Just when I feel a slight tinge of confidence in the Republicans, I read this

[Infohawk]

I'm with Obama on this one. But it's smart politicking by the Republicans. They will make a big deal about it after November and say that Obama is raising taxes. And given the nature of the tax cuts Obama will veto any of their bills. The real question is: will the economy be in Obama's favor at the next presidential election?

 

[Mursilis]

I'll play.

Two questions for you:

1. How do you determine the amount of spending, which is matched by taxes, that's 'fiscally conservative', and how much spending is that, exactly?

To me, I have no firm idea on what sort of number is appropriate for federal spending; my care is only that spending = revenue, and we're not constantly floating debt every year. The less-informed argue that bipartisanship is dead, but I see it as alive and well, and not in a good way. The Dems and GOP have formed a suicide pact wherein both sides get to pretend to be fiscally responsible (but aren't), yet they only deliver on half thier promises - the GOP cuts taxes but doesn't cut spending, and the Dems crank up the spending but refuse to raise taxes to pay for it. This pact will wreck the country in the end.

2. Under what definition of fiscal conservatism were Reagan and the Bush more fiscally conservative than Clinton or Carter or even LBJ or JFK?

Congress passes the budget and spends the money, and none of those presidents were all that fiscally-conservative. Clinton merely got lucky enough to ride a global bubble to short-term fiscal solvency, but he never had a long-term plan.

 

[Acanthus]

Raising taxes while increasing spending is not being "Fiscally conservative".

It is, IMO, responsible to raise taxes right now. However, cutting spending is IMO, much more responsible. We are in a recession, the worst thing to do while in a recession is raise taxes.

Actually cutting spending is substantially worse when unemployment is at 10%.

 

[Jhhnn]

And what do you think taxing the ever living hell out of them will do? Make them hold back less money? Remember, the money they are holding back has vastly already been taxed.

It is a vicious cycle. The more you tax them, the more they will hold back.

You are right, spending does create jobs. However, What happens when the money runs out? If it is the government, then the jobs disappear. Private sector, on the other hand, is in the business of making more money. Spending x trillion dollars of borrowed money each year just because it "creates jobs" is stupid and unmaintainable. The solution is not to perpetually raise taxes on the rich. What do you do when you hit 99% taxation? What do you do when nobody has an incentive to try and make more money?

Like it or not, those rich evil bastards create the most long term jobs. They also inspire the most GDP growth. Taxing the hell out of them will only decrease the number of rich evil bastards and take the GDP down with it.

Even the worst economists understand that raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea.

Raising the marginal rate by 5% or less for incomes over $250K is *not* taxing the hell out of them. Even top bracket incomes would pay a lower % than during the Reagan era. In the postwar period, pre-Reagan, federal taxes at the top were much, much higher and yet we enjoyed the greatest period of shared prosperity in the history of the world.

It's easy enough to rave on about economic theory, but the sad truth is that Reaganomics hasn't delivered to the middle class, and certainly not to the working class. The only things hiding that have been cheap foreign goods and debt accumulation at every level except the top. When theory and results don't match, there's obviously something wrong with the theory.

Your whole song and dance wrt what's fiscally conservative and what's fiscally liberal is extremely disingenuous. What matters is being fiscally responsible, regardless of the balance point. From Reagan forward, Repubs have been extremely irresponsible, cutting taxes and increasing spending at every opportunity, particularly wasteful military spending. Hell, Repubs invaded Iraq and cut taxes to pay for it while growing the govt at the greatest rate since the Great Society, so they've abdicated any claim to being fiscally responsible in the slightest.

What they have shown, quite vividly, is that their policies strongly favor America's wealthiest at the expense of everybody else, and at the expense of the fiscal integrity of the govt itself. The only thing that trickles down in trickledown economics is debt, something that anybody with more than a few grey cells to rub together should be able to recognize.

 

[Mursilis]

Your whole song and dance wrt what's fiscally conservative and what's fiscally liberal is extremely disingenuous. What matters is being fiscally responsible, regardless of the balance point. From Reagan forward, Repubs have been extremely irresponsible, cutting taxes and increasing spending at every opportunity, particularly wasteful military spending. Hell, Repubs invaded Iraq and cut taxes to pay for it while growing the govt at the greatest rate since the Great Society, so they've abdicated any claim to being fiscally responsible in the slightest.

It's too bad your intellect continues to be enslaved by your partisanship. You see past the GOP lies, but still buy into the Dems' BS (at least enough to blame the debt only on the GOP). As I've asked in another thread, when exactly will my taxes go up, up enough to close the deficit? If it's up to the Dems, I'm guessing "never" is the correct answer.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

In a recession, cutting taxes for the middle class makes some sense, cutting taxes on the wealthy makes no sense.

In terms of Federal spending, a recession is the time to deficit spend, to again get more money for the greatest number of American consumers.

Hoover tried to cut Federal spending during the great depression and got 25% unemployment as a result.

Even Keynes wouldn't agree with you as you are simply bastardizing his economic ideas.
Hoover's problems weren't that he "tried to cut Federal spending". The cause/effect you are trying to claim just isn't true.

The position we are in now, is not one of cutting taxes - it's maintaining taxes. So this idea that BHO is going to "cut taxes" on the middle class is bogus - he's merely claiming he won't raise them but wants to raise them on small and medium sized business owners. Now who employs most Americans? oh yeah...

 

[Cogman]

Raising the marginal rate by 5% or less for incomes over $250K is *not* taxing the hell out of them. Even top bracket incomes would pay a lower % than during the Reagan era. In the postwar period, pre-Reagan, federal taxes at the top were much, much higher and yet we enjoyed the greatest period of shared prosperity in the history of the world.

It's easy enough to rave on about economic theory, but the sad truth is that Reaganomics hasn't delivered to the middle class, and certainly not to the working class. The only things hiding that have been cheap foreign goods and debt accumulation at every level except the top. When theory and results don't match, there's obviously something wrong with the theory.

Your whole song and dance wrt what's fiscally conservative and what's fiscally liberal is extremely disingenuous. What matters is being fiscally responsible, regardless of the balance point. From Reagan forward, Repubs have been extremely irresponsible, cutting taxes and increasing spending at every opportunity, particularly wasteful military spending. Hell, Repubs invaded Iraq and cut taxes to pay for it while growing the govt at the greatest rate since the Great Society, so they've abdicated any claim to being fiscally responsible in the slightest.

What they have shown, quite vividly, is that their policies strongly favor America's wealthiest at the expense of everybody else, and at the expense of the fiscal integrity of the govt itself. The only thing that trickles down in trickledown economics is debt, something that anybody with more than a few grey cells to rub together should be able to recognize.

You know, I really don't totally disagree with you. You are right, the Republicans have been very ficaly irresponsible. They have cut taxes without cutting spending. That is a bad thing.

But as was mentioned earlier. The Democrats really haven't done any better. They've increased spending without increasing taxes.

Both are positions of failure.

I would rather see pushes to cut spending right now then increase taxes. As I said before, a large tax increase (which is what letting the tax cuts expire is) is not a good thing by any standard.

 

[ebaycj]

Cutting taxes is not a form of "spending"

If you have outstanding debt, like we do, yes it is.

 

[ebaycj]

Raising the marginal rate by 5% or less for incomes over $250K is *not* taxing the hell out of them. Even top bracket incomes would pay a lower % than during the Reagan era. In the postwar period, pre-Reagan, federal taxes at the top were much, much higher and yet we enjoyed the greatest period of shared prosperity in the history of the world.

It's easy enough to rave on about economic theory, but the sad truth is that Reaganomics hasn't delivered to the middle class, and certainly not to the working class. The only things hiding that have been cheap foreign goods and debt accumulation at every level except the top. When theory and results don't match, there's obviously something wrong with the theory.

Your whole song and dance wrt what's fiscally conservative and what's fiscally liberal is extremely disingenuous. What matters is being fiscally responsible, regardless of the balance point. From Reagan forward, Repubs have been extremely irresponsible, cutting taxes and increasing spending at every opportunity, particularly wasteful military spending. Hell, Repubs invaded Iraq and cut taxes to pay for it while growing the govt at the greatest rate since the Great Society, so they've abdicated any claim to being fiscally responsible in the slightest.

What they have shown, quite vividly, is that their policies strongly favor America's wealthiest at the expense of everybody else, and at the expense of the fiscal integrity of the govt itself. The only thing that trickles down in trickledown economics is debt, something that anybody with more than a few grey cells to rub together should be able to recognize.

Excellent post.

 

[Red Dawn]

How much of an extra burden will the increased graduated tax be for someone making 300K compared to someone making 249K?

 

[alphatarget1]

Eh, maybe letting the whollllle tax cut expire isn't the end of the world. Deadlock = good for the country.

 

[Craig234]

Repeat after me, increasing tax rates will decrease revenues. Increasing tax rates will decrease revenues. Increasing tax rates will decrease revenues. Increasing tax rates will decrease revenues. Increasing tax rates will decrease revenues. Increasing tax rates will decrease revenues.

Man, 'the big lie' technique doesn't get shown much clearer than this.

Every credible economist, left and right and middle, agrees that is generally false.

As someone recently mentioned, 'if cutting tax rates increased tax revenue, Ronald Reagan as a tax cutter would have given the country a ton of cash instead of huge deficits'.

One study showed that for every dollar in tax cuts in the modern US economy, 22 cents were returned in tax revenue.

 

[Craig234]

Let's keep that for you post.

The position we are in now, is not one of cutting taxes - it's maintaining taxes.

It doesn't matter. You are caught up in the meaningless issue of the relativ adjective, 'more', 'less', instead of what matters - the effects of different tax rates.

It doesn't matter if setting the tax rate to a certain amount is more than it is now or less than it is now - except to ideologues who always want 'less' (haven't see any who always want 'more' except in right-wing straw men who make up such people). The issue is, whether that tax rate in question is the right one - or too high or too low.

But we'll never hear you say anything useful about that - only parrot ideology.

Now who employs most Americans? oh yeah...

More illogic from you.

For the who knows how many times this makes it:

Much wealth given to the rich doesn't 'increase jobs', doesn't 'generate wealth, make the pie everyone gets a slice of bigger' - look at the last 30 years, where the pie has gotten a lot bigger and basically ALL the growth after inflation has gone zero to the bottom 80%, and it weighted highly to the top of the top 20% - it grows their wealth, pure and simple, which is bad morally, bad economicaly, for our society. You don't get that.

Where do the rich who do all this hiring get their money to do it? Our economy is 2/3 consumer based - give the average American and he spends it, which FUELS the economy, puts money into those businesses the rich own, that's essential for the employment you mention. Make the average Americans less well off than they otherwise would be, and consumer spending falls, and the rich provide less employment.

You pretend the American people are little birds who sit with their mouths open and the rich are the momma birds who get the worms and feed the people. That's wrong.

Simply, you have no idea of the problems with an excessive concentration of wealth, and so you post ignorance and positions that would damage the economy.

Save234

 

[spidey07]

How much of an extra burden will the increased graduated tax be for someone making 300K compared to someone making 249K?

Difficult to tell because AMT is in play. Ball park on federal tax alone would be 2500 more. That's 2500 that won't be spent buying things or vacations.

 

[spidey07]

How much of an extra burden will the increased graduated tax be for someone making 300K compared to someone making 249K?

Difficult to tell because AMT is in play. Ball park on federal tax alone would be 2500 more. That's 2500 that won't be spent buying things or vacations. We're actively planning for the tax hikes by not spending money, realizing as many capital gains as we can in 09. If me and the wife are doing this because of the massive tax increases Obama wants I can guarantee you most other henry's are as well.

 

[Craig234]

You know, I really don't totally disagree with you. You are right, the Republicans have been very ficaly irresponsible. They have cut taxes without cutting spending. That is a bad thing.

But as was mentioned earlier. The Democrats really haven't done any better. They've increased spending without increasing taxes.

Both are positions of failure.

I would rather see pushes to cut spending right now then increase taxes. As I said before, a large tax increase (which is what letting the tax cuts expire is) is not a good thing by any standard.

Have you done the research on the parties' spending increases in the last 30 years (a chart of who controls the presidency primarily, and House secondarily, would be nice)?

I haven't, but I'm curious if before you state things as fact, you have any idea what you're talking about, or you are just posting ideology of you 'seems' like they did what to you.

Use a little common sense, where have you really seen big rises in federal spending from Democrats compared to Republicans in the last 30 years? But I'd like to see that chart.

Now, you say 'a large tax increase is not a good thing'.

First, 'large' is a relative term. Rates *below Reagan* after the 'large increases'? Rates which are still too low which mean a huge deficit the last 30 years?


Now, I know you have your simple approach, 'cut spending'. Heck, I'm in favor of a lot of spending cuts, too. But if you aren't getting your spending cuts, do you prefer *still low, among the lowest in the advanced world* rates and a balanced budget, or huge deficits forever until the economy and the dollar are ruined?

And note, that should be the question but it's not, we're talking about tax increases that leave low rates, and affect only a tiny percent of Americans, *who have taken nearly all the economic growth the last 30 years after inflation and had their incomes skyrocket hundreds of percent while the bottom 80% went up about zero*, and modest enough increases the deficit is still big and more tax increases/spending cuts are needed.

No, you sound like an ideologue with no idea the issues in the tax increase on the top few percent of people who have had such a skyrocketing of income from the previous tax changes in their interest, which you have no idea about partially reversing. In American history, economic growth has almost always gone up pretty proportionally to everyone's share of income, rich and poor, until the period since Reagan. But we won't see a word from you that you get that will we?

That's because you have no idea about what the tax rates should be, only ideology of 'cut spending instead of raising taxes' that pushes more huge deficits on the country.

I'm for cutting spending, Obama is for cutting spending - there is a period now of economic disaster needing stimulus, and after that, there is a desire to cut spending.

The tax cuts for the rich since Reagan are a disaster for the country.

 

[Siddhartha]

The Republicans are defining themselves in terms of who they really care about. They have voted against almost any bill* that helps the middle class or the poor. But they are fighting for budget busting tax cuts for the wealthy.

*Can anyone think of a bill the GOP has supported, since 2009, that benefitted the poor or the middleclass?

 

[Cogman]

The Republicans are defining themselves in terms of who they really care about. They were against extending unemployment insurance. They have voted against almost any bill* that helps the middle class or the poor. But they are fighting for budget busting tax cuts for the wealthy.

*Can anyone think of a bill the GOP has supported that benefitted the poor or the middleclass?

*Can YOU think of the bill that the Democrats have supported that benefited the poor or the middleclass?

The GOP right now is doing everything in its power to oppose any bill that the Democrats put forth. They are trying to set themselves up for "See, look at how bad it is and we have opposed the democrats the whole time".

That being said, no, I can't quote a specific bill out of the blue that the republicans have supported. Hell, I can't conjure up a gun rights bill that the GOP has supported, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not going to wade massive amounts of bills out there to be able to say "see, look this bill helped the poor" because, I can guarantee your response will be "Nuh uh, it doesn't help the poor".

Hell, the GOP has been extending unemployment benefits along with the Dems for quite a while now. It is only recently that they have starting to say "look, we've been perpetually extending this bill for too long." But since they are now doing it, all of the other extensions that have past mean nothing.

 

[Dekasa]

Let's see, Repubs are against raising taxes on "small businesses".... and the fabulously wealthy because it'll "hurt small businesses," but yet they were against the $40B. for small businesses because it cost too much.

The CBO estimated that extending the cuts for the top 2% (ONLY the top 2%) would cost $100 Billion.

So $40 billion directly to small businesses is too much to pay, but they can forsake $100 billion for the rich, including those who don't employ anyone?

 

[spidey07]

Let's see, Repubs are against raising taxes on "small businesses".... and the fabulously wealthy because it'll "hurt small businesses," but yet they were against the $40B. for small businesses because it cost too much.

The CBO estimated that extending the cuts for the top 2% (ONLY the top 2%) would cost $100 Billion.

So $40 billion directly to small businesses is too much to pay, but they can forsake $100 billion for the rich, including those who don't employ anyone?

Tax cuts are not a cost. There is not a cost to tax cuts. Letting people keep the money they earn is not a cost nor is it spending.

 

[Acanthus]

Tax cuts are not a cost. There is not a cost to tax cuts. Letting people keep the money they earn is not a cost nor is it spending.

Retard rhetoric. Argue semantics elsewhere.

There will be a larger budget shortfall if the tax cuts are not allowed to expire. Everyone understands this. Your stupid side argument about the definition of "cost" does nothing to enhance the conversation.

 

[spidey07]

Retard rhetoric. Argue semantics elsewhere.

There will be a larger budget shortfall if the tax cuts are not allowed to expire. Everyone understands this. Your stupid side argument about the definition of "cost" does nothing to enhance the conversation.

It's not a side argument. It's shows the mind of liberal and progressive thinking and how this kind of thinking must be stopped at all costs. The view that it was their money to begin with and since government spent money they are justified in keeping "their money" and "giving" you some scraps.

Raising taxes right now is about the worst thing you could do for the economy, especially for those that spend money, create jobs, etc. One of the big reasons spending is so low is specifically because of Obama's tax policies and yet he still foolishly holds onto the class warfare for his purposeful destruction of our economy.

 

[heyheybooboo]

... The only thing that trickles down in trickledown economics is debt, something that anybody with more than a few grey cells to rub together should be able to recognize.

--

 

[Siddhartha]

*Can YOU think of the bill that the Democrats have supported that benefited the poor or the middleclass?

The GOP right now is doing everything in its power to oppose any bill that the Democrats put forth. They are trying to set themselves up for "See, look at how bad it is and we have opposed the democrats the whole time".

That being said, no, I can't quote a specific bill out of the blue that the republicans have supported. Hell, I can't conjure up a gun rights bill that the GOP has supported, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not going to wade massive amounts of bills out there to be able to say "see, look this bill helped the poor" because, I can guarantee your response will be "Nuh uh, it doesn't help the poor".

Hell, the GOP has been extending unemployment benefits along with the Dems for quite a while now. It is only recently that they have starting to say "look, we've been perpetually extending this bill for too long." But since they are now doing it, all of the other extensions that have past mean nothing.

Okay, I will edit my post about the unemployment insurance issue.

 

[Dekasa]

It's not a side argument. It's shows the mind of liberal and progressive thinking and how this kind of thinking must be stopped at all costs. The view that it was their money to begin with and since government spent money they are justified in keeping "their money" and "giving" you some scraps.

Raising taxes right now is about the worst thing you could do for the economy, especially for those that spend money, create jobs, etc. One of the big reasons spending is so low is specifically because of Obama's tax policies and yet he still foolishly holds onto the class warfare for his purposeful destruction of our economy.

I never said it was spending. But it has a cost, same as spending does.