Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
The current threat by politicians that the country quite possibly will go over the so-called fiscal cliff is nothing but ridiculous posturing by both parties in an attempt to make themselves look good for their constituents. It wasn’t but a few short weeks ago, right after the election, that both sides said they were confident that an agreement would be reached to avoid the drastic spending cuts from being implemented. Both sides have known for more than a year exactly where each party stands on the issues. Did either side really think, when they sat down at the table last ...
Most leading Democrats have announced they want to go over the ffiscal cliff
Obama called the House Congressional proposal magic beans and fairy dust - and further said that there is not enough time to identify spending limits for the agreement. Obama is going to Hawaii on the 17th. And has rejected any further meetings.
The House Congressional 12-3-2012 fiscal cliff written formal offer comes from the the details of the Democrat's Erskine Bowles plan and includes $800 billion in revenue through tax reform; $600 billion in health savings; $300 billion in other entitlement savings; and another $300 billion in savings in the discretionary federal budget. The plan would hike the Medicare eligibility age and lower cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security.
With CBO accounting methods the Congressional plan would save $2.2 trillion over 10 years -- or $4.6 trillion if one uses the biased accounting methods employed by the White House. And would be just 2-1 spending limits to revenue increase
---
Obama and Democrats campaigned for two years on $800 billion in revenue on the back of the 2% of job creators AND $2,400 billion in spending limits for a total of $3.2 trillion. At least that is what Obama knowingly lied about during the debates with Romney, in campaign ads and on the stump.
The left's mainstream media lead by the NYT, MSNBC and the Thelma and Louise Democrats are preparing to let ALL taxes rates rise on EVERYBODY to prevent any LIMITS ON SPENDING - so watch for Obama who claims the public wind at his back to soar off the fiscal cliff.
Obama invited five MSNBC talk show host to tell the what to report on Obama position.
In fact Obama has decided to go to Hawaii on December 17, so the no time left to reach agreement any has reject any fighter negotiating meeting
-- Popeye's friend Wimpy said "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".
-- Now Krugman's friend Obama says "I'll gladly consider spending limits in 2013 for huge tax rate increases today".
-----
Does anyone believe Obama will honestly address spending limits next year if he get his tax increase now
-----
Sadly, the positions of the House Republicans that were elected during the 2010 mid-terms will not relent.
Look for a compromise agreement after December 31, 2012. We will see an agreement before the first paychecks are cut in 2013.
My issues with the plan President Obama is proposing is that it appears to have large increases in several taxes but lacks enough specific spending reductions to slow the growth of the deficits and debts. His plan basically implements tax hikes now, promises most spending cuts later and doesn't mention Social Security or Medicare.
My issue with the House plan is that there are serious doubts about whether 800 billion dollars in additional revenue can be obtained through 'tax reform' and that it relies on 600 billion dollars in health care savings, which would require basically gutting the ACA, and that just isn't going to happen with President Obama in office and a Senate controlled by Democrats.
There is a compromise to be had here but to reach it, both sides would need to move substantially in areas they shown no indication they will budge on.
Michael
Michael wrote,
"There is a compromise to be had here but to reach it, both sides would need to move substantially in areas they shown no indication they will budge on."
The key word is "budge." There will be no agreement this year. The Tea Party House Republicans who were voted in during the 2010 mid-term election will not change positions. John Bohener, no matter what he does, will not get the votes for a compromise.
All indicators point to the White House preparing to have a deal in place before the first paychecks are cut in 2013.
The grand bargain is doable in 2013 not now. Why? The 6th year of a 2 term president [in this case 2014] is always a liability for the party in power in the White House. In 2014, 20 democrats are up for reelection in the Senate vice 13 Reps. These Dems know the president will be gone after 2016, but they won't IF they get reelected. These Dems will brake ranks with the President on bad policy and vote with the Republicans. The grand bargain gets the vote in the House and the Senate and the President has to go along. Or he can eat dirt.
CarmineD
LongtimeVegan,
Much of what you said is true, but until more Americans are willing to view the 'whole picture', instead of just the parts that fit 'their' narrative, we remain in deep trouble.
Republicans should agree to a rate increase. How you get more money out of the wealthy is a minor issue and should not be allowed to block progress.
It should also be noted though that the President campaigned on 800 billion in new revenue and won and is now demanding 1.6 trillion, and that a plan the gets revenue today and promises many cuts later sounds eerily similar to past agreements where taxes get approved but spending cuts never do.
That's a 'balanced' view of what is really going on.
Michael
Michael,
I agree we have not experienced real spending cuts from the past Four administrations. Grover Norquist is not my favorite, but this is one of his sticking points. Where are the spending cuts, real spend cuts?
When all does not look reasonable, or does not make sense, look at the larger picture. Follow the money, follow the actions, and the principles.
This Congress [lameduck] and President will kick the can down the road perhaps even after a short fall over the fiscal cliff before getting saved by special ops. The newly elected Congress, which gets sworn in January, 2013, will make the grand bargain. House and Senate will approve and President will have to go along, whether he likes it or not.
CarmineD
The big question is if Obumma has included enough stimulus spending in his fiscal cliff proposal.
Quote in 2006 from then Senator Barack Obama....."The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means The Buck Stops Here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
Now as president he wants to raise it at will. Enjoy the dance, everybody.
Bob
There is only one party posturing. It's the GOP.
It's all part of the Two Santa Claus theory they have used for the past thirty years.
We have democrats in control of the senate and White House, so the republicans complain about the debt they ran up and want the democrats to fix it.
The way they want it fixed is by cutting programs that working and middle class citizens want. In other words, make the democrats shoot Santa.
They want to maintain the tax cuts they gave the rich, which made them Santa Claus. If they go along with the increase in taxes, they will be the ones shooting Santa.
The problem is that Obama and the democrats are refusing to shoot Santa. They will not cut services that people like.
Why should the?
Bush and the republican inherited a surplus that was from the overpayment into social security by the baby boomers.
They used this surplus by investing in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. They promised that the corporations and the wealthy would grow the economy, thus repaying the social security surplus.
I didn't work. Trickle down economics has never worked.
Now they want to default on their promise of repaying the U.S. treasury notes, bonds and securities that the SSI Trust Fund bought.
That my friend is the problem.
It's too early to panic. The Republicans and Democrats are establishing their initial bargaining positions. The Democrats are purposely vague on where spending cuts will come from and the Republicans are equally vague about where new revenue will come from. Compromise is likely, but not until the confetti is about to hit the floor in the early morning of January first.
Longtimevegan,
Right now President Obama and the Democrats are publicly pushing a plan that raises taxes on the top 2 % or so, including some spending cuts now and 'promising' bigger but unspecified spending cuts later.
Neither party really wants to cut much spending and since that is the case, the only 'real' alternative is the following, which I don't hear being proposed.
As stated in the paper today in a commentary, there are only about 3 million super wealthy people in the country, but there are 28 million Americans who make between $ 100,000 and $ 300,000 dollars. Can you imagine how much extra tax revenue the government could get if taxes we raised on those 28 million people...and the super wealthy? It would be enough to do many good things.... reduce deficits, bring down debt, spend on infrastructure, etc.
The problem with President Obama and both parties is they do not want to really reduce spending much and they are unwilling to impose higher taxes on enough Americans to pay for what the government spends.
I'd just love to see some real honesty from one of our Presidents and members of Congress from both parties.
Michael
I'm curious about the necessity of all this maneuvering. If the issue debt reduction the mechanism is already in place: a return to previous tax rates and programatic cuts to a wide variety of Departments across the board. If you need to pull teeth, then pull teeth and get it over with. The only thing that y'all seem to be arguing about is how well you can transfer the consequences to someone else.
Since Obama carried 8 of the 10 most wealthiest counties in the country why not targeted tax hikes on his rich supporters? Surely they would concur.
brtaylor,
The top 10% of income tax payers paid 64% of the burden when Clinton left office, and they are paying significantly more of the burden today -- 70.6%. The bottom 50% paid 4.9% of the tax burden during Clinton's term and pay 2.4% today. Additionally, the top wage earners will now be charged a healthcare surcharge between 1% to 5.4% depending on income level. "fair share" has yet to be defined by Obama and other liberals. If 70.6% is not good enough then what would define "fair share": 80% of the total? 90%? 100%? If we don't define "fair share," we can never know whether we've reached the "fair share" marker.
"fair share" simply means "more".
Freeman
Let me clue you in on the burden.
You are talking about income taxes, which account for $1.134 trillion. The bottom 98% share of income taxes is $408.24 billion by your figures.
Social security taxes amounted to $845 billion. By my figures the bottom 98% paid $828.1 billion of these taxes. Remember we have a cap of $110,000 on social security and they wealthy don't pay the 12.4% tax over this amount. Also, capital gains, interest and dividend income pays not payroll taxes at all. Guess where the wealthy get the bulk of their income.
The total burden of the bottom 98% in taxes not including corporate taxes ($242 billion) or other taxes/excise ($230 billion) is $1.236 trillion. That number is 50.4% of $2.449 trillion collected by federal government.
Social security spending is $773 billion, which is covered by SSI premiums.
Defense spending is $900 billion counting war spending. Corporate taxes are short by $450 billion in paying for defense spending. This is the case since corporate taxes and excise taxes are responsible for paying for military protection overseas.
The economic crisis caused by the conservative economic policies has destroyed much of our manufacturing base, employment, and wealth of the middle class has led to a reduction in taxes collected by federal, state and local government.
When we talk about tax burdens, it is the bottom 98% who foot the majority of taxes on the state and local levels, which translates to deductions on federal income taxes. That is why the top 2% pays a larger portion of federal taxes.
Great question Freeman.
RefNV,
Lets break it down to real numbers instead of percentages, which mean nothing to the real world.
If we were to adopt a republican "moderate" tax plan of say, 15% flat tax with zero deductions.
A worker makes $50,000 per year and pays $7,500 in taxes.
Their boss makes $500,000 per year and pays $75,000 in taxes.
Total revenue collected by government is $82,500.
The "top" earner paid almost 91% and the "bottom" worker paid just over 9%.
So the fair share for the top 10% would be 91% which shows that they are not paying their "fair share".
brtaylor,
Sorry but you didn't answer the question. What is "fair share"? Currently, the top 10% of wage earners pay 70.6% of income tax receipts. Would "fair share" be 80% of the total? 90%? 100%?
What is the objective of Obama's class warfare tax plan? Is it an $82 billion debt reduction plan or an $82 billion dollar stimulus? If it's a stimulus then how does it stimulate the economy? Does it lower the unemployment rate and if so, by how much? If it's a deficit reduction plan then we know already it will reduce the deficit from $1.1 trillion to $1.04 trillion which solves nothing.
Is Obama's class warfare tax plan a plan without a fiscal objective or mission?
Outstanding comment by brtaylor @8:05.
We're in this ditch because of failed GOP policies that include the eight-year, trillion dollar Iraq debacle, the twelve-year $1.6 trillion trickledown tax cuts that produced no jobs (much less the millions that were promised) and the real estate collapse in which trillions in personal wealth disappeared almost overnight.
The good news is that from here on out the GOP will find it increasingly difficult to increase their power in Washington because of an inability to attract voters beyond their far-right base.
The obstructionist dinosaurs are headed for extinction. It's just a matter of time.
Freeman
If you want to talk fairness. Let's start with income.
1980
Top 20% - $146,000
2nd 20% - 84,000
Middle - 44,000
4th 20% - 33,000 (High School educated white men)
Bottom - 17,000
2008
Top 20% - $276,000 (Those tax cuts are great for us)
2nd 20% - 102,000
Middle - 48,000 (We've borrowed $16 trillion for this)
4th 20% - 32,000 (No wonder they are mad)
Bottom - 18,000
Over the past decade 93% of all income growth has gone to the top 1%.
We got a choice. We can increase the incomes across all income ranges, thus collecting more taxes from everyone. This is done by raising the top marginal tax rate to over 50% on income over 1,000,000. This would stop exorbitant incomes going to a few individuals and spread income out among more people.
Or we can collect whatever it takes from the top 2%. It was Wall Street, the corporations and their corporate puppets who got us in this mess.
We can solve medicare by scrapping the social security cap on income over $110,000 and imposing an additional 12.4% tax on income, capital gains and dividends.
We can make capital gains and dividends ordinary income, thus stopping the acquisition and mergers of smaller companies by larger companies.
We can start enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust law and break up these large oligarchs, thus creating more jobs and spreading more wealth.
We can impose tariffs and protect our manufacturing, thus creating wealth in this country. More wealth in hands of the workers, translates into less dependence on government subsistence.
When we talk fairness, the income at the top should not be more than five times the income at the bottom.
Right now, the wealthy should pay more in taxes or create the jobs and grow the economy like they promised when they got the tax cuts they asked for.
Remember, they got tax rates lowered from 70% to 28% then back to 39.6% under Clinton. They now sit at 35%. They have these rates because they said, if the government would just lower our tax burden and relax regulations, we will grow the economy and create budget surpluses.
What's fair. Let's go back to the 70% top tax rates before Reagan and start over.
Future should get his ducks into something resembling a line.
For example, he claims that "Obama called the House Congressional proposal magic beans and fairy dust . . . " WRONG! That was from Jay Carney, Obama's pres secretary, without a direct attribution to the President.
Another example: Future alleges that "The House Congressional 12-3-2012 fiscal cliff written formal offer comes from the the details of the Democrat's Erskine Bowles plan. . . "WRONG!!! There is no "Bowles" plan. In 2011 Bowles presented comments before Congress to illustrate the differences between the Democratic and the Republican't proposals at that time. Erskine Bowles has specifically denied that this was anything resembling a proposed "plan." It has little relation to the formal Simpson-Bowles plan.
LastThroes,
The goal of the Bush tax cuts was to pull us out of recession. From 2001 to 2008, Bush maintained between 62%-63% of the population working starting with 136 million in 2001 and 145 million in 2008, a difference of 9 million.
Obama? 139 million to 143 million today, a difference of 4 million after nearly 4 years in office. The percent of the population working during Obama's Presidency? It started with 59.3% and has since dropped to 58.8%. Obama spent $867 billion on a stimulus for these results.
Below are the projected unemployment numbers given to us by Obama's economists with the stimulus spending applied. The unemployment rate has been mostly above 8% since 2009. What happened LastThroes? Where did the money go and why did the stimulus not lower our unemployment rate as promised?
Projected Unemployment Rate with Stimulus
2009 Q3 = 7.9%
2010 Q1 = 7.7%
2010 Q3 = 7.5%
2011 Q1 = 7.3%
2011 Q3 = 6.9%
2012 Q1 = 6.5%
2012 Q3 = 6.1%
Obama's trickle down big government spending didn't reduce unemployment as they advertised.
So now you know why we're asking; does Obama's class warfare tax plan have a fiscal objective or is it just more deficit spending to add to the debt pile with little in return?
LastThrows,
History clearly shows that each time one of these bonehead parties gain an advantage, they overplay it and overreach, for which they are eventaully slapped down as the opposite party ascends.
Demographics are changing and that will require changes in the R party, which I suspect they will make.
I have always worried about a long period in which either of these bonehead parties retains majority control of the government. I still do and probably always will. I think that fear is wise and I wish all Americans had it.
Michael
Antigov: You suggest "Lets break it down to real numbers instead of percentages, which mean nothing to the real world." Lets not. To do so distorts the true problem. Your worker pays 15%, $7,500. Romney paid about the same rate , but that was $1,900,000. Can you visualize $1.9 million in a stack? I can certainly visualize $7,500, even in $100 bills. Do you argue that $1.9 million has the same impact on Romney's quality of living as that $7,500 does on the worker? That worker could feed his family on $7,500. Does the Romney family truly spend $1.9 million on basic subsistence food?
Sadly for Bush and the GOP, karma is a beech and all the bad decisions and idiotic policies came back to haunt them in the last year of W's administration.
And even more sadly for the American people, when W had help from a GOP-controlled Congress, the rubber stamp was worn out and the deep, long term damage was done.
Sam:
Panetta is Sec of Def not CIA Director.
Sec of State does much more travelling and smoozing with world leaders than Def. Panetta is not up for the toll it takes personally and physically. Takes a younger person with less family and home ties.
CarmineD
Sorry for the above post, wrong thread.
CDF
Soaking the rich might be good politics, but non-partisan tax and budget experts agree it won't come close to producing the revenue the nation needs. That will require far more people to share the burden, including some of the nearly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax. Where does Obama plan to get the rest of the money? And how will Obama convince the public that sacrifice is necessary?
Simply put, how much the top 1% of the population earns has no bearing on whether the bottom 20 percent can move up. Income inequality is due to a variety of reasons. Those who plan, get an education, have a career in an in demand field, work hard, save, invest and live within their means tend to do quite well compared to others who don't. For example, adults in their fifties earning more than college students or retirees is perfectly normal. The spirited, entrepreneurial and determinedly self-reliant citizens will tend to earn more income.
brtaylor, I admire your desire to be the first wage redistribution czar in America. But what gives you the right to set pay for jobs in America? Companies want to pay a competitive rate. If pay is too high then competition can have an edge in gaining a share of the market via price wars that drive high cost competitors out of business. If pay is too low then a company experiences higher employee turnover rates which is undesirable on many fronts. Many companies utilize wage & salary surveys conducted in the state where the company unit exists. Bottom-line, companies pay the going rate for each job class in that area of the country.
Increasing tax rates does not necessarily lead to higher income Tax receipts. In 1965, the tax rate for the top wage bracket was 70% but yielded only 7.1% of GDP in tax revenue. When the tax rate was lowered to 28% in the 1980's, tax revenue increased to 8%. Tax cuts can create incentives for individuals to work, save, and invest, which can generate more income tax revenue.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/in...
We could adopt brtaylor's 'solution' and federal revenue would actually drop as economic activity grinds to a halt. Why risk capital if the feds take half and the states then take their "fair share"?
I know, it's a sense of "fairness".
401k's will soon be nationalized because not everyone has one and it isn't 'fair' to the people who don't.
Sorry fellows. This has been done before.
It was called the Fair Deal, New Deal and the Great Society.
You know that time in our history when we had 4-5% growth every year.
We had an expanding middle class.
We had CEO's who openly revolted at the idea of lowering tax rates, because doing so would cause uncertainty in the markets.
We had republican platform pushing for higher minimum wages and protections of labor unions.
You know, the days when republicans cared about working people.
Freeman and yes you too rusty, there is nothing wrong in getting paid a fair wage.
There is nothing wrong in expecting to make a wage where you can provide for your family and live you life with dignity.
The American worker is more productive than ever before, but they are reaping the fruits of their labor. The increased wealth is being siphoned off by the upper crust.
That my friends is wrong.
Does anyone besides me get the impression RefNV has a dog in the fight over tax rates for the top 2%?
It should surprise no one that the top 10% of income tax payers are paying a higher percentage of the income tax than at the end of the Clinton Administration. They're the only ones that have seen an increase in income since the the end of the Clinton Administration. In fact, in 2010 93% of the increase in income for the whole country went to the top 1% of taxpayers. There's something wrong with this picture and it's not that the rich are getting richer, it's that everyone else is treading water or losing ground.
brtaylor,
So you can't answer the question as to what is "fair share"? Currently, the top 10% of wage earners pay 70.6% of income tax receipts. "fair share" is some rate higher than 70.6% but undefined. That's convenient since each year you can say "fair share" is higher than current year.
With a $16 trillion dollar national debt and yearly deficits of over $1 trillion dollars, it is clear to most Americans that our government is fiscally out of control. Obama's class warfare tax plan would solve nothing as it would generate $82 billion which only lowers our deficit 6% from $1.1 trillion to $1.04 trillion. Obama is yet another politician who is sweeping our debt and deficit issues under the rug in plain sight of the American people.
Obama needs to be honest and explain that without reducing government spending every American's tax burden would have to increase 35% to close the gap between government spend and revenue. Obama's class warfare tax plan would only increases tax rates on the top wage earners however, there are simply not enough rich people to tax to close the gap between tax revenue and government spending.
Obama is not addressing our debt and deficit issues.
Americans need to be asking, where is Obama's spending cuts proposal?
Bob, the GOP has consistently shown that they are non-partisan. Their party leadership is open to Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, Russian Orthodox Catholics (they have different understandings of the same divine perfection), Calvinists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Quakers, Later Day Saints, and all their associated schisms.
Surely with diversity like this, it is very difficult to call them anything but non-partisan.
Freeman
I'm talking about the top 2%. By using 10%, you are skewing the income toward the bottom 98% we are discussing.
The top 50% of people pay for 98% of income taxes. Why didn't you use the 50% of us are in that group.
The reason is percentages skew reality.
A person making $50,000 is in the group paying 98% of all income taxes. That person cannot afford to pay more in taxes.
If I made 1,000,000 a year and paid 40% in taxes, that would leave me with $50,000 a month to live. I can afford that. Heck, I could afford to pay 50% -60% and still live comfortable.
I'm not greedy.
If a young man or woman can put their life on the line to serve this country, then is it too much ask the top 1% (making over $345,000)to pay and extra 4% in taxes.
You want a percent. I'll give you one. All income over $500,000 should be taxed at 70%.
Corporate tax rates should be 45%.
Okay, you got your percentages.
Btaylor,
I suspect that if President Obama and the Democrats enacted a 70 % tax on all income over 500,000, many people in Hollywood, in entertainment, in sports, etc would stop attending Obama fundraisers and contributing big money to the Democrat party.
These people and others want to be very wealthy and like being very wealthy. They would not like having 70 % of everything they made over 500,000 taken by the government in taxes.
You may not be 'greedy', but most people are 'greedy'.
Michael
brtaylor wrote "You want a percent. I'll give you one. All income over $500,000 should be taxed at 70%."
Currently, the top 10% of wage earners pay 70.6% of all income tax receipts. So brtaylor is for top wage earners to pay 100% of total income tax revenue? That is his definition of "fair share"? The effective tax rate for those making $500K or more is 22%-23%. And brtaylor wants a tax rate of 70%? In 1965, the tax rate for the top wage bracket was 70% but yielded only 7.1% of GDP in tax revenue. When the tax rate was lowered to 28% in the 1980's, tax revenue increased to 8%. Does Obama's class warfare tax plan have a fiscal objective to it? Is it an $82 billion debt reduction plan or an $82 billion dollar stimulus? If it's a deficit reduction plan then we know it will reduce the deficit from $1.1 trillion to $1.04 trillion which doesn't solve a thing.
Since taxes MUST go up, like it or not, and entitlement spending, MUST go down, like it or not, it seems that a FLAT 10% tax on everything makes sense. You make $1000.00, you pay $100.00 in taxes. Not write offs, no loopholes. End of story. The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can move on.
With a $16 trillion dollar national debt and yearly deficits of over $1 trillion dollars, it is clear to most Americans that our government is fiscally out of control.
@ Refnv: I don't think its clear to most Americans. Heck alot of people can't even name the VP.
Bill Kristol: Go Ahead, Raise Taxes
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
When even Bill Kristol, the severely conservative Weekly Standard editor, says Republicans should agree to raise taxes on the richest Americans, you have to wonder if the G.O.P. has thought through its post-election, hold-the-line strategy. "It won't kill the country if Republicans raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," Mr. Kristol said on Fox News on Sunday. "It really won't, I don't think."
Mr. Kristol said he couldn't understand why Congressional Republicans were not taking the challenge President Obama made on Friday to extend the Bush tax cuts for incomes under $250,000. Or, bargain it up to $500,000 or a $1 million. "Really," he said. "The Republican Party is gonna fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic, and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republicans."
Nothing new here!
It's the same old, same old rant coming from several right-wingers on this board. People such as rusty & RefNV are very much against the upper 2% paying more in taxes...
Hmmmmm..I didn't realize that both RefNV and rusty were "fat cats." I now understand why they're so against raising taxes on America's rich.....
Both RefNV and rusty (along with several other right-wing posters) would have you believe that the Bush tax cuts for the rich created jobs, but we all know that simply didn't happen.
RefNV's ranting (numbers & more numbers..) reminds me of the old saying that goes something like this..."Statistics don't lie but statisticians do."
I find it interesting that American corporations are continuing to take jobs off shore and at the same time they're enjoying the lowest tax rates that this country has seen since the Eisenhower years. They're making money "hand over fist" and yet the right-wing wants to decrease the taxes they now pay.....
Some right-wingers have gone as far as to say that all corporate taxes should be eliminated.....If my memory serves me correctly, that was Mitt Romney's stand....
Of course, Mitt was/is a corporate fat cat!
On the other hand, the living income of America's middle class has steadily decreased over the last 30+ years while the gap between rich & poor has widened....
In other words, American's middle class continues to take a hit & for what ever its worth, it has been the GOP who has been in control of the White House for 20 of those 30+ years....
Reagan drove the economic bus for 8 years, and Bush senior was at the controls for 4 years, followed by Bush junior at the controls for 8 years.......what does that say about Republican presidents?
When push comes to shove, both parties will avoid the "fiscal cliff" by coming to an agreement before December 31st.
Neither party wants to be known as the party who allowed this country to default.
Hey, can any one out there tell me how many times the debt ceiling was raised while Ronald Reagan was president? Many right-wingers know but few will answer that question....
El_Lobo says "Both RefNV and rusty (along with several other right-wing posters) would have you believe that the Bush tax cuts for the rich created jobs, but we all know that simply didn't happen."
Really? Because the FRED database (Federal Reserve Economic Data) says that 7.490 million jobs were created during that time period (Jun 2001 to Jan 2008). BLS-CES says 5.949 million, BLS-CPS says 9.534 million. All of these are opposed to a 1.5 million job loss during the previous period.
So no matter which spin on "jobs" you want to take, everyone but you agrees that there was a reversal of the loss of jobs and a huge increase in jobs after the tax cuts were passed. There was a huge surge in job creation for the next 7 years after they went into effect.
So please honor us with actual statistics to support your claim that "...the Bush tax cuts for the rich created jobs, but we all know that simply didn't happen."
El Lobo, go ahead and raise the taxes on the 2%. Hopefully it will assuage the envy of the takers.
As far as the federal gov't is concerned, the revenue collected is merely a drop in the bucket.
How we long for one of GW's "jobless recoveries" when unemployment was stuck at a "stubborn" 5%.
Future: Why are you still on the cartoon kick? " Popeye's friend Wimpy said "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".
The reality is that today IS "Tuesday" and Wimpy is being told to pay up. The "debt ceiling" has nothing to do with future spending. It only "allows" the treasure to raise the cash necessary to pay the bills for past expenditures. The only Constitutional reference to the question is in the 14th amendment: " The public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . SHALL NOT be questioned." (Emphasis added...)
I take it that this is just another Constitutional requirement that you and the CONservatives disagree with and want to eliminate.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
The right-wingers would have you believe that the the Bush administration did an outstanding job despite the fact that they took us to not one, but two wars that we could not afford and drove the economic bus into a ditch along the way.....
Despite the claim on this board that George Bush's tax cuts for the rich created jobs, the clueless man from Texas NEVER produced a balanced budget in 8 years...
He doubled the national debt and borrowed money "like a drunken sailor on leave." We're head over heels in debt and we have "hocked our future" to countries such as China....
Everything I said is merely common knowledge.
Evidence of that very thing is every where!! Its a shame that the right-wingers in this country can't/won't see that.
Give the right-wingers another 10 years and they will be saying that George junior was one of our greatest presidents!
El_Lobo says "Despite the claim on this board that George Bush's tax cuts for the rich created jobs," and "Everything I said is merely common knowledge."
How odd then that you can't provide any actual data to back your "common knowledge" despite specific data being provided showing that you are incorrect. I provided the data directly form the White House that says that Bush's tax cuts DID create jobs. What have you provided?
Also, you blast Bush for doubling the national debt despite that not being true. 5.8 billion to 10.4 billion is not "doubled", it's a 79% increase over an 8 year period. A 36% increase in his first term and a 32% increase in his second term (5.8 to 7.9 and then 7.9 to 10.4) As a comparison, Obama's increase from 10.4 billion to 16.3 billion is a 57% increase in only 4 years. So Obama has increased the notional debt at a rate 1.8 times as fast as Bush did.
Seems that most of your "common knowledge" is just blatantly false. Feel free to provide actual data to back your claims if you feel they have merit however.
Charles....
I appreciate the fact that you are working over time to give George "clueless" Bush a "free pass" on his economic record, but whether or not George doubled the national debt during his 8 years or merely increased the national debt by "ONLY" 79% is hardley worth arguing about....
What's the next thing that can I expect to hear from you?
Maybe the argument that George junior had NOTHING to do with the latest recession that this country is finally coming out of?
Maybe you believe that George junior was justified in taking this great peaceful nation to war since (in your mind..) Saddam had WMD's?
Maybe you believe that President Clinton didn't leave George with a budget surplus in 2001?
Maybe you believe that the many historians who have listed George junior among America's weakest presidents are all wrong?
Can I safely say that you voted for George junior not once, but twice?
Also, "mittens" surely received your vote....am I right about that?
El_Lobo - I'm not giving anyone a "free pass" on anything. Just pointing out that the claims you are making are blatantly and demonstrably false.
You claimed that the Bush Tax Cuts created no jobs - proven false.
You claimed that Bush doubled the national debt - proven false.
You claimed that Bush "borrowed money like a drunken sailor on leave" - True, but Obama is doing so 1.8 times faster than Bush did.
I'm pretty much just pointing out that half the information you're providing is outright incorrect....and the other half is correct, but Obama has even worse numbers in those areas.
So the answer to "the next thing you can expect to hear" from me is probably again going to be me providing actual supporting data to disprove another bogus claim you make as "common knowledge"
Charles....
relax...your defense of "clueless George" is commendable but you're wasting your time.
All the propaganda in the world will not make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear."
Contrary to what right-wingers such as you may think, Obama is slowly getting this country out of the "bush recession" that he was handed.
A majority of the voters out there know this & that's one reason they voted for Obama some 4+ weeks ago...
They like what he's doing and didn't wish to return to the failed policies of George W Bush by electing "mittens" to the White House....
I find it interesting that the last 3 Republican presidents never carried a balanced budget, and they stood by while the size of the federal government grew on their watch....
Yet, most right-wingers like to pretend that Reagan, Bush & Bush were conservatives who believed in balanced budgets & smaller government..
Are you one of those "mitten lovers" who actually believes that the recent election was very, very close (so close...) that President Obama doesn't have a mandate to govern?
The country is now moving in the proper direction....look for unemployment to continue to decrease and look for the Democrats to regain control of the House in 2014....
It's fast becoming "morning again in America...."
Sorry El_Lobo, but if the historical information you've posted about has been so inaccurate (and I note that you have chosen not to acknowledge any of the areas that you've now been proven wrong on) then why would anyone give any credence to your predictions of the future?
Now wendor you know El Lobob is reduced to parrotting the dumbocrat talking point of blaming Bush due to Obama being accountable for the most anemic post-recession recovery since FDR.
Wendor (Charles Gladu)
As reported by PoliFact:
"$2 trillion in deficits under Bush and $5.3 trillion under Obama."
In addition, a $4.9 trillion increase in gross public debt in Bush's two terms vs. $5.4 trillion so far in Obama's single term.
Plus, before Bush left office, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion, according to the CBO.
On record, the 2009 deficit is Obama's even though much of it was already anticipated before the Democrat's inauguration. (By the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the deficit rose to $1.4 trillion in part due to Obama's economic stimulus plan).
In conclusion, much of the deficit and the spending during Obama's first 3 1/2 years are attributed the Bush administration.
Longtimevegan, you can "attribute" it however you want. You just have to realize that your "attribution" has no more basis in fact than had you attributed it to the tooth fairy.