Be my guest, what other Congressional act has harmed this nation more since 2002 than the vote authorizing the president to start an unnecessary and costly war in the Middle East. Take your time, the graves of the men and women who died in that wasted effort aren't getting any colder than they already are.
I would say Obamacare, if not repealed, will do more damage. combined with the Stimulus, too, which helped ensure that we would still be in a recession two years later. Despite Pelosi's best efforts, it's looking like we will see a positive return on the Iraq war; not so much for those two programs.
a couple of quick points on Pelosi's claims
1. the notion that this woman gives a fig about the deficit is ludicrous. what - 5
trillion added since she picked up the gavel and passed 'pay-go'? this is the woman who lambasted Republicans for claiming that we should
pay for unemployment benefits? This is the woman who presides over the body responsible for spending bills; and our projected deficits
according to her plan, according to what she wants to happen over the next 10 years currently stand at what again?
2. the notion that raising taxes on those making more than 250,000 will somehow help the country is equally ludicrous. for a quick demonstration of how this works; go back through ya'lls posts and replace the word "rich" with "employers" so, for example
Chappy said:
Pelosi rightly points out that wasting $700 Billion on the wealthiest people won't bring us economic prosperity
is actually
Chappy said:
Pelosi rightly points out that raising taxes by $700 Billion on employers will bring us economic prosperity
as a group, these people are still trying to figure out what gargantuan costs are going to be imposed on them by Obamacare. They are living in trepidation that the EPA is going to pass it's own version of Cap and Tax and send their costs skyrocketing. and now you want to increase their taxes......
and that is your
plan for getting them to hire more?
3. (related to point 1) The simple and unfortunate fact is that the 700 Bn you are claiming is scored
statically; that is, not taking into account how people will actually respond to higher marginal tax rates. scored dynamically, and the result is very different, and here is where we should let the states serve as the labratories of democracy; the recent history of several states who have tried to pass a "millionaires tax" bear this out.
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it." One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.
and the story is similar elsewhere. whenever you create a powerful incentive structure for those with higher incomes to expend a great deal of money and trouble avoiding taxes, they will behave like
This Guy:
Politicians like to talk about incentives -- for businesses to relocate, for example, or to get folks to buy local. After reviewing the new budget, I have identified the most compelling incentive of all: a major tax break immedi ately available to all New Yorkers. To be eligible, you need do only one thing: move out of New York state. Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple of simple things -- registering to vote, changing my driver's license, filling out a domicile certificate and signing a homestead certificate -- in Florida. Combined with spending 184 days a year outside New York, these simple procedures will save me over $5 million in New York taxes annually.
people will change how they are compensated, they will change where they are compensated, they will change
when they are compensated, all to avoid taxes; and the higher the rate on the higher the income, the higher incentive they have to do so. taxes can be high, taxes can be low, but revenues tend to average out at about 18-20% of GDP; because people find ways around them. now, not all of those bringing in above 250,000 a year are going to have the resources to do this; the vast majority of that demographic are small business owners. so instead, the burden of this tax increase will shift from the true big earners - who have the resources to find ways to avoid it - to the small business owners who are just over the line. As I've told you people repeatedly; you are aiming at billionaires, but you are hitting small businesses, innovators, and the people who create 70% of America's new jobs.
4. the likelihood is, however, that the effects of this tax hike will not necessarily be revenue negative. there is a possibility that it will be revenue neutral (similar to how the death tax ; which is similarly aimed at the uber rich and similarly merely has the effect of causing them to spend resources avoiding the tax while landing on family farms and family businesses; destroying wealth and growth), but my WAG would be that it would be slightly revenue positive.
even then it will not prove a serious help the deficit, for the simple reason that deficits are
spending driven, not revenue driven[/url]. revenues went
up during the Bush adminstration. revenues from the
wealthy went up during the Bush administration. the
percent of revenues raised from the rich went up during the Bush administration. yet still the deficit climbed; especially in those last two years when Speaker Pelosi was in charge of producing the budget. why?
because spending exploded faster than even the increased revenues could keep up.
SO, to recap: the claim that this will reduce the deficite is highly questionable, and the intent to do so even more so. The effect will be to reduce employment and possibly even net revenues.