- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Poor TD would only make 1.5 million next year.
There is an episode of South Park called "Not A Big Deal" that reminds me of you, TD.
Obama offered a $4 trillion dollar deficit reduction that included $3 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in tax revenues. I think that is a reasonable compromise.
No, I support the 5% increase in capital gains tax rate. I'm saying there would be no negative effects to our economy.
You agree?
why cannot Obama just agree to spending cuts?
He did agree.......
there was absolutely no reason why tax hikes on a small portion of the voters was ever discussed in the first place.
Uhhh yes there were plenty of reasons.... Plenty of reasons...
none whatsoever, if the dems really believed that the government spent too much they could have offered to cut X amount from certain programs in return for the GOP cutting X amount from other programs. To try to argue that the "rich" get some benefit from spending cuts that no one else got and thus the rich have to pay more taxes to "contribute" while everyone else is merely contributing by suffering spending cuts proves
1) the rich don't benefit from government because cuts didn't hurt them but hurts everyone else
2) that all government spending-according to the dems-is necessary and for them to agree to cutting ANYTHING requires them getting more money from the rich to pander to people like you
Or maybe it just means that it's idiotic to cut spending in a demand-side economic slump. Possibly it could mean that the wealthy have actually prospered throughout the recession, while everyone else has suffered. That might provide a reason why one might look to the rich first. Or one might recognize that, in a demand-side slowdown, it's beneficial to the overall economy to provide relief to the middle class. And, if it must be paid for NOW -- as Republicans insist it must -- that pulling money from the one sector that is going ganbusters makes the most sense. Just some turtle food for thought.
To me I find this to be shocking.
There is a very good reason to treat all income the same. Quite simply, if you create a tax preference for one type of income over another you are distorting the market. You are creating a PREFERENCE for investment income versus earned income.
Yeah I heard all that rhetoric from BHO, the WH, Dems, GOP and all the media talking heads. I also heard how BHO was going to ‘open the books’ on the negotiations to validate all that was said concerning these numbers. To date I have seen no such information, please provide if you know where it is. I question the validity of these AND those voice by the GOP during the negotiations. You realize the annual CBO baseline budget includes a +/-7% increase in spending regardless of the projected revenue. All deficit reduction is scored against this and sometimes against the ‘adjusted baseline’ which assumes things like BTC’s sun setting, wars ending and such. $3/$1 does sound somewhat reasonable but the ‘devil is usually in the details’.
why cannot Obama just agree to spending cuts?
really?
when nearly half of Adults aren't married, and divorce or failure to marry the coparent of your children are the leading causes of poverty, why does this surprise you?
The only time I have seen spending cut during the last 30 years is under the Clinton Administration.
The only time I have seen spending cut during the last 30 years is under the Clinton Administration.
The only way we will reduce the deficit will be if the Democrats and the Republicans agree to both cut spending and eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, just as was done in the Clinton Administration.
Over the last 30 years tax rates have been increased for the middle class and cut for the wealthy.
And since all spending originates in congress, that would be Gingrich victory....Good job, are you converting?
j-amc
You know that isn't true.
Why do you repeat the same nonsense, over and over and over, again?
I know I've posted links showing this is completely untrue, to you no less.
Why do you perpetuate this lie?
So it was Gingrich's idea to raise the tax rates which increased revenue????
I think you know better than that....Is there no honest liberal?
j-mac
So it was not Gingrich's idea to increase the revenues which helped reduce the deficit under Clinton. That was my point.
Your point is irrelevant, fore my point came first, which you dishonestly chose to twist for your own dishonest purpose.
Now straighten up young man.
j-mac
LOL! You just can't admit that the only time in the last 30 years we reduced deficit spending significantly was during a Democratic Administration when taxes were raised together with cutting spending, can you?
You want to know why that is relevant? Because that is the only way possible to reduce such a large deficit.
Its historical fact Harry. Do you know what the capital gains and inheritance tax rates were prior to 1981???
There is no doubt in my mind that raising taxes will in the end be the only course that will pull us out of the criminal, massive infusion of fiat money that this administration has perpetrated on this country. It rivals Wiemar. Now, anyone with the most elementary education in how money works in a system like our knows that when you print money in excess of current demand of needed capital is to claw that excess back in to the treasury to get it out of the system in some way. Now that can usually either happen with inflation, or taxation. We are about to see both on a massive scale. Thanks Barry.
But, in this particular time we also need another component to the mix. Taxation will not achieve this alone. We also need cuts to spending, and I am not talking about baseline decreases that don't slow any spending at all, but real cuts.
Apparently, you have some hidden historical information, that no one else has.
Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?