Reply With Quote
I don't think its the same but I'm no economist. It gives them room to borrow more money, but that is about it. There's really no way around borrowing more money anyway. Well there is, but that is default and that strikes me as far worse.
Because it's exactly the same as saying "We don't need to raise the debt ceiling or borrow any more money...we will just print 1.4 Trillion dollars instead..."
I don't think its the same but I'm no economist. It gives them room to borrow more money, but that is about it. There's really no way around borrowing more money anyway. Well there is, but that is default and that strikes me as far worse.
I say the Democrats AND the Republicans.
Republicans "no new taxes of any kind" and Obama's "lets just tax those nasty rich people and their awful corporate jets" are both bum- ing stupid positions. There is not enough money there to make a substantial difference. It's just pure class warfare.
Time to suck it up, admit we are living beyond our means, raise taxes across the board, cut discretionary spending across the board, cut the military and our "world policeman" role, and raise the retirement age for SS and Medicare.
To be fair, I think Obama would go for an across the board raising of taxes. Probably not an even one, but none the less. I'm not saying the democrats are without fault, but in the areas of fiscal responsibility the GOP is far far worse, IMO. Their stance of no tax increases is a complete non starter.
Couldn't agree with you more.
And the Democrats stance of no "en lement reform" is a complete non-starter if you are serious about deficit reduction.
They don't have a stance of no en lement reform at all.
Where's this coming from? Something he said, or just a gut feeling? Because as far as I know Obama has never, ever, ever even hinted that anyone in the bottom 98% should have to pay an extra dollar in taxes.
What do you guys say about this. For 2011 we all pay 4.2% instead of 6.2% for Social security. What if we fix that rate and add a 2-4% Social Tax of all income. Now this tax would have no deductible. Simply be a strait percentage of all wages. We let politicians adjust this amount by a maximum of 1/4% per quarter.
I'm not for new taxes, but I say everyone needs to share in the pain of taxation. We need to stop having people who vote for politicians that promise them other people's money, and they vote for those politicians because it doesn't come out of their pocket.
Everyone needs a dog in the fight.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-08-2011 at 09:24 PM.
OK...so they might consider means testing Medicare...That's just more blatant class warfare. Cut the benefits on the ones that paid in the the most for their "medicare" and actually saved for their retirement?....
People who took ownership in planning for their future need to be punished.
Meh, I'm not going to get into a debate about hypothetical specifics. If you guys want to think the Dems are just as guilty as the GOP by all means go ahead.
Obama has bent over backwards to reach over to the GOP's outrageous positions so I find it hard to believe he wouldn't reach over to meet an actual sensible one. The GOP arguing for no new taxes gives him the ability to stay in a position that his base likes but if they were actually going to come with an across the board tax increase I think he would have to consider it seriously but I'm sure he'd want a large percentage to come from the top brackets. Really - no matter what anyone says - the bottom 50%'s taxes being raised is pretty much a symbolic move but I'm OK with it because I do believe in what it represents.
I sincerely hope you're right. Taxes do need to go up across the board. The fact that damn near 50% of households don't pay any income tax is ridiculous.
Obviously its just based on observations on other issues but I just can't find a place where Obama has been stubborn to the point of breaking down negotiations. Every step of the way he's caved and he's caved rather quickly.
This is actually true. Obama has been a very weak president. He hasn't even been able to lead his own party. He's caved towards some of the weirder dem positions and towards some of the rather non-sensical republican positions. He's even caved in to other countries.
In his own way, he's actually been a weaker leader than Bush, and Bush seemed to have been manipulated just about every step of the way. (NOTE: Not saying worse president, just weaker leader).
I think you overstate Bush's leadership. Let's be clear, Cheney had far more weight with congress and Repuiblicans than Bush ever could. Same with Rumsfield and everyone else. Bush was a relative newcomer and because of his cast he was able to do just about whatever he wanted. Republicans, for whatever reason, tend to vote the same way dpwm the lines more then Democrats. When you look at the parties, who would compare to a Cheney or Gingrich from the 90's? With a larger majority Reid and Pelosi couldn't pass a damn thing without tons of compromises.
I clearly implied I didn't think Bush was anywhere near a decent leader. He still looked like a strogner leader than Obama. Just both of them pretty much blow.
The treasury is not the Fed, nor vice versa.
My gut says this is an idea that sounds good at first hearing, but when you look into the details, is highly implausible, like most of Mr. Paul's ideas.
If it really were that easy, someone would probably have done it by now.
Living standards have arguably been flat or falling for close to two decades, and, given run ups in health/education, likely will continue that trend.
Also missing from this statement is an acknowledgement that all the companies these people do business with do pay income taxes, from the mortgage company to the landlord to the grocery store.
You seem to suggest that they do not help bear the burden.
I have more of a problem with the fact that the wealthiest pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than at any time in the last century or so.
Then fix that by removing all the tax breaks, rather than increasing the tax rates.
By raising the tax rates, you hurt those who don't get the breaks, and it doesn't affect those much who still get the breaks.
"damn near 50% of households don't pay any income tax is ridiculous"
Similar for all industrial countries. It a humane recognition that for a given country, there is a level subsistence expenses that aren't reducible.
Do you really expect a person making under $30K to pay income tax, as well as paying all payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes. When Warren Buffet and other hyper-wealthy pays 17%, what do you expect a $30K gross person to pay in income tax?
"removing all the tax breaks, rather than increasing the tax rates."
aka "tax expenditures". The Repugs absolutely refuse to remove tax breaks, since that, in their pervese world, is a tax reaise, which they have sworn never to raise in their campaign to destroy GOVERNMENT-IS-THE-PROBLEM
Our monetary system is re ed.Take funny money that I owe to myself and light it on fire so that I can lend more funny money to myself as I write it off.
I would agree, starting with capital gains. There are a massive amount of loopholes in the tax code, and it is quite time to fix that.
Simplify the tax code, and work towards a plain old flat tax.
One would have to work in some mechanism for preventing social engineering and favoring special interests through tax breaks.
Agreed, but what does that have to do with whether or not half the country should be excused from having to pay income tax?
There's no such acknowledgement because it's irrelevant. Income tax payers use the same mortgage companies, landlords and grocery stores that the non-income tax payers are.Also missing from this statement is an acknowledgement that all the companies these people do business with do pay income taxes, from the mortgage company to the landlord to the grocery store.
That's because they're not.You seem to suggest that they do not help bear the burden.
Can't pay a smaller percentage than 0%. Hence the need to raise taxes across pretty much the entire income spectrum.I have more of a problem with the fact that the wealthiest pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than at any time in the last century or so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
