meh
I would not have cried a river of tears f the tax rates had gone back to the level that they were at during the 90s, not am I going to get mad if the tax rates remain where they have been for the last ten years.
My personal preference is a flat tax, the same percentage on all persons and all sources of income. Anything else is by definition treat people unequally and that I detest.
Still we have seen what happen when the republicans are faced with a choise of raising taxes on the upper brackets or spending money that they do not have to keep those taxes at the current level. They spend money that they do not have.
Fiscally responsible my eye.
What your analogy is missing is that both drunks are begging for my coin. You seem to insist as long as drunk number 1 says he will quit drinking I should trust him and give him money. I say that until either drunk proves himself sober I give neither any coin.
(Coin in this analogy is support for their fiscal issues.) I will continues to trust evidence and not words.
A case of two drunks. Drunk #1 is trying to get sober but keeps falling off the wagon. You may get mad at him for a lack of will power but at least he’s trying. Drunk #2 doesn’t give a ##@#$. He goes shambling through town square, filthy and stinking, urinating and defecating where he pleases. And because he doesn’t care to try to sober up he gets a free pass?
2010 income for the federal government 2.381 trillion dollars. 2010 spending 3.550 trillion dollars, deficit 1.169 trillion dollars.
Dep of Education: .0467 T
Dept of HUD : .0475 T
Crop Subsidies: .02 T
Ethanol Subsidies: .007 T
Total Cuts: .1212 T
remaining deficit 1.0478 T (I don;t know what level you propose means testing, but SS spending in TOTAL is .677 trillion so it will not get you there.)
The budget can be balanced and it should e, but it’s a fantasy to think it can be done so painlessly. These will require deep cuts and serious conversations about what we can and cannot afford.
By the way, Bob, another assumption you make, aside from raising taxes on anyone not harming the economy in this recession I did not say that, Bear. Is aid I just didn’t really care which way this debate went. ven if the government somehow manages to raise additional revenue from a tax increase (assuming that the economy doesn’t dive into a double dip recession) it would likely do no good at all. Given the observed spending habits of the Federal Government, they would just spend the additional revenue and a good bit more besides. Agreed, but sadly the Feds do that when you cut taxes as well. Cutting taxes has zero impact on our deficit spending.
One last thing, it’s easy to declare that the Republicans are not serious about spending cuts when they spend that 57 Billion to keep unemployed people in their homes. I’m not happy about the additional expense myself, especially with what it is doing to unemployment premiums, but I also know that with the economy how it is, and the unemployment rate where it is, a lot of people will be in truly desperate straights if the unemployment insurance payments ended just now
I was not arguing that the UI extension was good or bad. If fact I know that people are really hurting out there. I have to speak to these people day in and day out — personally, one on one. However my point is this, the republicans blocked this same spending earlier as something we could not afford no matter how well intended. (And with plenty of argument about how this UI extension would hurt the economy and hurt the people it was intended to help.) They abandoned those arguments to get the upper level tax rates that they wanted. The Democrats offered a bill without the spending and without the upper-level tax rates the Republicans wanted and it was rejected. The Republicans accepted large amount of deficit spending, that according to their own argument would harm people and the economy for this small part of the tax code. I believe it shows their true priorities.
I just wish you were half as hard on the Democrats and their wild spending as you are the Republicans.
The Democrats have not spent a year promising to stop deficit spending and ranting against earmarks, that was the Republicans. When push came to shove the Republicans spent in a deficit manner and the Tea Party Caucus, while railing against earmarks, pushed for 1 Billion of them for themselves,
I have been told, repeatedly, that the Republicans are going to get this country on solid financial footing again and I should vote for them for this reason. I am saying that the evidence does not support the case.
I am not saying that the Democrats are good or better.
I am not saying what the tax rates should be.
Agreed. The Department of Education has presided over the decline of American education. If you want to really screw something up, put a Federal bureaucrat in charge of it. The litany of horror stories of housing within HUD’s domain speaks for itself. Whatever the original reason for crop subsidies, they now do more harm than good. Ethanol is a classic case of the government trying to pick winners and losers with green technologies (and provide a sop to the farm industry). My one disagreement with Brad has to do with Social Security. It has been sold as a sort of Federal Pension program that everyone has to pay into. If you’re going to deny someone a service that they have lawfully paid for, then you might as well be honest and call it welfare and be done with it. By the way, Bob, another assumption you make, aside from raising taxes on anyone not harming the economy in this recession, is that even if the government somehow manages to raise additional revenue from a tax increase (assuming that the economy doesn’t dive into a double dip recession) it would likely do no good at all. Given the observed spending habits of the Federal Government, they would just spend the additional revenue and a good bit more besides. One last thing, it’s easy to declare that the Republicans are not serious about spending cuts when they spend that 57 Billion to keep unemployed people in their homes. I’m not happy about the additional expense myself, especially with what it is doing to unemployment premiums, but I also know that with the economy how it is, and the unemployment rate where it is, a lot of people will be in truly desperate straights if the unemployment insurance payments ended just now. The Republicans realize this as well as anyone else, which is why they didn’t kick too hard over spending the money. The extension buys time for jobs to rebound before the unemployment extension ends. I just wish you were half as hard on the Democrats and their wild spending as you are the Republicans.
First off, keeping tax rates at the same level is not a “tax cut”. But Federal spending is out of control and should be cut. What to cut?
Well off the top of my head how about…
1)Eliminating the Federal Department of Education
2)Eliminating the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development
3)Eliminating all crop subsidies
4)Eliminating ethanol subsidies
5)Means testing for Social Security recipients
Okay, gentlemen, question to all:
What government programs should be cut or eliminated to reduce taxes?
That’s what we are talking about, big thinker, so go to it! Define the job of government. AND be specific!
I am not defending the Democratic position on taxes. It certainly is not my position and it is one i find to be immoral. What I am pointing out is that the Republicans screaming for cuts in spending, when offered a deal to keep the tax rate where they are for 95% of the income brackets without any additional spending, rejected that deal. When they were offered one that gave them 100% but with an additional 57 Billion in spending (again not debating if this spending was needed, good, bad or indifferent) they took the deal. Clearly by their actions the republicans have demonstrated that the tax rates for the upper brackets is more important to them than spending cuts.
Why all the legislative activity in the lame duck session? Why didn’t DADT, or the Dream Act, or START ratification, or the tax rate extensions, or the budget come up earlier? Or why not wait until after the lame duck session to address these issues?
Naked abusive partisanship, that’s why. A flight from responsibility and a naked power play.
The Democrats put off controversial votes because they knew it would hurt them in the election. Now that they have been hammered by the public anyway despite their too clever machinations, they are making legislation with unaccountable officeholders. Unaccountable because they already lost reelection! Exploiting power which they do not deserve to pull a fast one on the public.
With such dirty dealing going on, I don’t blame the Republicans for the tax rate compromise which extended unemployment benefits. The time for spending cuts will come soon enough when the new House majority is seated.
I also think it’s laughable to believe a tax increase in the middle of economic decline is the path towards fiscal solvency! Odds are the tax increase would depress economic activity and more than wipe out any gains from the increased tax rates.
But for the Democrats all this talk about solvency via revenue is really just talk. They don’t mean it. Just as Obama infamously wanted an increase in the capital gains tax rate, even if it meant a decline in revenues!, just for the sake of “fairness”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8
You mean like the Republicans extending expiring tax breaks in Dec 2006 after having lost the house in the elections a month earlier?
I understand that you feel the democratic agenda is the wrong agenda, but it is not reprehensible for them to use ever means at their disposal to enact, just as it is not reprehensible for republicans to use every parliamentary tool in their kit to stop the democrats.
Traditionally, a lame duck only dealt with essential government business. A classic example is the agreement on the budget continuing resolution just reached. It lasts until mid March and will give the new congress time to craft a new budget. It gives a good sense of what the democrats are all about with the actions that they have taken in this lame duck.
It is the prerogative of the majority vote int he house and the senate to extend the session after the election. They are not required to dismiss the assembly. They are not required to only consider non-controversial bills in a ‘lame duck’ session, It is no more reprehensible for the democrats to push through their agenda during the lame duck than it was for the republicans to utilize the filibuster as often and as throughly as they did. Those are the rules of the assembly and as long as they are the rules then this is what can and will continue to happen.
Next year the republicans will be in the majority and they can pass a rule against a lame deck session, but I doubt that they will.
So, if a man proclaims “I shall do something reprehensible today” and then do it, it is not reprehensible and should face no condemnation for doing It?
No, this particular compromise was required to get the tax rates to remain the same on the top 2%, the Republican could have had the tax rates the same for the other 98% without the 57 billion in spending. They chose to borrow the 57 billion for that 2% tax rate. As far as as Tea party principles I did note that self identified Tea Party Caucus in the house for year 2010 has collectively requested more than 1 Billion dollars in earmarks. (albeit their Leader Ms Bachman has requested none so kudos to her.)
Why no condemnation of the democratic pols pushing their agenda during the lame duck, well because it is what they said they would do. The conservatives have been screaming about no more deficit spending all year, but are more than happy to do so for their pet causes. Perhaps they’ll change their spots, but I’m not holding my breath expecting them to.
I am aware of it. That compromise was necessary to prevent a very damaging tax increase. It was necessary for the situation. The Republicans have been doing some very good work in the lame duck (some times with the Tea Party flogging them along), and this is while they are still technically in the minority. Why no condemnation about the democrats pushing all this far reaching legislation in a lame duck?
No, my comment is based on that earlier in the year Republicans were insisting any extension of Unemployment Benefits must be paid for with off setting cuts in other areas of the budget so that the extended benefits would be revenue neutral, but to get the high-class tax rates they wanted they were willing to spend 57 Billion to extend to same benefits without any offsetting cuts. So the Republicans are perfectly happy to borrow 57 Billion in deficit spending to get the tax rates they want. This has nothing to do with future budgets.
Just to point out, they have just killed the one trillion dollar omnibus spending bill. It’s looking like we’ll get a continuing resolution to February. Your comment is based on the false premise that Federal spending can only go up.