A trillion in new taxes only on 'the wealthiest'?

Unemployment benefits aren't the reason we are in the hole we're in, and they're not the method by which we will get ourselves out.

That being said, I'm happy to have them be a part of the conversation - can you guys say the same thing about taxes?
 
Sure. Taxation is not the reason we are facing the current crisis. Uncontrolled deficit spending is the root cause.
 
How should we finance the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the care for the veterans that are coming home from those wars permanently scarred), the prescription drug benefit, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation/Safety Administration and all those other wonderful things the Republicans voted for over the last 10 years without having the guts or political courage to vote for the revenue to pay for any of them?
 
We shouldn't have done most of those things because at the very least we couldn't afford them. Any other brain busters?
 
I think it is both too much spending and too little taxation. One has steadily gone up in the last 30 years and one has steadily gone down in the last 30 years. Reverse the trends that got us to 14 trillion dollars in debt, and we will be good to go. Viola!

SPENDING: i won't go into the spending, because i know it has gone up dramatically and frankly most don't need convincing it is out of hand.

REVENUE:

1. Relative to the size of the economy, federal revenues are currently at their lowest level in 60 years. Yes, some of that has to do with our sluggish economy.

2. Federal Income tax rates have never been lower.

3. Permanently extending the Bush's temporary tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 will cost 3.3 Trillion dollars over 10 years. A tax cut that was never ever offset by spending cuts. Talk about lack of political courage.

The GOP talks about repealing programs, maybe they should offer up some of the GOP intiated programs that helped get us here as well.


So, it seems to me the current GOP position is not really about how much of the deficit can we get reduced.

It's about how much spending can be reduced, without raising taxes. Becuase it looks like there was a 4 trillion dollar deficit reduction plan on the table with 85% spending cutes/15% tax increases, that was rejected by Boehner. Actually Boehner, would have taken that in a heartbeat. Cantor, Tea Party et al, would have rejected it. (and honestly, a lot of liberals would have been pissed off at that plan as well. Talk about giving up the farm.)

The GOP seems to want to opt for a smaller deficit reduction package. Yay, GOP!
 
lowering tax rates don't 'cost' anything. That is a political term that is total BS.

And income taxes have been lower.. for roughly half the history of our country... the rate was 0% for all income levels.
 
again, it is both too much spending and too little taxation.

want a simple example of too much spending and too little taxation? Cutting taxes while ramping up for a 10 year war. What did you think was going to fiscally happen there?

Want another? Extending tax cuts after passing a 2009 stimulus bill that had $600 billion in spending. What do you think was going to fiscally happen there?

it's irresponsible behavior by both parties. They need to swallow their pride, admit mistakes have been made by both parties, and fix it.

We have bought all 14 trillion of it, whether we like it or not. We have been buying Mercedes on a janitor's salary. We should have been buying Fords with a teacher's salary.
 
Yo,
I don't disagree with your examples. The only slight problem you have is the conflation of tax rates and tax revenues. These do NOT always equate in a linear way. Sometimes tax rate cuts result in higher or similar revenues, while tax rate increases can decrease revenues.
Not always, but there isn't a one to one ratio. It doesn't work that way.

So we DO now have to pay for wars, and we do have to pay for a stimulus and a bailout... We do. That is fact, and although I was opposed to all those things, we will all have to pay for them.
So why not cut some things we are paying for and shouldn't.

Department of Education. SSI, Medicare, Medicaid.... future programs and expenses in the DEFENSE department (it is not the department of war or of offense and politicians need to learn this).
How about no future bail outs or stimulus packages. How about the end of unemployment payouts? How about the federal government merely performs the functions granted it's authourity per the US Constitution?
Somehow I think that will cut federal expenses by about 50% and should have our balance sheet turned around.
 
AustinBat, i agree.

Except no serious person is proposing we just tax the rich and that will solve the problem. Obama isn't anyway.

So i am not understanding your argument.
 
yo
"Except no serious person is proposing we just tax the rich and that will solve the problem. Obama isn't anyway. "

I am not disputing you. I am asking, What is Obama suggesting in the way of increasing taxes ?
I know today he mentioned himself as someone who could give up hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'd call that rich
and he brought up corporate jets again.

So other than the " rich"what is Obama's new plan for taxes?
 
Yo, the mantra of a lot of people is that the main problem is that the rich don't pay enough, and they just need to be taxed more.....problem solved. Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices to right this ship, including people getting government entitlements. Government spending has got to be scaled way back. Way back. Cutting a lot of the bureaucracy would help, too. Of course then all those bureaucrats would have to find jobs........

Maybe blowing the whole thing up and starting over might be the best solution.
whiteflag.gif
 
Ok. I will play this game. Cut defense 25% across the board. Lets see who who howls loudly and is on the govt. tit. One of the biggest problems is that we have way too many untouchable items (not just defense) on the current budget
 
Obama could guarantee his reelection, by a landslide, if he truly shoewed some leadership and truly reduced the size of government in a significant way at this time.

Instead we are discussing corporate jets.
confused.gif
 
Yeah come on Oilfield...Obama was all set to go on a $4T plan and your boys balked over some small tax increases. THEY are the ones not willing to budge. Do you think "leadership" is simply doing what the other side wants?

What is a leader supposed to do in a negotiation where the other side is unwilling to negotiate? Sincerely, what does a leader do in that situation? I am not certain of the correct answer, but since you are clamoring for better leadership, I'd like to know what you would consider better leadership in such a situation.
 
Ah yes, the infamous Oilfield gut feeling, ignoring logic, reason, and facts.

Now on to what you consider good leadership in a negotiation where one side is unwilling to negotiate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top