GOP fiscal cliff counter offer: raise taxes on the middle class

MuyLocoNC · Dec 4, 2012

canndo said:
Obama is looking to cut defense - 400 billion I think is the number but I could be wrong about that - Oh, and I have done a cursory look at the plan, and Ginwilly brings up a valid point - although I think he is confusing ten year vs single year - I think that keeping tax rates on the upper 2 percent high will bring in an expected 80 billion - a year but the 1.6 trillion is over 10 years. What I looked at doesn't explain revenue of 600 billion over 10 years from "other sources" - Gin may be right that the "other sources" could be - us.

That's really "the rub" isn't it? It's all laughable when you put it into perspective. $160 billion a year in cuts and increased taxes (if you accept the position that revenues will increase with a tax increase) while we are still going to be running a $1.2 - $1.4 trillion annual deficit. So, best case scenario is we only add about a trillion a year to the national debt. Like I said right after the election, $20 trillion debt, here we come.

The fiscal cliff isn't even a good start. Multiply the cuts by a factor of 10, raise the taxes on the wealthy if you have to (purely symbolic fodder for the masses) and we ALMOST balance the budget. Even at that level we don't make any progress in reducing the national debt, but at least we aren't adding to it.

canndo · Dec 4, 2012

MuyLocoNC said:
That's really "the rub" isn't it? It's all laughable when you put it into perspective. $160 billion a year in cuts and increased taxes (if you accept the position that revenues will increase with a tax increase) while we are still going to be running a $1.2 - $1.4 trillion annual deficit. So, best case scenario is we only add about a trillion a year to the national debt. Like I said right after the election, $20 trillion debt, here we come.

The fiscal cliff isn't even a good start. Multiply the cuts by a factor of 10, raise the taxes on the wealthy if you have to (purely symbolic fodder for the masses) and we ALMOST balance the budget. Even at that level we don't make any progress in reducing the national debt, but at least we aren't adding to it.

Austerity alone, in a company, in a city, in a state, at your kitchen table or on the Federal level is not an answer. You don't save your way out of debt, you earn your way out.

ginwilly · Dec 4, 2012

canndo said:
I said Pain - discomfort, I want to see that pain roughly distributed, I don't care how much they pay, it is little in comparison to how well they have done as a result of recent polices. I am not talking about making money as a crime - so many on the right fall back on that old litteny. Nothing wrong with making money, what is wrong is insisting that someone else bear the brunt of the current problems in this country when it was the rich that profited.

I agree recent policies like the QE, 2 and 3 are designed to filter taxpayer money to the large banks and corporations (i.e. the 1%). Printing 600 Billion a year, indefinitely, to give to the "too big to fail" banks so they'll loan to major corporations because money will "trickle down" to the rest of us helping the economy is our present plan. The only problem I see is the same people screaming about the evils of trickle down economics and how it doesn't work, voted for 4 more years of it. Doesn't make sense.

I know what will fix it, let's take back about an 1/8th of it that we give them by raising taxes on those same people only.

Dems can say the pubs want to take money from the middle class and give it to the rich while they themselves are actually doing it and people on the left chime right in with Yeah!!. There are even some out there that still believe the bullshit Obama/Pelosi said about the healthcare bill reducing health care costs. Not as many today as two years ago, but you know who you are. I can not fully put into words how disappointed I am in left for letting us get bent over in the name of team loyalty.

canndo · Dec 4, 2012

ginwilly said:
I agree recent policies like the QE, 2 and 3 are designed to filter taxpayer money to the large banks and corporations (i.e. the 1%). Printing 600 Billion a year, indefinitely, to give to the "too big to fail" banks so they'll loan to major corporations because money will "trickle down" to the rest of us helping the economy is our present plan. The only problem I see is the same people screaming about the evils of trickle down economics and how it doesn't work, voted for 4 more years of it. Doesn't make sense.

I know what will fix it, let's take back about an 1/8th of it that we give them by raising taxes on those same people only.

Dems can say the pubs want to take money from the middle class and give it to the rich while they themselves are actually doing it and people on the left chime right in with Yeah!!. There are even some out there that still believe the bullshit Obama/Pelosi said about the healthcare bill reducing health care costs. Not as many today as two years ago, but you know who you are. I can not fully put into words how disappointed I am in left for letting us get bent over in the name of team loyalty.

I didn't support obamacare because it would reduce national health care costs (and we really don't know either way)

MuyLocoNC · Dec 4, 2012

canndo said:
Austerity alone, in a company, in a city, in a state, at your kitchen table or on the Federal level is not an answer. You don't save your way out of debt, you earn your way out.

It's not austerity to go back to the Federal budget we had in 2001. It has nearly doubled since then, however the population the government serves hasn't gone up by anything close to that. If your spouse loses their mind and starts spending money at twice the rate you earn it, on purchases that aren't essential for your family's survival, it isn't austerity to reign them back and limit them to what you earn. It doesn't even address the existing debt, but it's the first common sense step you MUST take. Giving him/her a few more credit cards and a green light to redecorate the house, doesn't help the situation and it sure as hell doesn't increase your earnings. The painful fact is that you CANNOT spend your way out of bad economical times. It's asinine to even contemplate the notion.

ginwilly · Dec 4, 2012

canndo said:
Austerity alone, in a company, in a city, in a state, at your kitchen table or on the Federal level is not an answer. You don't save your way out of debt, you earn your way out.

The Baltics disagree with your assertion even if the Krugman types tell you that only 7% growth is going to take a few years to get back where they were. I would love to have "only" 7% growth in our GDP.

Our states have provided some pretty good case studies for differing economic theories. I doubt you read an article from Krugman touting Illinois' tax and spend policies and comparing them to how awful Indiana is doing with the opposite approach.

You don't believe diabetic obese people should eat more sugar filled fattening foods. Reversing the habits that caused the condition should help.

Admittedly we may have to give the patient insulin until he either changes his habits or dies when he doesn't, but the absolute best long term solution is diet and exercise.

canndo · Dec 4, 2012

MuyLocoNC said:
It's not austerity to go back to the Federal budget we had in 2001. It has nearly doubled since then, however the population the government serves hasn't gone up by anything close to that. If your spouse loses their mind and starts spending money at twice the rate you earn it, on purchases that aren't essential for your family's survival, it isn't austerity to reign them back and limit them to what you earn. It doesn't even address the existing debt, but it's the first common sense step you MUST take. Giving him/her a few more credit cards and a green light to redecorate the house, doesn't help the situation and it sure as hell doesn't increase your earnings. The painful fact is that you CANNOT spend your way out of bad economical times. It's asinine to even contemplate the notion.

Except that the only way to get out of bad economic times in a country, is to spend. Your example doesn't work well when expanded to national scope. Sure, we spend to much as a nation - thank Mr. Bush as much as anyone else because he spent when he didn't need to. Sure we need to reduce our level of spending - now the issue is - what to reduce. The other side claims that those reductions should be born by those who can afford it the very least - those who receive entitlements - and, I think they are even eyeing social security which doesn't add much to the national debt. They think that owning and operating a military that is larger than the next 10 countries - combined - is just fine. Now if my wife goes crazy, you are presuming I have no way of increasing my income. Sure, I cut her off but I also tell her to work along side me. If she wants more stuff she is going to have to bring in more money as well. We want more stuff and we don't want any more revenue because that might mean taxes - taxes for the rest of us or taxes for the rich. So the point is that we are all spending but the rich think they shouldn't have to pay, but those who can least afford it should.

ginwilly · Dec 4, 2012

Bush was gone over 6 trillion dollars ago. Can we address current problems?

canndo · Dec 4, 2012

ginwilly said:
Bush was gone over 6 trillion dollars ago. Can we address current problems?

Ahem - the "current problem" involves how we pay for that 6 trillion. As I said, his expenditures were not nearly as necessary as much of Obama's spending - and it appears as well that we got far less for it.

ginwilly · Dec 4, 2012

canndo said:
Ahem - the "current problem" involves how we pay for that 6 trillion. As I said, his expenditures were not nearly as necessary as much of Obama's spending - and it appears as well that we got far less for it.

GH Bush's policies enabled Clinton to balance the budget, Clinton's policies caused G Bush's huge deficit. Is this how it works? Or do only republicans get blame and democrats get credit?

You realize you are arguing Obama spending (at nearly 2x Bush) is good and necessary but Bush's spending was unnecessary and bad right? The stimulus should have been about roads and bridges but wasn't. QE2 and 3 are welfare programs for the 1% and furthers the income disparity in our country but it's still Obama good, Bush bad. FFS man.

The cash for clunkers program costs the taxpayers around 18k for that 4k check. A check that a Canadian could have gotten by driving across the border and trading for a Japanese car. Yes, in some cases we used US tax money to give a Canadian money to buy a Japanese car. YES!! We give an 8k credit to Chevy Volt buyers whose average income is 125K. We also caused an increase in prices on cheap used cars by eliminating those "clunkers". Yay Keynesian boo Austrian!!

canndo · Dec 4, 2012

ginwilly said:
GH Bush's policies enabled Clinton to balance the budget, Clinton's policies caused G Bush's huge deficit. Is this how it works? Or do only republicans get blame and democrats get credit?

You realize you are arguing Obama spending (at nearly 2x Bush) is good and necessary but Bush's spending was unnecessary and bad right? The stimulus should have been about roads and bridges but wasn't. QE2 and 3 are welfare programs for the 1% and furthers the income disparity in our country but it's still Obama good, Bush bad. FFS man.

The cash for clunkers program costs the taxpayers around 18k for that 4k check. A check that a Canadian could have gotten by driving across the border and trading for a Japanese car. We give an 8k credit to Chevy Volt buyers whose average income is 125K. We also caused an increase in prices on cheap used cars by eliminating those "clunkers".

I am arguing that Obama was more or less forced to do something, and that something involved spending money, were Bush was not forced to limit our revenue for 12 years while getting us into two wars that cost a trillion and costing us even more with his medicare part D - don't lets get group bargaining rights with drug companies, after all, that might inhibit them from finding yet another erection medication.

ginwilly · Dec 4, 2012

It's amazing to me how I can agree with you on your Bush knocks but you praise Obama policies. Boo Medicare D that is a pharmaceutical payoff, yay Obamacare which is a pharmaceutical payoff. You do well calling out the right, I'm with you there, but giving the left a pass, or even worse, defending the same shit you are criticizing the right for doing, saddens me.

Wake me when we have stopped spending money on wars. Those 15k hired mercs in Iran count too, so you don't get to claim you cut spending by ending a war on Bush's agreed timeline.

ChesusRice · Dec 4, 2012

ginwilly said:
Wake me when we have stopped spending money on wars. Those 15k hired mercs in Iran count too, so you don't get to claim you cut spending by ending a war on Bush's agreed timeline.

Got a citation for that?

ginwilly · Dec 4, 2012

Is it the word mercs you don't like? Let's call them private security personnel then, sounds better. At least we can claim we don't have boots on the ground, those guys wear shoes.

UncleBuck · Dec 4, 2012

i <3 tax hikes on the middle class! they should be the ones on the hook for paying down the debt created by two unfunded wars!

i'm sorry if you had other designs on spending that $1,000 such as saving for your retirement or your kid's college education or just spending it to stimulate the economy, you need to fork it over because fuck you!

UncleBuck · Dec 4, 2012

oh, and the rich don't have to do shit. just the middle class. also, we're cutting your medicare. sure, you paid for it. but we need to pay for these unfunded wars now.

you're welcome!

ChesusRice · Dec 4, 2012

ginwilly said:
Is it the word mercs you don't like? Let's call them private security personnel then, sounds better. At least we can claim we don't have boots on the ground, those guys wear shoes.

So how many Mercs, security personnel do we have in Iran again?

ginwilly said:
Wake me when we have stopped spending money on wars. Those 15k hired mercs in Iran count too, so you don't get to claim you cut spending by ending a war on Bush's agreed timeline.

ginwilly · Dec 4, 2012

ChesusRice said:
So how many Mercs, security personnel do we have in Iran again?

damnit man, good catch. Iraq, not Iran, that other place we don't have boots on the ground anymore. Iran is the one that allegedly captured our drone that wasn't there. Iraq is where we withdrew our troops on Bush's timeline but Obama left personnel there while claiming we have none.

Thanks for the correction, now it's a completely different argument. Instead of spending money on wars we don't have, Obama is spending money on wars we don't have but it's better because of His awesomeness.

ChesusRice · Dec 4, 2012

ginwilly said:
damnit man, good catch. Iraq, not Iran, that other place we don't have boots on the ground anymore. Iran is the one that allegedly captured our drone that wasn't there. Iraq is where we withdrew our troops on Bush's timeline but Obama left personnel there while claiming we have none.

Thanks for the correction, now it's a completely different argument. Instead of spending money on wars we don't have, Obama is spending money on wars we don't have but it's better because of His awesomeness.

Ok now that we have the right country
How many of those "mercs" actually get a paycheck from the US goverment?

ginwilly · Dec 4, 2012

ChesusRice said:
Ok now that we have the right country
How many of those "mercs" actually get a paycheck from the US goverment?

don't even know why I'm playing this game with you.

none have US government stamped on their checks, they will have the private "security" firm that hired them on their check. Now, can you tell us where the private security firms are getting funded for being over there?

GOP fiscal cliff counter offer: raise taxes on the middle class

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads