EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 53
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
| ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
| ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
On December 31 2012 16:41 p4NDemik wrote: It was frightening and disappointing in 2011. To say this is disappointing would imply that any other outcome was within reasonable expectations. Everyone knew this is what was going to happen. I guess I got too optimistic again. You are right, this is not unexpected. Still, I was hoping that there might have been hope when Boehner appeared to cede ground (especially compared to last year). | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On December 31 2012 16:47 Bagration wrote: I guess I got too optimistic again. You are right, this is not unexpected. Still, I was hoping that there might have been hope when Boehner appeared to cede ground (especially compared to last year). He doesnt have enough control over his caucus (or as much as he thought he did) to get a deal that both parties would vote on. Im assuming that the new deal is planned around having most of the democrats support it and enough republicans to get thru which is a different kind of deal than what they were negotiating. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 31 2012 13:39 aksfjh wrote: An even more painless way would be for income inequality to shrink or to increase the social insurance taxable income cap. Are we really worried that we're paying seniors, the widowed, and the disabled too much? Yes, too much is a thing that exists so politicians should worry about it. Doubly true when we are talking about one of the largest parts of the Federal budget. Raising the payroll tax cap is an option, though not a painless one. That's an extra 12.4%+ hit on that income... and that's to a group that's already paying more than its fair share. | ||
|
jworld
Australia41 Posts
Aren’t people pissed off that the taxes they pay to the government go to the banks to pay off increasing amounts of debt that will NEVER get paid back? Was a solution found over 70 years ago but swept under the rug by those at risk of losing power? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Program_for_Monetary_Reform | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On December 31 2012 17:37 jworld wrote: There is so much media attention given to political bickering between inept politicians who are unable to balance the books. Where is the concern over the real problem which is an insurmountable amount of national debt, not only for the United States but for the rest of the world? Where is the outcry over a system in which banks create “money” and lend it to governments at interest? Why can’t the government print (electronically create) their own currency without debt attached to it? Aren’t people pissed off that the taxes they pay to the government go to the banks to pay off increasing amounts of debt that will NEVER get paid back? Was a solution found over 70 years ago but swept under the rug by those at risk of losing power? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Program_for_Monetary_Reform No, it was swept under the rug because it would not have succeeded in preventing the collapse of capitalism and the rise of fascism (which happened anyway in a bunch of countries). | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
Raising taxes to 39.6 percent on the Obama Rich would yield around $40 billion to $45 billion in added tax revenue in the first year of the president's plan. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100321181/How_Much_Money_Would_Taxing_the_Rich_Raise so this is clearly not about revenue, as $40-$80 billion (the range I've seen suggested) a year is peanuts compared to what we need. will any Democrat admit that it was always about punishing the rich, and not raising more revenue? and can you at least admit that Dems are willing to hike taxes on everyone and tank the economy if they don't get to punish the rich? | ||
|
TheSwedishFan
Sweden608 Posts
On December 31 2012 18:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100321181/How_Much_Money_Would_Taxing_the_Rich_Raise so this is clearly not about revenue, as $40-$80 billion (the range I've seen suggested) a year is peanuts compared to what we need. will any Democrat admit that it was always about punishing the rich, and not raising more revenue? and can you at least admit that Dems are willing to hike taxes on everyone and tank the economy if they don't get to punish the rich? Punish the rich? What on earth are you on about? | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On December 31 2012 18:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100321181/How_Much_Money_Would_Taxing_the_Rich_Raise so this is clearly not about revenue, as $40-$80 billion (the range I've seen suggested) a year is peanuts compared to what we need. will any Democrat admit that it was always about punishing the rich, and not raising more revenue? and can you at least admit that Dems are willing to hike taxes on everyone and tank the economy if they don't get to punish the rich? The rich arent some mythical wronged class that have had it tougher then everyone else. If it raises 80 billion in a single year that is probably about 7-10% of what our debt would be and thats a nice chunk out of it that wont negatively affect the economy. The reason the cliff is a problem is because it does too much too fast and the economy cant handle that. The middle class is still struggling so they cant afford to pay the rates they did under Clinton but for the rich the recession is largely over so they dont have that problem. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On December 31 2012 18:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100321181/How_Much_Money_Would_Taxing_the_Rich_Raise so this is clearly not about revenue, as $40-$80 billion (the range I've seen suggested) a year is peanuts compared to what we need. will any Democrat admit that it was always about punishing the rich, and not raising more revenue? and can you at least admit that Dems are willing to hike taxes on everyone and tank the economy if they don't get to punish the rich? The article says it's getting it's numbers from the Tax Policy Center, but I can't find it. According to this "Make your own deficit reduction plan" calculator from WSJ, which sources its data from this CBO report, we see that not extending the Bush tax cuts for people with income over 200K/250K will bring in $110 billion dollars per year (Table 5). When people talk about deficit reduction, they talk about it over a 10 year window. It is generally agreed that to stabilize the debt over 10 years requires about $4 trillion in deficit reduction. As not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich accounts for $1.1 trillion, that's already 25%--a very sizable and significant part of what's needed to reduce the deficit in the long run. Compare this to the entitlement cuts that Republicans demand: Chained CPI saves about $200 billion over 10 years (Table 3) while hurting the old and poor, which is more than 5 times less deficit reduction than raising taxes on the rich. And what else do Republicans want to tax, where else do they want to find deficit reduction? Closing loopholes which they still refuse to specify after a failed election where they claimed to be able to come up with $5 trillion of loophole closing? Show me the plan. How much more cuts to social security do Republicans want? Well, they won't say, because they have no plan, they have no clue, and they're not serious. It's well known that the Republican strategy is starve the beast. They want to reduce the deficit, yet they think the fiscal cliff is horrible, because... it reduces the deficit. And they want to reduce the deficit in a way that hurts the poor, while protecting the rich, whereas Democrats want to share the burden of deficit reduction. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
http://www.businessinsider.com/closing-the-deficit-is-painless-2012-12 http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/12/the-republicans-biggest-priority.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/30/the-republican-party-in-one-tweet/ | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 31 2012 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote: The article says it's getting it's numbers from the Tax Policy Center, but I can't find it. According to this "Make your own deficit reduction plan" calculator from WSJ, which sources its data from this CBO report, we see that not extending the Bush tax cuts for people with income over 200K/250K will bring in $110 billion dollars per year (Table 5). When people talk about deficit reduction, they talk about it over a 10 year window. It is generally agreed that to stabilize the debt over 10 years requires about $4 trillion in deficit reduction. As not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich accounts for $1.1 trillion, that's already 25%--a very sizable and significant part of what's needed to reduce the deficit in the long run. Compare this to the entitlement cuts that Republicans demand: Chained CPI saves about $200 billion over 10 years (Table 3) while hurting the old and poor, which is more than 5 times less deficit reduction than raising taxes on the rich. And what else do Republicans want to tax, where else do they want to find deficit reduction? Closing loopholes which they still refuse to specify after a failed election where they claimed to be able to come up with $5 trillion of loophole closing? Show me the plan. How much more cuts to social security do Republicans want? Well, they won't say, because they have no plan, they have no clue, and they're not serious. It's well known that the Republican strategy is starve the beast. They want to reduce the deficit, yet they think the fiscal cliff is horrible, because... it reduces the deficit. And they want to reduce the deficit in a way that hurts the poor, while protecting the rich, whereas Democrats want to share the burden of deficit reduction. Limiting deductions based off the WSJ link would raise more revenue than raising tax rates (and do less economic harm). Yes, Reps don't want to discuss specifics - but neither do Dems - it's just politically difficult to single out what deductions you want to close prior to an agreement. We need to do something about entitlement spending. Stating otherwise is laughably ignorant. Social Security needs modest cuts and Medicare needs some pretty big ones. Otherwise I don't see how we're going to pay for everything 20 years down the road. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The contours of a deal to avert the ‘fiscal cliff’ emerged Monday, with Democrats and Republicans agreeing to raise tax rates on family income over $450,000 a year, increase the estate tax rate and extend unemployment benefits for one year, officials familiar with the negotiations said. But with a midnight deadline rapidly approaching, both sides were at an impasse over whether to put off automatic, across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect on Jan. 1, and if so, how to pay for that. Democrats want to put off the cuts for one year and offset the so-called sequester with unspecified revenue. Officials emphasized that negotiations were continuing and the emerging deal was not yet final. President Barack Obama was to speak about the status of the negotiations from the White House Monday afternoon. The proposal in the works would raise the tax rates on family income over $450,000 from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the same level as under former President Bill Clinton. Also, estates would be taxed at 40 percent after the first $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple, up from 35 percent to 40 percent. AP Sources: 'Fiscal cliff' deal emerging | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
Edit: lol Obama with dat charm. "I can come to your house? I wouldn't wanna spoil the party." | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Why do we still subsidize European defense spending there has to be a couple billion there to save. | ||
| ||
