Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Nov. 26, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
No Republican in Congress will ever vote to raise the top tax rate because greedy anti-tax millionaires are their biggest campaign contributors. Getting re-elected is more important to them than doing what’s best for the country. It’s their livelihood!
When Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate slightly, it caused a booming economy and a balanced budget. Then, as now, Republicans predicted a financial catastrophe. That didn’t happen, and it didn’t give him one vote.
Jim Riley wrote "When Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate slightly, it caused a booming economy and a balanced budget".
Jim, the Obama proposal to "raise tax rates on top wage earners" was an Obama political strategy to get votes but the class warfare tax plan doesn't solve any problems. The revenue collected from such a tax plan would be less than $60 billion. Is the $60 billion dollars a deficit reduction plan or a $60 billion dollar stimulus? If it's a deficit reduction plan then the $60 billion would drop our deficit from $1.1 trillion to $1.04 trillion which is minuscule. If it's a $60 billion dollar stimulus then how does it stimulate the economy differently than the $867 billion dollar stimulus Obama spent in 2009? Socking it to 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 at all. Where does Obama plan on getting the rest of the money? And how will he convince the public that sacrifice is necessary? If the $60 billion is earmarked for stimulus spending then Obama should tell the American people how the $60 billion stimulus, which is 6% of the original $867 stimulus, will impact our economy differently than the larger stimulus he spent in 2009. Obama needs to tell the American people how the $60 billion will impact our economy. By the way, Obama's class warfare tax plan already failed this year in the house with 20 democrats voting against it. Obama needs to start selling his tax plan to his fellow democrats in order to win over votes from his own party.
The R's should just give in already on tax rates for the wealthy. It won't be a drop in the bucket paying down the debt but would at least put the focus where it belongs, on spending.
More redundant Obama bashing by Freeman.
8 mentions of Obama, 2 mentions of democrats, no mention of republicans, no mention of any steps forward that will see presidential ink or have enough support to override an Obama veto.
Just more peeing in everyone's corn flakes.
Every day. The same crud.
Riley rewrites history by revising it to meet his narrow view. Riley coveniently omits the fact that the American people rose up enmasse and kicked the Dumbocratic Party to the curb by overwhemingly ousting them from office and replacing them with solid Republicrat majorities in both the Senate & House and that led to "Sick" Willie changing course and to "triangulate." Riley also seems to have forgotten about the "Contract With America" that pledged to stop the hemorrhaging of tax dollars and bring a modicum of fiscal sanity to the pig sty known as Washington D.C. and it did, at least for a short while. For guys like Riley and his fellow travelers, ommitting pertinent facts are a way of life. For the left, letting bothersome things such as the truth and honesty get in the way of their agenda is simply not an option.
JeffFromVegas,
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%.
Clinton in 1997 reluctantly signed a GOP tax bill that cut the capital-gains rate to 20% from 28%. The result? Tax receipts from capital gains ballooned as stock and other capital investment more than tripled.
Between 1996 and 2000, "the increase in capital gains revenues accounted for a little over 20% of the total increase in federal revenues," former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett said.
Our economy needs investors to invest and those with means to spend. History shows that there is little to no correlation between tax rate increases on the top wage earners and higher tax revenue coming into the treasury according to data from the Office of Management and Budget and the Tax Foundation.
All of yours and Obama's bluster concerning the top wage earner tax rate nets us nothing as tax revenue does not appreciably increase.
The question still remains, what is the end-game to Obama's class warfare tax plan? Is it a $60 billion debt reduction plan or a $60 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 alrready it will reduce the deficit from $1.1 trillion to $1.04 trillion which does nothing and solves nothing.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/in...
Truth be told letter writer the 10 wealthiest counties in the US voted for Obama. I think that is incentive enough for Republicans to accomodate the millionaires/billionaires and President Obama and raise taxes through the roof. Let the chips lie where they fall.
CarmineD
Jeff,
You may scoff, but Re Freeman asks legitimate questions. Romney's plan was fairly criticized because the math didn't work and he lost the election. 60 billion dollars per year from raising taxes isn't much of a stimulus and isn't enough to make a dent in the deficit or the debt.
Many Americans have no problem with raising taxes on the wealthy and that was shown in polls and by the election results. It still doesn't answer the two legitimate questions Re Freeman asks:
Is the extra revenue to be used to make a small dent in the deficit and debt or as a stimulus or both?
Since the money isn't enough to make a big stimulus push or to reduce the deficit and debt, what are the additional steps President Obama will take?
It is good politics to bash the rich and raising their taxes isn't going to kill them, but our financial situation is so bad that just going after one small segment of Americans is going to be wholly inadequate to change things for the better.
Real change must include all Americans and it has to include increased taxes on all Americans and reduced government spending in areas that affect all income groups on a progressive scale.
Michael
Sadly, the House Republicans are more involved with the politics of Washington, they are not thinking about the country. Deciding to break a pledge to Grover Norquist is more on their minds. That is the big decision. The USA economy is not on the list of priorities.
The Republicans who lost on November 6, 2012 will not support speaker Bohener on a compromise to raise Taxes on the wealthy two-percent of Americans.
The House Republicans list of priorities are:
1.)Deciding whether or not to break the Grover Norquist Pledge.
2.)How to Repeal the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)
3.)How to continue with voter restrictions in States controlled by Republican Governors.
4.)How to continue with Abortion restrictions in States controlled by Republican Governors. Which includes restricting a Women Rights to choose.
5.)Finding Republicans candidates to run in 2014 and 2016.
For decades the GOPs anti-tax dogma has brought in big campaign cash from the super rich and fueled their growth. But as of November 2012 voters have caught on to the class warfare scam.
Clinton also cut taxes during his term.
The Clinton boom was more likely due to the Internet/PC boom.
Clinton with a Republican Congress made massive cuts to government spending during that time also and it was the Republican Congress that passed the balance budgets.
The government still borrowed money to fund Social Security payments during the so-called "balanced budgets" years.
ReFreeman wrote,
"Our economy needs investors to invest and those with means to spend. History shows that there is little to no correlation between tax rate increases on the top wage earners and higher tax revenue coming into the treasury according to data from the Office of Management and Budget and the Tax Foundation."
We all the know the math supports the findings. What is clear, taxing the rich has a wider reach coming from the Obama administration. The obvious would be to lower the tax rates on capital gains from corporation and small business' conducting transactions in the USA. This would help free up capital for investing and lending for business expansion and new start ups.
"5.)Finding Republicans candidates to run in 2014 and 2016." @LTV
The GOP has a plethora of young diverse candidates both male and female who are up and comers. Not to worry.
If I were you, and your fellow dems, I would be more concerned about the Dems and who they have to offer: Hillary Clinton: 70 years old. Joe Biden: 74 years old. Harry Reid: Older than dirt. Nancy Pelosi: 70 years old. Get the point. The Dems are a party of the old and the dinosaurs.
CarmineD
Carmine,
The Republicans do not have candidates that can position to the middle. Let along, reach out to the new power base voting block of Hispanics, Asians and Blacks.
The America People have sent a message to the republicans, saying---We don't like extreme positions!
The best campaigner for a democrat is a Republican candidate.
cap inheritance at 5 million, raise taxes on short term stock trades
Michael:
What is below is where we need major restructuring. That is what has financed us, Tax reform of the 1%'s income is a component. Tariffs and tax credits to NEW AMERICAN jobs along with tax penalties for moving jobs offshore and taxing their profits are all parts of a bigger picture.
One piece, one day at a time. Sorry the formatting is so crappy.
U.S. Historical Tariffs (Customs) Collections by Federal Government
(All dollar amounts are in millions of U.S. dollars)
Year Tariff Income Budget % Tariff Federal Receipts Income
Tax Payroll
Tax Average
Tariff
1792 $4.4 95.0% $4.6 $- $- 15.1%
1795 $5.6 91.6% $6.1 $- $- 8.0%
1800 $9.1 83.7% $10.8 $- $- 10.0%
1805 $12.9 95.4% $13.6 $- $- 10.7%
1810 $8.6 91.5% $9.4 $- $- 10.1%
1815 $7.3 46.4% $15.7 $- $- 6.5%
1820 $15.0 83.9% $17.9 $- $- 20.2%
1825 $20.1 97.9% $20.5 $- $- 22.3%
1830 $21.9 88.2% $24.8 $- $- 35.0%
1835 $19.4 54.1% $35.8 $- $- 14.2%
1840 $12.5 64.2% $19.5 $- $- 12.7%
1845 $27.5 91.9% $30.0 $- $- 24.3%
1850 $39.7 91.0% $43.6 $- $- 22.9%
1855 $53.0 81.2% $65.4 $- $- 20.6%
1860 $53.2 94.9% $56.1 $- $- 15.0%
1863 $63.0 55.9% $112.7 $- $- 25.9%
1864 $102.3 38.7% $264.6 $- $- 32.3%
1865 $84.9 25.4% $333.7 $61.0 $- 35.6%
1870 $194.5 47.3% $411.3 $37.8 $- 44.6%
1875 $157.2 54.6% $288.0 $- $- 36.1%
1880 $184.5 55.3% $333.5 $- $- 27.6%
1885 $181.5 56.1% $323.7 $- $- 32.6%
1890 $229.7 57.0% $403.1 $- $- 27.6%
1900 $233.2 41.1% $567.2 $- $- 27.4%
1910 $233.7 34.6% $675.2 $- $- 15.0%
1913 $318.8 44.0% $724.1 $35.0 $- 17.6%
1915 $209.8 30.1% $697.9 $47.0 $- 12.5%
1916 $213.7 27.3% $782.5 $121.0 $- 8.9%
1965 $1,442.0 1.2% $116,800.0 $74,300.0 $22,200.0 6.7%
1970 $2,430.0 1.3% $192,800.0 $123,200.0 $44,400.0 6.0%
1975 $3,676.0 1.3% $279,100.0 $163,000.0 $84,500.0 3.7%
1980 $7,174.0 1.4% $517,100.0 $308,700.0 $157,800.0 2.9%
1985 $12,079.0 1.6% $734,000.0 $395,900.0 $255,200.0 3.6%
1990 $11,500.0 1.1% $1,032,000.0 $560,400.0 $380,000.0 2.8%
1995 $19,301.0 1.4% $1,361,000.0 $747,200.0 $484,500.0 2.6%
2000 $19,914.0 1.0% $2,025,200.0 $1,211,700.0 $652,900.0 1.6%
2005 $23,379.0 1.1% $2,153,600.0 $1,205,500.0 $794,100.0 1.4%
2010 $25,298.0 1.2% $2,162,700.0 $1,090,000.0 $864,800.0 1.3%
Super-investor Warren Buffett is living proof that all billionaires are not greedy egomaniacs.
"Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on the Wealthy"
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov...
LTV:
You digress. Seasoned Democrats are old and ready for the glue factory. I gave you a list of those who are generally mentioned as likely presidential hopefuls in 2016 when Obama is retired. Who do you have? Tell me. All are too old and too worn out.
Republicans are rising from all ethnic backgrounds, men and women alike, in States and Congress. As they mature politically and are acclimated into the GOP, they will be an awesome force to reckon with. Those are the facts. Like them or not.
I suspect by your diversion and dwelling in the past rather than the future, you don't like them.
CarmineD
Carmine:
Hillary will soon be spending massive amounts of time at the spa, getting a little nip and tuck here and there, getting ready for the Oval office in 2016.
Her Vice President will be a guy named Julian Castro, a 38-year-old San Antonio native, Mayor Julian Castro is the youngest mayor of a Top 50 American city. First elected on May 9, 2009, Mayor Castro handily won re-election in 2011 with nearly 82 percent of the vote.
The dems have a deep bench.
The republicans still have the ghost of W., Scalia, Karl Rove, and a tree-house full of nuts at Fox News to reinforce the negativity of the republican brand name.
Yeah -- Texas and California AND Florida going democratic.
A Castro defeating the republicans -- only in America!
Carmine,
The bottom line is, it does not matter who the democrat is, the Republican candidates are so extreme the America People will reject them just as we did on November 6, 2012. Not one Republican candidate can position to the middle.
The Republican are so bad off, a democrat could run as a republican and win. And then proceed as a moderate.
Again, the best campaigner for any Democrat is a Republican in the mode of the current House Republicans. That's all that is available. A democrat can be unknown or too old, they would still win.
"I suspect by your diversion and dwelling in the past rather than the future, you don't like them."
CarmineD
Wrong again as usual, Carmine.
Democrats haven't thought about 2016 because we are still basking in the glow of four more years for President Obama after his historic victory, winning 332 Electoral Votes vs. 206 EV for the GOP candidate (whose name I've completely forgotten).
Jeff,
I agree that we need to have tariffs on imports that match what other countries do to our exports, but still, without some control on what the government spends, we are just not going to get control of our finances. The problems we have are large enough that they cannot be resolved simply by taxing the 1 %'s more, raising tariff's and punishing outsourcing. Spending must be addressed.
And this brings me to Congress. Americans must realize that forces and interests that favor outsourcing, favor low tariffs, favor low taxes are the forces that contribute the money necessary to power both the R and D parties and enable every member of Congress to have what they need to retain office. Until Americans embrace public financing of campaigns, Congressional term limits and lobbying reform, no matter what President Obama or any President says, this kind of change isn't going to make it through Congress.
Michael
Today former GOP Congressman Joe Scarborough said this:
"There's something IMMORAL about these people paying fourteen, fifteen, sixteen percent of their taxes while small business owners who make $250,000 a year and may employ four people are paying a 35% tax rate."
The GOPs anti-government, anti-tax coalition is collapsing.
Michael said :
"Spending must be addressed"
I say, and keep repeating :
I will meet you at the bargaining table. One dollar of cuts for every dollar of revenue. We start there and go forward.
Jeff,
Watch what happens as the government gets more revenue with higher taxes but the 'best' we see on the spending side is a 'reduction' in the 'rate of growth' of spending. I'm telling you.... these two parties will not really cut spending and if they don't, we can never get our financial house in order.
Michael
Jim.....Good letter.
Republicans can refuse to raise taxes until
Jan. 1.
When we automaticly go right back to the
BILL CLINTON TAX STRUCTURE.
PRESIDENT OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS have the ball.
Carmine......
You already lost a losing battle.
Don't even think about 2016.
DEMOCRATS FOREVER!
Jeffery & LTV:
You are both living and thriving in your own bubbles. An old maid and a city mayor with no national recognition are the best you both can come up with for 2016? And you have the nerve to impugn the GOP for a lack of presidential prestigious candidates? Funnier than the funny papers. Funnier than the funny papers.
CarmineD
LTV:
You can't and didn't answer my question after two attempts at diogression and diversion. Who do the Dems have in 2016? You know what they say: 3 strikes and you're out.
CarmineD
Aaah, Carmine,
Any Democrat means anyone person who is a Democrat. Your Republican Party and any Republican candidate cannot connect with the new power voting block of Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks. Your guys and gals will not, and cannot, move their positions to the middle.
You want a name, my dog spot will beat any Republican candidate on the National stage in 2014 and 2016.
Carmine:
Bill and Hillary just celebrated their 37th wedding anniversary. You have, if I recall correctly celebrated 40 years or so with your own wife.
Do you refer to her derogatively as an old maid too?
Or is she a smart, important part of your life?
Am very surprised that you have such a misogynistic view of women that are full of many of life's answers.
The headline says it. If there is no incentive, nothing in it for GOP (however much I disagree) then there is no possibility of going there. Nonpartisan consensus building would START with POTUS and move to Congress to do what is NECESSARY, not what is "right" by anyone. Do what is necessary. POTUS, the ball's in your court.
LTV and Jeffery:
You digress and divert. I'm not the issue nor what I call the line up of potential Dem candidates for presidency in 2016 and beyond. Recall, I said dirty harry was older than dirt but you didn't make that an issue. It's about the line up you have/provided. Hillary is an old, worn out, tired hag. She's gained at least 30-40 pounds since her husband Bill, then the president, was philandering under her eyes. She looks terrible. Like it or not, she's through. Over the hill. [BTW, wasn't it one of you two who said Hillary would get some nips and tucks? Is that complimentary?] Hillary basically admitted as much [she was through] when she made it well known in 2011 that she wanted to resign/retire in June 2012 even before the Dem convention. She stayed until now to allow Susan Rice, her heir apparent, to take the reigns.
Now that you both struck out, time to find some new blood for the Dem party. Perhaps you'll get some GOP candidates to come over to your side. Good luck with that.
CarmineD
Carmine: Angela Merkel has that statuesque mature woman look too and she seems to be in her prime politically. Don't you read history? Plumpness is a sign of affluence.
Carmine, backed into a corner said:
"Hillary is an old, worn out, tired hag. She's gained at least 30-40 pounds since her husband Bill, then the president, was philandering under her eyes. She looks terrible. Like it or not, she's through. Over the hill."
I say:
With enemies like you, she will have boatloads of friends. You would never write about a mans age except for a democrat like Reid. Here is a search of you talking about how many pounds a Christie need to drop or is overweight https://www.google.com/search?q=carmine+...
No results of you talking about how fat republicans may or may not be.
You have shown yourself to be a practitioner of ageism, though you are old, and have displayed sexism, though you are Italian. Didn't your mother expect better of you?
If Hillary looked like a slightly aged pinup model she would not be a "hag", etc.? So you vote on looks?
Carmine,
The Republican Party agenda was soundly rejected by the majority of the American People on November 6, 2012.
Please, an example of someone living in the Bubble, refusing to accept reality as the majority of the world understands reality. Please one moment,...
Your guy Karl Rove looked like the character Mortimer Duke from the movie Trading Place, when Mortimer Duke had a emotional meltdown on the stock exchange floor when Duke & Duke stock went under. Karl Rove had his emotional meltdown on election night, telling Foxnews audience the Ohio results were not correct. As we all know, the results were correct when the results were reported. But Karl Rove, living in the Bubble, created by Bubble Master Foxnews, believed Mitt Romney would win. That was false. The professionals who fact-checked the numbers two months before the election knew Mitt Romney's chance of winning were slim. But, the Bubble Master had all the Bubble Citizens believing the lie.
Carmine, you still believe the lie. Your living in the Bubble my friend. Refusing to accept reality. You seem to be wrong on many issues. I guess you like being wrong. Then again, being wrong is a reality when living in the Bubble.
"Carmine: Angela Merkel has that statuesque mature woman look too and she seems to be in her prime politically. Don't you read history? Plumpness is a sign of affluence." @Roslenda
There is an 7-8 year difference in age between the two ladies. Angela being younger. In politics, that's a 2 term presidency. Big difference.
CarmineD
Amazing. Ask 2 diehard Dems for the likely presidential candidates in 2016, after they boast about their party's future, and the best they come up with is an old has been that never was: Hillary Clinton; and a newbie mayor from San Antonio with no national name recognition. Slim pickins. Your party is in trouble. Too old. Too worn out. If you can't comprehend that then exit your bubbles.
CarmineD
BTW which one of you posted the need for Hillary to have some nips and tucks and a good spa vacation? LTV? Jeffery? Both?
Funnier than funny papers.