARY BUSH taxcuts???
John Anthondoe....... reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits is it? Then again, most people that view "lefties" as the enemy usually don't possess sufficient critical thinking skills. I believe you misunderstood the main idea of that strategy. It suggested "overloading" the public welfare system, not "underfunding" it. I imagine this little bit of nuanced thinking will confuse you, so I'll preemptively forgive you for the excuse you're bound to offer in defending your earlier failed assumption.
sleuth23
social security is a ponzi scheme , not so much a socialist program as a scam , and you haven't "paid" for YOUR social security , you pay for the generations before you , that is the very definition of a ponzi scheme , just ask Mr. Madoff , hope this helps you get up to speed
haha...your typical lefty ad hominem drivle is quite amusing , as is your lack of understanding of what you read, and your use of the tired and played lefty pablum "critical thinking" is a classic example of the "parrot syndrome" , good luck with that
oh , by the way , the number of those recieving entitlements under lefty leadership has increased dramatically and continues to rise everyday , interesting isn't it
per information from the CBO concerning Obama's proposed budget
"The biggest problem in the federal budget is runaway entitlement spending. And so what would the Obama budget do? Increase entitlement spending, of course. By $1.9 trillion over ten years, according to CBO. In 2020, federal entitlement spending would reach $3.3 trillion, up from $2.1 trillion in 2009."
doesn't look much like "under funding"
Frank-739698, It doesn't cost much for a punk to take a joy ride in a Daddy's brand new Porsche and total it in a careless wreck. It costs one hell of a lot more when Daddy gets the bill for all of the damages. The Punk(G.W.) only paid for beer and weed to party with his friends. Daddy(Obama) had to pay all of the damages.
John....go ahead and pat yourself on the back buddy! You just discovered a ponzi scheme that has been solvent for 75 years. It was initially intended to be "social insurance" when FDR created it during the great depression, in order to help keep the elderly out of poverty. It is indeed a very socialist concept. Madoff as you may recall, made his money convincing investors in a free market to give him their money, without asking for any details on how he was investing that money. I appreciate you trying to use a "hero" among capitalists to try and undermine a social program's credibility, but it just goes to prove my point even better. Put greedy capitalists in control of vast amounts of money, without proper oversight, and you get the Madoff's of the world looting the unsuspecting. At least social security details are public information, and thus available to public scrutiny. 2 points sleuth, 0 points John. Thanks for playing!
sleuth,
So glad things worked out so great for you during your retirement. I want to personally thank you for your generation destroying the greatest nation on earth. I am 30 and pay into Social Security with my hard earned paycheck, yet I will never see a dime of SS.
Care to post a link John? You're "quote" sounds a bit like an opinion, not an objective analysis, which is what the CBO is designed to do. Note your statement "per information." Again, I forgive you for not possessing the critical thinking skills required to understand what you posted, or for even understanding what "critical thinking" is. You seem to be sensitive to this idea, so I'll bet it's not the first time you've been accused of lacking the ability.
I do believe cutting $1 trillion of tax revenues, not paying for 2 simultaneous wars or an increase in medicare part D spending(btw, the largest unfunded increase in medicare spending in history), all equate to underfunding social programs. You must also be unfamiliar with the republican strategy of "starving the beast." This would be the antithesis to your above mentioned strategy, that you so poorly understood, and is indeed the very idea of "underfunding" programs to force them into insolvency. Tax rates are among the lowest they've been in the history of this country, and yet your trickle down economics hasn't produced jobs. Why is that John? Simple arithmetic has not been a Republican strength in the last 12 years.
A good old doctor once told me "you can't best a fool" and that is true, simply because you can't talk to someone without brains enough to understand what you are saying. Most Obama supporters are walking around mesmerized either by the color of his skin or his show time antics.
His liberal media is putting out one phoney poll after another proclaiming him way ahead of Romney. They think that will convince a lot of Romney supporters not to bother voting. WRONG, it just makes us madder and madder. EAch and every REAL AMERICAN who treasurers our freedoms MUST get registered NOW and get your butt to the voting booths and vote this danger out before it is too late.
@ Angry John in Battle Creek
Good luck finding one example of a $500,000 wage paying $7,500 in tax. (1.5%) I can't wait. Ponder this.
Even if your math is wrong and you meant $75,000 in taxes, you misaddressed WAGES. The issue with the people you are jealous of is that they pay 33% on their WAGES. They pay 15% on Capital Gains. Just like you can.
Examples like that are why people can't take you seriously.
John Athondoe
You're right. I was mistaken. It was not intentional. Mr. Obama stated that he was against the war before he became a U.S. Senator. Stick a feather in your cap as you fulfilled my expectations that merely being right was not nearly enough for you. You felt compelled to attack both our President and me by calling us ugly names. That speaks volumes about your own character.
Wake up now...... I've got a big box of Kleenex for you right here, but save some of it for election night. Keep voting for your Republican brain trust and I can assure you that any social program that you've paid into will be non-existent by the time you're old enough to retire. That's what they prefer, and I'm surprised that you are blaming a supposed "lefty" for an idea that your party seems hell bent on realizing. Did you not invest wisely Wake up, or have you not been saving enough to retire on without the help of Social Security to bail you out? You are starting to sound like a real socialist Wake Up Now. Which is it? Are you a socialist or aren't you? You seem to be very confused.....
KeenInsight
These politicians don't know doodly squat about economics and how to repair an economy. They have opinions formed by ideology. The loss of the credit rating, the fiscal cliff--all man made problems created by elected officials who put party before country. Pathetic. If you keep voting these jokers into office, you get what you deserve. Give them one term to create a record, examine results, vote them in or out based on their job performance.
If you were hired on your job to solve problems and repeatedly went on vacation to make your competitive colleagues look bad, I don't think your employer would give you 4 years on the job much less rehire you.
I totally agree!! Those of us working are evaluated, yearly, on our job performance. So should these people who supposedly work for the people!! Fire them, and they don't keep all their grand wages and benefits. The working class are taxed to death. Every time one turns around, they have found another way into our pocket books. Would be nice to be able to keep SOME of the money we work hard for.
These politicians ALL should live on the same system we get to live on when time to retire. They are pathetic.
Let us all call the republicons on their bluff. They lied about obeying the supercommittee they forced on us and now they are screaming about going over the fiscal cliff they created. Let them go.............
Let the party over country republicons march off the cliff. Shucks, I'll help push them over. This would cancel their party over country pledge to Emperor Norquist and allow us to get with the program and hold the line on those of us who have not seen our real income go up in 30 years while raising taxes on those who gamed the system to raise their income 600%.
Over the cliff!
Live,
Sorry to burst your "tricorn hat" bubble, but we have representation.
Well, perhaps we ought to "entrench" ourselves to prepare for a scenario where the dollar is abandoned as the world's reserve currency. The first step would be to reduce the government deficit, which I would do via repealing the Bush tax cuts for everyone, reform the tax code and establish 12 income brackets from 8% to 76%, cut spending by $1.1 trillion, and reform entitlements. The second would be to reduce the trade deficit via a "realignment" of our trade policies and increasing the national savings rate. That would theoretically entrench us, at least over the long-term, from a movement from the dollar to another reserve currency.
As for your point on the social programs, the vast majority (if not all) of the programs that increase at a rate faster than defense are entitlements. For Medicare, I would abandon the fee for service plan in favor of a fee-for-health plan and/or a bundled payment system, a higher Medicare tax, a higher premium, raising the life expectancy rate to 67 and indexing it to median life expectancy, among other things. For Social Security, I would simply eliminate the taxable maximum on Social Security and raise the rates to about 15.1%. Medicaid would be dealt with via broader healthcare reform, which would include the institution of single-payer insurance for all Americans (aka Medicare) and a public care option for hospitals run by Medicare, much like the VA here and the National Health Service in the UK.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Wake up. I was being sarcastic. I was mentioning the things I have heard on here and elsewhere by the far right. I think in some cases a phone would be good, but it has gone too far. It is hard for anyone looking for a job to get that all important hiring call without one though, which was the intent. The threshold should be higher to get a phone and it should be really limited in time per month and how many months.
When I suggested a pay cut of 50%, I hear many here and elsewhere calling those on unemployment lazy and those who work are making too much money that they can't compete with the likes of China, which we both know in bunk.
Notice I also said to cut the interest credit on homes and only allow the credit on second homes. Oh well, you got my sarcasm and point. While I am a dem, I used to be more centrist but feel I had to push back to the far right who thinks they can change everything all at once while demonizing the American worker. They have had 12 years of the so-called Bush tax cuts that was supposed to "create" jobs, but that didn't happen. Maybe it is time to try something else, like demanding the two major parties to actually work together.
That's horse@!$%# and you know it. I I paid $28k on $110k gross. Not even close to your figures.
Someone above posted that we have the lowest income taxes in US history. What a complete idiot. Our original tax rate (1913 I believe, 99 years ago) ranged from 1% on income over $20k (in 1913 dollars) to 6% on incomes over $500k, again, in 1913 dollars. So for all you educated idiots, how about get your facts straight?
Here is what we know about taxes - if you want to encourage something, you lower the taxes on "it". If you want to discourage something, you increase the taxes on "it".
Do you folks honestly believe the projections showing raising taxes having zero affect on income? Are you honestly that stupid, that uneducated?
Just look at the Kennedy Luxury Tax around 1990.
Walter E Williams wrote about this debacle, saying "
Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs. When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy. The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.
Back then, Congress told us that the luxury tax on boats, aircraft and jewelry would raise $31 million in revenue a year. Instead, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing and 1,470 in the aircraft industry, in addition to the thousands destroyed in the yacht industry. Those job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. The net effect of the luxury tax was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means Congress' projection was off by $38.6 million. The Joint Economic Committee concluded that the value of jobs lost in just the first six months of the luxury tax was $159.6 million.
Congress repealed the luxury tax in 1993 after realizing it was a job killer and raised little net revenue. Why did congressional dreams of greater revenues turn into a nightmare? Kennedy, Mitchell and their congressional colleagues simply assumed that the rich would act the same after the imposition of the luxury tax as they did before and that the only difference would be more money in the government's coffers. Like most politicians then and now, they had what economists call a zero-elasticity vision of the world, a fancy way of saying they believed that people do not respond to price changes. People always respond to price changes. The only debatable issue is how much and over what period.
Many of the liberal comments above show the utter ignorance of taxes and history.
This is absolutely true. That is why we have to reverse the damage done when the poor and the middle class have been squeezed, whereas the rich have been getting richer.
Cutting wasteful spending would go a long way towards addressing our fiscal problems. Tax hikes alone will only support wasteful practices and no change in spending pattern. I blame the stalemate on the WH and they blame the Congress. The President needs to take a lead and learn how to compromise and work with Congress for the common good.
He wasted 4 years on self gratification and promotion. It’s time to change!
Same old lies by rt wingers.....Same old facts to counter them.
REPUBS CAUSE THE ECONOMY TO GROW SLOW, THEN WHINE THAT IT IS NOT GROWING!
RYAN SABOTAGES THE ECONOMY. REPUBS BLOCK BRINGING OFFSHORE JOBS BACK TO AMERICA.
REPUBS DO THEIR BEST TO MAKE AMERICA WORSE!
From dailykos.com 9/6/12 by keepemhonest Story : MAtt APPUZZO FACT CHECK THIS.2009 PAUL RYAN PLOTTED TO SABOTAGE THE ECONOMY.
So, allow me to educate Matt Apuzzo with real facts that really led to the Republican's plotted obstruction to guarantee legislative cluster-f@ck.
FACT 1. In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that on inauguration night, 2009, during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.
FACT 2: Draper wrote the guest list included:
FACT 3: Newt Gingrich confirms meeting took place in an interview with Al Sharpton's Politics Nation on June 12, 2012
FACT 4: Two months after Paul Ryan's covert meeting where they plotted to sabotage the US Economy, in March 2009, Rep. Pete Sessions said Republicans should follow the model of the Taliban in its battles against President Obama.
In the March 2009 interview with National Journal Rep Sessions said:
Rep Pete Sessions went on to say:
FACT 5: Also, at the January 20, 2009 meeting they plotted to suddenly stop supporting any Stimulus Legislation, even though, they all supported Bush/Cheney Stimulus legislation.
FACT 6: Remember, these same Republican members of Congress supported the very Bush/Cheney policies that caused America to teeter on the brink of the 2nd Great Depression and caused the 2007 US Economic Meltdown.
And these same Republican members of Congress:
Not only did these Senior members of Congress plot to destroy the American Economy more than it already was destroyed? They actually carried out their mission:
FACT 7: Last year, during the Debt Ceiling negotiations, Eric Cantor and Sen. Jon Kyl abruptly walked out of negotiations and refused to renew discussions with Democrats. As a result, America's credit rating was lowered which put a smile on Republican's faces.
FACT 8: Meanwhile, the 2009 Sabotage the U.S. Economy covert meeting members, Senators: Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign, and Bob Corker have:
FACT 9: The House members who attended the 2009 Sabotage America meeting have been busy rejecting legislation that helps victims of natural disaster.
FACT 10: Paul Ryan and these other same failed Congressmen have been on tv constantly chanting the lie that they were guilty of ... the lie that "President Obama's policies undermine the US Economy."
There are more facts listed...but I think you get the point. repubs obstruct for the greed of money and for their own party to benefit from the greedy rich!
Obama not only flip flop about the debt ceiling, Obama flip flop about the debt. Obama call Bush unpatriotic for his debt increase, however ,Obama in half of the time add more debt than Bush, but when he increase the debt it is not longer unpatriotic. Obama also flip flop about the Military surge, he oppose Bush surge in Iraq , but the did the same in Afghanistan. Obama the all time evolving ????????LOL
Too many people are that stupid. If 47% do not pay Federal income tax, they do not fear a tax increase. O'bama plays off of this by suggesting that raising the rates on upper income earners will secure thier way of life while not harming them. It is a simple concept for a simple mind. If this worked without repercussion, Democratic control in the first 2 years would have yielded the outcome that O'bama promises for the future. They knew that would hit the economy with less consumer dollars being made available, hence why they didnt do it. If O'bama were to win a second term, be prepared for disappointment yet again Libs. He will not have near that kind of power during a second term, nor do I believe he would dare wield it. Its all about winning the votes.
One cannot help but admire President Obama for the succinct perspicacity of, "I won't allow the half of Americans who pay no income taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren't paying more of their fair share."
I'm really sick of President Bush making Barrack ruin our country and I'm sick of President Bush breaking all of Barrack's promises. One thing is for sure, as long as Barrack's in the White House, SO IS PRESIDENT BUSH! The only way to get rid of Bush is to fire Barrack. I'm pretty sure if we take Barrack out of the White House, Bush will leave too. So, in November of 2012, let’s get rid of Bush once and for all!
Bye Bye Libs!
Old Timer-88224
As I recall the Bush tax cuts were extended for two years, as blackmail in order to get long-term unemployment insurance extended for a single year. Now they are trying to blackmail us again, whining endlessly about the supposed "fiscal cliff" which involves a whole 3% of their income!!!
As someone who is middle-class, and has always been middle class, a 3% rise in upper-class tax rates, from 35% to 38%, seems mighty generous, since the theory that tax cuts somehow create jobs anywhere but in China and Mexico has been thoroughly debunked, at great cost to the vast majority of America's population. In fact, the bottom 70% of Americans have lost 40% of their spending power since Ronald Reagan was elected, while at the same time, the top 5% of Americans has seen their spending power rise by 400% too.
Remember that the best that the bottom 80% of Americans have ever done was during Jimmy Carter's four years in office, when average CEO pay was only 25 times what the average factory worker's pay was, back when a single middle class income could support a family, allowing mom to stay home and raise the kids. Back then the minimum wage paid almost 30% more than it does now, figured for inflation, and many entry-level jobs paid 50% more than the minimum wage then, if not double it. Back then teenagers were readily-employable and a fair percentage of young adults earned middle class salaries working full time without a college degree, back when our top tax rate was 70%!
There is an economic theory that says that high top tax rates encourage business investment and charity spending at home, in the hope of mitigating those high tax rates, while low top tax rates encourage investment overseas or wherever costs are lowest. Is there any good reason for the capital gains tax rate to have been cut by 57% from 35% to 15%, when Romney and his friends try so hard to avoid having to pay even that rate by hiding their money offshore and in various trusts?
Our current top tax rate is half of what is was when our unemployment rate was 5%, so what should we do, cut the top tax rate some more and see how many more bridges fall down, how many more potholes don't get fixed, and how many more layoffs that 90% of us can endure, just so that a small percentage of us can make more money than their wildest dreams, or is it way past time to reign-in runaway income growth that does not fairly benefit us all, and take responsible steps to bring our jobs back home as well as prevent more of our jobs from fleeing to cheaper pastures too?
Frankly this whole "fiscal cliff" thing is an attempt by a small minority of wealthy Americans to blackmail the rest of the US electorate into keeping their money train going. Despite QE this, QE that, and QE the other thing we live in a society with a limited money supply, and in order for anyone to earn well in-excess of the median income, someone else has to earn less, to balance the average out. So, for every guy like Romney earning 660 times our median income or more, how many of us have to earn $10K less than our median income as a result in order to balance the average out? And you rich people are angry that a fair percentage of us don't have to pay income taxes, when the main reason that they don't is your own fault?
Five people in America earned over $1 billion each last year, which makes Romney look like a pauper, and makes every person in the bottom 95% of us look like a completely redundant peon too. Why should people like Romney who earn enough to have a half-million Dollar automobile elevator installed in a Pacific Beachfront vacation house they only use a few days per year pay a tax rate half of what someone earning $100K or less does? So that they can create more jobs in China or an entire island in Dubai?
Not only should the Bush tax cuts die, but the Reagan tax cuts too, and then maybe America can get back on the road to rebuilding its former economic greatness, and if some of these wealthy types who would rather live in China or in Dubai want to leave, how about a 50% tax on offshored wealth too? Wealth addicts like Romney have ruined America and the lives of a couple hundred million people, just so that they can have more money than anyone else has, and just like hard-core drug addicts, they have absolutely no guilt or compassion for anyone else whose lives they have ruined either.
Perhaps if hard-core drug addicts belong in jail so that they can't rip anyone else off trying to feed their habits, what about the social and economic cost of feeding a habit like Romney's or worse? One hard-core drug addict might write a few bad checks, they might go shoplifting, or they might even steal a purse, but a hard-core wealth addict has the power to destroy the livelihood of an entire city trying to get their next fix, and just like a hard-core heroin addict, today's fix doesn't last too long either.
I'll fully agree that we could easily defend our own hemisphere even if we cut defense spending by half, which would then free-up all kinds of low-cost consumer economy capital, where the economic spinoff would have a far-greater positive effect than military spending does, but then all of our manufacturers who moved overseas would have to pay someone extra to insure that their overseas executives safety and their shipping security, instead of continuing to have Uncle Sam do it for them nearly for free like some kind of giant welfare program for rich people instead.
Just think: Those 6 million US manufacturing jobs moved overseas during GW's eight years in office after he signed 30 free trade bills would by themselves reduce our unemployment rate by half, not including the economic spinoff at suppliers, transportation companies, and in the service industry!
So, what will it be, bow down to the Republican addiction to having more money than anyone else has, no matter who you have to walk all over or throw under the bus to get there, or, do we take very reasonable and responsible steps to move away with runaway wealth addiction that benefits so few of us, while at the same time an ever-increasing number of us starve?
Yep, them sure were some good days. I loved the gas lines, and, we were headed for an ice age!
Just think if we were to raise the top marginal rate to 90%, with the lower income rates paying 50%! We would be BOOMING!!!
But the tax rates will merely return to the same as they were under Clinton, when everyone said they were 'fair'.
How can this be, since they supposedly only benefited the 'rich'. Have we been lied to by the media all these years?
By the way - they are no longer the 'Bush tax cuts' because those expired as scheduled at the end of 2010 - they are now the Obama tax cuts since he signed the extension.
Yes, we have private retirement, we are not expecting the government to bail us out. Actually, I expect NOTHING from the government. I wish the government would STOP GETTING IN MY WAY!! I am not a socialist and I strongly encourage individualism. I would like to use the money stolen from me to pay for SS and Medicare/Medicaid and use it for my personal retirement. Go back to Atlantic City and then cry about cuts in your precious Medicare. You should have lots of tissue around, your generation is the biggest bunch of selfish whiners ever! Leave me alone while I have to pay for BOTH of our retirements. So yes, I want SS to END NOW!
joemike404
Hmmmmm, nice list of pejoratives.
Now, let me ax you what you think of all this?
The federal government made at least $125 billion in improper payments in 2011.
Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.
Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them–costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually–fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.
The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $140 billion in potential spending cuts.
Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.
Health care waste, fraud, abuse and corruption is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $750 billion annually.
Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.
Want more? I have over 400 more examples of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption in our government costing us hundreds of BILLION of dollars every year.
You Libbies need to snap out of your convoluted "Military Industrial Complex" indoctrination.
Yes, the military is a mandated in the Constitution. Yes, it does have it's levels of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption but nowhere near the level of the rest of our criminal monolithic bureaucracy. Until you Libbies start exhibiting the same level of outrage for all your benevolent entitlements and social programs that are consuming over 60% of our budget nobody will take you seriously.
So, Joe, what list of pejoratives can you come up for all this waste, fraud, abuse and corruption?
ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 for real Americans
Here's the 'bottom line'.
The Republicans will hold on to the House of Representatives.
The Senate is up for grabs, with the odds of a Republican Senate about 50/50.
If Obama wins, we will have 4 more years of 'gridlock', with each side blaming the other, and nothing will get done, and Hillary Clinton's chances in 2016 will be nil.
If Romney wins, then the Republicans will either have to turn things around quickly, and likely have to increase taxes on the 'rich' to lower the Deficit, or the Democrats will roll to another victory in 2016 - likely with Hillary Clinton.
So do we want another 4 years of gridlock, or do we take a chance with Romney's experience in turning things around? Romney has a record of success, while Obama has no record at all except being good with rhetoric.
So many responses from people who claim to understand how an economy works but then their responses confirm their ignorance. They love to bring up Bush, list every Republican by name, talk about taxing the rich will solve the problem but obviously cannot do simple math, and somehow taxing a few "rich" people will make up $1.5 Trillion deficit a year.
Hmmmmm, how does that make sense to anybody? Let me educate you. In 2007 we had about $2.7 Trillion in government spending and about $2.4 Trillion in tax revenues. That is a deficit of about $300 Billion. Yes that is debt and debt we didn't need but $300 Billion.
This year do you know what our tax revenue will be? About $2.4 Trillion. That's right about the same as 2007. So is our deficit about $300 Billion? Sorry, somehow our tax revenue stayed about the same (about $2.4 Trillion) but now we are spending about $3.8 Trillion a year. So we bring in about the same amount of tax revenue ($2.4 Trillion) but now spend nearly a TRILLION dollars more a year? So we don't have a tax revenue problem - we have a spending problem.
Now let's assume these taxes on the "rich" take place - what this entire argument is about. Do you know how much AT MOST this will bring in additional tax revenue. About $50 Billion. ABOUT $50 BILLION!! So we are borrowing $1.5 TRILLION a year and you are arguing about $50 BILLION?? That doesn't even make a dent.
When this government learns to at least spend CLOSE to within its means then even I can get on board with additional tax increases to make up the difference. So here is my offer: Cut spending BACK to 2007 levels. If we could live on $2.4 Trillion a year then we can live on $2.4 Trillion a year now. Cut to that level and THEN I can get on board with an across the board tax increase to make up the difference. But we DON'T do the tax increase first because we have an irresponsible government that will just spend it on another Las Vegas outing or, even worse, give it to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt.
Sorry, not going to happen. Government needs to show me THEY can be responsible first. When THEY show US they can CLOSELY live within their means I'll be at the front of the line asking for tax increases to make up the difference. But NO TAX INCREASES FIRST!! Make this government show us THEY can be responsible FIRST!!
Pro, perhaps you don't understand the dynamics of aspirations in people. When a higher tax rate on high incomes for both individuals and corporations is effected, not only will tax revenue increase, those rich people and corporations will invest more of their income in the economy. I know it from my facts, to make it short my tax burden became excessive to my taste, the solution was to invest and borrow to buy more materials and real estate that could be depreciated, suffer a loss in income that can be carried over to other years of income taxes, expenses to operate that are a direct reduction in income and not subject to a threshold % loss as ordinary income is. It is all in the tax code. I lowered my tax burden, with business deductions from a new asset, that may appreciate in value and can be depreciated for tax purposes. Than if a do sell that asset I will be taxed at the current 15% investment income level, below my earned income %. Yes, it is a risk and work but pays better after taxes than earned income.
One of the ideas behind the graduated tax structure is the incentive for those who have excessive income to invest in firms, goods, real estate, and others that will put money back into the consumer economy and create jobs........very contrary to the "trickle down" tax cuts in the past 30 years, that have increased the percentage of wealth that is held by a smaller minority of income earners. There is less incentive today for the highest incomes to invest in job and resource expansion,,,,,the nations economy,,,,,,,,,,, that is the way it has worked for me, following the tax law.
Roy, here is why the Senate will be controlled by tthe Democrats,,,,,,,,,,,http://www.policymic.com/articles/15690/brown-vs-warren-debate-scott-brown-blunders-names-antonin-scalia-as-his-model-justice,,,,,,,,,,, and the guy in Missouri is in misery,LOL. Listen for the crowds reaction to Scott Browns answer,,,,,,,,,,
A long time ago a professor told me in college that the most successful people are not the smartest or the richest. They are the ones that SHOW UP. I am a bit pessimistic because our Congress has a pattern of NOT SHOWING UP WHEN IT COUNTS--I MEAN WHEN IT REALLY MATTERS. A lot can happen, however, when the sh!t hits the fan, they take a break....Both sides of the aisle are responsible for this and no one should pin this on any president. The president does not allocate funds--that is a congressional task and I feel some malfeasance is happening by our elected officials. Vote them out and let's find some people that are willing to show up, roll up their sleeves, and do their d@mn job.
All of this "fiscal cliff" talk is rubbish: lets go OFF the bleeding cliff already. Then when Dems come back in the first week in January with proposals to cut taxes for the poor and middle class (while giving Grover the middle finger), lets watch the Repubs have a frickin FIT!!!
We need not worry because our "eye candy" President has this all well in hand. The "rich" will gladly pay for everything. There is now total transparency in the federal government and the nation has been brought together through hope and change. Our President has no problems in getting things done in congress because of the success of his reaching across the isle. GITMO is still closed and the stimulus has completely solved all of our unemployment problems. The 2012 federal deficit was less than 229.27 billion dollars as promised. We are now at peace with everyone in the world and all or our troops will be home before the end of 2014 and by 2015 we will start paying off the national debt. I am sure that everyone has figured out what they are going to do with all that money they have been saving on health care costs. We can all go on vacations using the new green energy, high speed rail system that was built via those stimulus funded shovel ready jobs. I am sure that everyone is looking forward to watching the President and my congressman go over the health care bill, "line by line", on C-SPAN as the President has promised. All hail the Chief!
Kornfed
Yep, them sure were some good days. I loved the gas lines, and, we were headed for an ice age!
Just think if we were to raise the top marginal rate to 90%, with the lower income rates paying 50%! We would be BOOMING!!! (
Like back in the 1950s when Ike was President, and the top tax rate was 90% then?
#1: The gas lines were during Gerald Ford's Presidency, after the Arab Oil Embargo, not during Jimmy Carter's 4 years in office.
#2: As someone who is middle class, I would gladly pay 50% in income taxes just as long as out top tax rate was 90%, as you suggested yourself!
Better be more-careful about what you wish for, eh?
See those poll numbers lately? It doesn't look too good for those of you on the right.
Just think: All of that money wasted for nothing!
For all of you partisans out there (pub or dem) - for forty straight years the public debt has increased. Didn't matter whether the president or congress was republican or democrat. We had about two years in the late nineties where the increase to the debt slowed, but that's it.
Elect who you want. Support whichever party. Anyway it goes, the debt will increase. Maybe your elected politicians don't actually make decisions and instead work for someone else? So, who benefits from steadily (and sometimes not so steadily) increasing debt? Certainly not the economy (how can an economy be strong when no one has any money?). Certainly not the middle class or poor or even most of the wealthy. Tax them all, cut their taxes - it won't make a difference. So, who benefits from a mountain of debt? What is that debt buying?
The constitution, the document government has been using as toilet paper for 15 years, allows the government to print money - yet they don't. Two presidents tried to enact a government based currency (Lincoln and JFK). Both were killed.
All of this - fiscal cliff, etc., is nothing more than a stage play. If you want to sit in the cheap seats and scream about what's going on up there on the stage, go ahead. If it makes you feel better about what you know to be true but can't face, cool. The fact is, you are bought and owned. The same is true if you have ten million in the bank or 100. It's still in the bank and all that money is theirs. Want a car, an education, a house, healthcare - you have to go through them. Because they own you.
At first blush what you say here sounds good. But the reality of this is that THEY'VE ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY.
This is just a vote to agree to pay for what they actually spent.
It would be neat if I could do that. Just go on spending then when the bill comes due say I wasn't paying. Unfortunately I need heat in the winter and food. Both of those things would in short order become unavailable if I didn't pay.
Bob-1920561 "When a higher tax rate on high incomes for both individuals and corporations is effected, not only will tax revenue increase, those rich people and corporations will invest more of their income in the economy."
Please explain how taking more money from the 'rich' will result in them investing 'more of their income in the economy'.
I can't believe that you really believe such nonsense.
The socialist republic of Illinois is begging Obama for a bailout. The state's economy should have improved after Obama moved to Washington. I say, let the socialist squirm in their stew!
Bob: You never took a college Economics course have you? Obviously not. Did you say that increased taxes will INCREASE investment? And exactly what kind of warped logic is that? Secondly, do you not know about something called a "Laffer Curve" that explains that as tax rates increase there is a point where additional tax increases actually DECREASE tax revenue? And even if we are on the upward sloping part of the Laffer Curve additional tax revenues MAY occur but at the expense and decrease of additional investment. This blows your failed logic of increased investment clear out of the water. I suggest you take a college Economics course, educate yourself as to how an economy ACTUALLY works, then get back to me.
You clearly do not know how an economy works and I can't teach you in a forum so take a class, understand how an economy works, then I would be glad to enlighten you further.
Conservatives live in a fantasy world. Trickle down does not work. FACT.
Adherents of the economic theory known as supply-side economics contend that by cutting taxes on the rich we will unleash an avalanche of new investment that will spur economic growth, and boost job creation, leading to economic improvements for everyone. For most of the past 30 years this idea has dominated the economic debate, resulting in two sustained eras of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, separated by a brief respite in the 1990s.
Now, as our economy struggles to emerge from the deepest recession in generations—and as we argue over what to do with the expiring Bush-era tax cuts—it is more important than ever to understand one simple fact: When put to the test in the real world, supply-side policies did not deliver as promised. In fact, by every important measure, our nation’s economic performance after the tax increases of 1993 significantly outpaced that of the periods following the tax cuts of the early 1980s and the early 2000s.
The critical link in supply-side theory’s chain is business investment. Proponents argue that lower taxes on the rich will spur more investment, and since investment is a key ingredient to growth, that will boost the overall economy. But investment growth during both supply-side eras lagged far behind that of the 1990s when taxes were higher.
While I oppose your premise against taxing the rich (and must point out that the deficit is $1.2 trillion this year, not $1.5 trillion), I have to agree that taxing the rich will not be the best way to get out of our debt problem. The simplest thing to do is just let the fiscal cliff happen, reform the tax code, and then deal with entitlements.
First of all Pro, you fail to take into account inflation and economic growth. Both increase revenues raised; and since 2007 was a little off the housing peak, revenues were near 18% (highest under Bush) of GDP. After that, revenues plummeted to 14-15% of GDP, in part due to the deflation of the housing bubble and the financial crisis. Even if we assume that revenues will go higher (which they will), revenues will only be at around 16-17% (due to the lack of a housing bubble), far below the 50-year average. Secondly, the reason we are spending so much money is because of the RECESSION, which automatically cut revenues and raised expenses.
Try looking at a more elongated view, perhaps in the 10 year range. The ending of the Bush tax cuts for the rich would eliminate perhaps 15-25% of our deficit over that period; I personally say let them expire for everyone, but the rich should at least lose their cut.
You are forgetting that government spending eventually increases over time; you can't buy the same amount of stuff in 2007 with 2009 dollars (thanks to inflation). Besides, we have both a recession AND a long-term expansion of our entitlement programs on our hands, and so we NEED an increase in revenues unless we are willing to eliminate defense, the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing, Labor, and the Interior, and hundreds of other programs.
We're in a freaking recession, for God's sake. THAT is why the deficit is so high; because there are millions of unemployed and the fact that a financial recession takes a longer time to recover. And by the way, the government showed that it was fiscally irresponsible under the Bush years by both spending too much AND taxing too little; if we let the Bush tax cuts expire, we don't need to talk about any more revenues (except for tax reform and entitlement reform) and can focus on spending cuts and entitlements.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
I'll admit, I am skeptical about that concept when I first heard it, and I am still not sure if it is practical. However, there is ample proof showing that higher taxes have not discouraged investment. While a tax rate of say 90% on capital gains is impractical, I think a 35% tax is more feasible. In addition, the concept says that higher taxes will lead to higher investment only because the investor wants to lower his taxes, and so he can do that by investing in his business. That would encourage him to put more money in his business and grow it to avoid paying higher taxes. It's actually a form of positive tax evasion; the economy benefits via increased investment in businesses, the investor pays less in taxes, and the government gets higher receipts thanks to the expansion in the economy due to increased investment. Everybody wins.
Actually, you just contradicted yourself. First of all, the Laffer Curve isn't an accurate representation of tax-investment relationship because it does not take into account the tax base. Secondly, if we are on the increasing side of the curve, that means that raising tax rates will certainly increase revenues. And thirdly, the Laffer Curve states that only at the highest point on the curve will tax rates discourage investment; if you are on the increasing slope, increasing taxes will not discourage investment or only do so to cause a negligible reaction.
It is a credible theory; the problem that I see with it is that it might be easier for the investor to simply park his money overseas (since capital flows are more flexible nowadays) than invest in the business. But then again, that would assume that he is more concerned about his own bottom line than his business as a whole, and that is a terrible attitude if you are the head of an emerging enterprise.
Supply-side economics is not "enlightenment;" it is ignorance. Now, I will respect your opinion that lower rates encourage growth; to a point, they do. But they are not the most defining factor when determining when to invest. Let's say you invest in a business and you get a $100 million profit on your return, and the tax rate is about 25%. Then let's say the tax is moved up to 35%; would you really pass off $100 million just because the rate was 10 percentage points higher??? Unless it became somewhere north of 70% would you be smart not to invest.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
"Care to post a link John?"
National Review James C. Capretta March 10 , 2010
the "opinions" , or facts as they are sometimes called , are available from the CBO , feel free to do the work for yourself , oh , the lefty mantra is to have someone else do the work , nevermind
Old Timer: Why don't you just give the government ALL your money and assets now? Your envy is revealing. Oh, and there is a form courtesy the IRS, you can use it to give them all your money, like, today.
Romney can win if, they update his OS, Install a more natural, and human sounding voice synthesizer, update his vocabulary program, and install joints that move more naturally. Oscar Goldman says, "We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic president. Mitt Romney will be that man. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster."
"The Two Hundred and Fifty Million Dollar Man".
What the Right wing doesn't realize is that the R2 units are outdated!!!
And this has exactly what to do with the article at hand???
Oh, shame on Romney. He is worth millions and pays millions in taxes. Oh, the shame!
And Obamas solutioon?. Sort of like the 16T or the 8 + % unemployeed. no plans just blame and whine.
Typical little Obamabots, can't point out what Obama has done to positively affect this country, so they bash Romney. Until the elections, they bashed Bush and when that didn't take off they called everyone a racist. So typical, so stupid.
The bionic Romney would be a better choice than the empty chair (suit) in the White House.
Don't worry, it's only the 47% who need to worry and we already know they are just Obama supporters anyhoo. :)
... is to get rid of Tea Baggers!
I like it. Bold and to the point of the problem. Get rid of the morons who stalled the House voting on anything for the last two years. :)
Obama's solution is to tax and spend, he's a one trick pony. You get your free Obama cellphones yet?
Tax the Rich, the people who cheat their way out of paying taxes. :)
The tax system is broken ! Time to rethink a fair flat tax: 10%, NO deductions! Everybody pays, now, the rich will have no loopholes or deductions! the 47%, will have skin in the game and vote out the tax and spend mentally challenged politicians.
Jeff: When you say 'the rich people' who, precisely are you referring to? Obama started the class warfare using the number $950,000.00 to define a 'rich' person. Now anyone single and making $200,000.00 is a rich person. Soon, anyone making $100,000.00 will be a rich person. Remember how he claimed that Obamacare wasn't a tax and how the middle class wouldn't be paying any taxes? He lied.
please everyone listen to me this one time, OBAMA has had four years and all the things he said he was going to do either got done wrong like healthcare when they soldout on the public option,the insurance companies told the democrats we dont like that so out it went screw the people who wanted it and wanted to buy in,middle class people who cant afford healthcare and are working, paying 2thou a month for healthcare, that public option was our saving grace and the DEMS pelosi and EIED leading the pack tossed it out like it was a potatoe chip, it was middleclasses way of getting helthcare at reasonable prices. The healthcare companies knew this and lobbied to get it thrown out which they gladly did screwing americans, What do they care they got the heALTHCARE WE CAN'T GET AND WE PAY FOR THERES BUT WE CANT GET IT. sound like A REAL SCREW JOB DOESN'T IT, WELL IT IS. wake up america VOTE FOR ROMNEY AND RYAN AND LETS GET THIS LIAR YES OBAMA LIES TO US ALL THE TIME OUT OF OFFICE HIS SPEECHES ARE THE SAME SPEECH3ES HE USED 4 YRS SAGO HE HASNT GOT ANT NEW IDEAS JUST OLD ONES HE TRIED TO THE TUNE OF 4 TRILLION DOLLARS AND WE HAVE A NET 125 THOUSAND REAL JOBS CREATED BY HIS ADMINISTRATION. this is all true i have done the research please get this charlatan out of this white house. thank you very much
The Quote of the Decade: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
EVERYONE THAT CLAIMS INCOME OF OVER $250K. But more specifically those in the 10s of Millions.
That said it's better than Wealth Redistributing as it has been. THE RICH SUCKING THE LIFEBLOOD FROM EVERYONE ELSE. :)
Your chain is so easily yanked. :D
Replacing one charlatan with another doesn't work either.
My chain is easily yanked? Your thought processes are stuck on empty if you honestly trust the government in DC to redistribute wealth. Giving them more money is like handing a loaded gun to a three year old. You don't really believe the tripe and hype do you?
Please, explain how wealth redistribution will work? Please explain what you believe the end result will be.
it simply just does not work. Why do liberals treat this like it is the Feudal system of the dark ages? You have the opportunity to get wealthy, to get educated. Chosing not to is not my responsibilty to make sure you are taken care of. how did it go? Confuscious say 'Give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach him to fish feed him for life'.
for the record confuscious (sp?) didnt say that.
Over the cliff, then we can see what they put back as they put it back...MY tax cut gets put back in first.
I hope we do go over the fiscal cliff for the simple reason that that may be the only way our elected "representatives" WAKE THE F**K UP (with apologies to Samual L. Jackson) and figure out we've got a deficit spending problem.
As far as cuts to the Defense Department, they need to be in line with cuts across the ENTIRE Federal Government. We simply can't gut the military and hope guys like Iran's Ahmabigdummy are gonna play fair !! We also can't gut every social program, especially Social Security and Medicare. Many of the participants have done their part and need our government to do its' part and make sure the benefits we've EARNED are still there in a generation !!!
Ahh the new bogey man / scare phrase of the right "wealth redistribution". ooooh.
Any time money changes hands it's redistribution of wealth whether it's a private or government transaction. It doesn't matter which political party is in power. Taxes spent are redistribution of wealth it's just a matter of what are their priorities. Military and oil subsidies? Medicare and alternative energy? etc.
Your concept of money changing hands being a form of wealth redistribution is amusing. Ever hear of goods for service? Buying a product? That money isn't generating wealth per se. My utility company takes my money and provides me with electricity, how is the wealth generated. Fee per service isn't generating wealth and taxes going to the government so that green energy companies can get money from the taxpayers (which is where the gov. gets its money)and go bankrupt isn't exactly generating wealth unless you factor in legal fees.
uh, and you think Romney has a different plan? Really?
Here is the difference:
Romney will funnel money to his wealthy friends. Bush/Cheney did it. Reagan did it.
Obama might actually give a small pittance of what is collected back to the middle class in some form of assistance. Clinton did it.
And there you have it in a nut shell.
If you imagine that taking money from the middle class and giving it to big business and the wealthy is the way to go, vote Romney.
If you think a small portion of that money should go to the Middle Class vote Obama.
Because unless you are rich and I mean super rich--hundreds of millions(most of you on here that think you have money probably make less than the man who looks after Ann's dancing horse. Think about that), you aren't getting jack from either one of them in tax relief no matter what lie they are telling right now.
While the GOP continues to discuss the virtues of trickle down, the claims do not pass an examination of the facts. The only part of the trickle-down theory that is true is that the benefit to the middle class does come in a trickle, a very slow, barely visible trickle.
Close the loopholes that only favor the rich. A company buys a beach side home and deducts it as an expense while allowing the CEO and all his family to use it free. Close the loopholes like this.
You really think Obama gives a damn about the middle class? He uses them as props for the election. His policies and the pending Obamacare are going to be real interesting. No taxes in ACA on the middle class...oops, that's not true. Perhaps those 'fines, fees. and taxes' won't hit the middle class? Right. He stirs the race pot and the class warfare pot in the time-honored tradition that all followers of Rules for Radicals have used. He's a community organizer. Guess what that is? Guess what the roots of that 'career' choice stemmed from? Hint: It follows a certain collectivist principal. Google Cloward-Piven and then watch what Obama says and how he says it and who he addresses.
Wealth redistribution has little or nothing to do with "generating wealth" in my view. In simplest terms, when money changes hands from one to another, that is technically making one person less wealthy and the other more wealthy (regardless of the specifics of the transaction). Thus wealth has been redistributed.
Its Obama's fault!
Spoken like a true Republican who has drunk from the Kool-aid fountain.
After 4 years ...it becomes his fault!!
Apparently, Very, you have drunk the koolaid dry based on that remark.
What will you blame another four years of failure on if he gets re-elected? The list of excuses becomes smaller as time progresses.
Why put so much emphasis on the President, when congress is clearly to blame? They can't work together and they can't work with any president.
Here's the thing. Congress is solely responsible for the deadlock, because Republicans want the president to fail. So Obama gets the blame. And yet if he were to use an executive order to move the country forward past the deadlock, you all would call him a tyrant and call for impeachment.
I'd like to think that if Obama is reelected that we as a country will move forward. But I know we won't. Then it will be about history and legacy. Republicans will want to make him the worst president in history and start saying as much. (They already are.) There's far worse presidents in history. Like the one who lied to the grand jury in recent history and the one who lost the war against the British in less recent history.
you really want another 4 years of failed economics? Unemployment? underwater mortgages, $4 a gallon gasoline? a 16 trillion dollar national debt? more IRS agents? Owebama control of the internet? Executive orders?
It is Congress, not the President, who made this problem.
If you want to blame the poor stimulus oin someone, try Grover Norquist and the TP scum who almost destroyed America's economy by opposing anything beneficial unless they got paid off.
ABAR 2012!
cal20,
Way I see it, I'm getting that no matter who I vote for. The president can't do a heck of a lot for the economy. All the president can do for unemployment is government jobs, but neither will create many, if at all. The president can't change gas prices. The debt is congress' job. Control of the internet is coming no matter who's president, because our government has a well established pattern of seizing more power. And finally, every president has issued executive orders.
So exactly what is the choice?
Congress does nor nor ever issued an executive order!
Pragmatic: remember back to the Jimmy carter years, he, like Owebama was weak and had no business sense. The Iranians took our Embassy as hostages. Reagan was elected, the hostages suddenly freed and the economy returned in much less than 4 years. Nobody wants to hire in an oppressive enviornment Obama has created. With a fiscal cliff and a spedaholic at the helm, the economy will continue to stagnate if owebama is re-eelected. With Romney, business will return and prosperity soon after. Fire Owebama! he has failed.
Sic
You can blame Congress which is valid, but then you have to point at the Democrats that held control of both the House and Senate from 2006 elections until 2010. And that is dangerous for the Democrats because if you put the US economic situation on Congress you bring in the last years under Bush, and the first years under Obama.
Business sense isn't a requirement for being president. Most presidents weren't business people. There are a lot of generals and lawyers. And government isn't a business. No business can force you to invest in it like government can.
Pragman: true, but generals and lawyers didn't create a hostile enviornment either ( except for carter and Obama). Like Reagan said, unleash the potential of our busnesses and prosperity will follow. We can do better in a pro-business enviornment. Don't demonize business like the Occupiers, don't over-regulate and tax! let our business people succeed! prosperity will follow.
Dumbya signed every bill put in front of him until 2007, when the Democrats gained some control in Congress. The he vetoed everything the Democrats did in spite of the republicon filibusters. This was the start of the current do nothing Congress.
The Democrats actually had a theoretical 60 vote Senate for 60 days, and that included the likes of LIEbermann.
cal20, Reagan's part in the economic boon of the 80's had nothing to do with unleashing the potential of business. It had everything to do with tripling the national debt while refusing to increase revenue enough to pay our way. We lived high on the hog during those days. We are still paying the bill on those debts these 30 some years later.
Government is not a for-profit business. Government is a community service to all of the people and must operate in the interest of all of the people. It is simply a social entity if you can bare to acknowledge that socialism is not a wicked or evil name.
President Reagan's move to use the credit card to pull us out of the hole was a smart move. His decision to do so as he reduced our revenue(tax breaks) was a recipe for disaster. He may have been a great communicator, but he was never a great thinker concerning economics.
Every struggling family knows that you must decrease unnecessary spending and increase income to pay off heavy debts. Anybody that tells you differently is a snake oil salesman that can never to be trusted.
and you somehow imagine this will change under Romney? Tell me how. I'd love to know. Romney can't even supply a speech with some ideas on how to deal with this and yet somehow you think he's going to magically fix it?
I know, he'll go in, bankrupt the country then outsource everything to china, take a huge management fee and retire. That's his MO in business...
just sayin...
Nj ...Please show me one example of Romney outsourcing jobs overseas..Just one.
I can definitely prove that the President and Vice President sent Car manufacturing jobs over seas with Stimulus money. It was reported by GMA by Robin Roberts ....No Spin...she hated to report it ...but it happened ... Quit listening to talking points and come up with one job...
If you are just going to rant and name call and talk about a visit to a Chin manufacturing plant ..Please dont respond.
It should be the easiest question asked ...name one job Romney shipped overseas...not 6 degrees to Romney .
One that he is responsible for....
Also ...if all of you are consistent in how you think Congress is the problem...
Then when Bush was President with a majority in Senate and Congress...then are they at fault for the Economic melt down.in 2007 and 2008.?....When does the Democratic party ...the majority in Government for the past 6 years stand up and take accountability??
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/13/barack-obama/were-romneys-companies-pioneers-outsourcing/
Oh come off it. The problem started with Reagan in 1987 and deregulation and continued through to Bush II with complete deregulation of the banking industry in 2003. Let's see, the Presidents involved were, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. Obama took over this mess in 2009. I live in a small town in the Midwest and I see new life, new business on Main St. We are not out of the woods yet, but if we stay under the stewardship of Obama, we will get out.
Your elected officials at work... government at it's finest.
Hahahaha~!
And the sad part.............we will vote "our" representative in again because "they" are the good ones that bring home goodies to our state...........It's all those others that are the useless ones...................
VOTE THEM ALL OUT...........TERM LIMITS
It was a brilliant master plan by the GOP. Get a bunch of morons elected that can't even change a light bulb. They'll reduce government by ineptitude instead of votes. :D
The ineptness was brought to this great country on purpose by Nobama and the Democrat Party on purpose. And Jeff ol' buddy your one of there tin hats, how does it feel to know your taxes are going up, no matter who wins. Brought to you by the actions of your President and the Democrats in congress his first two years. Or don't you pay taxes?
For all those who voted for the GOP & Teaparty in 2010, you must be proud, they promised jobs, they produced "ZERO", one filibuster after another, they couldn't even come to some type of agreement on infrastructure, they almost let us fall off the cliff last summer, and now here we are again. Come November its time to vote them out or at least the ones who will not compromise. The only way Congress will get anything done is by compromising. The Teaparty has taken over the Republicans, I say get rid of the Teaparty and give us back the Republicans we use to know, the ones we may not agreed with but at least we respected each other, and they knew how to compromise.
Laura: Tsk, if you want to have a 'behind the scenes' understanding of what REALLY went on during the debt ceiling debacle, go read Bob Woodward's new book. Seems Mr. Compromise in Chief was anything but. He talks a good line, real good at passing the buck and shirking responsibility but the buck did indeed stop with him. Remember how the Great Compromiser informed the Republicans that they could come along for the ride so long as they sat in the back? Perhaps that escaped your notice....along with a great deal of other items not-so-favorable for your guy.
If the only way to kill the Bush tax cuts is let them expire, then let them expire. Middle Class tax cuts can be restored afterward and overage I pay will come back to me by April 2014 ...when I need a nice windfall for my Broadwell Gaming PC.
As for the cost to me in 2013 ....since I know it's coming, I just pay off my car insurance for next year in December and that should offset most of the cost to me for six months.
The Bush tax cuts must die above all else, then we can move forward.
So right you are.
Over the cliff! Call the republicon bluff. It is a win-win for America.
As I recall the Bush tax cuts were extended for two years, as blackmail in order to get long-term unemployment insurance extended for a single year. Now they are trying to blackmail us again, whining endlessly about the supposed "fiscal cliff" which involves a whole 3% of their income!!!
As someone who is middle-class, and has always been middle class, a 3% rise in upper-class tax rates, from 35% to 38%, seems mighty generous, since the theory that tax cuts somehow create jobs anywhere but in China and Mexico has been thoroughly debunked, at great cost to the vast majority of America's population. In fact, the bottom 70% of Americans have lost 40% of their spending power since Ronald Reagan was elected, while at the same time, the top 5% of Americans has seen their spending power rise by 400% too.
Remember that the best that the bottom 80% of Americans have ever done was during Jimmy Carter's four years in office, when average CEO pay was only 25 times what the average factory worker's pay was, back when a single middle class income could support a family, allowing mom to stay home and raise the kids. Back then the minimum wage paid almost 30% more than it does now, figured for inflation, and many entry-level jobs paid 50% more than the minimum wage then, if not double it. Back then teenagers were readily-employable and a fair percentage of young adults earned middle class salaries working full time without a college degree, back when our top tax rate was 70%!
There is an economic theory that says that high top tax rates encourage business investment and charity spending at home, in the hope of mitigating those high tax rates, while low top tax rates encourage investment overseas or wherever costs are lowest. Is there any good reason for the capital gains tax rate to have been cut by 57% from 35% to 15%, when Romney and his friends try so hard to avoid having to pay even that rate by hiding their money offshore and in various trusts?
Our current top tax rate is half of what is was when our unemployment rate was 5%, so what should we do, cut the top tax rate some more and see how many more bridges fall down, how many more potholes don't get fixed, and how many more layoffs that 90% of us can endure, just so that a small percentage of us can make more money than their wildest dreams, or is it way past time to reign-in runaway income growth that does not fairly benefit us all, and take responsible steps to bring our jobs back home as well as prevent more of our jobs from fleeing to cheaper pastures too?
Frankly this whole "fiscal cliff" thing is an attempt by a small minority of wealthy Americans to blackmail the rest of the US electorate into keeping their money train going. Despite QE this, QE that, and QE the other thing we live in a society with a limited money supply, and in order for anyone to earn well in-excess of the median income, someone else has to earn less, to balance the average out. So, for every guy like Romney earning 660 times our median income or more, how many of us have to earn $10K less than our median income as a result in order to balance the average out? And you rich people are angry that a fair percentage of us don't have to pay income taxes, when the main reason that they don't is your own fault?
Five people in America earned over $1 billion each last year, which makes Romney look like a pauper, and makes every person in the bottom 95% of us look like a completely redundant peon too. Why should people like Romney who earn enough to have a half-million Dollar automobile elevator installed in a Pacific Beachfront vacation house they only use a few days per year pay a tax rate half of what someone earning $100K or less does? So that they can create more jobs in China or an entire island in Dubai?
Not only should the Bush tax cuts die, but the Reagan tax cuts too, and then maybe America can get back on the road to rebuilding its former economic greatness, and if some of these wealthy types who would rather live in China or in Dubai want to leave, how about a 50% tax on offshored wealth too? Wealth addicts like Romney have ruined America and the lives of a couple hundred million people, just so that they can have more money than anyone else has, and just like hard-core drug addicts, they have absolutely no guilt or compassion for anyone else whose lives they have ruined either.
Perhaps if hard-core drug addicts belong in jail so that they can't rip anyone else off trying to feed their habits, what about the social and economic cost of feeding a habit like Romney's or worse? One hard-core drug addict might write a few bad checks, they might go shoplifting, or they might even steal a purse, but a hard-core wealth addict has the power to destroy the livelihood of an entire city trying to get their next fix, and just like a hard-core heroin addict, today's fix doesn't last too long either.
I'll fully agree that we could easily defend our own hemisphere even if we cut defense spending by half, which would then free-up all kinds of low-cost consumer economy capital, where the economic spinoff would have a far-greater positive effect than military spending does, but then all of our manufacturers who moved overseas would have to pay someone extra to insure that their overseas executives safety and their shipping security, instead of continuing to have Uncle Sam do it for them nearly for free like some kind of giant welfare program for rich people instead.
Just think: Those 6 million US manufacturing jobs moved overseas during GW's eight years in office after he signed 30 free trade bills would by themselves reduce our unemployment rate by half, not including the economic spinoff at suppliers, transportation companies, and in the service industry!
So, what will it be, bow down to the Republican addiction to having more money than anyone else has, no matter who you have to walk all over or throw under the bus to get there, or, do we take very reasonable and responsible steps to move away with runaway wealth addiction that benefits so few of us, while at the same time an ever-increasing number of us starve?
You are aware of the fact that more immigrants than American citizens have been getting jobs since Obama came into power. That would include the Dream Actors as well as the still illegal illegals.
No ,I'm not aware of that. Care to back that up with facts? Oh, and since when does the Obama administration have direct control over what private industry does?
One thing that does need to be looked into is the greater use of incarcerated convicts as skilled labor for private industry.
NO!
Republican Congressional Answer
Obama Biden 2012
Thomas the parrot,
Think for yourself, No more taxes, No more redistribution of wealth , new concept to libs, earn it.
No to all the give aways we have now.
Yes to drug testing for any government benefit
Yes to community time for your welfare check.
After your messiah only had one job, community leader, He should know all about it.
It's ridiculous that we are even anywhere near this point. We pay congress handsomely to tackle tough problems, but all they do is adjourn for 5-week vacations and run to Israel to skinnydip in the waters of Galillee. These are people who, when they are running for office, assure you that they know how to get things done and that they put country before politics. Right. They are useless!
Anothe pice of Great Leadership by Obama ... If he cant lead the Goverment ...who can he Lead?
KEEN ..We pay this President to make decions and Lead this Nation! The Buck stops with President Obama ...like it does for every other President in the past. When things were great in 90's we gave credit to President Clinton...we did not give credit to the Senate or Congress...When things turn bad for Bush in 2008...Everybody gave the credit to Bush and not the Democratic majority in Senate and House ....Why doesnt this President ever take credit for his short comings instead of Blaming others?
I'm fine with it as long as they cut defense in half and make an honest effort to pay down the debt.
Sound crazy? Maybe, but the bills have to be paid. Our defense budget is twice what it was a little over a decade ago. When we have all those wars paid off, medicare part D funded and get our infrastructure on a maintenance schedule we can afford then, and only then can we talk about tax cuts again. The economy will make it.
Here are some suggestions: 1. Capitol gains over a million annually get hit at 50%. These are the free loaders. The rich's payday holiday is over. If you don't work you pay a higher rate. It should be the second million which is harder to make.....not the first. 2.A tax on stock exchange trades would help also. These guys want to play? Then let them pay like the rest of us. As the politicians say to the lobbyists, "You have to pay to play".
Everyone is going to have to suck it up. We all had a hand in this debt, through activism or complacency, and it is now time FOR ALL OF US to pay the piper. Maybe our representatives will think before they vote for wars that will be thrown in our laps when the bills come due. Maybe constituents will weight the cost vs. benefit before supporting such massive expense. We just spent 3 trillion dollars on two wars with no positive outcome.
Last note: Get money out of politics. Constituent donations only and no corporate or special interest money. Should be heavily regulated and monitored.
mike-PA asks,
maybe he doesn't consider the Affordable Health Care Act a shortcoming, Or the Recovery Act. Or killing Bin Laden. Or a stock market on the rise. Or unemloyment in decline. Maybe he just does not see those things as shortcommings for which to take credit.
And maybe you have chosen to ignore his freely admitting things are not good enough and that there is more to be done.
Maybe you figure he should take credit for NOT apologizing to any world leader. Maybe you figure he should take credit for NOT keeping Qadaffi in power. Maybe you figure he should take credit for NOT rescinding the work requirements for Welfare. (Yeah, I listen to Fox News, too)
MikePA, I have my issues with Obama, believe me. But this economy stuff is a direct result of Republicans wanting to deny the president any success that might lead to his re-election. Republicans are so focused on regaining power that they are willing to throw all of us under the bus for the chance.
It's shameful. Where were these small government Republicans when Bush was sending the country to war over WMDs and kept borrowing money from China to finance Iraq & Afghanistan, prescription drug benefits for insurance companies, and tax cuts for the wealthy? In that regard, where were the Democrats? The Democrats capitulated completely to Bush instead of fighting back in the midst of economic decline. I'm an equal opportunity blamer.
Obama is a president, not a King. The Congress has the power of the purse and Congress isn't worth a dusty penny.
Totally right. Somebody's got to actually start taking responsibility. If the choice is between "tax and spend" or "tax cut and spend" we're doomed.
Umm, the democrats took control of both houses under Bush and for two more years under Obama. Republicans were in such short supply that the media was asking if the party had become redundant.
So let blame fall where it lies. Nobody is clean in this. It took both parties to @*#! things up this bad.
So you libs think taxing the rich will fix all...do you know the difference between a billion and a trillion....it is 1000 billion to make a trillion people....taxing the rich would bring in maybe 50-75 BILLION...that surely will fix all our woes.
"The Congress has the power of the purse and Congress isn't worth a dusty penny." Good one KeenInsight! GreenTimer- post # 1.47- Excellent perspective, but I don't think any one here will understand, to many blinders on.
justredd64, it sounds like you have no problem with taxing the rich except that it won't eliminate the debt in one fell swoop.
So if you can't score a knockout with a single punch, then you absolutely must not throw that first punch?
If every proposal to fix the debt is rejected on account of it, and it alone, will not fix the problem, then I'd like to ask just what single thing is going to fix it?
Getting rid of Obama.
We really have to vote out everyone that is in office in november from both parties. They both stink.
Ah, but how to do that?
We have three branches of govt. because it is supposed to offer checks and balances. To blame one branch, the executive branch is naive, rather than the 535 members of Congress that is responsible for allocating funds. Our govt. is no longer comprised of social service workers. It is all about how to line their pockets and obtain financial stability for themselves for life. The President is one person. To point the finger at one branch with one person is just a matter of stuck on stupid. All have made promises during their campaigns. All have failed to keep this country fiscally stable. Time to send them a message at the voting booth--no incumbents. They should be charged with malfeasance and thrown in jail. They have not done the job the American people have entrusted them with doing--keeping America running.
Colorblind...I agree with a lot of your post...(I dont think we should send anybody to jail..we elected them)
But it is time for finger pointing to end ...look at the results..They are not pretty...If Republican Congress is the problem so be it.. The President is the Boss..no doubt a major problem... And the Democratic Senate is the problem...I have no issue in the Govt becoming
Republican President
Republican Senate
Democratic House
I just flip flopped all the Power.... I think you all can see ....The Dems have a lot of Power and a lot of Acountability after 4 years..
Time to implement fair tax code, throw the old out the window, set a base such as $30,000 (no tax on any income below 30k) and tax everything above that at 10-15%. Allow only 1 home mortgage deduction for home value up to 500k and charitable deductions as today. Remove all other deductions.
Time to go back to the Eisenhower tax rates until the country's war debts are paid in full. We need legislation requiring wars be paid for before we enter hostilities, not charged to the credit card.
You know, I just don't see making the rich richer as a way to get us out of this economic nightmare.
Ol_Doc- nor do I see taking from one to give to the other as a way out.... Need a ""proven"" businessman to take care of the country now, not a community organizer.....
Ol_Doc,
I don't see how the rich get richer with a flat tax above a minimum income and the removal of all deductions except a single home up to 500k. If you look at those who earn high dollars they just use tax professionals to deduct their way out of paying the taxes. Think about the side effects, it would take about 5 minutes to do your taxes.
Wrong, we don't need a businessman any where near the White House. The country is not a business and should never be run like a business. "We aren’t electing a C.E.O. to occupy the White House. We’re looking for good judgment, broad life experience, flashes of wisdom." Neither Romney nor Ryan have any of these characteristics.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/the-wrong-resume/
According to the article, if all these tax cuts expire, the top 20% will be paying 60% of the increases and even the bottom brackets will now be paying at least a few hundred dollars.
Yes, liberal slugs, you will have to pay more taxes when the Bush tax plan expires. You have been so intent upon harping about the 1% that you have not educated yourself enought to realize that this rising tide will carry all boats. Your boy Hussein lied to you and the middle class, and none of you have sense enough to understand.
Wait until about February and look at your check (at least for some of the liberal slugs who have a job and don't worship at the federal trough). You will then note the liar in chief sucked you in, because you did not get off your butt to study just what it means when taxes go up. Everyone gets hit. Welcome to the forthcoming recession.
So be it. Suck it up! Time to pay for those screwball wars you so adamantly cheered for! Talk about a bad investment.
I agree. The American people elected these people and now we need to suck it up and pay for it.
hjack im not complaigning its time to bite the bullet. its time for that tax plan to expire. it is time to cut govt spending to the bone. its time to pay down our debt fast. guess what if we dont this? we will end with things worse then they currently are. there will not be an recession if we get our debt payed off. our dollar will be stronger because of no debt.
Why should we keep the mortgage deduction? Should renters pay higher percentages than us? Shouldn't they get some kind of an equivalent "saving up for a down payment" deduction (making both deductions unnecessary after implementing the proper tax in the first place)? Taxing renters higher makes NO sense.
One group shouldn't be paying higher percentages to cover another group's expenses. ALL deductions are unfair.
Let's see Minan59, our country is over $16 trillion in debt and at no time in his administration has Barack Hussein Obama signed a budget, or seen to it that one was passed ... but a businessman with substantial experience in industry and government would see the need for a BUDGET .... a PLAN FOR THE FUTURE STABILITY of our country.
You libs have no concept of fiscal management .... just keep kicking the can down the road and run up the charge card even HIGHER !!!!
Tell us, how many times have you filed for personal bankruptcy ????????????????????
Ha, ha my taxes won't go up. Haven't worked in a year and its not looking good for the next year either if big ears is re-elected. Everyone open your wallets wide and pay your share according to the traitor-in-chief.
Yes, they are such obstructionalists for refusing to let us continue spending our way into Greece.
Soetoro/Biden 2012
Don't forget the FIRST meeting in 2009 that Obama had with the congressional leaders. House minority leader offered a spending cuts budget and Obama looked at him and said "I WON". He has not listened to the Republicans since that day. He has allowed Harry Reid to keep 30+ jobs bills on his desk because HE WON and does not need anyone to help him or to listen to any one. THE DIVIDER IN CHIEF!
That is right coco. Obama won. You republicons lost. And then you expect him to take your programs with a 30 year history of failure and use them?????
Obama won? Are you for real? The LOSERS in that scenario were the taxpayers, Obama only succeeded in raising the debt to astronomical proportions and you think that is winning?
NO mygirl1....The beginning of the serious crisis happened when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were people. We have been getting burned by big pharm, defense contractors, and insurance corporations every since that happened. Corporations are running America and all they care about is THEIR bottom line. They don't give a rat's @ss about this country...They are not interested in keeping the country that made them wealthy alive, let alone, healthy. They just suck it out of the middle class until we are broke then go to other countries and create sweat shops that undermine American made products.
mygirl1: Who is sitting in the White House? Yes, Obama won. Reality is not your strong suit.
Obama won??? and the people lost? and the country lost?? "The private sector is doing just fine" and Obama will concentrate on the growth of government and debt....Is that your strong suit miklkit???? Something to really brag about(sarcasm).
If Obama wins another four years, perhaps there will again be an increase of 20-30percent of our people on food stamps and welfare....The two strongest growth industry areas of the Obama admin. Before you start believing that that would be wonderful, are you prepared to live just below poverty level with little chance of getting a real job???
Milkit: Tsk. You think that because he was elected he was capable and competant for the job? That is a remarkably naive statement. His record speaks otherwise. Unless, of course, you think poverty, wealth reduction and massive government assistance programs are a sign of success. Then, you have the cover ups for Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the pretence that the violence in the Middle East is a result of some stupid video. Sorry, when the Egyptian protesters are shouting 'Obama, Obama, we are all Osama" perhaps there's more to the story, no?
Colorblind: When that decision was made, guess which party benefited? Both of them. Now, what has Obama done? Why he's sucked at that trough like it was manna from heaven. Seems he was real fond of those 'corporations' in 08 and today as well.
You guys do know that it's up to our dysfunctional congress to legislate and that Obama doesn't have a magic wand to make things happen, right?
When a bill can't pass through the broken, filibuster infested, nonsensical super majority, partisan infested @!$%# hole that our congress has become, how can anything be accomplished?
There is a problem in this country. First we have to understand how the government works. The President, in his state of the union address, asks Congress to write and approve bills for him to sign. It's up to the legislature to draft a good bill and pass it before they give it to the President to sign. The President either signs it or vetoes it. If it vetoes it, the legislature has to rewrite it, re-vote on it, and if passed, bring it to the president to sign. Once signed, the Supreme Court get's to rule on whether it is constitutional, if the question arises.
We presently have a do nothing congress that has only one objective: to make sure that Obama doesn't have a second term. We have people that do not want big government who do not realize that the "entitlements" are entitlements only because we pay for them through our payroll taxes. They do not realize that the food stamps, or housing, or whatever benefit they are receiving comes from our personal income tax and is only a small part of the government's budget. The states that are behind our do nothing congress are the ones who take the most welfare benefits. The states that pay the highest taxes are the people who want these benefits to continue.; Go Figure.
Defense is the biggest budget item. Our lovely do not congress made a deal ith the President, in return for a rise in the debt ceiling their will be defense cuts, but not cuts to the defense industry's corporations; only to the people and the military.
205 post 6.11. "why should there be a mortgage deduction for landlords"??? I will try to keep this real simple so that some day you may understand....I am a landlord and all of my taxes are expenses. Expenses are deductible....Otherwise, I will have to charge a great deal more rent in order to pay my expenses....Did you actually think that rent will remain low if expenses are not deductible???.....Grow up.
Thank god that you think renters should pay higher tax rates so you can own some rental properties JA. Quite the entitled American citizen you are. You're no better than billionaires taking advantage of loopholes in order to pay lower percentages than the working class. They have their reasons too, and they are no better or worse than your reasoning. They'll throw in how it all trickles down to someone else too, but we all know how well the trickle down thing works. There's a reason "trickle" is in the terminology.
I didn't specify landlords, now did i? There shouldn't be a mortgage deduction for anyone. Home owners, landlords, I don't care. One group should NOT be paying higher rates to effectively pay for another's lower taxes. Goes against equality and is very unAmerican!
This deduction should go away, and you should charge for rent accordingly (and I'm guessing you charge somewhat by supply and demand for your area rather than just figuring what you can get away with after expenses). What is your deduction on one unit / 12 months anyway? Explain to me one (fair) reason why home-owners should pay a lower tax rate than renters. You probably like renters paying a higher tax rate so they can't afford a down payment sooner and are then forced to keep renting from you.
ALL DEDUCTIONS / LOOPHOLES ARE UNFAIR!!
P.S. Rent is remaining low?? LOL! Landlords nationwide are taking massive advantage of the housing markets "woes" (and the banks not lending). I hope you're not one of these bastards raising rent on the suffering just caz you can.
Let them all expire. Force the Federal Government to actually fix the problem instead of placing a series of band-aids.
As soon as it expires on January 1st, Democrats will propose legislation that cuts taxes again, for everyone except income over $250,000. It will pass, and tax cuts for the rich will be over. Republicans can't vote against it, unless they want to be responsible for raising taxes on everyone.
The strategy is not a secret, there just isn't anything Republicans can do to prevent it except point fingers and blame.
In that the Republicans will be in the majority of at least one and maybe both houses of congress, it really doesn't matter what the dumb Dems propose.
The republican idea is to treat every American as equal, making the few who pay taxes pay even more stops investment & spending others depend on to earn a living.
Clotho
You'd think that would be the case wouldn't you? Well, I wouldn't bet on it. The party of "No" won't change overnight, plus reason and logic is not their strong suit anyway.
@Clotho #7.1: The democrats do not and will not control the House of Representatives. Per the Constitution, all Revenue Bills must originate in the House of Representatives Article 1, Section 7 clause 1. The democrats can symbolically vote on a revenue bill in the Senate and pass it. But, the House is not obligated to vote on any legislation passed by the Senate.
The White House administration and Democrats believe that the payroll tax break should expire. That accounts for $2000 of the tax increase. Regardless of the outcome of the election, taxes will increase.
I think the tax cuts should expire too and I am in Independant.
When those who "vote" for a living...out vote those who "work" for a living...the fat lady has sung.
Let the tax breaks expire...on the rich (for sure)...on the middle class...and on the poor as well (as President Obama said "We are all in this together"!
(A word to the wise is sufficient, to the rest it's a waste of time...and we are running out of time).
and don't forget all the additional taxes Obamacare adds. Grandma's hip will be taxed at 2-3%
hjack do you really think that romney will reduce our deficit with tax decreases and increased defense spending? hell no! but guess what obama will not get it done as well.
the only person running that was willing to make the hard choices needed to do this was Ron Paul.
OK SHEEPLE if you want to see a change to america first, if you want to see us out of debt and thriving again you need to cross out obama and romney and write Ron Paul in. only then will you start to see things getting better.
@Clotho #7.1,
The House has ALREADY passed extension of the Bush/Obama tax cuts ! If they expire and EVERYONE GETS HIT WITH HIGHER TAXES ... watch for Obama to try and blame it on the Republicans ... all the while getting exactly what he really wants ... HIGHER TAXES ON EVERYONE who pays tax ... more for Obama to "RE-DISTRIBUTE".
It's part of the "blame game" because Obama doesn't have the balls to accept reponsibility and his Demmie lackeys will cover for him !!! LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let the republicons march over the cliff. Good riddance. This is a win-win for America as it cancels out that party over country pledge those Bozo's made to Emperor Norquist, which would allow actual progress to be made.
If I were in the White House I would not negotiate over the debt ceiling. Obama has asked that the debt ceiling be raised and republicans have said they will not. Therefore, credit or blame will be clear. If what Obama says will happen there will be a financial Armageddon and he will be facing different people in his office after the next election. If he is wrong republicans will not have to worry about having a democrat in the white house. Either way it works for the country. Half the people in the country act like they want to live in another country. I wish to God they would just move there and that way we could all be happy.
I don't think Somalia would take all of the teabaggers!
Might start listening to raising the debt ceiling if Obama a had plan to deal with the 16 T, but unfortunatly no plans.
I'm sure the libs would move if the government would pay for it, just like all the other handouts they get.
Under Obama administration partnership with Mexico, number of non-citizens in US using food stamps and similar programs has more than doubled. Give it to the illegals...oops we are
Let's return to the good old days and let all these so called tax relief programs expire! The $500B/year is needed now and must be put in place. even with this, and assuming no recession to follow, it will take decades to pay off the debt burden created in the past 4 years.
It does not matter how much is paid in taxes, as the Dems will just spend more. Look at history.
True hjack, when dems talk about the spending of the wars, they then tell us how they could spend that same money here in the US.
If we don't have it, we don't have it.
hjack, You've got it wrong. Most of the national debt, approximately 95% of it, is due to 1 Reagan and 2 Bushes. Republicans talk a great game about deficits when they are out of office, but when they are in it they increase the deficit under the delusion of supply side economics. No reason to believe they won't due it again. Both Carter and Clinton reduced the budget. Obama increased it, but what choice did he have? Only way to not have Bush's great recession turn into the second great depression.
Debt as % of GDP
At end of Carter Presidency: 31%
At end of 12 years Reagan + 4 years Bush Sr: 65% THEY MORE THAN DOUBLED
At end of Clinton: 55% A DROP OF 10%
At end of Bush Jr: 85%!! HE ADDED 30%
As of Dec 2012 under Obama: 100% He added 15%
If Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets we'd only be at
15%!!! Actually we'd probably be at zero, because Bush wouldn't have
tanked our economy and we would not have needed the stimulus package.
SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DOESN'T WORK. IT'S A MYTH. YOU CAN'T JUST LOWER
TAXES AND DO NOTHING ABOUT DEBT. IT'S ARITHMETIC!!!
For more go to: zfacts.com/p/318.html
The war 1 trillion over 10 years. Obama pet project spending over 6 trillion in 3 years.
Hard to believe when 33% of the debt was added during the Obama administration!
Obama added 15% as percent of GDP. Bush Jr added 30%! He turned Clinton's surplus into a deficit, and left us in a horrible mess. Romney has already told us he wants to do more of the same, with more unfunded tax cuts for the rich, sharp increases in military spending, and another war.
Shellback, The facts don't support your statement. First of all you need to look at debt as % of GDP, otherwise you are talking apples and oranges. Second, you need to actually research the facts and look at the history. Here's one good source: zfacts.com/p/318.html
if people had of been smart and pushed for ron paul the debt would have been payed off in 4 years. he seemed to be the only one willing to make the hard choices we needed to get back to america first!
Facts like:
1/20/2009 Obama inauguration - National Debt = 10,626,877,048,913.08
Today - National Debt = 16,066,241,407,385.89
Debt added during Obama administration = 5,439,364,358,472.80 (33.8%)
Facts like deb as % of GDP:
At end of Clinton: 55% A DROP OF 10%
At end of Bush Jr: 85%!! HE ADDED 30%
As of Dec 2012 under Obama: 100% He added 15%
If you don't understand debt as % of GDP you shouldn't be involved in the discussion. Please go back to basic math.
facts:
you are using a number that moves to prove your point, that doesn't work when you are talking about a number that does not.
Obama put all of the bush/cheney war debt back into the budget where it always belonged. Bush/cheney hid all of their debt off budget in an effort to fool those with weak minds.
This will never happen, its just 11th hour doom and gloom....the gub'ment got the printing presses and Obama got a big party to throw come the New Year!
Wish I could agree with you, but I can't. The GOP morons in congress want everyone afraid that this will happen if they re-elect Obama. They hope we will elect Romnuts out of fear of what will happen if we don't. And that's not going to work, so they have no incentive to make a compromise. They will hold out for too long and we will all be screwed. And the GOPers just don't care - that's the amazing part! They would rather sink the country than compromise.
Bin, when you idiots elected Hussein, you sank the country. Under his leadership (what a misuse of words), our country is going to collapse financially.
Wow, Bin, speak into the microphone and tell us how you really feel! GOP morons and Romnuts: name calling really makes me want to carry on a meaningful discussion with you.
Why is it that liberals start calling people names when they run out of anything positive to say about their boy? Of course, with a record to run on like his, two posts and all you have left is name calling.
Off the cliff! Let the republicons march themselves off the cliff. They have nothing positive to offer us tax paying Americans. You know those of us who work and pay payroll taxes. We own 2.5% of America's wealth and pay 20% of the taxes. Business pays just 9%.................
This is just more fear and smear from the RWNJs. Let them go. When they are done with their party over country pledge to Emperor Norquist, then we can work together for America.
Rather than mouthing party rhetoric, perhaps you should do some research. What percentage of the populace pays the majority of the taxes? Hint, it ain't the 'poor' folks.
Do the math. Those of us with 2.5% of the national wealth (that is 50% of us) pay 20% of the taxes. Those with 97.5% of the wealth pay 80% of the taxes.
Who is getting the raw deal?
Math only works when you use the real numbers correctly.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
It really is not so much the the tax increases which are the "fiscal cliff" that everyone is talking about, it is the automatic budget cuts, the "sequestration" which will likely cause the economy to go into recession.
The very real cuts will have a direct impact on employment. Employees, both in government and contractors, will lose their jobs. Government does create jobs, both in government and in the private sector.
IMO, let the tax cuts expire, let the other cuts happen. We'll recover, eventually, and in the mean time, the deficit will be reduced. Its all about the deficits now, right GOP ?
This proves that we would have been better off with no tax cut than where we are today. (01/2001-01/2013) just something to think about.
Unless you've built a time machine, so what? Why waste your time thinking about what you cannot change?
Booty007,
No it does not. It proves that even when all of the tax cuts expire we would still be short by 1 trillion dollars at our current spending levels.
So do we have a spending problem or a revenue problem?
Subnormal, to answer your question, we have both: it all started when Bush Jr gave a huge tax cut that favored the wealthy as tax cuts do, but he also had to find a way to fund two wars, social security with an aging population, medicare and medicare part D, efforts to stimulate the economy through government stimulus, the bank bailouts including the auto industry and the massive build up of our troops. Tax cuts mean less revenue with increased spending leads to borrowing and that is where were at.
The way to get out of debt is to bring more money in and cut spending.
One problem though, Social Security, medicare, and medicaid are not funded by the government. We the people, fund it through payroll taxes; not our personal income tax. To be accurate, he had to find away to fund two wars and the bank bailouts. The largest part of the budget is defense, which covers the war and the massive build up of troops, but also supports the defense industry.
True. The defense industry actually makes up 54% of the budget when one adds in the debt payments and the costs of taking care of the veterans.
Let all tax breaks expire for the 1%ers. Keep the tax breaks for the rest of us. No harm done!
Over the Republicans dead party. They wouldn't go for that the last time and they won't relent on it this time either. We have to give Obama a Congress he can get the votes out of. There is a lot of work to do and the Republicans will not allow any of it if it means making this President look good or helps the masses over the few.
Democrats already put that exact bill to a vote, and House Republicans voted it down. As stated above, all Democrats have to do is wait until the tax cuts expire on January 1st and bring the bill up for a vote again.
It is important to point out that the 1% will still benefit from the tax cuts, for all income under the first $250,000. That is how the graduated tax system works, people pay a higher percentage on the higher levels of income.
why don't we just make people that got "A"s in school pay all the taxes, cuz you know, they are smart... or maybe make skinny people pay taxes, cuz you know, they are thin.
I don't see how making over $250k per year has anything to do with the tax rates, what is the reason that they should have to pay more?
Now, if I remember correctly 2 years ago the Bush Tax cut were only for the rich as per the Dems. In the last 6 month these same tax cut is now for all. So, what the Dems really want to do is change it so that only the rich pay a higher tax.
I'm in that famous 47% percent, however I'm not at war with people that are financially better than my family so as far as my take on this is a fair tax law for all.
No free stuff for those that are able to work.
Well, Sirie. For one thing those earning most money didn't get there all by themselves, unless they were born in isolation in the wild, raised and educated themselves, and they don't rely on anyone else in the world to make their money. Pretty much they print it at home. Second, as a nation we did much better under times when the rates where higher on the wealthiest. In fact, we are at an all time low for the highest marginal tax rates. Mid last century it was as high ast 70%. Now you have Mitt paying an effective 14.1%, and that's after he voluntarily paid more than he owed (to look good during the election).
so what are you willing to give up. During those same times we had child labor, sweat shops, huge pollution problems and very slow economic growth.
We also did not have much of a middle class.
You know what the old saying is, it takes money to make money. Well it also takes people making money to pay taxes. If we take away peoples abilities to make money, we also take away the ability to pay taxes. What do we need all of these tax dollars for?
notrocketscience-503001
Well, if that was so great, let's just tax the top guys @ 100%, and lets continue the spending like drunk sailors!!
Congress knows that a flat tax would actually gain them more revenue, it would be fair, however they don't want that now, do they?
America needs to vote the Republicans out of all legislatures to return to financial sanity.
A Republican Congress is incapable of governing for the good of the people because they are busy stuffing their pockets.
* Anyone But A Republican
sirie - a related question. Do you have a problem with Repubicans in Congress signing an oath to Grover Norquist not to raise taxes? They were voted in by their constituents but sign an oath to someone who has never held an office. Aren't they supposed to take an oath to our Country and their constituents? Why would anyone sign an oath to this man?
Republicons do not care about America. They only care for their masters, the aristocracy like the Kochs and Adelsohn.
miklkit: You really need to re-read the article. Everything you post doesn't make any sense.
Then you are delusional. There is a big difference between average and median income.
Average income is around $51,000 a year while median income is around $26,364 a year. How much difference will most Americans see? Very little. And what will our tax increase go to? Social Security. That is our retirement plan.
What will your tax increase go to? Cutting down on our national debt.
Sounds good to me! But you republicons would rather see us all go off a cliff just to make Obama look bad. Go for it. It is a lose-lose deal for you and a win-win deal for America.
Hmmm, at $500 billion in annual tax revenues, we would still run an annual deficit of about $500 billion but would essentially start reducing the accumulation of debt. Then there are the automatic spending cuts that go into effect on January 1. We don't mind when we tell the Greeks to suck it up and raise taxes and cut expenses. I would think the Right would back the fiscal cliff. No, wait a minute. The Right only wants to lower taxes and cut Medicare and Social Security. Really concentrate the pain on the Middle Class.
If Obama wins and I were him, I'd wait for the Republicans to put something on the table and blame them if its is not a balance proposal that I could sign into law. Remember, Obama is not running again, so he has nothing to loose by vetoing a biased bill. And remember, the public is willing to back a balanced approach. As for the Right, their only hope is for Romney to win.
Blame blame blame. Is that all you can come up with as a response.
As a full time working person I would be okay if the payroll tax were to go back to 6.2%. I have no problem with paying a little bit more(actually just going back to what it was before the disastrous Bush tax cuts) to help our country out.
Obama/Biden 2012
I do not do this very often..
BUT you are a blooming idiot who shouldn't even be voting. Obama lowered the SS ( payroll Tax ) not Bush.
Lets also point out that the payroll tax reduction thing was not a tax reduction at all....It was defunding of the SS.fund..so that SS will be insolvent that much earlier.....and yes, it was obama acting stupidly pretending that it was a great favor for the public..
AlaskaGirl, I love it when I see people wanting to donate their cash to the US. Go ahead. You don't need a tax increase to do it. Look up Gifts to the United States.
J.A. - Stinky (BO) does best when he IS acting stupidly.
Well, f**king excuse me for confusing the payroll tax cut, which I know that Obama did, and the Bush tax cuts. You people are something else. And, San Diego, I merely was voicing my opinion that as an American who is willing to help her country out I would have no problem if the payroll tax cut was not extended. Again, you people out there who are claiming to be "so patriotic" are a bunch of hypocrites. You can always tell what party a person stands with when the mere mention of not extending a tax cut gets such a vile and vulgar response. Bush never should have made those tax cuts 10 years ago, which were supposed to be temporary to begin with. Now, you leeches are used to that it would be like trying to pry your precious gun out of your hands to stop the tax cuts, not to mention the payroll tax cuts.
Did you know that the bush/cheney tax cuts cost more than the Iraq Abortion? It is true. Together they are the main source of our deficit. The Iraq Abortion is over at least, but the debt for it is still being paid.
Off the cliff! Call the republicon's bluff.
If something doesn't happen, we will see a double dip recession. As most of Americans are already watching our spending anyway!
We came out of the first dip? Considering that the jobs situation hasn't gotten any better and inflation has already set in, it sure hasn't felt like it.
number one reason for inflation high deficit = lower value of the dollar. if you want to turn inflation back you need to lower the deficit. currently at this point in time the only way to do that is increase taxes, and lower govt spending. we dont do this fast we will crash no matter what else we try.
Congress could well ignore the fiscal cliff much like other bills they passed but chose to ignore. Nothing happened.
THis everybody's fault Republicans, Dems, and the Preisdent because all refuse to work together to get things done in less it's something in it for them. The reason the President is mentioned as being at fault is because he felt that he could get them to work with him without giving them something in return ( i.e kissing the asses) and because of this he hasn't gotten as much done as he needs to turn the economy around quickly enough.
Jeffery the president propsed a budget of cutting 2.5 dollars to every 1 raised in taxes the republicans and the Grover Norquist pledge no taxes under any cirmstances are mostly to fault they want all cuts and no taxes.
Obama 2012
Jeffrey...
The economy cannot be turned around. Many are experiencing a Depression, most a Recession. Only the the few Elite enjoy a booming economy they created at the expense of the Citizens.
I know it sounds like doom and gloom, but it will get a lot worse. It's the peoples unintentional fault of losing control of their government to a corrupt Political Class, and once realized, doing nothing about it.
We may have to repeat History in order to survive... 1776.
Actually, the President has given the tea baggers plenty in return. It is the tea baggers who don't want to give the President anything at all in return. Please remember that the President proposed a balanced approach to them under which there would be a ratio of $2.5 in spending cuts to $1 of increased revenue through taxes. This was no good to the tea baggers as they are dead set against increasing revenue through taxes. It has been shown time and time again that unless the President goes along with 100% of their demands, the tea baggers won't accept any proposals the President puts forth. In short, it is the tea baggers who refuse to give something in return and who refuse to work with the President. Remember, the tea baggers are beholden to Grover Norquist, who has not been elected by the people to speak for them.
Hey Geofour, the problem was the tax increases were to be right away, while the spending reduction were in the future -- bet those cuts would never had occurred!!
Too late for the President to submit a budget proposal that the Congress can vote on -- even the democratic-controlled Senate won't touch Obama's proposed budget. Just continue to fund the government with continuing resolutions. That way you can get increased funding due to inflation. Three % or so of a multi-trillion dollar budget is a lot of money. So the spending continues to go up and up and up!!!
Obama or the Democrats submitting a budget? Laughable. Why be responsible when you can get re-elected spending spending spending until China stops paying for our fun.
bckrd1: You are right! The republicons got into power in the House and nothing happened, and that is the problem. If the only thing those do nothing republicons do is march off the cliff we will all be better off.
miklit: Just in case you forgot. Right now 2/3 of our government is controlled by Democrats. Hello, Democrat pres. and Democrat Senate. Try asking "do nothing" Harry Reid why he's sitting on 30+ bills already passed by the House. In the House is 193 Democrats and 240 Republicans.
Better yet, ask yourself why you republicons have created exactly "0" jobs in the last 4 years, while trying to raise taxes on the lower income Americans and blocking every jobs bill sent to you.
In the last 400 days+ since the 2010 elections you have done nothing but block every real jobs bill while all of your "jobs" bills were social engineering like state rape with a "jobs" bowtie stuck on it. Your avowed goal is to destroy Obama's Presidency and it matters not to you whether you also destroy America in the process.
You forget the effectiveness of you record breaking filibusters. Why? You passed a law giving big tax cuts to corporations that export American jobs when you controlled the government. Then you blocked the Democrats when they tried to repeal that anti-American law. First in 2010 and again just last July. Tell us again how Democrats control the government when you filibuster everything we try to do.
Actions speak louder than words, and your actions scream that you hate America.
The greedy get greedier and the poor get poorer!
Help me understand why it is greedy of me to want to keep the money I earn but not greedy when the government takes my money and gives it to someone else? Help me understand why it is not greedy of the government to continue to spend billions and billions of dollars that we don't have, bankrupting the nation's children for the next 100 years. I am happy to pay my legally obligated tax load in order to support the functioning of the nation. All I ask in return is that the government be fiscally responsible with the money we give them rather than insatiable pigs at the trough.
Yep.. That happened under Obama...you should vote him out...
joe Mike and Mike, no one could explain societal protection as opposed to personal greed to either of you.
so joe the govt increasing taxes and using that to pay off our debt while cutting spending is giving the money to someone else? explain how that is?
Eric,
there are no plans in any budget that i have seen that would even start to pay off debt for at least another 10 years. Even if all the tax cuts expire we are still short by close to a trillion dollars a year. So how do you get paying off our debt out of that?
Ron Paul had the plan but people where to stupid to push for him.
time to write him in.
Ron Paul is not running. Get over it. any vote not for Romney is a vote to continue with Obama and if he wins another 4 years you will not want to live here.
Good! Raise taxes on everybody. Then the 47 % might actually shrink a bit. It's different when you're spending your money as opposed to funny money that came from someone else. Could actually see a rise in responsibility. Naahhh!
Bobmike...
You are the perfect example of the intentionally 'Dumbed Down' generation. The Federal Income Tax Law, along with the IRS and the Federal Reserve Act are unconstitutional to begin with. Educate yourself and then think for yourself.
Every American with any common sense knows we we've been had. Yet, they do nothing about it except complain, and continue to support the corrupt 'Washington Establishment'. Cowards!
I'm a lawyer. Please explain how income tax and the IRS are unconstitutional. And follow your own advice by thinking for yourself and educating yourself. Because honestly, you are completely wrong and parroting some conspiracy web site.
Clotho - they are only unconstitutional in deluded, unthinking minds. Our tax system is stupid, ill-designed, ineffective, wasteful, stupid, corrupt, did I say stupid, but nonetheless, legal. But having been designed, for the most part, by lawyers, what can we expect?
Well I know this isn't kind but with all the Joemikes and bobmikes and mikes spouting propaganda, it shows the under educated problem we have in this country.
Clotho "I am a lawyer." My condolences.
' ...that would raise a huge sum of $500,000,000,000.00... which could pay for most of Medicare for a year?'...
Don't they mean for Foreign aid and the Military Industrial Complex?
Come on guys .....Is this a priority right now? ....I mean there is an election coming up ? Whats more important ?
Since Obama has not passed a budget in 4 years, there is no indication he'll be able to pass one by Janiuary. Get ready for anopther Obama middle income tax increase when he lets the Bush tax cuts expire. (In case you forgot, the other middle income tax increase is the tax on those who don't buy insurance under Obamacare) an estimated cost of $4,200 per person or $9,500 per family, OR pay a TAX of $695 per person or $2,085 per family.
So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Just another in a long list of broken promises.
Vote your future in 35 days.
Since Romney said he won't balance the budget until the end of his second term because to do it now would harm the economy, what is your point? Ok for Romney not to do but terrible because our President hasn't. He criticizes and yet says he would do the exact same thing. He does that a lot by the way.
He hasn't broken as many promises as you would like us to believe. Also Congress gets credit for a lot of those "failed" promises. I believe it is called obstruction.
Before you run to embrace Romney, ask yourself about your values and morals and then ask how you can support a candidate that lies. Not little white lies, but big, bold, bald-faced lies. What does that say about someones ethics and character? Nothing good. He doubles down on the lies too. That should say even more. I would run away from Romney not toward him.
bckrd1 - Here's my prediction, Obama's budget will include a tax on the "wealthy" the house will reject it, and Obama will say "I tried to pass my budget, but the Republicans blocked it, so now the Bush tax breaks will expire and all of your taxes are going to go up." That way, he can say that he didn't raise your taxes, the Republicans did. Bottom line - Obama wants more tax revenue, and he really doesn't care who it comes from.
Romney will pass a budget, and will extend the Bush tax cuts.
You decide in 35 days
Can -
Actually, I don't think it will get any votes from democrats either - his last 2 or 3 haven't.
Can you spell Socialixm.... can you list all the socialist programs we have in America today? Can you make some statement that has actual facts behind it? Can you see that the Republicans are just as happy to see everyone's taxes go up but don't want to be 'responsible' for it?
The Repupublican Tea Party Congress is a product of the W Bush adminstration. Bush destroyed this country, and this Congress helped him do it! They have done noting anc contiunue to do noting and it smell's like a cess pool! The President has offered to work with them over and over again. Romney backs this Congress which includes turning the VA, Medicare, and Social Security into prviate services that will run those who have it or will have into to death and poverty ! How about us start the cutting at the source with cutting Congress and The Senates healthcare and Retirement, plus run their pay also? That will take care of it all!
I love how Obama created a super committee that everyone knew would do nothing. He created a fiscal cliff so dangerous that no one would every dare walk towards it. So what do we have through his weak and devisive leadership? Decisions that will be made by a lame duck Congress (or not) and full steam ahead toward the fiscal cliff Thelma and Louise style. And people will vote for him?
Lemmings being led off the fiscal cliff......
If Obama is re-elected, everyones taxes will go up on January 1.
Thanks Obamba. Thanks Congress. If Obamba gets re-elected I'll quit my good paying job for an entitlement. (before he spends all the money). Congress can't function as it is. They couldn't organize a rock fight. It will take a lot of elections to weed Congess.
We cannot forget that we must clean out both Houses. The Dems have had the Senate for too long. As for the Congress - all those Republicans who have not been doing the job we elected them to do must also say "sayonara, y'all". They are not immune. So forget all the stupid polls, which are slanted anyway, and get out and vote on Nov. 6. We need a big change but we won't get it if we don't vote. Romney/Ryan 2012.
One other thing. Don't let the debate fool you. If Obama wins it, it's no big deal. Remember that Reagan lost his first debate as did Kennedy.
BillyD73 - All those words you're throwing around are just so much hot air and baseless. Back them up with facts.....you can't because they're all lies. I will agree with you on one thing though - All the politicians should give up their top of the line healthcare and go on ours. But Pelosi and Reid saw to it that the politicians are exempt Obamacare. Now wasn't that nice of them.
Joan: FYI 2/3 of our government is controlled by Democrats. We have a Democrat president and Democrat Senate. This so called gridlock is all because the Democrats would rather make all the decisions like a King rather than a Democracy. All one has to do is look at the vote for the ACA. Not one single Republican voted in favor of it but it was passed by Democrats anyway. So even though the American people voted in all those Senators and Representatives, Republicans really don't have a voice unless you're Democrat.
Our gov is controlled by Democrats. Funny. Tell another before that gets cold. Right now it is held hostage by some do nothing, except what I want, teaparty nuts. And this problem is caused by George Bush who wanted to give people back their money. Well he did now the children or the grandchildren are going to pay for it because we couldn't afford it. The do nothing teapartiers haven't figured that out yet. Tax cuts for the rich only make bigger savings accounts for the rich. And many times in "investments in other countries" It increase the debt for everyone and does not create any jobs or we would have plenty right now. Come on republicans use your brains!! Besides those tax cuts could have drove us straight to the cliff. Boy was Bush a failure! And anyone wants that back? What do they feed you? TAxes are to keep our country working literally and figuratively. To do what Bush did is criminal and now to act like the republicans are and trying to blame the Democrats iscriminal too. What do you gain if you hire all republicans and it drives our country down a big rat hole? What?Misery!
to Joan: Clean out both houses and replace them with teapartiers who can really drive the country into the hole? We need to carefully and honestly choose some good senators and house members who will care about our country instead of their party and will do the hard work that needs done. It is not driving the credit rating down, insulting all the women and trying to take our country back to the 40s or 50s. And some want to put one of the worst ones in line for presidency - aka Paul Ryan. He just needs gone and out of politics so that he can read up on his favorite writings of Ayn Rand. How do these people ever get elected in the first place. Answer a greedy party who only want republicans inoffice. Just play what they say. Who do they think they even are. Most of them are not qualified to even wipe the rest of our feet. Instead they want to run our country. That is why it is in the shape it is or was at the end of 2008. Duh!
While we are at it, lets take away the lifetime tit the congress and house are on. Make them earn it just like the rest of us do, by working, not by making the rules as they go along. Abolish this insanity now!!!!!! No work, no pay, no more lifetime pay for worthless scum that they are.
The lackadaisical, gosh and by golly manner in which this United States Congress conducts the affairs of the nation is obscene.
No No No .... you don't get it ......This is the kick the can and point the finger game....
The lackadaisical, gosh and by golly manner in which this POS potus conducts the affairs of the nation is obscene.
This is the do nothing republicon House that has done nothing but obstruct all attempts at progress. They own the worst record for 60 years.
Perhaps like in Rome, they should play fiddles!