Open Thread: Bargaining on the Debt Ceiling
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: I didn’t see the Instalink until now, but thanks.
I am going to be travelling today, so there will be no blogging from me for most of the day, but I wanted to leave ya’ll a topic of discussion. Yesterday Glenn Reynolds made some comments that I considered intriguing, where he suggested two ways Republican leaders could bargain with the president on the debt, given that the President seems bound and determined to raise taxes.
The first was specific tax hikes that had a political punch. For instance this was written about him in Politico (but no linky for IP bullies):
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit proposed a 50 percent surtax on the post-administration private sector incomes of top government officials and excise taxes on movie tickets, DVDs and digital music downloads.
“Then let Hollywood scream about how the tax increase would destroy American jobs,” he wrote.
He also aired this suggestion: “I want money taken from any multigenerational family trust to be taxed as ordinary income. Twice that rate if a family member has ever been a Senator or Congressman.”
And this: “How about a windfall-profits tax for trial lawyers?”
Reynolds also says, “The possibilities for mischief are endless if the GOP will just think outside of the Grover Norquist box. . .”
So that is one approach—propose taxes that make mischief with the Democrats. Another is to offer a bargain that Obama would have a hard time swallowing. From a reader at insty:
If I were Boehner, I’d offer a full repeal of all Bush era tax cuts in return for repeal of Obamacare.
Then – after Obama nixed the deal, I’d spend the next 100 interviews talking about the evilness of Obamacare.
Even if Obama approved of the deal (fat chance), it would be a win for liberty.
So let me suggest you take this thread as a chance to make your own suggestions. What mischievous tax proposals might you like? Or… what crap sandwich would you require Obama to eat in order to get the “job killing taxes” Obama so desperately wants (despite his prior statement that it is a bad idea to raise taxes in an recession)?
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
We need to reduce the income disparity between movie stars and the “little people” who work to produce the movies. Maybe they should all make the same income from the movie. Headline readers on news programs should make the same income as the staff behind the cameras. If the differences in income are not erased, tax the excess as a windfall.
Patrick Villella (23c1be) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:30 amThis is the way to do it
cut medicare 10%
Cut social security off for all people with 70,000 plus in income who are collecting
cut social security payments 5% and freeze all cola for 5 years
People younger thn 50 a simpe new formula
50% of benefits at 65
55% at 66
60% at 67
65% at 68
70% at 69
75% at 70
80% at 71
85% at 72
90% at 73
95% at 74
100% at 75
cut all federal funds for states that dont cap state retirements at 60% of wages
cut all federal funds from states that dont control state county and local govt salaries no more toll attendents with six figure income and local mayors with million dollar salaries
Cut debt obligations to china – tell them – based upon their oppression and games with their currency – we dont owe them anything – consider the money – losses for damages
EricPWJohnson (a60276) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:51 amAre union dues deductible?
Xmas (975cf0) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:58 amWhat is the point of having a debt ceiling if the ceiling is raised each time you reach it? If a “limit” is to have any meaning, it must be enforced.
“Yes, officer, I know the speed limit is 65, but when I reached that speed I just raised the limit to 75.” See how far that gets you.
I know, the government is “different”. But even the government cannot escape the consequences of unlimited borrowing. See: Greece.
navyvet (db5856) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:01 amEnd the retire at 62 option from SS. Raise the full retirement age for SS to 68. Tax the Poor!!!! Around 50% of adults don’t pay any federal income taxes, I say set a minimum tax of 10% of AGI for all workers regardless of income. They have to have skin in the game. The D’s live off of this group to get relected.
BT (74cbec) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:02 am– 100% tax on the cost of a ride on a private jet (no exceptions for politicians)
John Casteel (6e2528) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:16 am– 100% tax on rides in limousines (no exceptions for politicians)
– Eliminate tax preferences for the movie industry (Michigan has already done so)
– Tax the value of food stamps
– Restrict voting to only people who pay income taxes
President Obama likes to talk about spending in the tax code. I actually agree with this but we should go after actual spending in the tax code. Make all refundable tax credits nonrefundable. You still get the credit up to what your taxes would have been but nothing beyond that. That is actual spending in the tax code eliminated not to mention rampant sources of fraud as money spigots are turned off.
I would also suggest giving in to Dems on the issue of deductions in the tax code, but rather than changing the general tax code, use the AMT which is actually designed to go after millionaires and billionaires and doesn’t allow them already. Agree to let the Dems set the AMT rates higher than they are now in exchange for spending cuts.
CAL (85d157) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:59 amA flat tax on every resident plus a graduated tax based on income. No deductions. Public payments for welfare, food, housing, etc are debts and must be repaid with interest prior to receiving Social Security, or Medicare. Voting rights suspended till accounts fully repaid.
ropelight (b4b32a) — 7/12/2011 @ 6:03 amLet’s add an income tax surcharge to the residents of sanctuary cities to pay for border security enforcement. Let’s tax University endowment payouts unless they are used to subsidize tuition for middle class Americans.
I love the windfall profits tax for trial lawyers.
tyree (84087f) — 7/12/2011 @ 6:26 am100% tax on green energy investments so that we can invest more money in future green energy investments.
Winning The Future!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:03 amRepeal the 16th Amendment. Put in a new Amendment that explicitly prohibits Congress from levying a tax on income. Then authorize a national sales tax on goods and services at 5%, which each Congress may raise, only to expire at the end of that Congress. Exempt food (including caviar & lobster) clothing (including fur coats) primary residential real estate — where are you registered to vote, and health care (including boob & nose jobs. There’s always going to be one person whom everyone agrees needs a boob or nose job.)
This might very well kill the multi billion dollar tax compliance/avoidance industry. but if we are paying billions of dollars to comply with the tax code, that’s a real inefficiency right there.
Oh, and then have the government live within its means.
rbj (9ae8d9) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:05 amTax arugula and golf rounds.
bob (either orr) (6713b4) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:10 amdaleyrocks Rocks!!!!
BT (74cbec) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:13 amTax any union dues that are used for campaign contributions instead of retirement benefits.
∅ (e7577d) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:15 amWhat crap. Job killing taxes? Bush cut taxes and had the worst job creation record of any modern president.
The Bush tax cuts were not supposed to last forever. Alan Greenspan, whose endorsement was perhaps the single most decisive event in their passage, made it very clear that they were a temporary solution to a temporary surplus, a surplus thanks to the Clinton administration).
66% of all income growth has been enjoyed by the top 1%. That is who the GOP is fighting for, against every poll that shows more than 70%+ of Americans feel the rich are not taxed enough. For 6 of his 8 years as president, Reagan taxed the top 1% far MORE than Obama has proposed. But Mr. Black President is a ‘socialist’. The effective tax rate vs GDP was 18% under Reagan compared to 14.8% today.
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:18 am“against every poll that shows more than 70%+ of Americans feel the rich are not taxed enough.”
Power – Links please.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:23 am“The effective tax rate vs GDP was 18% under Reagan compared to 14.8% today.”
Power – Care to guess at reasons for drop?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:24 am“Power” – what other names have you commented under, racist?
JD (0d2ffc) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:26 amI’d start cutting government salaries by making them all equivalent to their private sector counterparts.
I’d cut out the education department and pop the education bubble by eliminating education subsidies to students. All the federal grants do is increase demand without increasing supply, and the universities just raise their prices. There is no point spending money so students can get indoctrinated by the left.
I’d cut all non-essential services until the debt is paid off. How much could we reduce taxes if we weren’t servicing a huge debt?
Jeff Mitchell (481f2a) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:28 amWho cares whether a poll says people “feel” the rich are not taxed enough? Since it is demonstrably untrue, I don’t see how it matters.
JD (d56362) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:28 amhttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53455.html
72 percent said they support tax increases on people with incomes of more than $250,000, including 54 percent who strongly support them.
Only small slivers of the group of Americans surveyed for a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Wednesday said they support cuts to Medicare and Medicaid — 21 percent and 30 percent, respectively — and cuts to defense spending get the support of 42 percent of those surveyed. Seventy-eight percent of Americans are opposed to Medicare cuts, while 69 percent are opposed to Medicaid cuts.
Why don’t the GOP listen to the people? 1) Because they are controlled by their wealthy corporate puppet masters 2) Because they would rather see the American economy and the American people suffer a continuing recession because it makes an Obama reelection less likely.
However, most know why we are where we are.
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:33 amPower – BS survey. That was framed as a choice, not an opinion. Fail.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:36 amPower – If 51% of Americans did not pay any federal income taxes in 2009 (thank you Bush tax cuts) do you you think taxes collected as a % of GDP would be rising or falling?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:40 amPower does not seem to quite understand the underlying concept of this great, creative thread. He’s trying to be a party pooper. He’s Debbie Downer. Well, let’s not let him ruin the fun. Let’s spend all day thinking up more mischievous taxation ideas to ensnare our tax loving (but often tax`avoiding) prog friends!!!
elissa (a3e02f) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:46 amElimination of charitable deduction for entities receiving government funding, except educational institutions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:57 amAnd hospitals.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:58 amPower – let’s give you letting the Bush tax cuts on those making more than $250k a year expire. That gives you about $61B per year. We have a $1.5T deficit – where do you want to get the other $1.4T? You could raise the marginal tax rate for those making over $250k to 100% and you won’t have enough to cover the $1.5T. If you let all the Bush tax cuts expire you are raising taxes on the lower and middle class. Very curious as to what your plan would be since you are obviously the smartest person here.
Mike M (629332) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:59 amWe owe a lot of other countries. China holds a minority of our debt. If we don’t pay our debt, the interest will skyrocket. It would probably cost more over the long run.
I mean, we’ve borrowed a ton of this money from them after they’ve played currency games and been oppressive. Seems unfair to call foul on the rules we agreed to.
And I hate to think what the world will be like the day China doesn’t need the USA anymore.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:05 amWrong.
In a report released last year, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) revised the total cost of permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts to $5.048 trillion over the next ten years. The revised amount, which is significantly higher than the $2.8 trillion figure CRS reported in September, takes into account the cost of servicing the debt due to lost revenue and indexing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) to inflation.
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:07 amMy long-time favorite suggestion in this category is as follows: all academics, journalists, activists, community organizers, and other professional leftists must pay all their taxes not in cash money, but the equivalent value in the form of corvee labor: dreary scut-work and tedious drudgery, the duration of which is to be calculated at the minimum wage. And no enlightened “social service” work like tutoring children — nope, it’s all emptying bedpans, picking lettuce and shovelling coal, at the minimum wage, til your tax bill is paid in full.
d. in c. (68ff46) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:09 amThat way every tax increase means literally another 80 hours or so of exhausting drudgery for some NYT op-ed writer or Professor of Gender Studies. Then we’ll see what their budget solutions are.
Power how much do you pay in Federal income taxes?
BT (74cbec) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:10 amKill the Earned Income Credit.
ThomasF (d087ec) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:13 am46 billion in redistributed wealth in 2006.
mandatory 75% income tax bracket for any non-military federal employee making more than 65k/year.
Rorschach (c5574d) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:18 am10% across the board tax rate increase if the departments of education, energy, HUD, EPA, HHS, Agriculture, Homeland Security and, Labor are immediately eliminated.
additional 2% tax rate increase if EIC is eliminated.
Additional 2% tax rate increase if ICE/border patrol is quadrupled in size, number of immigration courts are quadrupled and every single illegal found is immediately deported and all federal monies eliminated for sanctuary cities. Further, any business found to show a pattern of hiring illegals (more than two in any annum) would be slapped with a 250% income tax rate for that year for the first offense, 350% for the next, 500% for the third, seizure and liquidation after the fourth. (ICE would be transferred to Dept. Justice when DHS is eliminated.)
union dues/membership are no longer mandatory and dues are taxed at the 75% rate.
I love how keeping more of your own money is viewed as an expenditure by collectivist redistributionist clowns like “power”, citing BS scoring, similar to the CBO scoring of BarckyCare.
JD (d48c3b) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:19 amJust as anyone who wants to improve/develop usage of any land must go through a process of an environmental impact, I would force the EPA to have an independent commission study any job impacts that a given proposed regulation/edict may have prior to implementation. This commission would then have veto power over any proposed EPA action that would be too harmful to jobs saved or created.
Ed from SFV (7d7851) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:19 amReynolds’ comment and this post exemplifies for me what is a huge problem with right wing punditry these days:
You’re more interested in hurting the Democratic Party and Obama than doing what is best for America. It’s all about beating the other guy.
Shame, shame.
Kman (5576bf) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:20 aman $85,000 exise tax on all abortions to make up for all the lost FICA taxes that person would have contributed.
SaveFarris (9c2b72) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:20 amOh, and of course — tax all remittances to Mexico at 85 per cent.
d. in c. (6d8a47) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:24 amJD, it’s sick and I can barely even bring myself to respond to people making that assertion.
But furthermore, Obama has crippled the economy, and we can’t increase taxes anyway. It would be completely insane and lead to less tax revenue.
The reason democrat leaders bring this up is to demagogue against spending cuts. The reason true believers bring it up is because they are drinking the cool-aid and are idiots.
Sadly, they not only don’t realize how insane their idea is, they think it’s simply a provable fact that raising taxes is the way to go. Cause they have a chart showing more revenue. They really think if you raise taxes, you get more revenue, period.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:27 am“In a report released last year, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) revised the total cost of permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts to $5.048 trillion over the next ten years.”
Power – Only Washington could attribute deficits caused by trillion dollar annual increase in Democrat spending Bush tax cuts. Fantastic analysis sport.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:30 amIt is very annoying that the GOP does nothing to respond to the Democrats class warfare rhetoric on taxes. That’s where I think Glenn Reynolds has a good point – dump taxes on the Democrats pet constituencies and get their oxes gored. Sadly, the GOP has no interest because they are in bed with the recording industry and movie studios too, despite the fact that they despise the GOP.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:31 amPower, the Bush tax cuts did expire. The current tax rates are the Obama tax rates.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:32 amMegan McArdle has a great response to stupid rhetoric like Power’s here, great stuff like all of her work.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:34 amIn a report released last year, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) revised the total cost of permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts to $5.048 trillion over the next ten years.
But that’s ALL income levels, not just “the rich”, however you define “rich”.
Gerald A (7d960d) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:35 amGreat point!
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:38 am75% tax surcharge on anyone who has ever said “I am not paying enough taxes.”
Jim (844377) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:38 amObama is doing this out of spite.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:42 amIt sure looks that way, DohBiden, in all seriousness. He seems to still be resentful of his own incompetence in the negotiations at the end of 2010.
These are not the characteristics of a competent politician.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:45 amI love how keeping more of your own money is viewed as an expenditure
If it were that way for everyone I would agree. Can’t you see how the Bush policies and the conservative economic policies are killing the heart of America – the middle class? Yes, it is class war fare and the average American is clearly losing.
66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
n 1950, the ratio of the average executive’s paycheck to the average worker’s paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
The top 1% of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America’s corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
61 percent of Americans “always or usually” live paycheck to paycheck, up from 43 percent in 2007.
Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 – the highest rate in 20 years
43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:46 am_____________________________________________
Anyone guilty of this form of two-facedness (ie, limousine liberalism) should be automatically taxed at a higher rate.
Mark (411533) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:48 am
Mark, you’re not kidding?
She ordered a 4000 calorie meal with a Diet Coke?
/hahahahaha
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:53 amHow about a 100% tax on punitive damage awards? After all, if punitive damages are akin to a civil fine, why should the plaintiffs get the money?
Count de Money (055bea) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:53 am“The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.”
Power – Why do you believe this is a problem? Be succinct.
Can you state your basic gripe? Is it that you believe that the government should be in charge of allocating income and wealth among people in this country because the distribution is unequal? If so, perhaps you are living in the wrong country.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:53 am=Can’t you see how the Bush policies and the conservative economic policies are killing the heart of America – the middle class?=
In a word, Power, No. But maybe that’s just me, because I haven’t seen true conservative economic policies in operation in the US for quite a while.
We do desperately need conservative economic policies now to try to save and resuscitate the American middle class. BTW, how do you feel about unions, Power?
elissa (a3e02f) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:59 am________________________________________
Can’t you see how the Bush policies and the conservative economic policies are killing the heart of America – the middle class?
I love how liberals often are more indignant about upper-income people not paying enough in taxes instead of the issue of moderate- or modest-income people paying too much, certainly in the form of sales taxes, property taxes and various fees imposed by local governments.
Moreover, the left loves to complain about the fat cats in corporate America. But in virtually all those instances, such people aren’t forcing me to pay their salaries. By contrast, I’m required to fork over bucks to support the millions of pencil pushers — backed by their government-employee unions and cushy pension and health plans — in various government offices.
The phoniness and idiocy of the left? Call it FDR Syndrome.
Mark (411533) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:59 am“Power” and its ilk get off on the class warfare rhetoric. If all else fails, and it will, next will come charges of racism. It is what sock puppets of serial trolls like “power” do.
JD (b98cae) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:59 am“83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.”
Power – I call BS on this one. Where are you getting your talking points?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:00 am==I call BS on this one==
And an easy call it is, daley.
elissa (a3e02f) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:03 ampower wants the government to pick winners and loser filtered through an ever expanding beaurocracy—because of the efficiency! If some beaurocrat somewhere isn’t enriching his/herself, or watching pr0n on the taxpayer dime, power is an unhappy jealous twink! SHOCKA!!!
∅ (e7577d) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:04 amIt is making shlt up, daley. Expect links to mediamatters, cfap, and thinkregress or rawstory to support its lies.
To claim the current recession is Bush’s fault is incredible. This is the most business-hating jon-killing economy-stomping administration in our lifetime.
JD (b98cae) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:06 amhttp://financemymoney.com/who-controls-wealth-in-america-top-1-percent-own-83-percent-of-stocks-housing-debt-eating-personal-income/
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:06 amelissa certainly has a point. While compared to today, Bush was conservative (and his economy was radically more healthy until the dems took power in 2006) I can’t say that Bush really was the paradigm conservative.
We ran deficits. Sure, the GOP congress and WH’s $150 billion per year, on average, is far superior to Obama’s failure. It’s much closer to ‘paygo’ and the claims Obama made about getting spending under control than Obama has actually produced.
But we were increasing domestic spending. The right was angry about pork. We weren’t balancing the budget. Even Clinton was only able to balance the budget on paper, via lies (but the GOP+Clinton did get close).
Either way, we can stop blaming each party and just agree to cut spending. Obama has dramatically increased entitlement spending after promising to cut the deficit, and that makes him a liar. We have to choose between entitlement spending and financial collapse.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:07 amPower voted for Obama.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:09 amPower thinks that “conservative” economic policies are killing the middle class … so the answer that Obama and the Democrats give us? More taxes on the middle class. F**king brilliant.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:10 amPass a law that moves the social security and medicare retirement ages three months towards the average life expectancy each year. Freeze the age for anyone who gets within four years of the retirement ages (to provide some certainty for planning).
Negotiate as necessary on the three months and four years numbers, but make the adjustment automatic. That gets the electoral pain out of the way early and reduces the politics in future years.
-m@
matt d (7b78f2) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:11 am“Power” what other names have you commented under/been banned under at this site?
JD (29e1cd) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:11 amKman.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:13 amSpending increased every year through 2008. $730 billion of that spending was attributed to military expenditures. That is about 24% of the government spending. It is safe to assume that the war was a significant contributing factor to the massive deficit. The seven years of high war costs are part of the Bush administration, not Obama. This is obviously a significant factor in understanding the countries path to a large federal deficit.
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:14 am____________________________________________
She ordered a 4000 calorie meal with a Diet Coke?
And for a person supposedly so much into healthy eating and good nutrition, she apparently doesn’t even mind buying a product with artificial sweeteners—and even I’m aware of those chemicals being crap.
BTW, I’ve noticed I get a mild headache after drinking a diet soda, which I why I avoid them.
Mark (411533) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:14 amYa know Power, it all boils down to this.I want my kids and your kids to have the best possible chance of being successful by “their” standards be it to become wealthy or a ditch digger, as long as they are happy with the path they chose.They will not get that simple, fair, universal right to do so with this current regime, should they continue to run things.
It’s pretty ironic that on this website that under the topic of “bargaining on the debt” that almost all of the responses are “to raise taxes” (much of which is humor)and ideas on what to cut but not you.Your stuck in the perpetual “Bush’s fault mode”.You obviously have not been effected by the “change” that was promised you as millions of other Americans have, you offer nothing but slanted stats that make peoples eyes glaze over.
My public declaration to this debt problem is this, not a single dime more, they can redo their spread sheets and pay on the interest until the cuts, that should be broad , take effect.
justavoter (b003e1) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:15 amMy private view would be that yes, we redo the tax code AND add a modest increase to pay down the debt and get on stable footing (although I would never say this if I was in office), hence I’m up for good investments and at the same time I would not be adverse to shooting a criminal who is blatantly robbing me(current regime).Which bring me to what would have to go hand in hand for any type of tax increase…….NONE, ZERO NADA funding for any new government, public projects will take place by threat of impeachment and/or charges of treason.The thought of politicians pissing away our future has given me a belly full, so much that I prefer the later as punishment.
Chump change but:
PatAZ (ef780c) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:16 amCancel all Czars. We don’t need them.
Fire half the staff in the White House Mess, especially one of the head chefs.
Fire all of Michelle’s handlers except one, meaning 20 of them.
Fire Obama’s “body man” Reggie Love.
No campaign trips on AF One even in conjunction with official business.
No more fun trips for the family out of country unless they pay every penny of it.
No tax refunds if none were paid. And everyone has to pay taxes, even if only a dollar.
Congress only work six months and paid for only six months.
These are probably dumb but they add up fast.
Power, Obama campaigned on focusing fighting in Afghanistan. Your attempt to pretend that Obama’s spending on the wars there, and other places that Obama has increased our commitments, is as dishonest as the rest of your typically dishonest comments.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:17 amSPQR/Dustin/daley/elissa/etc – “power” will show us how to tax our way to success. The idea that we have revenue issues is laughable.
We should start by passing the 2006 budget.
JD (d48c3b) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:19 amFirst, a set fee (say $10 grand or so) paid directly to the US citizen bounty hunter on every illegal alien caught here. Then a tax on the home country calculated at 20X the initial fee plus the cost of incarceration.
ropelight (e131dc) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:20 amWhat we are really seeing today is the consequences of the Democrats cowardice in 2010. With control of all of Congress and the White House, they refused to adopt a FY2011 budget because they did not want to have on paper for the voters to see, their failure to deal with the nation’s finances.
The Democrats simply refused to do their most basic obligation of Congress – the Federal budget.
Today, they blame the GOP for its attempt to act like adults, and actually confront the government’s blown up finances. But the Democrats refuse to act like adults, stomp their feet like children, and demand more free candy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:23 amPower you liar how do you feel about Obama continuing bush’s wars you pathetic america hating fascist?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:23 amPower you haven’t answered my question.
BT (74cbec) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:28 amThis isn’t exactly a tax idea, but why not set all Congressional salaries to $0, on the grounds that any Congressman who can’t live on his graft is so stupid he needs to be put in a home?
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:30 amNote how “power” bracketed his spending went up every year through 2008, which is doubly deceitful, as it fails to note the spending orgy since, and fails to note the Dems role from 206-2008. The fascist collectivist redistributionists are so cute.
JD (b98cae) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:36 amWhy would someone get “banned” from this site by presenting facts? Unless the blog master is dishonest, in denial, and simply a propaganda merchant.
The facts:
– taxes were higher under Reagan for at least 6 of his 8 years
– taxes were higher under Clinton during this nations most prosperous decade in our lives
– the vast majority of Americans think the top income earners should be taxed more. If the GOP is not representing the people, just who do you suppose they are representing?
– tax cuts never produced jobs under the Bush administration
End of story
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:37 amYou didn’t answer the question. Have you commented here by another name? Why evade that question?
If you’ve been banned before, it certainly wasn’t for ‘presenting facts’ or even for presenting lies.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:40 amTax internet comments at $1/word; except for serial Trolls who would pay a 10% surcharge for each additional name they use – this would certainly clean up the traffic mess at Kos, TPM, and PuffHost.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:42 amLOL
What about ‘saved or created’?
Why was unemployment so awesome from 2000-2006? I know the democrat party claimed we were in a recession from the day Bush took his oath of office, but we weren’t. The economy was roaring. Unemployment in the 5s.
I think there’s something to be said for his policies. You have presented your opinion as though it’s a fact, which shows you’re dishonest and makes me suspect you’re that Yelverton whackadoodle. He tends to assert things that aren’t true, knowing he’s not fooling anyone, as some kind of macho display. Which whether you’re that guy or not, is pretty pathetic.
Here’s a fact: Obama’s unemployment record is awful compared to Bush’s.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:43 am/has a heart attack
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:43 amTax the Rich
Feed the Poor
Until the are no
Rich no More.
Note: not until there are no more poor; until there are no more Rich.
That’s what that simple-minded song is about.
Tax Gold Records!
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:46 amComment by Gerald A — 7/12/2011 @ 8:35 am
The Left defines “rich” as someone with a job!
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:47 am==”End of story” Comment by Power — 7/12/2011 @ 9:37 am==
I believe we can conclude from this statement that, for Power, the Science Is Settled. No need to think, or any reason to consider additional intellectual inputs from outside his bubble.
elissa (a3e02f) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:47 amComment by Jim — 7/12/2011 @ 8:38 am
No, it should only be 10% (and this is directed to you Warren), but of Net Worth, annually!
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:49 amShe ordered a 4000 calorie meal with a Diet Coke?
Actually, according to the “Nutrition Disclosure” required on the menu, it was only a 1700 calorie meal.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:51 amelissa, suffice it to say Power has erected a wall of ‘facts’ to shield his fragile little mind from actual information and debate.
His style of argument is to state his controversial or debunked conclusions under the heading of ‘fact’. That’s why we think he’s probably been here under another name. It’s such a stupid way to argue that it’s distinctive.
It’s best explained if you assume he’s afraid of being exposed to the truth.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:53 am“Power” basically admitted to being a previously banned sock puppet. Care to guess who?
JD (109425) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:55 amMy mistake… I just saw that on drudge. Pretty hilarious that she ordered a Diet Coke with that.
I don’t really care about Michelle’s crazy wardrobe or eating disorder. I just wish she didn’t want to rule over my diet.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:55 amPower ignores that the tax data from the IRS shows that the Federal income tax was more progressive under the Bush admin tax rates than during the Clinton admin – as a higher percentage of tax receipts come from the upper income segments. So if greater taxation of the wealthy was somehow an economic panacea but that’s among the silliest of Power’s claims .
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:56 amEnd of story
Not so much. Opinions that suit your narrative do not equate to hard facts. Present those to support your opinion, otherwise this is certainly not end of story.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:56 amDana- there is no probably about it. This is a very specific pattern for this one.
JD (2da347) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:57 amWe should start by passing the 2006 budget.
Comment by JD — 7/12/2011 @ 9:19 am
Well, passing ANY budget would be an improvement.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:59 am#89 jharp
Gerald A (7d960d) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:01 amWhy was unemployment so awesome from 2000-2006?
People were buying a lot more burgers?
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:01 am#89 jharp
Boy, there’s a prominent entry on The Wall of Shame!
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:04 amHeh. When faced with being taxed, Romanian witches decided to fight dirty against it.
Everyone curses the tax man, but Romanian witches angry about having to pay up for the first time are planning to use cat excrement and dead dogs to cast spells on the president and government. Also among Romania”s newest taxpayers are fortune tellers – but they probably should have seen it coming.
A dozen witches will hurl the poisonous mandrake plant into the Danube to put a hex on government officials “so evil will befall them,” said a witch named Alisia. She identified herself with one name – customary among Romania”s witches.
“This law is foolish. What is there to tax, when we hardly earn anything?” she said by telephone on Wednesday. “The lawmakers don”t look at themselves, at how much they make, their tricks; they steal and they come to us asking us to put spells on their enemies.”
The new law is part of the government”s drive to collect more revenue and crack down on tax evasion in a country that is in recession.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:05 amheh.
Well, sadly, in all honesty we’ve been living on borrowed time for a while. But I’m not sure that the economic collapse in 2008 really had to happen. I think some wanted it to happen.
We’d be in better shape had the GOP had a balanced budget, as challenging as that would have been, and also used their time in power to enact entitlement reform (politically very difficult, I realize).
I think had those things happened, the economy would have been stronger, investors more confident, and the recession much milder (if extant).
so I don’t want to pretend GOP=perfect Dem=awful. But what American wouldn’t trade Obama’s economic record for Bush’s? I don’t buy into the idea the politicians can do any good for the economy, but I sure believe they can screw it up.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:06 amIt is really special when “power” comments under girls names.
JD (6e25b4) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:06 amThe republicans ought to propose tax increases, increases that mainly hit democrats. Repeal the deductibility for local income taxes, taxes paid to sanctuary localities, localities with rent control, with mandatory above federal minimum wage laws.Tax the income and gains from non profit and foundations on their investments and endowments. Eliminate all (except for foreign income tax) tax credits. A gross receipts tax on all non religious NGOs. A gross receipt tax on all over the air broadcasts. A 50% excise tax on all mass transit fares. Glenn Reynolds idea. There are so many more possibilities and Boehner should push for them all to go in to effect immediately along with the implementation of the cuts to also go in to effect immediately.
Power: lets gum flapping and write the check.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:07 amThat is pretty weird. But isn’t calling himself ‘power’ even weirder?
I wonder what else he considered calling himself? ‘I’m always right!’ ‘Perfecto’ ‘Infallible’ ‘Fact-man’ ‘Lady Perfect’?
Y cannot let his arguments speak for themselves. He can’t lay out a case that works. So he has to just tell you how awesome he is and how right his argument (er… ‘facts’) are.
And somehow he’s never figured out that this makes him look much less compelling, rather than more.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:12 amI know the website is on the Patterico s-list so I will not post a link, but Joe Scarborough has a pretty good op-ed piece on Politico today about the media’s hyperbolic hatemongers (including David Brooks) — versus the people in congress who are actually attempting to fulfill some of what the voters in Nov. 2010 specifically sent them to Washington to do.
elissa (a3e02f) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:13 amComment by Dustin — 7/12/2011 @ 10:06 am
Peter Wallinson has on OpEd today over at WSJ (paywall protected) dissecting the meltdown and it’s roots in CRA/Fannie-Fred, showing how the most significant influence on housing prices in the last twenty years was FM2’s decision to buy any mortgage presented to them.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:14 amAnd, most importantly, the protection that they bought on The Hill through massive campaign contributions to the likes of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Barack Obama, and others, which protected the GSE’s from any meaningful changes/oversight.
AD, it blows me mind that the housing meltdown hasn’t been discussed in detail.
Sure, it was a ticking timebomb. That our president was an ACORN lawyer pushing for looser loans, or that the democrat party is dominated by like thinking, should be a well known fact these days.
I will have to work my way over the paywall to that op ed. The WSJ is really the only for-pay publication worth paying for these days.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:19 amIs there any reason why a movie should make hundreds of millions of dollars that they don’t need in the first weekend? I think making, say $10 million dollars a day is enough, so over a long three-day weekend, if a movie makes more than $30 million dollars (and let’s not kid ourselves, that’ll buy a lot of peas) then anything they make above that should be taxed 100%. I mean, nobody should need to make more than $10 million dollars a day.
Now, I understand that movies stay in the theaters longer than just the first weekend, so maybe we should just extend that over the whole time it’s released. A movie that’s been showing for a month could yield a whopping $300 million bucks for a studio, and all the rest could go to pay for Obamacare or fund community organizing or whatever they want.
I can’t see anything wrong with this scheme. It could generate lots of bucks for America.
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:22 amSo, last Time it was the salaries of servicemen, now he’s holding social security checks, hostage
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:25 amto the debt limit increase (re; CBS news)
Comment by Dustin — 7/12/2011 @ 10:19 am
Excepting for Yours Truly, there are some exceptional comments posted on Wallinson’s OpEd, well worth the read.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:29 amMarco Rubio (on Rush) just mentioned that by threatening to withhold SocSec checks beginning August 3rd, the Administration is confirming that there is no “lock box” and that they have to borrow the money to pay SocSec benefits.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:33 amThis, after all of the apologists for the Administration have cried from the rooftops that SocSec and Medicare have nothing to do with the debt problem, since it’s all the fault of the Bush Tax Cuts, and Unfunded Wars.
Actually the great fear of the democrats is that the ceiling isn’t raised and the world doesn’t come to an end. The government will still collect taxes and it will pay the bondholders, the contractual obligations and the legally obligated pensions. Even social security and medicare and medicaid will be funded (they have a dedicated funding scheme) albeit with some small reduction. The world won’t end for the taxpayers and that is the great fear of the democrats.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:34 amUnlike 1996 this time a government ‘shut down’ isn’t going to outrage the public and the democrats know it, that is why the fear mongering over a non existing default. The longer the core functions continue without a debt ceiling increase the harder it will be to justify increasing the ceiling. If there is no increase the national debt starts to decrease as the payments are principle and interest and not interest only.
Say, has MN completely collapsed, and applied for annexation to Canada yet?
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:36 amWhat’s most interesting about this is how anyone would say that’s controversial.
But indeed, when Bush tried to fix Social Security, the left claimed he was crazy to note the problem.
We’re out of money. I’ve said this before, but in my opinion, even those who have paid social security withholdings are not entitled to social security benefits. We were using that money to pay for the federal government, in lieu of income taxation. They were really paying income taxes by anther name, and are not entitled to steal from the next few generations of Americans for social security benefits now.
We need to just accept that reality. We haven’t saved up enough for this huge entitlement. They money just doesn’t exist. The people who left us in this situation shouldn’t profit from it, turning their noses up at the notion of not screwing their kids.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:43 amPrescient?
“…Obama might not turn out to be the vanguard of the future but rather the last liberal president…”
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:45 am-John Steel Gordon
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/12/obama-unneeded-income-belongs-to-the-government/#more-760051
_____________________________________________
Pretty hilarious that she ordered a Diet Coke with that.
I posted a textblock to this thread — which got omitted by the filters (and just as well since this is pretty much OT, vis a vie taxes) — that noted how artificial sweeteners are notorious for being lousy for people’s health. One of those fake sugars, in fact, is processed with the use of chlorine.
So forget about Obama’s main squeeze being so much into healthy eating and low calories. The woman doesn’t even have enough sense to avoid buying fake-sugar crap.
As for Democrats/liberals being so insistent about raising taxes instead of lowering spendthrift budgeting. That’s similar to their mindset when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. IOW, they want to accommodate and snuggle up to the “undocumented” already in this country before doing anything — or doing much of anything — about the porous border.
But the left has a knack for being ass backwards, time and time again.
Mark (411533) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:48 am“The effective tax rate vs GDP was 18% under Reagan compared to 14.8% today.”
Baloney. The effective tax rate in this country is over 40%, with about half of that being stolen by the feds.
In 1930 it was under 10%.
If you want that trend to continue…just keep voting in liberal Democrats and you’ll get what you want.
As for that taxing the rich hogwash, have fun trying to tax the guys who set prices (and play golf with Obambi, and can get “stimulus” handouts anytime they need them). The only guys who ever really pay taxes are the guys at the bottom of the economic food chain. If you think the big corporations are going to take a hit to their profit margins in order to pay taxes that don’t benefit them…you’re living in a little world of dreams.
Every totalitarian welfare state works the same way. The poor MIGHT get a few bones handed to them, but most of the handouts are going to go to the guys who control the economy and to the people who run the government.
Always has been that way…always will be that way.
Dave Surls (058b3b) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:56 amThe GOP economic position is based on fallaies, like trickle down, low taxes create jobs, and GDP improves with lower taxes. ALL statistically proven false.
Let’s see whether we can prove that higher taxes are bad for the economy by charting the top marginal tax rate versus the % growth in GDP for each year. If higher taxes stifle the economy, we should see an increase in growth each time we lower tax rates. And likewise, if the theory holds, we’ll see a drop in growth each time we increase the tax rate. Does that pan out?
Overall, the past 80 years show us a thorough lack of clear correlation between the top marginal tax rate and GDP growth. The data’s closest hint of a relationship derives from the slightly more robust average GDP growth back when the top rates were higher. The notion that lowering the top tax rates improves the economy just doesn’t hold water.
Indeed, these 8 most recent decades show us that increasing the top tax would not necessarily have any impact on the economy, let alone slow it at all.
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:05 amPower said, “- taxes were higher under Clinton during this nations most prosperous decade in our lives”
Unless you are older. The 1960’s saw a decade of annual double digit economic growth. Kids working at gas stations were buying brand new Ford Mustangs. That was the most prosperous decade in my lifetime, and it was caused by WWII, Europe and Japan were still rebuilding, and we didn’t have to. Clinton didn’t cause the prosperity during his administration. That prosperity was caused by Reagan and the collapse of Soviet socialism. After the post Cold War Recession drove Bush out of office Clinton took the credit for our victory dance. Kid’s these days, they only know what the socialists tell them, and like the gullible little saps they are, they fall for it every time. Economics is only partially driven by taxes, it also hinges on optimism and hope for a better future. We don’t have a lot of that right now, because of President Obama and his job killing policies.
tyree (84087f) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:05 am____________________________________________
Power ignores that the tax data from the IRS shows that the Federal income tax was more progressive under the Bush admin tax rates than during the Clinton admin
Beyond that, I do recall various opinion polls back in the first half of the 2000s revealing a growing number of Americans were becoming increasingly unhappy or uneasy about the direction the country was headed in. Perhaps that was because they saw the easy-money, funny-money phenomenon of every Tom, Dick and Harry getting approved for mortgages for homes they couldn’t afford? I doubt that. IOW, I don’t think much of the electorate was wary of too much leftism creeping into society—-if they were, they’d never have given a nod to what’s now in the White House.
Perhaps it was a nervousness about getting a major hangover after the long party was over? Or perhaps it was a case of “be careful of what you wish for. You may get it.”
So Americans wanted to be pessimistic during the George W Bush years of relatively lower unemployment rates and okay economic growth statistics. So now their mood pretty much fits today’s reality. Therefore, the guy they made president also seems somehow quite appropriate for a nation that is trending towards pessimism.
Mark (411533) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:07 amPower is a hypocrite I guess.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:08 amIf there’s a government shut down all those high priced federal bureaucrats and their union limo drivers will be out of a job. Consequently there’ll be plenty of money for Social Security checks.
ropelight (e131dc) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:18 amDear Mr. Worthing,
Here are a few:
1.) Place a fee on electric lights containing mercury for a human expose testing program, property decontamination fund, and public awareness program. Also, require photographs be place on the packaging of mercury lighting products of children suffering from severe birth defects caused by mercury exposure (Minamata disease).
2.) Charge a fee to producers of wind turbine-generated electric power for the purpose of bird habitat protection to offset bird mortality. Require electric power utilities to report the monthly bird mortality rate of their equipment and provide photographs of bird remains as supplements to monthly bills.
3.) Expand TSA screenings to all fixed rail transit systems and charge a user fee to cover the cost.
4.) Place a fee on plug-in electric vehicles to fund the expansion of the power grid to meet the power needs of all those new Chevy Volts.
5.) Require users of carpool lanes to report the monetary value of their time savings from using those lanes, treating it as ordinary income for income tax purposes.
Yours truly,
ThOR
ThOR (94646f) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:23 amIs the White House cafeteria serving peas today?
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:23 amElimination of Green Energy Subsidies
Elimination of deductions for union dues
Elimination of deductions for all green energy “improvements”
elimination of state and local tax breaks for film production and an implementation of a Federal “Hollywood” tax on all movies and tv shot in the United States
Eliminate subsidies on green vehicles.
A new tax on union officers making more that $100,000
Hawkins (1fc204) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:27 amSomeone should google “power”s last comment.
JD (109425) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:30 amDo you mean this, JD:
http://thoughtstate.blogspot.com/2011/01/tax-rates-and-gdp-growth.html
Hmmm….
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:36 am“The GOP economic position is based on fallaies, like trickle down, low taxes create jobs, and GDP improves with lower taxes. ALL statistically proven false.”
More hogwash.
How did we become the richest country in the world?
Because we had a gigantic government that controlled everything?
Not likely. We became the richest country on earth not because we had big government, not because we had good government, but because we had hardly any government.
If you think that big government is the path to prosperity, better take a good hard look at communist countries. Every single last one of them is a poverty stricken helhole. No exceptions.
Freedom (from government) works. Socialism doesn’t.
Always has been that way…always will be that way.
Dave Surls (5e1539) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:38 amGasp. Simon, you wouldn’t be linking to where the esteemed professor plagiarized from, would you?
JD (822109) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:47 amAaron/ Patrick:
OT, but would you consider a brief thread just to remind/ discuss re —
1. the special election in CA’s 36th CD; and
2. the several “recall primaries” in Wisconsin’s state legislature?
A few readers (who live in the affected areas) may thus remember to vote when they otherwise might not! 🙂
Mitch (890cbf) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:47 amRewriting takes time. Control C followed by Control V is quick. Not very thoughtful or analytical, but quick.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:49 amWe can tax our way to prosperity!!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (2da347) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:49 amtaxes were higher under Clinton during this nations most prosperous decade in our lives
By what criteria was it the most prosperous decade, and in whose lives? Twenty somethings?
FYI we were in a recession when Clinton left office.
The GOP economic position is based on fallaies, like trickle down, low taxes create jobs, and GDP improves with lower taxes. ALL statistically proven false.
What statistics?
Gerald A (7d960d) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:50 amPower your a nasty piece of work.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:50 amGerlad – they like to ignore what happened after the tech dot com bubble burst. Inconvenient.
JD (822109) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:53 amIt is hilarious that Power is plagiarizing from blogs that can’t keep the difference between tax as a % of GDP and marginal tax rates. That alone shows enough ignorance and intentional misrepresentation to establish that its a Democratic talking point.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:56 amSimon – is plagiarism frowned upon in higher education? Wr know it is acceptable for Vice Presidents, but it seems like universities might have more exacting standards.
JD (822109) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:56 amYou mean like Harvard Law/Larry Tribe?
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 12:00 pmSo I guess it is us right-wingers who are getting to Speak Truth to Power today, isn’t it?
And back to the original question: How about a 50-cent tax on all printed newspapers, and a surtax of 40% of any online ad revenue they receive. Most of their editorial boards are hell bent for raising taxes, so let’s start out with them first.
JVW (39c649) — 7/12/2011 @ 12:11 pm“Spending increased every year through 2008. $730 billion of that spending was attributed to military expenditures. That is about 24% of the government spending. It is safe to assume that the war was a significant contributing factor to the massive deficit.”
More hogwash.
Our defense expenditures are about the same as they were in the early 1990s and about half of what they were in 1968, at the height of the Liberal Democrat created Vietnam War.
And, they’re higher now under Obambi then they ever were under Bush.
Defense Expenditures in 1968: 10.4% of GDP.
Defense expenditures in 1990: 5.9% of GDP.
Defense expenditures in 2008: 5.1% of GDP.
Defense Expenditures in 2011(estimated): 6.4% of GDP.
We’re borrowing money hand over fist to pay for the gigantic welfare state created by the semi-sapient liberals. Military spending has been in decline (with a little bit of fluctuation) for decades…left wing lies notwithstanding.
Dave Surls (5e1539) — 7/12/2011 @ 12:11 pmAccording to this, total employment averaged 136,790 in 2008, Bush’s last year in office, and averaged 131,785 in 2000, Clinton’s last year in office.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
Further, all the growth occurred beginning in 2003 after Bush’s tax cut. The first two years were recession years. The recession actually began in 2000, Clinton’s last year.
Gerald A (7d960d) — 7/12/2011 @ 12:12 pmB-but Bush tax cuts we will die!!!Eleventyone!!!
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 12:16 pmAnyone who claims to be a public servant be paid like a servant.
MostlyRight (4f90a6) — 7/12/2011 @ 12:23 pmPower – So your position is that a person with special talents such as a star athlete, entertainer, or author should not be able to keep all of the income or wealth they generate because other people do not have the same talents, don’t work as hard to achieve the same success, there is structural racism in the system, or some other rationalization for your perception of unfairness built into a capitalist society.
Tiger Woods, Jon Stewart, Noam Chomsky – Give that money back suckahs!
Who are the experts who get to determine how much each individual should give back to the government and how do they make those determinations? What training did they receive to make such decisions?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 12:33 pmbtw, kman is here at like comment 36 to tsk tsk about the tendency in politics to make things about beating the other guy.
yes, KMAN is saying that.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/12/2011 @ 12:54 pm“kman is here at like comment 36 to tsk tsk about the tendency in politics to make things about beating the other guy.”
Aaron – That’s as funny as EPWJ berating people for threadjacking in the Rauhauser comment thread. Absolutely no self-awareness evident.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:00 pm100% estate tax on all money paid out by medicare, medicaid, and social security in excess of lifetime contributions.
matt d (7b78f2) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:01 pmAnyone who claims to be a public servant be paid like a servant.
I know, right? It really chaps my hide when I hear some politician yammer on about their “life of public service” when it turns out that they make anywhere from 2 to 5 times the median annual income of their constituents. And I have long sense decided that anyone who claims “I could be making a lot more money in the private sector” almost assuredly cannot, by definition.
JVW (39c649) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:04 pmAll trabsfer payments ( government taking from some and giving to others) must be scrutinized and reformed in one sweeping movement. This of course provides the opportunity to require more-or-less balancing the budget in a fashion that assures surplus over time. also, we should relieve from taxation that income which the earner devotes to education, to health care and to investment so that we may have a healthy, educated and equipped workforce that can provide a tax base from which government can draw revenue for its legitimate purposes. Here’s a plan, based on a flat tax on disposable income. email your thoughts to tbeebe6535@yahoo.com
1. All persons residing in the U.S. shall come together in “tax units”. Members need not be related, need not reside together, and a tax unit may consist of as few as one person.
tom beebe st louis (16ddb6) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:18 pm2. Each year congress shall set a “minimum wage” and a “tax rate”.
3. The following shall not be subject to taxation:
• An amount equal to a year’s earnings (2000 hours) at the minimum wage, for each adult (age 20-65), decreasing 10% per year to 50% at age 15, and increasing 10% per year to 150% at age 70.
• All payments for necessary health care including medical care, pharmaceuticals prescribed by a health care professional, vision and hearing aids, and fees for health-enhancing entities such as gyms. Health care insurance premiums may be deducted but not health care expense paid for by such insurance.
• All educational expenses including day care for children or legally incompetent persons, the portion of state and local taxes used for education, and tuition, fees and educational materials for private school education, including that portion of parochial school tuition and other expenses going for non-sectarian education.
• All income saved into an account for investments; withdrawals from this account for the benefit of any member of the tax unit shall be reported as income.
4. The “tax rate” shall be applied to any income greater than the deductions listed above, regardless of amount.
5. Any municipality having greater than 100,000 inhabitants or any state may impose on their citizens a surtax which shall be applied the same as the Federal tax.
6. Tax units whose deductions exceed income, shall be paid a sum equal to the tax rate multiplied by the shortfall in income.
7. There shall be no federal tax on corporations or other business entities.
8. The Office of Management and Budget shall compute revenues to be expected using the newly set tax rate and minimum wage, applied to the previous year’s reported incomes. No expenses in excess of that amount may be made without approval by 75% of each house of Congress. This tax shall be the only source of revenue for the federal government.
Give the President his tax hikes at a 1:10 ratio
For every dollar increase in taxes, a corresponding $10 cut in government expenditures takes place. This can also be applied as a percentage ratio; for every 1% increase in the tax rate a 10% cut in expenditures takes place.
If the President gets all his taxes enacted, there will be such a massive cut in expenditures that there is a possibility of paying down the debt…
Thucydides (893e65) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:24 pmO/T-But San Fransicko protesters call for BART to be disbanded because they say so.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:36 pmThe Dems want to raise taxes on those making over a million per year. Those people happen to be Democrats, for the most part. The Republicans should give them what they want.
Morrigan (347c23) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:40 pmPeg annual changes in social security payment amounts to the percentage difference between federal tax receipts and federal spending (actual audited numbers). That incentivizes seniors to assure Congress spends less than it takes in; overspend=SS reduction; underspend=SS increase.
Duke (bfe493) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:43 pmConstitutional amendment: if there is an annual deficit, party in power in Congress doesn’t get paid.
M. Thatcher (ec90a4) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:45 pmEscalation: Obama says he can’t guarantee Social Security checks will go out August 3rd.
DRJ (fdd243) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:46 pmPower – 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
Indeed. And the top 1% of all Americans by income are overwhelmingly liberals. I say tax ’em till they squeal!
Morrigan (347c23) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:46 pmDRJ,
ian cormac pointed that out in #108, as well as reminding us of how last time it was the military
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/12/2011 @ 1:58 pmpaychecksfamilies the President threatened to hold hostage. I thought that was awful and yet now with Social Securitychecksrecipients the object of his manipulation, it remains a stunning reminder of the sheer brazenness of our president.WE WILL NOT DEFAULT IF THE DEBT CEILING IS NOT RAISED YOU [dummies].
[Don’t say that word. It gets automatically filtered. -Aaron]
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:09 pm“Escalation: Obama says he can’t guarantee Social Security checks will go out August 3rd.”
I’ll tell you what. Most people vote for Dems for one reason, and one reason only, and that’s because Dems promise (and deliver) handouts from the government.
If that ever stops, then they’re dead meat…and, they know it.
I can just about guarantee you that they’ll find a way to keep folks slopping at the government trough by hook or by crook.
Dave Surls (d1335b) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:11 pmWe won’t default on the debt ceiling you tardletts.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:16 pm1. No subsidies for business, individuals and especially non-government agencies. No money grants from the IRS period. If you want a spending program, move it to another agency.
2. Make dividend payments deductible to corporations and taxable as regular income to those who receive them. Treat these investment income the same as wages with the exception of payroll taxes which are really mandatory premiums.
3, Make capital gains non-taxable and offset that by no longer allowing deductions for losses. Why reward losers while punishing those who increase the wealth of the country.
FYI: Obama wants to default on that portion of the national debt that are the social security trust funds. Default on China first or, better yet, cut all federal salaries across the board by as much as it takes to make revenue equal to expenditures.
Freddie Sykes (70dd19) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:22 pmSome time back I proposed the flat-flat tax.
Here’s how it works: Take the budget, divide by the number of people, done. Assume $3.4 trillion and 340 million Americans. That works out to $10,000 each. Four people in your family? Write a check for $40,000. Simple. Direct.
Ah, but what about the person who doesn’t HAVE $10,000? He could give one unit of blood platlets per month for which the government would credit him $1,000 each. I call this my “Withdrawing Plan.”
“But,” you may say, “what about the mother of four under the age of six! She can’t donate FIVE units of platlets per month and taking blood from toddlers is, well, unacceptable!”
She could contribute a kidney.
A dialysis machine costs, oh, $100,000. One kidney and she’d have her and her brood’s taxes paid for two years. At the end of that interval, she could contribute a cornea! And so on.
As I said, simple, direct, fool-proof.
Ymal Brucker (ace048) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:24 pmThis is so easy:
1. means test SS and Medicare.
optimus primed (7caec5) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:32 pm2. provide the ability to not pay income taxes (or receive a “credit”) in lieu of being able to vote. everyone should have skin in the game and those not paying in should not be able to approve raises.
3. get rid of federal tax withholding and make people write a check every October so they can truly quantify the value they are getting.
4. get rid of the DOE and give education funding back to the states with a free-market voucher approach.
5. get rid of all government sponsored “arts” foundations (NEA, etc).
6. ban public sector collective bargaining, the tax payer needs a seat at the table.
7. index public sector salaries at 75-80% that of the equivalent private sector job. privatize all pensions.
8. PERMANENTLY reduce the corporate tax rate to 15% with minimal deductions combined with the ability to repatriate all overseas cash holdings at the 15% rate.
9. reform the tax code to no personal exemptions and pay a flat tax of 10%.
10. all current spending reverts to 2006 levels.
11. phase out FNMA and FMAC within 3 years.
12. create a balanced budget amendment.
13. Withdraw all financial support for the despots associated with the UN and IMF.
14. subsidize rent not mortgages for the poor.
Keeping in mind that we have a Federal system of government:
1. Reduce total federal expenditures by one percent of GDP every year until federal expenditures equal 10 percent of GDP. No class of spending can be exempt; not Defense, nor Entitlements. Let Congress set priorities based on the gross amount available.
2.Replace the entire Federal tax code with a flat transaction tax of one percent. No exceptions; no exemptions. Everybody pays, and everybody pays the same rate. The Little Sisters of the Poor pay the same as Warren Buffet; no charitable deductions; no tax exemptions of any kind. Every time a hedge fund makes a trade, the feds get one percent. Corporations pay the same as individuals; no capital gains. We tax the velocity of money, not income, savings or purchases. If one percent isn’t enough to get us out from under the debt pile in ten years, raise it. When we’ve paid the national debt down to ten percent of GDP, lower it.
3. Selective default on obligations and entitlements which cannot be sustained. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid SSI, SSDI, grossly inflated government employee retirement and health care benefits, etc. Oh, and no more bailouts of banks, states, union pension funds or anything else.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
David N. Narr (6a1a5f) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:39 pmmeans testing ss and medicare just makes them even more of a sad dirty socialist wealth redistribution scheme than they already are
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:40 pm1. Lawsuit Contingency & Court Order Fee tax – 10% surtax on all moneys paid to attorneys as a result of a contingency fee or court ordered attorney fees.
2. Limiting the transportation and per diem tax exclusion: Any transportation and per diem provided by an employer must be reported, and all amounts > $10,000 annually must be treated as income for tax purposes.
3. $100,000 up front fee to sue on any government agency’s behalf, or to sue to enforce any federal regulation where there is no direct harm to the plaintiff.
4. Public funds recipients Clinton surtax: all persons or employees of business recieving grant or assistance moneys from the federal government shall be taxed at the Clinton era tax rates. This includes SS recipients, medicaid recipients, medicare recipients, and people whose positions are funded directly by the federal government (public employees, NPR employees, planned parenthood employees, etc.) This increased tax is to accomodate for the fact that the funds originate from the taxpayer.
5. Illegal immigrant employment tax. All persons or business who are found to have employeed an illegal immigrant shall pay a 5% surtax on all income and capital gains.
6. Nations supporting terror tax. A 100% tariff on any item imported from any nation that has been designated as supporting terrorism.
7. French tax. A 100% tax on anything imported from France, as well as travel to and from France. Because that will really hurt the left. Maybe add in Sweden and Norway, too.
CenterRightMargin (161898) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:47 pmOh – 1 more!
8. Lawschool tuition tax – 10% surtax on any money paid to a lawschool, which while charged on the lawschool must be passed on directly to the student. We have too many lawyers – let’s disincentivize.
Also, the Union dues tax and non-exclusion sounds good, too.
CenterRightMargin (161898) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:50 pmI would end the mortgage interest deduction. I would end basically any deduction for goods like farm equipment or electric cars or medical equipment. Or tuition.
I would impose a tax on universities based directly on the cost of attending (if it costs less than $10,000 to obtain an accredited degree, no tax, and a progressively increasing tax level from there). Oh, and somehow I’d reform school accreditation.
In fact, I would go for a flat tax. My preference would be a 20% sales tax on all non necessary goods (clothing under $20, most food, gasoline, housing up to X level is not taxed).
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 2:54 pmA 10% surcharge on all non-profit educational corporations with more than $500 million in endowment that do not distribute at least 100% of the income of said endowment in subsidized tuition to students.
I’m tired of seeing ivy league schools sitting on billions of dollars while sneering at people who had to work spare jobs to get an education.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 3:02 pmEnd the RV “mortgage” tax deduction….well except for our pop-up trailer.
ltw (370236) — 7/12/2011 @ 3:09 pmThe ecotards on the left want to make cars illegal.
This isn’t off topic is it?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 3:09 pmRV’s probably include jets and yachts!
ltw (370236) — 7/12/2011 @ 3:13 pmThere’s a lot of piecemeal tax proposals in here. I hope those making them will take a moment to look at my comprehensive plan (comment #149 above). It’s something constructed and revised over several years. Love to hear your comments at my email address given.
tom beebe st louis (16ddb6) — 7/12/2011 @ 3:17 pmTax people who drive Volvos. A lot.
Kevin M (4eb9c8) — 7/12/2011 @ 3:18 pmEat the liberal rich! NBA, Hollywood, Broadway, Fifth Avenue, Wall Street, etc.
ExExZonie (16e693) — 7/12/2011 @ 3:20 pmNew revenue scheme to collect from states rather than persons:
1. Congress Decides how much it needs (aka passes a budget).
3. Each state then raises its share of revenue based on congressional delegation pro-rata (seat-count) share. No exemptions, deductions
4. Each state raises and pays fed tax – collection approach up to each state.
Benefits:
Bill B (76cfb6) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:15 pm– No Federal IRS
– States vary their tax schemes according their conditions. Creativity and variety will ensue.
– Less federal pandering to persons?
Me too. Good idea.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:20 pmCARNEY: I mean, who would say that we have not been credible, because the fact is, this president’s willing to do significant things in terms of discretionary cuts, entitlement reform that strengthens the programs and increases their solvency further into the future for future generations — tough things that will not be easy to convince Democrats to go along with. But he’s willing to do that because he thinks that’s what leadership requires. I mean, it’s not — he’s not standing here saying, I — that’s what I want to do. He’s saying, I have to do it because I’m president and it’s important and this is an opportunity that we should not pass up.
TAPPER: So in the spirit of rebutting this idea that it’s all been “smoke and mirrors,” is the president willing to raise the retirement age for Medicare and Social Security?
CARNEY: There is no reason for me, from here, or for the president from here, when he was here several times in recent days, to negotiate the particulars from the podium.
TAPPER: I’m not asking him to negotiate, I’m asking him to explain.
CARNEY: And — well, what we have said is, what the president stood here and said, not with regard to a specific proposal, is that a lot of the reporting out — about what has been under consideration has been accurate.
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:21 pmNot to say I wouldn’t merely tax businesses for their profits, of course.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:22 pmFor our First Occupant, Air Force One is a Recreational Vehicle, is it not ? (As the former Speaker’s jet used to be)
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:23 pmDuring Bush Presidency, current GOP leaders cast a total of 19 votes to increase debt limit by $4 Trillion.
At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl.
June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”
May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.
Where are they now? When the gov’t defaults, we know who to blame. So do the American people.
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:23 pm“Where are they now? When the gov’t defaults, we know who to blame.”
Power – Bush has been out of office for more than two years, racist. Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling during Bush’s administration. Talk about his hypocrisy about living withing our means while racking up trillion dollar deficits and stop living in the past.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:26 pmTwo sides to that coin.
-Obama
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:27 pmWould somebody please explain to those ignorant leftists, the difference between wealth and income. They always try to use the two interchangeably, but in reality they are two different things. It is quite possible to be very wealthy – owning stocks, real estate, etc. – and yet receive very little income. Their continual conflating of the two tells me they don’t have a clue about the most basic economics.
Mike Giles (996520) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:28 pmTax econuts.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:28 pmPower:
1) Bite me.
2) Just because they voted for something in the past doesn’t mean they have to vote to continue it. After all, Obama voted NOT to increase the debt limit in 2007, by your logic that means he should veto any increase.
Kevin M (4eb9c8) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:29 pm“we know who to blame”
Yes we do. Spendthrift Democrats and Obama.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:29 pmTax retarded music professors.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:30 pmKeep shilling for the rich, you’ll see what happens.
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:32 pmRaw Story?
LOL
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:33 pm“Shilling for the rich” Power puts it. But the cheap rhetoric, by which Obama pretends to attack the “rich” with repeated calls in a speech for changing the depreciation schedule for corporate jet purchases, contrasts with Obama’s efforts to protect his rich Wall Street cronies.
And Power falls for it like the fatuous little troll that he is.
Meanwhile, people forget that the accelerated depreciation schedule was originally adopted not to benefit corporate jet owners, but to try to help the faltering American business jet industry. In other words, once again in the interests of cheap rhetoric, Obama attacks American industry and threatens American jobs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:46 pmHey, SPQR, just call Power by another name: CutN’Paste. That’s what he was doing earlier in the thread, and what he is doing here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/03/991002/-During-Bush-Presidency,-Current-GOP-Leaders-Voted-19-Times-To-Increase-Debt-Limit-By-$4-Trillion
The fellow has a right to his opinion. Except we ought to hear his opinion, not what happens after control-C followed by control-V.
Simon Jester (d2d83b) — 7/12/2011 @ 4:59 pmWell, Simon, I think I’ll use “Kos’n’Paste” for Power from now on.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:03 pmNicely done, SPQR.
Seriously, I don’t mind ideas that are different from mine. But just cutting and pasting what other people say repeatedly does not argue for deep thought.
To each their own.
Simon Jester (d2d83b) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:06 pm“Power” hearts plagiarism.
JD (d48c3b) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:09 pmthe bald faced lies and
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:21 pmextravagant spending of
Zero got us here
shelling for da rich
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:24 pmthe world is my raw oyster
pearls before da swine
where’s my check, Barry!?!?
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:26 pmBig Zero has ’em bumfuzzled
teh Lies of Summer
That last was a partial transcript of the press conference, toolbar acts kind of strange with URLs.
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:29 pmRational Republicans and most Independents know that the rich need to be taxed more, although they are not vocal about it. See the backlash against conservatives like David Brooks when they go against the crazy branch of science denying, gay reforming, xenophobic teabaggers represented by the likes of Bachmann and Palin. … and the regular old fart commenters that cling to this blog and Fox News. The GOP represents their campaign contributors, corporate interests, not the American people. That is clear.
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:30 pmnothing stopping you
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:33 pmleftwing nitwits from writing
personal checks Bub
put your damn money
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:35 pmwhere your big mouth is power
give until it hurts
From the folks who called Bin Laden, ‘the well known Saudi dissident:
hhtp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/12/us-usa-debt/USTRE7646562110712
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:35 pmjust give until you
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:39 pmcan give no more leftwinger
as if you gotta job
always generous
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:40 pmwith other people’s money
the sh*theels anyway
whoops…
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:41 pm==conservatives like David Brooks ==
Ha Ha
elissa (a3e02f) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:43 pmHa
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Hee Hee Hee Hee
HaHa
colonel run table
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:43 pmdamage is done keep pluckin’
that chicken, power
is whoopi goldberg
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:46 pmclinically insane? it
innocent question
Power is Joe Biden thanks JD without your assistance I would not have known Power’s true identity.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:46 pmOn a side note: in light of all things, it’s an odd coincidence a new commenter references Raw Story twice in this thread.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:51 pmThe House should pass its favorite version, raising the debt ceiling in exchange for huge cuts in spending. Then move on to other business. Either the Senate votes it down (their problem) or it goes to Obama’s desk. He can either sign it (fine) or veto it. If he vetoes it, then he owns the problem.
Stop giving the idiot in the white house any credibility. Don’t let him negotiate in secret and in bad faith. Pass a bill. Shine the daylight. Make the president choose. He won’t lead, but we can and should make him choose.
Sum Buddy (0e6610) — 7/12/2011 @ 5:56 pmDana– I forwarded the Romanian witch link to a bunch of friends. It was a hit! Thanks.
elissa (a3e02f) — 7/12/2011 @ 6:03 pmYes, Dana.
Also noticed the xenoph0bia rube. That was has been falling out of popularity in Europe and Canada, so it looks like they will be sending thier overstock here. I suspect they will be
cap'n john's nephew (d29614) — 7/12/2011 @ 6:10 pmexporting the “racist” to Europe now that it is a joke here.
So, 10 Republicans voted to keep the ban on light bulbs,
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/12/2011 @ 6:38 pmAmen. Pass a debt ceiling fix combined with something combining Ryan’s budget and a repeal of Obamacare.
Let him choose and let the voters decide which party they want running things.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 6:48 pmComment #200 (power) is the opposite of thought.
I don’t want to tell you good folks how to police your threads, but you had a very funny main topic here with rich potential for accurate satire, and you let it get diverted into the ditch by a brainless dipshit who made it unsharp, unfunny, unsatirical, and (naturally) untrue.
When a troll tosses its dopey-ass leftist (BIRM) troll grenade, may I suggest that y’all not rush to throw yourselves on top of it. After all, they’re all duds. By definition.
d. in c. (1e48bc) — 7/12/2011 @ 6:56 pmNo one wants to have their pet program or benefit cut. So, instead of battling over who gets cut and who doesn’t, which will invoke no end of cronyism, just cut all government programs by 20%. Now.
The currently proposed “cuts” are really just reductions in the future rate of increase. They don’t cut anything.
Ace (f8480a) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:00 pmSeems pretty fair. Seems more politically feasible, too. It would also take forever to fight a battle, one program at a time. Government’s so complex at this point that we could never contain it by facing one hydra head at a time.
We live in an orwellian world. If we merely keep the tax policies signed into law by Obama where they are, somehow that is a ‘Bush tax cut’.
If we limit a spending increase by half, that’s a draconian reactionary cut.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:03 pmSeems more politically feasible, too
If cutting everything including social security by 20% is more politically feasible, I’m not sure I understand the comparator.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:13 pmAre you with us or against us?
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:20 pmOK, granted, it wouldn’t be easy.
But cutting everything together is probably more feasible than trying to cut select programs one by one, fighting a huge battle.
Aphrael, it will be politically difficult to do anything about entitlements, but one way or another, those benefits will not be paid in full as envisioned. That simply isn’t possible.
My hope is we can continue informing the public (it’s already happening) and combine that with a politically feasible solution.
Anyway, what are we comparing it to? Anything of a similar scope that is targeted. I think Ace is probably right.
You know, you can trumpet phony push polls or whatever, but there’s a reason Obama whined about raising the debt ceiling and promised tax cuts to 98% of Americans. The reason Obama lied that much is because Americans aren’t really in favor of higher taxes and a higher debt ceiling.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:24 pmNINETEEN POLLS SAY THE SAME THING.
are you in denial?
If so, you might be a conservative. That is one of your proven characteristics.
Power (16d6d6) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:29 pmYou know I don’t get it. TEFRA was the highest tax hike at the time, yet Mondale wanted even higher
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:29 pmtaxes, no consideration of the impact of those same taxes. Now we know the loophole closings, specially
on real estate interest deductions, aggravated the S&L crisis,, that expanded into the recession of 1990.
So, has anyone noted that “power” shares many characteristics with many comments, and “powere” makes stuff up in general?
JD (29e1cd) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:39 pmYelverton heartS stealing from people that actuaLly make money.
JD (85b089) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:44 pmPower, six months ago Obama thought it was important to change the depreciation period for corporate jets to save jobs in the American business jet industry. Today, he thinks that its the GOP’s “fault” that that depreciation schedule is so short, that this is some boon to the “rich” and that the billion or two that would be collected with a longer depreciation schedule is what he needs to close the deficit.
That’s the kind of brazen lies you travel in, Power. The Democrat kind of lie.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:55 pmThere’s that pesky 14th amendment to get around. Not to mention that it’s just plain immoral to borrow money and not repay it, and the lender’s character is irrelevant.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/12/2011 @ 7:57 pm🙄 Orwell is doing the snoopy dance.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 8:45 pmI came up with this idea over 20 years ago, but without that bit about average life expectancy. There should be no limit at all; the eligibility age should keep going up by 3 months a year, forever. Nor is there any need for a 4-year freeze; just start the increases a few years after the law is passed.
Though given the current crisis, which didn’t exist when I first came up with the idea, I’d start the system with a large increase; assuming this passed some time in 2013, I’d have it start by moving the eligibility age to 68, starting on 1-Jan-2016, thus giving people a bit over 2 years to plan. Then it would go up another 3 months every 1-Jan, forever.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/12/2011 @ 9:00 pmAnd if you disagree with creationism you deserve to have your life ruined and fired from your job……….right leftys?
Anyone who voted to raise the debt ceiling deserves to lose their job.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:09 pmAnd, frankly, I’d say the same of those who did so in the past. Or at least they had better have a great explanation, along with proof they’ve been at the forefront of leading the path to a balanced budget.
Obama was completely right when he explained how an increased debt ceiling is not acceptable, and a failure of leadership, and an embarrassment. Of course, he didn’t really mean any of that, but he was right.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:13 pmYou’re right, but entitled or not they counted on this money, and now they’re retired; making them start over at this time in their lives seems unnecessarily cruel. And the fact is that we can pay them, even if a little bit less than they expected. We can fix SocSec mostly on the backs of future retirees (i.e. us) rather than current ones; and fair or unfair it seems like the right thing to do.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:33 pmUm, why is that a bad thing? What magical property does chlorine have, that creates a presumption that anything processed with it must be unhealthy?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:36 pmYou’re 100% right, Milhouse, and fair or unfair, that’s not only the moral path but I think inevitable.
But I do wish we would dispense with the talk of pushing grandma off the cliff (not that you or others near my point on the political spectrum tend to say things like that). We’re deciding how much charity to offer those who wish to rob the next generation.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:36 pmAmen dustin how do you feel about obama opposing the raising of the debt ceiling 2006 and raising taxes in 2009?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:41 pmAmerica is so trailer park anymore – our ghetto trash president begging for permission to mug successful people so he can spend and spend and then come back in a year or so and beg for permission to mug successful people so he can spend and spend
Obama has no dignity. America has even less.
Pathetic.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:41 pmFrankly, it’s a little scary just how clearly Obama understands what’s wrong with what he’s doing today. This is a recurring theme, too, if you remember his comments on bombing Iran and his bombing Libya.
Obama was actually one of the most articulate and right back then, and so it’s like he’s the most dramatic flip flopper possible. He left himself absolutely no wiggle room, and yet somehow he pretty much gets away with this.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:54 pmHuh? Capital gains are income, just like any other; why should they not be taxed at the same rate as all income (after adjusting for inflation)? And capital losses are negative income; how is it a “reward” not to tax money someone hasn’t got?
The notional “trust funds” are not part of the national debt; there is no obligation whatsoever to pay them. As the FDR-era cartoon explained, “we owe it to ourselves”.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/12/2011 @ 10:55 pmHuh? How is a farmer supposed to make a living without the tools of his trade? If he makes $100K but had to pay $50K for a tractor, then his income was only $50K, not $100K.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:01 pmmaking them start over at this time in their lives seems unnecessarily cruel
Just give them govt jobs, and RIF the youngest civil servants to make room.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:16 pmI’ll bet you could RIF one, hire two at 1/2 price (or less, each), and get better productivity.
it’s sorta pitiful watching once-proud Americans squabble over the meager scraps of their little country’s squandered wealth
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:17 pmIf the Obummer nixs SocSec checks on 8/3, it’s going to generate a little bit more than a “squabble”.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e41e8) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:19 pmAfter all, what do a bunch of SocSec pensioners have to lose?
And, they could just be looking forward to “3 hots and a cot”.
It’s not a zero sum game. Much has been wasted, but an America that learns its lessons and moves forward would be great. Otherwise, it’s not going to be pretty. This country rose from very humble beginnings, and there’s no reason we can’t do it again.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:39 pmI clarified that I would of course tax only profits from businesses. However, some of these specific tax breaks have led to a lot of abuse.
Under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003, Congress practically made 6000 lb vehicles up to $100k tax deductible under a provision intended for farm equipment and vans for small businesses. It was abused, famously, and I’m sure you’ve heard of this (they fixed it).
We need fewer, or optimally, no, special tax provisions. If you’re only taxed on profits, that makes perfect sense, though I’d rather just see a sales tax than an income tax. The argument against is that it discourages sales, but similarly, dropping the income tax would stop discouraging jobs, and we buy all our crap from China these days.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:44 pmthat was back when America was the land of the free home of the brave – when Americans had dignity and self-respect
but Americans today are predominately a cowardly and shackled people, and by all appearances quite content to wallow in their cowardice and shackles
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:45 pmplease president bumble can I use this light bulb I really like it
HELL NO YOU CAN’T
ok sorry I was just wondering
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:46 pmplease don’t be mad at me
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:46 pmA 233 to 193 vote majority in the House said you should get your bulbs back, but somehow, they didn’t pass a law to this effect. Just procedure, which I respect usually, but in this case seems a lot like a show to keep this issue alive.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/12/2011 @ 11:59 pm“June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion…”
Blah, blah, blah.
Obambi and the Dems are the biggest borrowers in U.S. History, except for FDR and the Dems.
Fed debt was 66% of GDP in 1996, 57% in 2000 (thanks to a GOP Congress), 69.5% in 2008 (Dems are now back in control of Congress…God help us).
And, now in just three short years, Obambi and the Demtards have run the debt up to an incredible 103% of GDP.
So, quit trying to blame YOUR royal screwup on the GOP, dude.
Personally, I think spending is a big problem , and the debt issue isn’t all that big of a deal, comparatively, (except running up debt tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of the wealthy, and does absolutely nothing of value for the rest of the citizenry), but if you have a problem with our ever mounting debt, then place the blame squarely where it belongs: on the backs of the lying, thieving, totalitarian liberal Democrats.
Dave Surls (6fa69a) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:19 am“Are you with us or against us?”
Against.
The day I’m on the same side as the Slave-o-crat/Jim Crow-o-crat/Let’s steal everything that ain’t nailed down-o-crat Party ain’t yet dawned…and it ain’t never gonna dawn.
Homeboy don’t party down with fascists.
Dave Surls (6fa69a) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:27 amSo how do you feel about Obama the viceroy refusing to raise the debt ceiling in 2006?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/13/2011 @ 6:08 amMcConnell seems to be seeking a political solution where Obama is given the power, and blame, for raising the debt ceiling.
Bad idea. First, it’s Congress that is responsible. The last thing we need is another abdication of responsibility, another inappropriate power given the executive.
Second, Obama is irresponsible. He cares about the 2012 election, not my grandchildren’s taxes. He will raise the ceiling without batting an eye and we the taxpayers will get no relief.
A stupid idea altogether.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/13/2011 @ 6:38 amit same old story
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/13/2011 @ 6:46 amit the same old game power
man born to be slave
Can Congress delegate to the President its power to authorise debt? I wouldn’t have thought so, but the non-delegation doctrine is in dire straits these days.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 7:08 amFor starters, how about …
National Right to Work
Alan (a4b7c1) — 7/13/2011 @ 7:30 amRepeal Davis-Bacon
Eliminate the FCC
Eliminate the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide
The comments by “power” at 5:30 and 7:29 were vintage William Yelverton, the plagiarizing racist midget hilljack.
JD (306f5d) — 7/13/2011 @ 8:35 amIf we had any sense we’d simply prohibit our governments from borrowing money. They can steal as much as they “need” via taxation, any time they need it, so why add to our tax burden tomorrow, by borrowing today?
The only reason the cowards borrow money is so that they can spend endless amounts of our dough, and then pass the problem of paying off loans to the next government.
If they want to rob us blind, let ’em do it up front.
Dave Surls (b1416a) — 7/13/2011 @ 9:21 amGreat line repeated by Glenn Reynolds: “RICH GALEN: “After watching the President for the past 26 months I have determined he has two negotiating positions: Arrogant and petulant.””
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2011 @ 9:38 amIt comes down to this
Power (16d6d6) — 7/13/2011 @ 9:59 amAh, the “conservatives are racist” nonsense. Figures, since you’ve got nothing else to fall back on. Why do you hate black people?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:03 am“The last thing we need is another abdication of responsibility, another inappropriate power given the executive.”
Amphipolis – McConnell’s idea is not an abdication. Read more about it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:06 amPower is a bigot. Really nothing else to say to or about him.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:06 amAmerica is suffering. 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 – the highest rate in 20 years. But the GOP, against the will of the American people, protect tax cuts for the rich and tax loopholes for the richest industries.
Very Christ-like, don’t you think?
Power (16d6d6) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:09 amStashiu3 – It is patently clear Power does not understand the material he is commenting about. He believes marginal tax rates translate into bottom line revenue for the government, ignoring the impact of deductions and changes in behavior. My favorite is his repeated links to sources which don’t say what claims they say.
Priceless!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:09 amLike BOTH the Congressional Research Service AND the Congressional Budget Office – both saying the Bush tax cuts cost around $5 TRILLION?
Power (16d6d6) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:12 am“But the GOP, against the will of the American people, protect tax cuts for the rich and tax loopholes for the richest industries.”
Power – Nice fabrication. Bush cut taxes for everyone, with the highest percentage cuts going to middle class Americans. He knocked six million Americans off the tax rolls.
Obama has become the Food Stamp president, with 1:7 Americans receiving them. Great job Barcky!
Now define tax loophole for the rubes here, if you can. Go!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:13 amPower – Have you noticed Bush is not president?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:14 amThe problem with that is it’s static analysis: it assumes the same level of economic activity regardless of tax rates. That’s pretty stupid, because everyone will modify his behavior when his tax rates change. There’s no telling what the economy would have done absent the tax rate cuts, so any analysis after the fact is at best a wild-ass guess.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:16 amPower – I hope the Democrats run Obama for president next year. He will have to run on his record and guess what, he will not be running against George Bush. WAKE UP!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:17 amGreat point, Chuck.
I wonder if someone out there seriously believe if you increase all taxes one percent you will get one percent more revenue. I realize many of these analyses try to guess the impact, but the fact is these are wild assumptions, and they were quite wrong about the ‘Bush’ tax cuts (passed by both houses of congress and signed by President Bush and later President Obama). Tax rates went down, and revenue went up.
Anyway, I don’t mind if the left wants to keep calling them the Bush tax cuts. It seems they try pretty hard to distance Obama from anything he’s done. But Obama signed into law our current tax code. That’s just a fact. Why blame Bush?
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:20 amIt comes down to this
Comment by Power — 7/13/2011 @ 9:59 am
Power, think about how ridiculous on its face your linked piece is.
If this line of thinking is to be given the benefit of the doubt, then the only logical
explanationrationalization for people of color who are conservative and/or Tea Party members, is to label them as Uncle Toms or tokens (which the left does). And if that’s not racist, then I don’t know what is.Because the left is so immensely narrow-minded, bigoted and illogical, is yet one of the myriad of reasons why I want nothing to do with them.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:21 amPower is an intolerant ignorant cocksmoker.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:24 amSome? Quite a few, unfortunately. Possibly even a majority of the public, because economic education in this country is almost non-existant. Most people hear “raise taxes” and figure that means more money going into the government; conversely, they hear “lower taxes” and figure that means less going in.
When they hear something like “accelerated depreciation”, they think it’s some big tax subsidy for rich people. In fact, what accelerating the depreciation schedule (as was done in the 2001 tax package) does is allows businesses to write off capital investments quicker, so that they replace it quicker. Which means ecomonic activity that would not have existed at all absent that change in the tax law: suppliers of capital equipment produce more, so they hire more workers, so more tax money is collected on wages and business profits. It’s complicated and not many understand it, but the Dems are great at exploiting the lack of economic understanding in this country.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:31 am“power” is Yelverton?
The incoherance of the comments posted, and the contradiction of the links, reminds me of the passive-aggressive posting queen lovey.
Is that you lovey/emperor?
AD-RtR/OS! (e05987) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:32 amHave you rebranded yourself once again?
I’m with the Romanian witches–let’s put a hex or spell on Obama and his spending ways.
rochf (f3fbb0) — 7/13/2011 @ 10:34 am“Power” is William Yelverton, AD. A pathetic small dishonest man.
JD (6e25b4) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:12 am“It comes down to this”
LOL.
The usual hilarity. Democrats accusing other groups of being racist.
Much like Nazis accusing other groups of being anti-semitic.
Dave Surls (1fb0af) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:26 amChuck’s conservative fallacy:
That’s pretty stupid, because everyone will modify his behavior when his tax rates change. There’s no telling what the economy would have done absent the tax rate cuts,
GDP does not increase when tax rates are cut. Look at 80 years of data.
You lose … Thanks for playing.
Answers (16d6d6) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:35 amThe constitution allows Congress to borrow money because that was how all wars have been financed, for almost all of known history. A government that can’t borrow money, and convince creditors that it can be counted on to pay them back, can’t fight and is a sitting duck for the first invader.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:36 amUm, you’re completely wrong. You’re just asserting you’re right, with claims that any informed person knows are incorrect, and then dismissing the argument obnoxiously.
Tax revenue went up after the JFK, Reagan, and Bush era tax cuts. Democrats simply out spent the gains, while obnoxiously pretending that spending isn’t the reason for the deficits.
‘Water doesn’t keep people alive, after all, this person I just beheaded drank water an hour ago!’
IF you really went over 80 years of data, you’d see you’re obviously wrong. Why no hyperlink?
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:40 am“Answers” is Power under another sock. Power, why do you hate black people?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:43 amhttp://thoughtstate.blogspot.com/2011/01/tax-rates-and-gdp-growth.html
The facts are clear and documented. You are in denial.
I see no hyperlinks from you with facts.
Answers (16d6d6) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:43 amAnswer – True or false? Medical debt is a factor in 80% of personal bankruptcies! Therefore we need government controlled healthcare.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:44 amMy opinions are always facts, and I know I’m right because I keep telling you I am always right!
That plus I am too ashamed of how stupid I look after a few comments to continue using the same name. Because I’m so right!
/Powers/Yelverton/Yelvertonposingoshisowngirlfriend/othercringeworthyepisodes
Come on, dude. If you want to have a real discussion, have one.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:46 amComment by Answers — 7/13/2011 @ 11:35 am
Since you believe with such certitude that your post is true, perhaps you can’t be bothered with supplying links to data that buttress that certitude?
Then, by your reasoning, if there is no clear negative correlation between tax-rate increases, and GDP growth, we should just raise the marginal rate back to the 90+% that was in existence during the Truman Administration, and enjoy great GDP, right? Of course, you would re-instate all of the deductions that were available at that time, would you not?
AD-RtR/OS! (e05987) — 7/13/2011 @ 11:47 amAnd, of course, to be fair, all brackets would be inflation adjusted to 1950?
“The constitution allows Congress to borrow money because that was how all wars have been financed…”
They don’t need to borrow money to fight wars or for any other purpose when they can take money by taxation any time the urge hits them.
They’re going to use taxation to repay the loan plus interest anyway, so might as well just cut to the chase and tax NOW, instead of later.
Besides, if letting these dickheads have less money also means fighting less wars…I’m totally in favor of that.
If it was up to me, governments would NEVER be allowed to borrow money.
Dave Surls (4bd292) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:00 pmWhat you seem to miss is that the tax rate cuts tend to take place in the middle of recessions, when the GDP growth is already lower than normal. Further, there are other factors that cause GDP growth which have nothing to do with tax policy (like the tech boom of the 90s).
But you’re an idiot to believe that people and business don’t change their behavior when tax rates change.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:01 pmNo, they can’t. No government has ever been able to finance a war entirely out of current taxation. You’re making the same mistake Yelverton is, assuming that a government can take in as much tax revenue as it likes.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:06 pmNext up, Yelverton will start in on deniers, his hatred of Christians, his fear of brown people that can spell, followed by him doing a little gender bending, veggie paella recipes, and will then pass out again. His midget manic phases are so predictable.
JD (d48c3b) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:06 pmWillie the racist hilljack, lives in a holler …
Sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon
JD (306f5d) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:10 pmThen we’d have lost the revolution. Actually, we (i.e. the UK) would have lost the Seven Years War, and thus we (the American colonists) wouldn’t have been called on to pay any taxes to repay the loans we took out to fight it. Then again, we (the colonists) would either be dead, expelled, or else have to pay even heavier taxes to repay the loans the French took to conquer us.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:12 pmWhat other lies will Yelverton the anemic low life spew from his mouth?
Um maybe saying Fracking pollutes NYCS waters.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:13 pmWhen Obama extended the current tax rates for all Americans he pointed out that not doing so would likely cost 1,000,000 jobs. Clearly his opinion differs from that of Answers. Why Obama wants to raise taxes now remains a mystery.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:13 pmIs Yelverton using a proxy to post?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:16 pmIn 2004, spending per capita was $7828.32. Recycling this spending per capita this year would result in an expected budget surplus. In fact, because the war in Iraq is cooler than it was back then, there would still be more money to spend on other things now than there were in 2004.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:17 pm“No, they can’t. No government has ever been able to finance a war entirely out of current taxation.”
Of course, they can.
All they have to do is tax today, instead of tomorrow. Either way, they’re going to raise every single cent by taxation. It’s just a matter of when they’re going to do it.
Anyway, defense spending is only a tiny fraction of what governments spend in the United States. They’re borrowing money to pay for the all-powerful nanny state, not to pay for Mickey Mouse military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya.
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of the money being spent on the military would have been spent whether we were fighting in Afghanistan (and other places) or not.
Dave Surls (f9a929) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:37 pmNot to mention how cheap a war could be for this country if we weren’t a gracious and gentle people.
We could eliminate Qaddafi in a single day and at relatively low cost if we just used our most potent weapons.
Sometimes I do wonder if a reaction of this nature after 9/11 to every state that supported terrorism would have ultimately saved lives in the long run. I am sure it would have saved a lot of money.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:46 pmWhy so much outrage and discussion directed at a commenter?
Because of the facts presented and the data to back it up.
Hurry! Better ban this person!
Losers.
Answers (16d6d6) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:49 pmNo government in known history has yet managed it, as far as I know.
Once again, you’re making the same mistake as Yelverton, assuming that there’s no limit to the tax revenue a state can produce if it likes.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:58 pm“Because of the facts presented…”
Too bad all your “facts” are pulled straight out of your ass.
Dave Surls (c762d2) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:58 pmNow. Not when the constitution was written, and not even as recently as WW2.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 12:59 pmComment by Milhouse — 7/13/2011 @ 12:12 pm
If the Brits had lost the Seven Years War, we would not be conducting this blog in English.
AD-RtR/OS! (e05987) — 7/13/2011 @ 1:05 pm“Because of the facts presented and the data to back it up.”
Answers – Where?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2011 @ 1:05 pmIt’s “cloud data” that floats between its ears.
AD-RtR/OS! (e05987) — 7/13/2011 @ 1:15 pmI don’t know what language we’d be speaking, if we existed at all, but my point was that the US revolution was caused precisely by the fact that the UK had borrowed heavily, in large part for the purpose of protecting the American colonists from being massacred or expelled from their homes, and at those colonists’ loud insistence; but when the time came to pay those loans off, the colonists refused to pay even a small amount of taxes. If our governments could not borrow to pay for wars, then we’d have lost that war and the US revolution would never have happened.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 1:53 pm“Now. Not when the constitution was written.”
This is now, not then, and the idea that the government HAS to borrow money seems absolutely absurd to me.
I can’t see a single reason why our governments need to borrow money.
Having them borrow money sure doesn’t help me any. Instead of paying tax, now I have to pay tax PLUS interest.
Dave Surls (c762d2) — 7/13/2011 @ 2:10 pmDaley- isn’t it cute when Willie the racist hilljack tries to deny his own existence?
JD (3dfbdf) — 7/13/2011 @ 2:12 pmDave, we haven’t been in a serious war since WW2. What happens if we do find ourselves with a serious war on our hands? How will we fight it if we can’t borrow money?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 2:23 pmBorrow money from Osucka.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/13/2011 @ 4:07 pmA loss to France in the Seven Years War (aka, French & Indian War in N.A) would have meant that France would be in the dominant position from the mouth of the St.Lawrence, to the Mississippi Delta, and would have squeezed the Brits off of the Atlantic Seaboard, just as the Brits squeezed the French out of Canada.
We would be speaking Francais!
AD-RtR/OS! (e05987) — 7/13/2011 @ 4:10 pmHow possible is it that both parties will agree for the greater good? Take our polls this week and tell us what you would do about the deficit. http://bit.ly/Votocracy
Alex Votocracy (452230) — 7/13/2011 @ 4:31 pmPower/Answers/Yelverton is simply a liar.
Note this comment, quoting in its entirely around a link:
However, the link is not to the CRS nor to the CBO. Instead it is to a left of center advocacy group – albeit one not as dishonest as Yelverton himself. And neither state that the Bush tax cuts cost around $5 trillion. Rather, they claim is that extending the tax cuts into the future for 10 years would cost $5 trillion.
A quote from the linked piece:
The article goes on to discuss the negative impacts of failing to extend. But note that the 5 trillion number is based on the debt service, in other words blaming the borrowing that comes from not balancing the budget on the tax cuts themselves – a fraud by Yelverton by itself. And the 5 trillion also includes the impact of changes to the AMT, a different albeit related tax rate issue.
So we see that Powers/Answers/Yelverton is quite dishonest. A revelation to no one who paid attention.
The tax rates themselves would “cost” closer to $3 trillion over 10 years outside of those effects. Amusingly, that’s about the amount of money that Obama managed to wastefully add to our debt in just the last two and a half years.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2011 @ 4:34 pmMilhouse, actually if memory serves the main benefit of the Seven Years War was extending British dominance over the Indian subcontinent. Which was related to the dispute over tea imports from there.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2011 @ 4:36 pmI forgot to mention that the “cost” of the Bush era tax rates (now the Obama tax cuts) is about 2/3rds allocated to the middle class tax rates and 1/3 to the “rich”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2011 @ 4:38 pmSPQR – note how they ignore how the $800,000,000,000 or so in the stimulus has got baselined to the budget?
JD (3dfbdf) — 7/13/2011 @ 5:01 pmSPQR, I think that most people on the Left are pretty reflexive these days—that Hope and Change didn’t work out quite like they had planned. So they have to cheerlead, but they are pretty angry about it. Also, many people who seem to argue this way aren’t interested in reading or thinking deeply.
Can you imagine being a believer in Hope and Change, and then have to deal with the reality? Of course they are angry. Mostly with themselves, but they can’t say that.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/13/2011 @ 5:15 pmYelverton is a member of the Obot mafia.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/13/2011 @ 5:17 pmObama threatens to withhold Social Security checks from elderly (read: easily frightened) recipients. Hey… wait a minute… haven’t the Dimocrats campaigned for years on the Social Security “trust fund”… the fund that shouldn’t be
tappedtouched? You mean it doesn’t exist?!?! /sarcasmIf business executives stole Americans’ life savings they’d be in prison. Lying basturds!
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/13/2011 @ 5:40 pmBig Zero threw a
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/13/2011 @ 5:41 pmhissy fit and minced out of
the meeting today
say “This may bring my
presidency down, but I
will not yield on this”
President CandyAss
ColonelHaiku (cc5c75) — 7/13/2011 @ 5:48 pmObama has made kerryesque flip-flops on the debt ceiling and taxes.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/13/2011 @ 5:52 pmSimon Jester, Yelverton is a creepy stalkeresque weird bile-filled pseudo academic who gets his endorphins up by attacking those who he disagrees with. The sad part is that he’s so dishonest and incompetent that only he does is expose his bile-filled rants for the fact-free lies that they are.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2011 @ 5:58 pmI have read a bit about the person, SPQR. JD’s take is pretty accurate.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/13/2011 @ 6:11 pmThat too.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2011 @ 6:14 pm“Dave, we haven’t been in a serious war since WW2. What happens if we do find ourselves with a serious war on our hands? How will we fight it if we can’t borrow money?”
You can draft millions of kids into the armed forces, but you can’t draft money out of the pockets of those that have it???
C’mon. That doesn’t make sense.
Anyway, we’re not in a serious war NOW, but our national debt is now at WWII levels (and that’s not counting all the debt run up by the states, a lot of whom are doing the same thing that the feds are doing…namely borrowing money like crazy to pay for all kinds of frivolous nonsense).
If we do get in a big war now, we’re really screwed, because then we’ll have to pay for the war AND we’ll still be paying hundreds of billions of dollars per annum in interest to all those bond holders, so that’s one more argument against letting the government borrow money, if you ask me.
Dave Surls (b8759c) — 7/13/2011 @ 6:22 pmSimon and SPQR – you guys give the hate-filled lying midget skin flute player way too much credit.
JD (3dfbdf) — 7/13/2011 @ 6:49 pmWell, the people living here would be speaking Francais. Many of the English colonists would have been massacred by the Indians, or else expelled by the French, just as the British had done to the Cajuns.
That was one effect globally. But here in North America the main benefit was that the English colonists got to stay alive and in their homes, and got to expand their colonies, something they were all very much in favour of, and begged the UK to fight for, so long as the entire financial burden fell on the British taxpayers.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 7:24 pmIt’s an argument against the government having borrowed all that money; it’s very much not an argument against letting the government borrow money. The right to borrow money is vital, fundamental, something no state can exist without; actually borrowing for current expenditure is another matter entirely.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/13/2011 @ 7:28 pmHigher taxes for thee bout not for me.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 7/13/2011 @ 7:47 pmThe last time I checked governments don’t have rights, so they definitely don’t have the right to borrow money.
All they have is whatever powers we, the governed, delegate to them…and, if it was up to me the power to borrow money (which is later paid back via the taxation they could have used in the first place) wouldn’t be one of those powers.
They’ve proved over and over again that they can’t be trusted with that power, and like bad little children, they need to be punished by having their privileges revoked.
But, we’re just going around in circles here, so I’ll leave it at that.
Dave Surls (b8759c) — 7/13/2011 @ 7:53 pmIf there is a serious war, there would be an excuse to raise the debt ceiling.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/14/2011 @ 10:47 am“…find ourselves with a serious war on our hands…”
Yes, I would hate to think what might happen when we are faced with a foe that is Hell-bent to kill us, and completely change our way of life, governance, society, etc….
Now, back to our previously scheduled coverage of the War on IslamoFascism.
AD-RtR/OS! (317be7) — 7/14/2011 @ 10:57 amOnly if there is a debt ceiling to raise. Dave Surls would like to remove the power to borrow money from the constitution; if that were to happen, the USA would cease to exist as soon as some aggressor started a serious war.
Milhouse (1448a4) — 7/14/2011 @ 10:59 amNone of those, on their own, make a serious war. Look around you; are we seriously at war? No, we’ve got time and money to live our lives almost as usual; indeed our own stupid “security” measures have more impact on our lives than the enemy or the war effort. Compare that to WW2.
The reason is that in addition to all of the above qualities, a serious enemy needs the resources to fight us in depth and at length, on multiple fronts. Right now our Islamist enemies don’t have that; God help us if they ever do.
Milhouse (1448a4) — 7/14/2011 @ 11:03 amI think we are.
We’re just rich enough to insulate ourselves, and sadly, some of our society doesn’t want to accept reality.
War has changed. Just because we don’t need to draft millions of people and ration flour doesn’t mean a war is unserious.
Frankly, WWII policies for 2011 would not make our military more effective. We need more and better drones and weapons for engagements. We don’t need a million men with M-14s. We need a small number with extreme precision.
It’s a serious war that we are simply handling in a more modern way.
BTW, existential threats have a way of changing rules quickly. If we had a balanced budget amendment and there was some threat that required us to break it or die, we’d just break the rules. We need to stop pretending otherwise when we try to find a legal solution to a congress and president that have absolutely no limits.
One example is to let the US Supreme Court rule executive orders unconstitutional. Newt thinks they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. I think that proves he’s naive and unrealistic in serious times. We need more checks and balances, not fewer. One check we need is a balanced budget amendment, backed up by the Supreme Court we actually have. Perfect solution? No. There isn’t one.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/14/2011 @ 11:53 amSTOP THE PAYCHECKS FOR THE PRESIDENT, EVERYONE IN CONGRESS AND SENATE UNTIL THEY COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND STOP THIS DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOR!!! YOU ARE HERE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE … MR. MCCONNELL NOT TO STOP ANYONE’S RE-ELECTION BID !!! YOU TAKE THE CUT YOU TAKE THE HIT UNTIL THE MIDDLE CLASS IS TREATED FAIRLY !!!
Francene Chase (fc0967) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:35 pm