GroverMy point was that the Ryan plan actually made progress towards
reducing the deficit. I don't think Obama personally cares about lowering
the deficit.The best plan I've heard of is called the "one
cent solution" which annually cuts the federal budget by one percent. Not a
fake "baseline budget" cut, but an actual one percent cut in every
program and agency annually so that by 2019 more or less we return to the
traditional 18% of GDP. Right now we are in the low twenties. We are wasting
time thinking that new taxes will balance the budget. The hoped for revenue
will come no where close to bridging that gap.When you drive, you
really only have true control over the gap with the car in front of you, not
with the car behind you. In budgeting, you really only have control over how
much you spend, not necessarily how much you bring in. Let's be adults.
Let's live within our means.
LDS Liberal. The current GOP is no longer the party of Reagan. After all he
raised taxes when economic circumstances required on several ocassions. The
problem for the Republican Party is that they are now wholly owned by the Tea
Party. These fifth columnists have always been present but have recently
achieved real political power. They are Libertarian and John Birchers who do
not believe in national governance at all. Their political obstructionism
derives from their underlying philosopy that political compormise is inherently
evil. If you ever want goverment to work again, they will first have to be
removed from office in significant numbers.
Ugottabkiddn,What distorted logic tells you the repubs took us to our
current financial situation? Even WITH two wars, bush's
deficits were less than BO's. Bush had lower deficits when he had a repub
congress than when he had a dem congress, and BO has had lower deficits with a
repub congress than with a dem congress. But you never let silly little facts
like that get in the way of your hyperbolic and error-filled rants.Wall Street destroying main street – thank Barny frank (D) for that.
Old man; see comments from LDS? Lib, ugottabkiddn, joeblow,
pragmatist, maverick, truthseeker, and yourself for the DNC hate blurbs.JoeCapitalist,A frequent liberal poster said we should tax as high
as we need to pay for the programs in place, even though if we taxed them at
100% it would not be enough. They will never stop demanding more; that's
all they know; after all, all the money belongs to the government anyway (in
their eyes). And typical of the left (pragmatist) distorting what
you said to include the activity from whence the income sprang.
Joe Capitalist..you did in fact imply it by specifically calling out a
profession and the details of that profession. If you were making a general
argument then you should have said "a 39% tax rate is not fair, justified,
or called for..you didn't you tied your argument to the specifics of the a
given professsion and then didn't make any generalizations based on those
specifics. Say what you mean next time.
What has become of America when about half the people call names and demean the
other half because they want the other half to pay for the services that THEY,
THEMSELVES receive from Washington?This is nothing more than class
warfare. Those who think that anyone, rich or poor, should have their rates
raised while their own rate remains unchanged are absolutely wrong in their
thinking. We are all Americans. We all owe for the excesses of Washington.
You can demand that YOUR taxes be raised, but if you want your taxes
to remain the same while the taxes on others are raised, perhaps you can tell us
why you are so important that you should be exempt from shouldering your share
of the burden.
Strange Red: The Ryan budget did NOT eliminate the deficit (i.e. balance the
budget) in the ten years of it's projections AND he used a 5% growth rate
in for the economy. These are facts and not from the leftist media. Neither
party wants to balance the budget because they couldn't get elected again
if they did. People on the right say they want cuts but when specifics are
required no one wants to cut anything (except Big Bird).In your
world the only way government would work would be for one party to control both
Houses and the White House. Both parties have had that situation in the past 12
years and I hope you don't need the media to remind you of the mess they
both made. Hence, the Mayans were right after all...the end is near.
House Republicans are in a bind. If they vote for any tax increase, Nordquist
and the Tea Party will come after them. Polls show that a substantial majority
of Americans want a meeger 4.6% tax rate increase for the top 2% and will blame
House Republicans, not the President, if a compromise is not reached. But
Republicans do not fear losing their seat in the next election, but fear losing
even before then in the Republican Party conventions or primaries. Look what
happened to Bob Bennett, who was willing to compromise. Warren
Buffett laments that we now treat multi-millionaires and billionaires as a
"protected species." Americans are told that there should be "shared
sacrifice" in this difficult economy. That seems to apply to everyone except
the top 2%. And why would anyone take seriously Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reily
or Beck on this issue? They are all multi-millionaires themselves.
pragmatist: When did I say the rate should be based on activity??? I never said
or implied that it was ok for a minor league player to be taxed at 39%. Where
did you get that idea?I merely used the doctor as an example. The
top rate is too high if you are a baseball player, a basketball player, a movie
star, a CEO, a lottery winner, etc., etc..JoeBlow: Your correction
was right (partly) the $195K income level is only applicable if you file your
taxes as "Married filing separately". If the doctor did that, my figure
was spot on.As far as tax rates under Reagan, no one ever paid those
top rates. Tax shelters (the kind still available to Google, G.E., and others)
were widely available to everyone back then.If you want to really
compare Reagan and Obama just look at total federal tax receipts vs spending in
inflation adjusted dollars. That is how you compare apples to apples. Otherwise
you can play games with the tax code all day.
"and the top rate kicks in at $195K."Nope. The top tax
bracket starts at $388,350. Remember how job creation and the
economy boomed under Reagan?Well, lets look at his tax rates70% for 1 year50% for 5 years38.5% for 1 year28&
for 1 year.Now, one must realize that Reagan's tax brackets
were far lower than today (top tax bracket started at 55K vs 388K today.Reagans lowest top tax rate of 28% starting at $55K, is far higher than
Obamas proposed rate of $39.6 starting at $388K.Any way you slice
it, the Tax Rates under Reagan were significantly higher than they are today.And yet we created lots of jobs and the economy grew.Can
someone tell me how Reagan's tax rates created a great economy but rates
much lower under Obama are killing the economy?Still waiting to hear
this. It doesn't pass the smell testSolid logic would be
Joe Capitalist..when in the world...regardless of the rate..did we decide what a
tax rate should be on a working persons salary based on the activity it came
from? Based on your argument if I'm a baseball player who earns $300,000 a
year in the minor leagues, it's ok that my income is taxed at the 39% rate.
Pray tell which jobs should be taxed at the highest rate (regardless of the
rate) and which should be taxed at a lower rate.
Obviously most of you do not understand the role of the House and Senate. There
is no reason for the House to be negotiating with the Senate. And in case
you've conveniently forgotten, the House passed a bill for avoid the fiscal
cliff back in August 2012. The negotiating should be done. The Senate should
only vote "yes" or "no". The US House of
Representatives, is where all legislation concerning revenue is mandated
to originate. Article I, Section 7, of the United States Constitution reads:"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as
on other Bills."Budgetary financial matters are a responsibility
and purview exclusively vested in the US House of Representatives. So why
is Boehner negotiating with anyone outside that body,let alone the
Executive Branch, which only has the constitutional power of the veto over said
Wonder: ...and next year you will not find it unreasonable for their taxes to
increase from 39% to 43%. Or you will not find it unreasonable that the cap is
taken off FICA taxes. Or you will not find it unreasonable to stick the wealthy
with some other kind of 5% surtax.When is enough, enough?
@JoeCapitalist -- I went to law school. Not as much schooling as a doctor, but
still several years. So I guess I'm about as qualified as you are to an
opinion. And my opinion is: yes, if someone makes $400,000 a year, it is not
unreasonable for their top tax rate to increase from 35% to 39%.
Wonder: I never said every dollar the doctor earns is taxed at the highest rate.
I understand the "progressive tax code" about as well as anyone without
an accounting degree can.FYI: The progressive tax rates escalate
pretty quickly. You only need to make about $35K before you are in the 25%
bracket. Everything over $108K is taxed at 33% and the top rate kicks in at
$195K. So that doctor will be paying a very high "effective tax rate"
even though it is slightly less than 39.5%.By the time all the tax
entities get their piece of the pie, the doctor's slice is smaller than the
government's slice. He spent the 12 years in school. He owes all the
student loan money. He is taking all the risks of starting his own business. He
will be the one broke if his business fails.Is it really fair that
he makes less on his labors than does the government?
"After working 60 hour weeks all year, he manages to make $300,000."Well Joe, lets break this downHe makes $300k per year, but
probably has a family. Family = deductions = writeoffHe
bought equipmentequipment = business expense = writeoffHe
probably owns a house with a mortgagemortgage interest = writeoffIf he had ZERO deductions, his taxes would go up $2000.I have VERY
little doubt that this guy will not see a penny of tax increase.You
make the liberal point perfectly
A government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" We are
far from it.
DNC hate blurbs?Where?The only DNC hate blurbs I've
ever heard have all been from folks hollering, "I HATE the DNC and all they
stand for. I HATE liberals and all they stand for. In fact, I HATE everyone
who dares to think even a little differently than I do."
@JoeCapitalist -- I don't think you understand the progressive tax code.
The doctor doesn't pay that higher rate on all his income. He pays it only
on that amount that is above the next lowest tax rate cut off point. On
everything below that amount, the doctor will pay the lower rate. This is a
common misunderstanding and results in people thinking that if they earn a
little more money and get "thrown" into a higher tax bracket, then all
of their increased earnings will be taken away in a tax increase. Not so.
This nation is in the financial situation it's in because you, right winged
fanatics, have taken us there. You allowed your 2nd Bush to take us to war under
false premises without paying for them. You allowed your right winged Congress
to throw Medicare under the bus with Part D without paying for it or allowing
Medicare to negotiate prices. You allowed your right wingers in Congress to
obstruct any meaningful governing by obstruction that has not been seen since
1946 or before. You have allowed Wall Street to destroy Main Street causing the
greatest so called "recession" since the 30's and hence the tresury
essentially dried up. It is you, in cahoots with your puppets of plutocracy that
have destroyed the economy and you will soon pay the price because you
won't expect more from your representation.
Obama already has a track record of compromising with Republicans. He extended
all the Bush tax cuts in 2010. Republicans haven't
demonstrated they are capable of compromise with this president. Shame.Re:JCSpring/RpublicansKeep repeating the notion that half of
Americans are takers.It really worked well the last election.
We need to make every elected office one term only, so there's no
campaigning by elected officials, less need to be thick headed for ideology, and
maybe they can get something done for the rest of us.
Ben,You're wrong. don't repeat dem propaganda.The actual
story is BO would rather the 99% suffer a tax hike than lose his purely
political point of raising taxes on those who already pay the bulk of the
personal income taxes. Another error is to assume the money belongs to the
government in the first place.LDS? Lib-Reagan? O'Neal
would not be welcome in the dem party with their scorched earth policy of
negotiations. Reid's senate DEMS offered NO compromises and show NO
willingness to accept anyParty of "NO"!DemNOrats.No ideas, No solutions, No Compromise.Just, NO!JoeBlow,you also make the error of assuming it is the government's money. You
could tax the rich at 100% and it would not pay for all those programs. It IS a
red herring; there MUST be spending cuts.Redheaded stranger,Typical of LDS? Lib MaverickAlways had this problem
distinguishing between opinion and so-called news "reporting"?Old man,The posts here offer nothing constructive. Unless endless
regurgitation of DNC hate blurbs is somehow constructive.
All the liberals here want to believe that the 2% (it has doubled since the 1%
OWS days) are all just a bunch of fat-cat CEOs who do nothing but vote
themselves raises at company board meetings.Since as
"pragmatistferlife" pointed out - "it is a fairness issue", lets
throw out an anticdote for illustration.A new doctor just set up
shop. He just got his first "real job" after 12 years of post-high
school education (4 college, 4 medical school, 4 residency) and is saddled with
half a million in debt (all those years of schooling add up). He has to hire a
staff, buy new equipment, and try and recruit new patients to his practice.
After working 60 hour weeks all year, he manages to make $300,000.He
is obviously a "fat-cat" now and should be required to give 39.5%
(instead of just 35%) to the federal government in addition to all the other
taxes he must pay. This means that the government gets more of his money than he
does.It's only "fair". Right???
There are a whole lot of posts here that offer nothing constructive. Unless
endless regurgitation of hate radio blurbs are somehow constructive.
I always love it when the right attacks the "liberal bias" media. As if
Rush, Sean, and Foxnews weren't incredibly biased. You cannot support those
blowhards while complaining about the media being non-objective. With comments belittling 47 percent of the population, calling corporations
people, throwing 99 percent under the bus to protect the 1 percent, and saying,
"if you don't have a job blame yourself," the right hasn't
needed the "media" to make them out to look out of touch.Perhaps just perhaps, the right has lost touch with middle America? Instead of always attacking the media boogeyman, blaming Democrats, blaming
the poor, blaming the minorities, maybe the GOP should look at the mirror?
The comment made at 3:44 am is a perfect illustration of what I posted earlier.
They resort to ad hominem attacks and think that somehow they have made a point.
I don't know if such readers haven't heard the Republican response,
or merely a twisted version of it. Hopefully reasoned facts will beat out
schoolyard name calling.It is a simple matter of budgeting. The
federal government operates on what is known as "baseline budgeting".
Its budget increases every year no matter what. Agencies get more budget every
year no matter what. According to Wikipedia "Presently, the [automatic
annual] Baseline Budgeting increase is about 7%." So OF COURSE we are in a
budget jam because our GDP doesn't grow that fast. Senator Corker and
Representative Paul Ryan submitted plans to get the budget under control, but
were greeted by a cacophony of jeers by Democrats who think we can tax ourselves
into prosperity.It is simple mathematics. If you stop baseline
budgeting, and really, truly cut the budget by one percent every year, the CBO
projects that we will stop running deficits in five years. Any large
organization should be able to cut one percent from its budget.
This letter is nothing more than typical leftist propaganda: use hate speech and
red herrings to take attention away from the real issue.There is
only one person to blame for the fiscal disaster, and that person is Obama. His
efforts to wantonly tax away the wealth of hard working Americans to finance the
lifestyles of the lazy and slothful is nothing more than a thinly disguised
effort to buy votes for the Democratic Party. It is bribery, plain and simple.
He will not compromise with any who oppose this plan.
As you said."protect 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans from
the pain of a tax increase, we are willing to keep even more Americans from
experiencing an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts."It is not a
media issue. The message is not misunderstood. You have it exactly right.The problem, and the reason for the impasse is that the house members
have signed a pledge that they will not vote on ANY tax increase. It is clear what is happening. The GOP house will let us go over a cliff so
that they can then vote to decrease taxes and keep their pledge.Pretty sad that our politicians work this way.
Yup. And just wait until the GOP loses even more House and Senate seats in
coming elections and Hillary is elected in 2014.The GOP's
nonsense is killing the party. I think it's called political suicide.
"The G-No-P. No ideas, No solutions, No Compromise."Were is
the Budget, party of spend. Dems. Last one by the Pres. not one dem voted for
"Democrats stressed their unwillingness to make concessions on both income
taxes and the estate tax, and said they hoped Republicans would choose which
mattered more to them." Compromise by the Dems. Todays quotefrom the
article in the DN.
The Republicans can't negotiate with themselves because Obama won't
negotiate seriously. Hints of miniscule spending cuts with tax increases that
will only run the government less than 10 days and spending and debt increases
as far as the eye can see! Really folks, is this what you want and what our
country needs? Obama is a very good politician but a very poor leader! If he
wasn't a liberal even the press would agree! What will our national debt be
by the end of Obama's second term, $25 trillion, $30 trillion? The only
thing keeping the government from economic insolvency now are low interest rates
on our national debt. But what do the 47% care?
Our rhetoric comes out that way BECAUSE most media outlets are staffed by people
from the left. If the news editors pick and choose what part of the message
gets out, or how it is phrased then yes, it will sound silly. If instead
Republicans were able to explain how baseline accounting is what is bankrupting
our country, and that glibly raising taxes on one person never really brought
true prosperity to another then they would have a chance to win.Instead, the editors at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, yahoo, Huff
Post, etc. are able to say and make people believe that the Republican platform
is to take away birth control from everyone, arm crazy people with machine guns,
have rich people pay no taxes, and make everyone go to church. And the
ill-informed electorate believes them.Raising taxes will never, ever
solve our country's financial problems unless they are tied to real,
substantial cuts in spending. No person, family or organization can ever afford
everything that they want. If the Republicans could make that their message and
get voters to understand the problem inherent in baseline budgeting, they they
would every budget debate.
It appears the only legacy Ronald Reagan has left Republicans 30 years later was
to "just say no."While he orginally meant that slogan toward
the use of drugs in America, they now apply it to virtually everything
else!Here's to the Party of "NO"!The G-No-P.No ideas, No solutions, No Compromise.Just, NO!