Patterico's Pontifications

7/27/2011

The Boehner Plan, the Reid Plan, and tax hikes

Filed under: General — Karl @ 8:59 am



[Posted by Karl]

The CBO score for Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid’s debt-reduction plan comes short of its advertised spending cuts.  Indeed, overall, it fell further short than House Speaker Boehner’s plan (which is being rewritten, whereas I would bet Reid’s won’t be).  But for all of the media narratives about the GOP in disarray, I suspect the House will end up backing Boehner for lack of a politically viable alternative, even in the House.  Moreover, in terms of approach, it is the basis for a deal with the Senate. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin notes:

The plans are quite similar. Indeed, the best way to think about the Reid plan is that it is simply the Boehner plan with fake cuts (largely war spending) added on. Put differently, executing the Reid plan is the same as executing the Boehner plan and then adding an unrestricted debt limit increase on at the end. Since so-called “clean” increases are a signal to markets that the U.S. cannot address its fundamental problems, this is extremely dangerous and undesirable.

The other major difference is that Reid wants to kick the next debt ceiling hike past the 2012 election.  Moreover, Holtz-Eakin is a bit out of line on the potential for the Boehner plan to spawn tax increases:

[T]here is not a single dime in taxes. David Addington at the Heritage Foundation has argued that the Boehner plan “greases the way for tax hikes.” This is truly unhinged. The Boehner plan envisions a “select committee” of six Republicans and six Democrats that would require a majority vote — that is, seven votes — to propose entitlement reforms for an up-or-down vote in Congress. The six Republicans (and any Democrats who are not renting their brain from an amoeba) can easily stop any notion of tax increases. And there is simply zero chance that the House would pass such an increase if it did emerge over the next six months.

How Holtz-Eakin could dismiss this concern, mere days after the bipartisan Gang of Six proposed roughly $2 trillion in tax hikes, remains anyone’s guess.  This is not to say that defusing the debt bomb won’t ultimately require new “revenue.”  However, successful fiscal consolidatons have a much higher ratio of real spending cuts to tax hikes than anything the Democrats have ever offered.  Moreover, the right remembers how past compromises have traded tax hikes for imaginary future spending cuts.  The historical context explains why the lack of current spending cuts is a sticking point for the right, no matter how much the establishment try to bury that history.  It is true that the House GOP would likely reject any recommended tax hikes, but the Dems and the media would surely use them (as they tried with the Gang of Six) to try to split the GOP and paint the right as extreme.

–Karl

114 Responses to “The Boehner Plan, the Reid Plan, and tax hikes”

  1. and then adding an unrestricted debt limit increase on at the end. Since so-called “clean” increases are a signal to markets that the U.S. cannot address its fundamental problems, this is extremely dangerous and undesirable.

    I don’t understand why the media doesn’t largely repeat this fact. It’s really quite extreme and stupid to do this when one of (if not the) most important things to do right now is show we’re going to get spending under control.

    T]here is not a single dime in taxes. David Addington at the Heritage Foundation has argued that the Boehner plan “greases the way for tax hikes.” This is truly unhinged.

    A debt ceiling of infinity and spending increases that are astronomical not only pave the way for tax increases, they require them.

    Karl says

    This is not to say that defusing the debt bomb won’t ultimately require new “revenue.”

    There is only one way to pay the debt. Someone will be soaked into paying for every penny of this debt. There are hidden taxes like inflation, where gas doubles in price again because the government created a zillion dollars to lend itself.

    Granted it’s not really even possible to raise taxes too much over where they are. The economy will naturally collapse, so the revenue can’t really be realized. Still, someone will have to pay for all this mess.

    Politicians and pundits have pushed off the taxes needed to pay for their programs, while demanding yet more programs. Obama for example is insisting any tax increase in a debt deal not come into effect until after his final election. This is outrageous.

    It is cheating the American people, and I primarily blame the media for the hustle.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  2. “I don’t understand why the media doesn’t largely repeat this fact. It’s really quite extreme and stupid to do this when one of (if not the) most important things to do right now is show we’re going to get spending under control.”

    To the media, it is much less important then getting Democrats elected.

    Excellent comment, Sir.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  3. Since the White House has rejected Reid’s plan, so much for the lie that the White House keeps flogging that its the GOP that is stonewalling a deal.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. Seems like the WH has rejected everything, yet they either preside over a depression as a result, or they cave.

    I sincerely believe the WH thinks the American people are simply too stupid to understand this issue. They think they were going to preside over a horrible economy no matter what, and think it is relatively better to try to blame it on the Republicans refusing to raise taxes.

    Only it’s not going to play out that way.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  5. B-but the tax cuts for the uber wealthy

    /Yelverton and his socks

    DohBiden (d54602)

  6. It’s beginning to look like Boehner and Reid are in cahoots, both working to gift Obama with a debt ceiling increase without serious spending cuts and without a tax increase.

    The remaining sticking point is whether the debt ceiling is raised enough to get Obama past the election. As of now, it’s all about his re-election and little else of actual consequence.

    ropelight (782b33)

  7. Here’s a fair comparison:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/boehner-v-reid-proposals-compare-and-contrast-cheat-sheet

    Though as the writer notes, the player’s plans may look completely different by the end of today.

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  8. My take:
    Give the White House an increase in the Debt Ceiling, but only equal to the deficit in FY-2011, and then cap FY-2012 spending at 2011 numbers.
    If an Agency/Dept/Office/etc needs more funds, find them somewhere else in the Leviathan
    (guess what, Mr. President, allocating funds between interests is what executives do);

    Give the Progressives their wettest dream by imposing a 100% marginal tax rate on all income, and non-cash benefits, that exceed a total of $250K;

    Stand back and watch the Crony Capitalist Class that revolves around DC begin to consume itself!

    AD-RtR/OS! (8b55e2)

  9. GOP clown show proceeds apace:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60035.html

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  10. Give the White House an increase in the Debt Ceiling

    The debt ceiling is not like a credit card limit. It’s an artificial ceiling on spending Congress has already committed itself to. If you want to cut spending you need to tell the electorate exactly what cuts you want to make to existing spending commitments.

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  11. I cannot wait for 2012 election….getting rid of these House jihadists will be he best thing the country ever did

    timb (449046)

  12. spartacvs, nope. Again, you show your ignorance. The debt ceiling is not a ceiling on spending.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  13. timb, the Democrats are going to lose more House seats. They aren’t going to gain any. Between redistricting, and House Democrats resigning from sexual scandals, the Democrats should lose at least 10 more seats.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  14. Ed Morrissey is playing the Deguello:

    “Of the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling we have now, $4.5 trillion got added by Democrat-controlled Congresses since taking control in 2007. That corresponds exactly with the expansion in spending by Democratic Congresses over the same period…”

    He’s got charts too.

    ropelight (782b33)

  15. Who was taking about a “cut” in spending, I just called for a freeze on spending, giving the Executive the power to allocate resources among the various Departments within his Branch of Government.
    Then, whatever he does, he owns it!

    AD-RtR/OS! (8b55e2)

  16. how about a few modest cuts to get the ball rolling?

    close the Departments of Energy, Education and HUD at the end of the current fiscal year.

    pass a flat tax of say 8% that applies to everyone and everything: no non-profit exceptions, all churches pay, etc.

    no deductions, no loopholes, and everyone pays from dollar one, so everyone has skin in the game. layoff everyone in the IRS except for a few people to count the money as it rolls in.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  17. SPQR, I got 10 bucks says the TEA Party picks up 25 House seats in 2012.

    ropelight (782b33)

  18. 25 in the House;
    8 in the Senate!

    AD-RtR/OS! (8b55e2)

  19. I cannot wait for 2012 election….getting rid of these House jihadists will be he best thing the country ever did

    Comment by timb — 7/27/2011 @ 11:29 am

    yes, demanding no taxes is comparable to jihad. It’s practically another 9/11.

    LOL.

    I too cannot wait for 2012. You see Obama’s polls in swing states? He’s not even going to win Wisconsin.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  20. ropelight, that last big swing of that magnitude was 2010 in reaction of the Democrats’ overreaching on unpopular legislation. I can’t see that many moving. But hopefully, you are right and I’m wrong.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  21. SPQR, I got 10 bucks says the TEA Party picks up 25 House seats in 2012.

    From Democrats? Suicide primaries will very likely increase the teabagger caucus at the expense of more sane conservatives. But that can only be good news for Democrats, because the more the public gets to see what the teabaggers are capable of, the less they like them.

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  22. Dustin, people in Wisconsin are seeing the success of Walker’s work already. You are probably right, that Obama won’t take Wisconsin in ’12.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  23. spartacvs, the GOP bill to cut spending and pass a balanced budget amendment had 75% favorable polling. Your fantasy life is astoundingly devoid of any contact of the real world or the real electorate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  24. 25 in the House is my “conservative” prediction, and my expectation for the Senate mirrors AD’s numbers at #18. The TEA Party is tanned, rested, and ready for action in 2012!

    ropelight (782b33)

  25. the GOP bill to cut spending and pass a balanced budget amendment had 75% favorable polling

    Show your work!

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  26. The American people despise liars in high office and the debt ceiling debate is providing a clear and unobstructed view of Democrat duplicity. Voters are going to rise up in great anger in November and smite down the two-faced double-talking thugs who’ve hijacked our government.

    I know because my smokin’ hot wife said so.

    ropelight (782b33)

  27. US News reports on CNN poll of support among Americans for GOP plan. Question 23 had 66% support.

    Once again, spartacvs, all you do is show your ignorance and your dishonesty.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  28. You see the difference, spartacvs? I actually deal with this reality. I don’t live in your world, where Spock has a goattee.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. Spart has ignored a lot of arguments to spit out ‘show your work’.

    But it’s Obama shows government is failing. He’s the one who has to show his work to Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. All of which are turning redder every day.

    His style of argument might persuade the hard left, but it won’t work in the real world. You can’t shout down the truth.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  30. But it’s Obama shows government is failing

    Damn typo. It’s Obama’s own government that is failing, rather.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  31. Dustin, that’s because every time he has “shown his work”, we’ve actually shown how dishonest his links are.

    Since Yelverton projects his character flaws on others, he actually thinks the same thing will happen to us. Weird how it doesn’t …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. You’re right, SPQR. He’ll often link Raw Story, which appears to come up whenever a horribly dishonest shill is trying to have fun at the expense of an adult conversation.

    I can no longer keep track of whether these are all that Yelverton douchebag. It’s pathetic, but effective. I just know they are both unable to hold their own in a debate.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  33. If leftists couldn’t use lies and deception to smear their opponents, they’d be reduced to cat calls and poo flinging, which is of course among their preferred debate tactics as Yelverton so often proves.

    ropelight (782b33)

  34. I know because my smokin’ hot wife said so.
    Comment by ropelight — 7/27/2011 @ 11:53 am

    Yah gotta love those NASCAR preachers.
    Did you see the report that his daughter was rolling on the floor laughing so hard about this comment by her father, that she didn’t even hear him mention her and her sister?

    AD-RtR/OS! (8b55e2)

  35. AD, are you suggestin’ the little girl found her Daddy’s description humorously wide of the mark?

    ropelight (782b33)

  36. The Main Stream Media are performing their “gatekeeper” function that they learned in J-School. Keeping potentially disturbing information from their readers. To expect them to honestly report the news is to live in a fool’s paradise.

    Also, the CBO is still using the figures supplied by Congress on each bill and applying static budget analysis to reach what can only be financial junk.

    Between the politicians, the Main Stream Media and the Congressional Budget Office, the poor voter has little chance of figuring out what is actually happening.

    Michael M. Keohane (4f1258)

  37. US News reports on CNN poll of support among Americans for GOP plan. Question 23 had 66% support.

    Questions 14,18,19,20,21,22 & 24

    spartacvs (4576a2)

  38. Spartacvs, do you admit the fact that we are spending about $900 billion more each year than we can reasonably expect in revenues, based on GDP?

    Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c)

  39. Spartacvs, do you admit the fact that we are spending about $900 billion more each year than we can reasonably expect in revenues, based on GDP?

    What’s your point?

    If we cut any significant portion of that number in the current economic climate, what will that do to unemployment levels and tax revenues? We need a balanced approach to deficit reduction that seeks to grow GDP and revenues.

    spartacvs (4576a2)

  40. How much of my money should I be allowed to keep?

    JD (306f5d)

  41. Everything that’s left after paying your taxes.

    spartacvs (4576a2)

  42. What’s your point?

    You really don’t understand my point? I’ve only typed it here about a dozen times. Let me spell it out more carefully:

    1. What matters most in deficit reduction is the amount of revenue collected. Do you agree with that statement? If not, why not?

    2. The amount of revenue collected can be expressed as a percentage of GDP. (If you disagree with this, then you really aren’t debating in good faith.)

    3. The revenue collected as a percentage of GDP (I’ll abreviate this as R%) varies a bit, but for the past 60 years, it has averaged a little under 18%. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?

    4. The variance in R% has no correlation to tax rates. (This is empirically proven by the fact that R% has stayed close to 18% from the 1950s, when marginal rates were very high through the 2000s, when marginal rates were much lower.) Do you agree with this? If not, why not?

    5. Based on past history, about the most revenue we can reasonably expect each year is 18% of GDP, regardless of tax rates. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?

    6. Current federal spending is about 25% of GDP. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?

    7. Based on a GDP of roughly $14.2 trillion, the difference in federal spending and the most we can take in through taxation is about $900 billion. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?

    8. If changing tax rates will not materially affect R%, does it make sense to keep spending so much more than R% of the GDP each year? Is it possible to ever reduce the total debt if we keep spending so much more than we can hope to collect?

    Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c)

  43. For someone who claims to love facts, spartacvs sure doesn’t like to answer direct questions based on factual data.

    Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c)

  44. It’s legitimate for Congress to fight over whether to incur new obligations against the full faith & credit of the US. But Congress should never fight over whether to then honor those obligations. To do so is suicidal.

    spartacvs (4576a2)

  45. In other words he doesn’t deserve his money.

    Sod off.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  46. Taxes as a percent of GDP are at the lowest they’ve been since the 1950s (15%) and probably need to be up around 20% of GDP to support a fully functioning advanced industrialized society.

    spartacvs (4576a2)

  47. 20% is where they were when Bush the lessor took the oath for the 1st time.

    spartacvs (4576a2)

  48. 20% is where they were when Bush the lessor took the oath for the 1st time.

    That happened only after the economy was booming as a result of the tech expansion in the 90s, and has been achieved in only one year out of the past 60. 20% is not a figure we can count on. 18% is more rational.

    Now, I notice that you have dodged my questions repeatedly. Are you interested in facts, as you claim? Or do you just want to spout your talking points and ignore factual debate?

    Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c)

  49. Chuck – it does not want debate. It just spits out leftist pablum.

    JD (2da347)

  50. Do you enjoy proving how stupid you are, or do you do that by accident?

    JD (6e25b4)

  51. What does the linked chart prove JD?

    I’m genuinely interested to have you describe what you see.

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  52. <a href="” target=”_blank”>

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  53. oops

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  54. Comment by spartacvs — 7/27/2011 @ 2:28 pm

    As I have said before, spending above 18% of GDP is irresponsible, regardless of which party does it.

    Why do you continue to duck my questions, spartacvs? Do you want to engage in factual debate, or are you here wasting everyone’s time and Patterico’s bandwidth?

    Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c)

  55. You are not genuinely interested in anything other than spewing your inanity for the whole world to see.

    Hint, what happened in 2006?

    JD (6e25b4)

  56. JD

    Hint: in 2006-7 spending was on its way down.

    Chucky

    Why is spending above 18% of GDP irresponsible?

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  57. Okay, now you are just being silly.

    JD (6e25b4)

  58. Its hilarious to watch spartacvs/Yelverton copy things from websites he does not understand. Like the fact that Obama is spending quite a bit more than 20% of GDP in the budget he submitted … the one that was voted down 0-97 in the Senate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. This is just too hysterical! As usual, jd is getting pulverized by Spartacus. JD is incapable of having a debate without resorting to his usual name calling and juvenile taunts. Spartacus is calmly, and reasonably thrashing jd like a disobedient step-child. ROFLOL! That’s what Spartacus does, he libertates you by removing the scales of ignorance. Hooyah!

    chuckles (d9ad96)

  60. I think we should confiscate all earnings over $200,000. That would solve everything.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  61. Why is spending above 18% of GDP irresponsible?

    For goodness sakes, did you not read everything I posted?

    Consistently spending in excess of 18% of GDP is irresponsible because it means ever-growing debt.

    Now it’s time for you to answer ALL of the questions I have posed. Stop running from factual debate.

    Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c)

  62. The army of sock puppets returns.

    JD (6e25b4)

  63. chuckles is another of Yelverton’s lickspittle.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  64. chuckles, the Yelverton sockpuppet act only adds to the impression that consuming meth is the only thing Yelverton et al is expert a.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  65. Comment by JD — 7/27/2011 @ 3:22 pm

    See my comment earlier today on a three-step resolution of the current impasse.

    AD-RtR/OS! (8b55e2)

  66. Not only that playing WOW is another thing Yelvertons homies are good at.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  67. Yeah, chuckles is O-mah/Eli/etc… and now in moderation for sockpuppeting after saying that he would stick with Eli. Again, it’s not the dishonest and ad hom content, it’s the rule-breaking.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  68. spartacvs, spending above 18% of GDP is irresponsible because historical evidence shows that the Federal government can’t collect more than around 18% of GDP as revenues.

    This well known observation of historical taxation levels is just one example of the fact that you’ve no clue about macro-economics, Federal budgets, or really anything other than being a creepy little blog roach.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. -Comment by Stashiu3 — 7/27/2011 @ 3:30 pm-

    Thank you.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  70. Thank you.
    Comment by Machinist — 7/27/2011 @ 3:40 pm

    All part of the service. “House of Cards” was delightful, thanks.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  71. I ended up watching it again after mentioning it.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  72. Glad you liked it.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  73. Stashiu solves problem:
    O-mah Eli Chuckles and
    The Tamandua

    elissa (38dadd)

  74. The White House press secretary can’t answer any specifics about Obama’s supposed “plan”.

    Because there is no plan. Just vacuous talking points.

    Zero leadership from the Empty Suit(tm) but plenty of whining like a little bitch.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  75. SPQR:

    This well known observation of historical taxation levels

    is just you talking out your a$$.

    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_brief.php

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  76. Why would Obama need a plan to raise the debt limit? that’s the responsibility of Congress.

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  77. spartacvs, either you did not read the chart on that link carefully, or you are being dishonest.

    The chart shows total government revenue: federal, state, county, local. Then it breaks it down by scope. If you read carefully, the federal revenue stays at about 18% of GDP from 1950 to present day.

    Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c)

  78. spartacvs, you are an utter moron. The first chart is all governments, state and federal, in the US. The second chart in your own link shows federal revenue, shows historically that its around 18%.

    This is not the first time your own “refutation” link shows I’m correct. And it won’t be the last time because you are a f**king moron.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  79. This is the twit that keeps using sockpuppets to applaud his “asskicking” of others. Unbelievable amounts of stupidity.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  80. eli got hisself
    buffaloed in Buffalo
    ixnayed in LA

    ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f)

  81. Jan 2001, Fed tax revenues stood at 20%, the deficit was 0 and debt around 50% of GDP. If they had remained at that soul crushing level until today and Bush the lessor had refrained from his stupid and expensive war in Iraq, lowering taxes on his base without paying for them and the medicare drug benefit giveaway, then we likely wouldn’t be witnessing the current explosion of record deficits and debt he left in his wake.

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  82. Look the little obot is lying again.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  83. It’s legitimate for Congress to fight over whether to incur new obligations against the full faith & credit of the US. But Congress should never fight over whether to then honor those obligations. To do so is suicidal.

    Astonishing! A perfectly true and unobjectionable comment from the troll. What he is deliberately ignoring is that there is more than enough money coming in every month to make good on all the USA’s obligations, plus Social Security, plus the military. The problem is everything else.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  84. In Jan 2001 the deficit was much higher than zero, and we were headed into a recession brought on by the collapse of the tech bubble.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  85. Actually, the “Bush the lessor” is unintentionally funny. Does that make us all renters?

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  86. The numbers don’t lie Richard, only people lie, just like your namesake.

    spartacvs (2d9449)

  87. Spartacvs, you are still dodging my questions. Why? Are you afraid of debating with me?

    Jan 2001, Fed tax revenues stood at 20%, the deficit was 0 and debt around 50% of GDP. If they had remained at that soul crushing level until today and Bush the lessor had refrained from his stupid and expensive war in Iraq, lowering taxes on his base without paying for them and the medicare drug benefit giveaway, then we likely wouldn’t be witnessing the current explosion of record deficits and debt he left in his wake.

    Only once since 1950 has federal revenue topped 20% of GDP. Only once, and that was the result of a huge run-up in the stock market because of the tech bubble. Many people took their gains in 1999 and early 2000, which meant more capital gains tax coming in. Once the bubble burst and the stock market dropped, the gains were no longer being realized, and no longer taxed. Nothing Bush did could change that.

    In 2006 and 2007, with the same tax rates and Bush policies that you decry today, federal revenues were 18.2% and 18.5% of GDP, respectively. If Bush was such a disaster, why were federal revenues such a healthy percentage of GDP when compared to today?

    Finally, it’s utterly insane to criticize Bush for his unfunded spending while insisting that Obama continue to spend much more than Bush ever did. Bush’s spending was bad, but Obama’s is so much worse as to make Bush look almost reasonable.

    Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c)

  88. spartacvs, you just linked to an article convinced it refuted me … clueless that in fact it confirmed what I’d written.

    And you double down in more idiocy? You seem to have proven yourself too incompetent to run the drive-in at the local Dairy Queen.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  89. BTW, spartacvs, Milhouse correctly described the situation in January 2001. That you are too stupid to realize it is not a surprise.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. In Jan 2001 the deficit was much higher than zero, and we were headed into a recession brought on by the collapse of the tech bubble.

    Comment by Milhouse — 7/27/2011 @ 4:40 pm

    True. Yet Bush never whined that he inherited a mess. He did, but he was too busy getting at least some government off our backs. Then on 9/11, we suffered an additional financial catastrophe and took on enormous new expenses. Yet Bush didn’t whine he inherited a world of foreign policy neglect from Sandy Berger and pals.

    He just did his best to solve the problems that came up.

    Lo and behold, there are problems in the world that Obama has to deal with too, but instead of solving them, he plays politics with every stupid little thing and whines about it. He asked for a job and then whines that he got it. Like a janitor complaining he inherited a full garbage can, we need to rehire.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  91. Dustin, Obama whines about having to do the job that he claimed he knew how to do during the campaign, like Afghanistan. He’s just a whiny little bitch.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  92. moron O’Reilly
    MoveOn and TP moral
    equivalency!

    ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f)

  93. ________________________________________________

    Everything that’s left after paying your taxes.
    Comment by spartacvs — 7/27/2011 @ 1:30 pm

    Spoken like a typical limousine liberal—and one doesn’t have to be wealthy to be guilty of that type of two-faced, idiotic behavior.

    Heritage.org:

    In 1930, Herbert Hoover raised tax rates from 25 percent to a maximum of 63 percent, and Franklin Roosevelt boosted them to 79 percent later in the decade. The 1930s, to put it mildly, are not remembered as one of the American economy’s better decades.

    Taxhistory.org:

    Consider, for instance, the tax returns of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The returns were not released during FDR’s presidency, but had they been, they would have proved an embarrassment. Tax Analysts has recently acquired from the National Archives copies of the tax returns that Roosevelt filed between 1913 and 1937. And as a group, they reveal something striking: Roosevelt — a vicious and moralistic scourge of tax avoiders everywhere — had a penchant for minimizing his own taxes.

    Throughout his 12 years in office, Roosevelt was a frequent critic of Americans who tried to avoid taxes, even using legal means. “Mr. Justice Holmes said, ‘Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society,'” Roosevelt told Congress in 1937. “Too many individuals, however, want the civilization at a discount.”

    During his first term in office, FDR repeatedly claimed that he was exempt from the high tax rates on personal income that Congress had enacted — and Roosevelt had approved — in the revenue acts of 1934 and 1935.

    ^ About as laughable and sickening as the many people on the left who actually believe their side of the ideological aisle is where humaneness and compassion are located. Ha! And pffft.

    And notice how a former president associated with the right (ie, Hoover) and notorious for being on watch during the beginning of the Great Depression actually reacted in a way typical of most liberals. Or the mentality that rarely, if ever, is bothered by a new tax or tax hike.

    Mark (411533)

  94. “The CBO score for Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid’s debt-reduction plan comes short of its advertised spending cuts. Indeed, overall, it fell further short than House Speaker Boehner’s plan ”

    Nice lie you have there, schmuck.

    Harry Reid’s plan as advertised: $2.7 trillion
    CBO projection: $2.2 trillion
    John Boehner’s plan as advertised: $1 trillion
    CBO projection: $710 billion

    honest bastard (d80b5a)

  95. So Yelverton the incompetent shows up with a new handled.

    By the way, “honest bastard” who isn’t. $290 billion is closer than $500 billion.

    Which means that it wasn’t a lie, and you are not an honest bastard, nor a very smart one.

    Math, learn it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  96. Actually, “honest”, the Reid plans gets a LOT of it’s “savings” by assuming the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year, and last for ten years, and thus it’s “ending the wars” saves piles of money.

    The problem is, both wars are ending (as laid out in the plan Bush put forth, which Obama has largely followed), and neither cost “hundreds of billions” a year, ever. In fact, you have to combine several years to get to those levels.

    So his plan is, in fact, full of savings that only exist if the assumptions it puts forward (and by which the CBO is required to score it) are true. But they aren’t. So it saves very little.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  97. I’m feeling like the guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail fighting the Black Knight.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  98. While the adults are trying to work out a debt compromise, your tax dollars are funding a white house that is wasting its time playing beer pong and rick rolling people. Seriously, this administration will be a national embarrassment for the posterity.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  99. I would really like to figure out how to copy Aaron’s 7/14 cat facepalm photo.
    Stupid House Republican twits! Krauthammer is right! Enact cuts, raise ceiling and come back in 6 months.
    Pass the Boehner plan and push it. The dems have lost unless the House snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Reid knows he can’t get a tax increase because John will get tossed from the Speakers seat if there is one so John can’t have a tax increase as he is not going to stand in front of the train for them. If Reid doesn’t pass anything, (timing as how long to extend issue) then it all falls on him and the Senate Dems and the party is over in 2012 for the Senate. Obama is NOT going to veto a bill from the house & senate, despite his talk. That would be real political disaster if he did.
    So forget this balanced budget BS and quit grandstanding. Smiel and accept your victory. You don’t have enough to destroy them.

    The Cheshirecat (0cd6a2)

  100. Someone took the wrong prescription …

    JD (306f5d)

  101. Enact cuts, raise ceiling and come back in 6 months.

    You know, I could live with that. I don’t know that Harry Reid could, though. I agree with you that Obama would sign on. He’s weak.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  102. CBO: Reid’s $2.7 Trillion Plan is Short by $500 Billion… Reid’s bill under CBO baselines can claim $1 trillion in assumed savings from winding down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/budget/cbo-reid-s-2-7-trillion-plan-is-short-by-500-billion-20110727

    Heck… Harry could “save” another $800B if we don’t re-invade Normandy, too!

    ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f)

  103. I decided to not take delivery on a Lambourghini Murcialago, Lexus lfa, a Tesla Roadster, and a Mercedes SLS AMG. By Hairy Reed’s standards, I saved about a million bucks.

    JD (318f81)

  104. Well done, JD. Win the future. I only borrowed $20,000 for a jacuzzi mounted slurpee machine. I had projected making five of them. I’m practically Dave Ramsey now.

    Dustin (b7410e)


  105. the media would surely use them (as they tried with the Gang of Six) to try to split the GOP and paint the right as extreme

    What, they need an excuse for that?

    Since when?
    ;-D

    Smock Puppet,, Grammatical Analyst III (c9dcd8)

  106. At least 98% of non-military government spending is spent inside the USA. About 50% of money from tax cuts to the rich is not spent inside the USA. Cutting the government to give tax cuts takes cash out of the economy. Right now 70,000 construction workers are out of work because the GOP refuses to fund the FAA (the people that keep planes from crashing. Furloing FAA workers is actually costing us millions because, there is no one to collect taxes and fees (so the airlines are pocketing the difference). The GOP has no interest in creating jobs. It only wants to crush unions because they tend to support Democrats.
    The real job creators are American consumers. Our productivity keeps increasing, but real income for 80% of us is flat since 1980. The top 2% has had there real income multiplied by six, and the top tax rate is cut in half, and it is destroying the economy. Until working people start getting paid more, instead of having their jogs and benefits cut to make the rich richer, the economy will continue to stall. And Obama is more on the side of the rich than any socialist would ever be.

    John McGloin (a96507)

  107. McGloin, making up stuff hardly impresses us. We’ve enough blog roaches posting nonsense.

    You are just making up nonsense about the “rich”. Today, the “rich” pay a larger fraction of income taxes than ever before. The tax rates are more progressive than ever before. The reason that there are no jobs being created now is simple: the Democrats’ policies discourage hiring. Employers have no idea how much an employee will cost them – so it is wisest for them not to expand their workforce.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  108. Obama is more on the side of the rich than any socialist would ever be

    You’ve got one thing right.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  109. Oh, and one thing about the “top 2%” or 5% or whatever. That is not a static population. Some people seem to imagine that it’s the same people who are rich and keep getting richer forever; they forget that people move in and out of those percentiles all the time. The “top 2%” this year is not the same people as it was 5 or 10 years ago.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  110. John McGroin is a flat out asspuller.

    JD (318f81)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4607 secs.