So why don't we just raise taxes until the deficit goes away?
It's the same thing. And they are needed.
This from someone who just accused the Democrats of being obstinate :roll:Revenue increases, or tax increase?
Do you believe taking an extreme position on one far side of the continuum gives you some credibility on these issues? Your posts indicate that you certainly do.
yes and no. you can raise effective tax rates while lowering nominal ones in order to increase the incentives to engage in net productive behavior. In addition, the US has other potential income streams than simple taxation.
I agree. Although lowering nominal rates while raising effective rates isn't a "tax cut" in my opinion.
I'm shocked, truly SHOCKED by your desire to compromise given how much you're conitnually crying for the Republicans to do it.....
No, nor does any one claim that. However, cutting spending also will have a negative effect on the economy, the deeper the cut, the more negative the effect. And of course getting both sides to agree what is wasteful is not going to happen easily. Let me give you an example: how much of our military spending is wasteful? Some of it certainly is. But how much?
I agree. Although lowering nominal rates while raising effective rates isn't a "tax cut" in my opinion.
You didn't get my point. The income and wealth derived from those cuts in the 90s and 2000s is still there. Why isn't it being used to hire folks NOW? Because there's more to the economy than just being a function of how much cash business have on hand.
14th Amendment (unconstitutional to single out subsets of select groups).Here is an important question for Democrats. You are looking for painless taxes that will have the least effect on the economy, but will hit the top 1% and make them pay their fair share, right? Why aren't you clamoring for an Entertainers, Artists, Actors and Sports tax on people who make more than $250,000 a year and are not employers. Wouldn't that make sense? Tax Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, George Clooney, etc. How come that idea hasn't hit the Democrat talking points? They are all easily in the top 1%, and they don't employ large groups of people or produce goods and services that cause additional economic growth.
14th Amendment (unconstitutional to single out subsets of select groups).
And rich people are not significant employers, nor job creators. The more the right plays that dim-witted talking point, the stupider they collectively paint themselves.
Well, it's like you're saying in order to fix a broken leg we need to cut it off, but you'll compromise with me by putting a cast on half and cutting the other half off. Sorry, some things deserve an extreme position. As long as the government is spending too much, we shouldn't raise taxes. That's stupid. Once we get spending under control, if we still can't pay the bills then raise taxes.
Never said that. This is this. This isn't something else. This is this.
There are two sides to a budget. Let us deal with both together.
Extremists who only look at one side and take an all or nothing position would destroy this nation.
Never said that. This is this. This isn't something else. This is this.
There are two sides to a budget. Let us deal with both together.
Ok, let's try again. Let's say you are writing your family budget. You work 80 hours a week, but can't afford the payment on your Lexus. Do you buy a used car instead? Or lease a Camry and take on another 20 hour a week part time job?
By educating ourselves. Google "equal protection under the law" and give it a try.Whoa, wait a minute! Then how do we justify a progressive tax system [...]
Ok, let's try again. Let's say you are writing your family budget. You work 80 hours a week, but can't afford the payment on your Lexus. Do you buy a used car instead? Or lease a Camry and take on another 20 hour a week part time job?
After all, there are two sides to a budget. Shouldn't you deal with both?
Your example is fatally flawed resulting in a really bad premise. If I am already working 80 hours a week, it leaves no time for much else other than sleep and eating doesn't it. But that is not the situation we find ourselves in.
We cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003 and the result was debt debt and more debt. To use your line of thinking on this - we had two jobs but decided to give up one and now we cannot understand why our finances are in shambles.
Ok, so basically you are saying we are not stretched economically right now and employers can afford tax hikes without it affecting the economy. In other words, we are only working 60 hours a week and have time to take on another job so we can lease that new Camry instead of buying a used car.
What I am saying is what I have said: we must deal with both sides of the federal budget - INCOME and EXPENDITURES. And to avoid the political deadlock that has gotten us nowhere, we need to deal with both sides equally.
I think your bias is showing.Here is my theory: Democrats never wanted the super-committee to succeed. They came to the table with over a trillion in tax hikes in a recession, which not only is absolutely stupid, it is also a non-starter. But what have they lost? Now military spending has to be cut and they don't have to take responsibility for it. What about Medicare cuts? Those cuts are to Medicare providers. Not only do Democrats not care about Medicare provider doctors, but they view this as a way to continue to destroy our healthcare system so that they can implement single payer. But the best part for Dems on the super-committee failure is that Obama can run against a do-nothing congress in 2012. His biggest hope for re-election is that congress will have a lower approval rating and he can try to identify congress as Republicans, even though Reid still controls the senate where bills go to die. As if to prove my point, Obama has sworn to veto any attempt by Congress to stop these draconian cuts to military and provider payments. The committee failure is all part of Obama/Biden 2012. What do you think?
A little old, but you get the point: Companies hold record $837B in cash, yet won't hire workers - USATODAY.com Companies hold record $837B in cash, yet won't hire workersOk, so basically you are saying we are not stretched economically right now and employers can afford tax hikes without it affecting the economy. In other words, we are only working 60 hours a week and have time to take on another job so we can lease that new Camry instead of buying a used car.
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?