homebrew,quit lying.recent CBI estimates show Obamacare
costing TWICE what it was originally pegged at. NO WAY it saves trillions.
Charles, The CBO said that the affordable care act, will save trillions over
time. What is it you dont understand? I thought you were educated. Quit Lying to
the american people. I know your employer tells you what to say, but who can
believe the fair and balanced lies told by fox.
Actually, the Buffet Rule has some merit, but it is being wrongly implemented.
The primary discrepancy high earners have is in the pay roll taxes they pay. A
simple method to solve this would be to remove the law ending that stops payroll
taxes at a certain income level. This would have little impact on the economy,
provide increased revenues to Soc. Sec., but has little political value in an
election year. So, we have the farce "Buffet law" promoted by the
Senate, politics over solutions has become the hallmark of the US Senate and
TekakaromatagiNewt and the repub house brought the deficit down
significantly in the late 1990s by controlling spending, not by increasing
taxes. The order of affairs you suggest is backwards; we should control
spending before we do anything on the revenue side.
Actually, if you really want to look at "facts", google CBO - Revenue
and Outlays as % of GDP. Align these dates with the various presidencies and
then lets chat about who are really tax and spend, and who is just spend with no
revenue to back it up.The only time things were right was from 1997
until 1991 when revenue was then again cut off, and spending just kept climbing
on its merry way. Same thing happened in 1982... revenue dove, spending
climbed. What do you really expect.None of these parties can
speak with an credibility except... and this is hard for me to say.... the
Gingrich and Clinton era. The rest of the time... it is all a shame with
speeding as percent of GDP far surpasses revenue as a percent of gdp. Clinton
and Gingrich... who would have ever thought.
Simpson Bowles was chartered by who? And the report was ignored by who? Lets
put the rose colored glasses away and realize neither party wanted to do
anything even when a bi-partisan solution was deeply researched and put forward.
Quit playing fancy with facts... it is what keeps us from ever getting to an
answer. So long as we sit here yelling "i know you are but
what am i" at each other.... we will get the exact results we expect.
Nothing.Republicans put forward only solutions they know the
Democrats will not go along with, and Democrats promote solutions they know
their Republican counterparts would not sign on to - not because they
aren't good ideas, but that politics is the main game now, not reducing the
budget.And we get more of the same.... blah, blah, blah.
Wait - Obama has addressed the debt crisis - just ADD to it!! Yes add a couple
trillion - no worries.
Why should we pay more because our politicians can't budget?
"What - me worry?" (Alfred E Newman of Mad Magazine)Yes the
classic dufus of Mad Magazine sounds like so many American's today - why
worry about the debt? 16 Trillion now and 20 trillion in 4 years. Who cares - we
just print more money - right?? Or we just borrow more from our Chinese friends
- right?? Or we start burning cars in the street protesting our bankrupted
entitlement society like Greece is today. Obama has removed the brakes on the
train and is accelerating it toward the edge of the Grand Canyon and the people
on board just think its fun to be going so fast!! I guarantee you the average
dope liberal on the street has no clue what is going on with the debt or the
consequences that are looming on the horizon. Not a clue. We will hit a tipping
point soon where interest rates will have to sky rocket - perhaps back to the
Jimmy Carter years again and then you will hear the howling and barking from the
clueless masses. Obama's answer? Spend more. Borrow more and tax more. Take
a long hard look at your kids because they will soon have no future!
First off, if what he says is true about raising taxes on capital gains meaning
less investment and job growth, wouldn't that mean with the present tax
rates job growth should be booming, as well as investments? The " job
creators" arent creating jobs now, what makes you think they all of a sudden
will if tax rates don't go up?Second, if we want the debt paid
down. It will cost money. It can't all be cuts. If I max out all of my
credit cards, I can't just say, well, I will cut my grocery spending and
not go out to eat and that will take care of my problem. The Bush tax cuts need
to expire, as well as cut spending, then we will see the deficit come down.
Fixing the debt crisis is easy. Make the rich pay thirty percent income taxes.
Let's make it fair, and the president can set the example. "President Barack Obama paid lower tax rate than his secretary". By Kathleen Hennessey and Michael A. MemoliTribune Washington BureauPublished: Friday, April 13 2012 9:50
More garbage from the man who wrote that we should have invaded Iran, Bush was
the reason for the Arab Spring, and that Obama was the cause for BP's leak.
Truly everyone has to be wondering why the Dnews continues to publish this
nonsense. Krauthammer has no credibility whatsoever. Has he been right about
Maybe Mr. Krauthammer can come up with a solution to auger the clogged toilet in
Washinton and put more burden on working class citizens. Show me a corporation
that pays 35% and I'll show you a CEO that is soon to be retired along with
his CFO. Get serious here. Get Americans back to work with good paying jobs and
you're on the way back. Keep gouging and skimming off the top and it's
all over. As far as healthcare, the answer is in a single payer system period.
Anyone can identify the problem but it takes statesmen solve it. You can
criticize Obama all you want but we have 2 other branches of government that
have been AWOL since 2008.
"Redistributionism" may not help but restoring marginal and corporate
rates (and capital gains rates) to 50's levels would help plenty.
I find all this laughable. This arguing from the edges and extremes is exactly
what's gotten us where we are today. Pretending it has to be a choice
between only two politically driven solutions only shows this has nothing to do
with really finding a solution but rather winning political points.Let's tke "saving social security' argument. One side tells of
financial doom unless we means test or delay retirement until people are in
their 70s. And there are thousands like me who have all ready maxed out their
2012 deduction requirement meaning for 2/3 rds of he year I don't pay this
tax. Add to that 50 percent of my income comes from 'investments'
that I never pay social security taxes on, the are many ways to equalize the
load on the system. But lets keep pretending this about Rs and Ds,
that the other side is evil, and our only choices we have is picking from the
garbage these two self serving groups toss to the masses, and will keep being
stuck choosing the least bad option. This article is just designed to feeding e
same disjunction that is killing us.
Mr. Krauthammer concludes the first paragraph of this piece with the phrase
"this is not true." This, after he misquotes and misrepresents the
President. In fact, though, that phrase may be taken as a warning, because
nothing else in this column is true either.
I don't believe in the buffett rule. In fact buffett is fighting the IRS
over nearly a billion dollars in taxes that he doesn't want to pay. If he
feels so good about paying higher taxes, he can, so can obama. In fact obama
wrote off $48,000 that he and his wife gave to their children. The
administration has finally said that they know it really won't do anything
about the economy, but it's fairness. What is so fair about stealing money
from a person who has worked hard for it? Why don't I go over to my rich
neighbor and put my hand out and say, "Ok, I know you have worked hard to
make your money, but I deserve part of it, so give me half of your money."
Would you really do that? I guess money wise I'm part of the 99%, but no
one owes me anything! How dare I tell anyone that you must give me your money,
because I want it. The problem is spending. We have to cut it.
Well said Mr. Krauthamer and I might add the truth also. Obama is nothing but
smoke and mirrors. His ultimate goal is to drive the Country to Socialism
(communism) via DEBT!!!!
U.S. corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP are the second lowest in the
developed world. In Eisenhower's time corporate taxes brought in 25% of all
federal revenue. Today they bring in 6%, a 75% reduction.Reagan
taxed capital gains and dividends at the same rate as regular income, and is
remembered by Republicans for bringing us a booming economy. G.W. Bush cut
capital gains taxes and median household income fell during the rest of his
presidency. Job creation was the worst in 70 years.I don't have
the space to refute everything else that is wrong with this piece,
I am in favor of the Buffet Rule. But let's not be delusional. It
won't solve the problem as a principle for fairness. Apply the Buffet
Rule, and as soon as it is signed and agreed upon, then we go after entitlement
reform. Means test for social security, Medicare. Increase the retirement age
to 75 or 80, etc. etc. Quit pussy footing around, get serious.At
present I wonder if the point of the Buffet Rule is just to delay things. If
Obama can pitch the Buffet rule long enough and hard enough, he won't ever
have to actually say, "Ok, we are going to means test for social security
and Medicare and raise the retirement age."