1 Can't wait for Teh Wun's speech...seems like forever since he's addressed the nation.

2 What's next? Blame the Republicans of course. And just the possibility that they might be criticized will be enough to get them to roll.

3 The Democrats' definition of "rich" is "anybody with a job".

4 >>To show the disparity, consider some recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office. Raising all six income tax rates by 1 percentage point would yield an additional $480 billion over 10 years. By contrast, raising the top two rates by 1 percentage point would yield just $115 billion. Even that's not true. People keep making the mistake of thinking that the economy is some sort of closed system where you can just raise taxes on one group without it having an affect throughout the system. Raise taxes on the "rich", particularly in the current economy, and watch overall receipts fall.

5 Mommy!

6 There is a kind of social and economic physics at work here. Sometimes in physics the equations and facts tell you what you want is impossible. The same thing is happening here: too many people want something that is impossible.

7 They're panicking out there right now, I can feel it. ... The Dukes are going to corner the entire Cat Food Market!

8 From Jennifer Rubin:

“'All the White House believes the president has to do with this speech is reclaim the headlines. So, he just has to sound good. In their mind, he could be reading out of the phone book.'”

From The Hill- The 4 things Obama will advise today:

(1) Keep domestic spending low
(2) Cut defense spending
(3) Reform Medicare and Medicaid
(4) Reform the tax code

So Obama will likely propose to keep domestic spending low by cutting defense spending, reform entitlements through emphasizing the already-enacted changes in ObamaCare, and reform the tax code to steal from upper income earners. When they don't provide the "revenue" he seeks, he'll just keep moving down the ladder until he does.

9 So the Democrats must do what they have always avoided doing: They must either tell the middle class that their popular subsidies are going to get slashed, or they must tell the middle class they will have to pay much higher taxes in order to fund the subsidies that aren't really subsidies, in as much as it's just the middle class sending a tax check to Washington and Washington sending them back a much-diminished portion of it, with big skims taken out to subsidize the poor, various boondoggles that result in campaign contributions, and administrative sloth and inefficiency.

That's quite the run-on sentence, young man.

10

Could this be happening. Are networks not allowing Obama to  lie his way out of this one?

 

11 Even that's not true. People keep making the mistake of thinking that the economy is some sort of closed system where you can just raise taxes on one group without it having an affect throughout the system.

Exactly; if that weepy cocksucker Boehner was packing any testosterone he'd piss all over the static analysis that the gubiment projection assholes always use as being completely misleading.

12

I think we've already passed the event horizon. It's now politically impossible to avoid the crash. It's time to take Emperor Claudius' advice:

Permissum totus virus ut velieris in limus procedo.

13 Well, the babyboomers did pay for their retirement. There have been huge tax increases for SS that the babyboomers paid that has more assets in the system than have been paid out.

If there is a bulge in the boomers retiring there is actually a bigger bulge in the assets paid into the program.

That was the design of the past 6two "fixes", to insure there were enough or more assets in the system than what the boomers would use during the hump.

But what happened was LBJ took SS off of its own system and made it part of the normal budget. Democrat (largely) then spent all of that money plus even more. So they spent the fix.

And based on what is happening even now with DOOM facing them they still have no realized that they can no longer do that.

I have no confidence that we will get by this doom without a complete collapse. I honestly do think that we will all be eating dog in a few years.

14

Could this be happening. Are networks not allowing Obama to  lie his way out of this one?

 

Posted by: Ben at April 13, 2011 10:17 AM (wuv1c)

..... NAW!

The Narrative- it's what's for breakfast!  ...and lunch ...and dinner  ...and a midnight snack  _{...and breakfast again ...and..}.

15 Damn sock. 13 was me.

16 If we have two parties which are determined to spend this much money, then there is no alternative than to bring "revenues" (as I guess I'm supposed to call them) to match this level of "investment."

We disagree.

Of course our solution took us from the world's strongest power to a backward, failed state consistently losing influence and prosperity but hey that's a small price to pay for a few more years of out of control spending!

17

And based on what is happening even now with DOOM facing them they still have no realized that they can no longer do that.

I could no have said that better.

18

 I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Good lord. The ewok got into the rubbing alcohol.

19 then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Since I don't want the country to be destroyed.

If we have two parties which are determined to spend this much money, then there is no alternative than to bring "revenues" (as I guess I'm supposed to call them) to match this level of "investment."

 

This isn't a choice. It won't work either, except possibly in the short run. This will not prevent the "countrys' destruction". This will prevent current officeholders and recipients of government largesse having to do or change anything.

20 While I understand Ace's point about not wanting the country to be destroyed, I can't get on board the 'raise taxes' train.  It's the only thing preventing us from turning into Europe...a lack of complacency about tax and spend.  Europe had the wool pulled over its eyes for decades before they realized how bad the problem is.  We can still save this country.

The argument is simple...a government that so recklessly spends our money has no moral argument for raising taxes.  They need to prove to us they can be responsible first.  There can be no other way, because raising taxes and increasing revenues will only encourage more spending.

21 I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Better to bow to the collar and chain than to risk the wrath of the Eaters, eh?

22 When they don't provide the "revenue" he seeks, he'll just keep moving down the ladder until he does.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 13, 2011 10:16 AM (uVLrI)

Taxing our way to prosperity!

23 The Democrats' definition of "rich" is "anybody with a job".

Not entirely. If the job is unionized or for some part of government, you're "working class". You could get $375,000 a year in salary and benefits, but you're still "working class".

24 As we have seen in the past, the only thing raising taxes has ever done is collapse the economy and cause the Democrats to increase spending even more.

Raising taxes only makes the situation WORSE

25 That Rand Paul link is a breath of fresh air.

26 I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Since I don't want the country to be destroyed.

---

I guess it depends on your definition of destroyed. 

Personally, I consider the country destroyed if we wind up with a European-style tax-happy society.  I know a lot of you say that's where we are now, but I don't think we're there yet, at least not in many states. 

We have to get people to accept that the federal government's purpose is to provide for the common defense and ensure our individual liberties, not to fund every pet project that we happen to want.  I think the only way we get there is if we actually do press on the "easy stuff," like defunding PBS and NPR.  Focusing on the enormity of the deficit and saying those counts don't "count" is a mistake.  We need to focus on spending and link Federal Government spending (in areas aside from defense and public works (dams, roads, etc)) to the loss of personal freedoms. 

“Many don't understand that the real trouble isn't just the Federal deficit itself, but government overspending. You see, the more the Government spends, the more resources it takes from the private sector, the greater the upward pressure on interest rates, and the lower the rate of economic growth. Whether the Government obtains its funds through taxation or borrowing, the root problem remains the same -- government use of spending to take over more and more of the economic life of our nation. This smothers the private sector incentives that keep our economy vibrant.” – Ronald Reagan, April 12, 1986

27

then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

 

You can't get blood from a stone.

28 Damn, better start spending more income on ammo. While the money is still worth something. I've also heard cannibalism isn't all that bad.

29 Why is Ace awake at this hour?

30 Equality for leftists is a fairness issue.  The rich have more money than everone else and that is unequal and unfair.  They have a plan to fix that.  Unfortunately for everyone, rich and not rich alike, their plan does not include paying taxes themselves (because how can they possibly come up with all of these neat plans if they have to pay taxes too?  Can't possibly do both.)

31 The argument is simple...a government that so recklessly spends our money has no moral argument for raising taxes.  They need to prove to us they can be responsible first.  There can be no other way, because raising taxes and increasing revenues will only encourage more spending.

Posted by: frode at April 13, 2011 10:22 AM (TdgA9)

If the choice is large, permanent tax increases with no structural change in the government or default and the inability to borrow any significant amounts of money for decades, I think the latter will be the better choice as it resolves the issue.

It would be incredibly painful, but it would stop the cycle of debt we are in.

Of course dramatic cuts in spending and restructuring the federal government are *far* better choices, but when even the moderate Ryan plan is called extreme, those might be our two choices...

32 Is this Obama's tardy Libya speech?

33 Why is Ace awake at this hour?

He's surrendering before the rush. He thinks it'll get him some padding for the collar.

34 The focus on income tax is a diversion.  They won't raise income tax, they'll boost some stealth tax instead and then focus on how they DIDN'T raise income tax.  They'll institute cap-n-tax, raise corporate taxes, try and shove in a VAT like tax, or something that people won't see directly coming out of their paycheck.  But we'll all pay.  Except the teet-suckers, they'll just get more in benefits to offset the additional costs.

35

 Why is Ace awake at this hour?

Trash day.  

The early bird drains the worm.

36 If taxes are increased, they will consider the new money to be 'revenue' and increase spending.  That's what they've always done.

37 I see the Rs are hitting all the talk shows talking about the Dems see this as a revenue problem and they see this as a spending problem. A few of them remembered to add the problems presented by tax increases, but not all. They need to push more than the first, especially in society where a slight majority may have the idea that rich people should be paying more.

38

Is this Obama's tardy Libya speech?

Most of his speeches are pretty retarded.

39

I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Sorry, but that won't fix the real problem: uncontrolled "nondiscretionary" entitlement spending.  This is like slapping a bandaid on a gushing aterial wound.  It might slow down the ultimate arrival of DOOOOM!, but it will drag us down to third world conditions in the interim. 

Yay!

40 Why change your opinion on taxes? Why not hold the line on spending? Obviously no one has the political will to do this but it is possible to cease deficit spending tomorrow if we wanted to. We could say 'revenue will be X therefore spending should be about 75% of x and 25% of X will go to pay off the debt that's already out there.' Obviously this would fundamentally change gov't overnight leading to massive layoffs/interruption of services but it's better than going insolvent, right?

41 Fuck you, ace. You never cared about the deficit for eight years during Cheney/Bush.

42 >>It's the only thing preventing us from turning into Europe...a lack of complacency about tax and spend. Europe had the wool pulled over its eyes for decades before they realized how bad the problem is. We can still save this country Exactly right. This is the defining moment. We either make a choice to reign in our debt and continue the American model or we through in the towel and adopt the European model. We've been slouching toward this point for decades with an ever increasing adoption of the welfare state. If we allow the donks to win this fight then the America we all grew up in is over.

43 "I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases." I would . . . if it would actually increase revenues. Problem is that it won't. We're in the opening phases of a capital strike. The projected revenues are based on assumptions of economic growth that simply will not happen. It's rather funny--in a sad, pathetic way--that "Atlas Shrugged" is coming out as a movie just when it's becoming our nationwide reality show.

44

then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

 You can't get blood from a stone.

Posted by: garrett

 

Especially if the stone is moving offshore. Or protected by a cohort of lawyers and acountants. So they have to move on to easier prey. And then we get a VAT. Which will solve all of our problems. Look at Ireland. They have one, and they're doing great right now. Aren't they?

45 I'm thinking our early-waking Ewok knows where the tax increase goes--he's just putting forth the logic that leads there.  Brain-damaged, insane troll logic, but some vague logic nonetheless.

Though honestly, the tax burden does need to get rearranged to go back to a broader base--the unspoken truth the CNN bit danced around, but never confronted.  But that would mean folks would need to start hearing that 'we all must sacrifice for the future of the country'.  And lo and behold, nobody will say it, because the measures that calls for aren't in various groups' political interests.

Behold, the tragedy of the commons.

46 So what do people think about this Balanced Budget Amendment thing Sen. Mike Lee is pushing?  It seems like a waste of effort to me -- either it has teeth in it, in which case it will never be passed, or it is just bullshit that they've already figured out a way around.  (I'm not saying Mike Lee is looking for a work-around, he's certainly a "true-believer", but I've seen him speak - he's not that bright - so if it passes it'll only be because the sharper leeches in Congress have figured out a way around it.) 

47 Dear Leader will be lecturing us at 12:35pm EST.

48 As a simple(ton) voter, this situation is not really all that different from the immigration amnesty issue: secure the boarder; build the fence then we can discuss amnesty.

Show some seriousness and actually, significantly cut spending and then we can discuss a time limited tax increase designed to specifically service the debt.

It's pretty simple really and not at all unreasonable. We got into this situation together and we will get out of it together but we will all need to sacrifice. And, by all I mean everyone from the welfare addicted crack whore to Jeffrey Immelt, GE and every public sector employee in between.

49 Fuck you, ace. You never cared about the deficit for eight years during Cheney/Bush.

Posted by: Mort Sahl

 

Is this sarcasm or stupidity?

50 Ace, increasing taxes won't work - feeding the beast only makes it hungrier!

We have to cut spending. If that means sending the Republicans to the fate of the Whigs, so be it. 

No new taxes. Cut spending down to what we can afford.

51 If taxes are increased, they will consider the new money to be 'revenue' and increase spending.  That's what they've always done.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 13, 2011 10:30 AM (TpXEI)

Exactly; that stupid fuck Poppy Bush still doesn't understand how badly he got rolled by believing the commiecrats.  In fact he even goes on tours with Slick, who was the ultimate beneficiary of his dumbfuckery.

52

four words:

Flat Tax
No Deductions

(and no one escapes it)

53

Wow, inflation last month at just under 10% per CNBC. Quick, more gubmint spending!

54 >>I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

They aren't going to help.   Changing the tax structure only has minimal effects on tax revenues, but it has much more significant effects on overall economic growth.

There are only two ways out of this mess, and they're complementary:

a. Massively cut spending.
b. Create strong economic growth.

Note that the Republicans still only control 1/3 of the gov't.  Wait until the Republicans also control the Senate and White House and then its going to be a LOT easier to get the reforms you say the Republicans can't deliver.

55 And no, I don't mean the Ewok's logic is off, I mean the usual 'we must raise taxes' thought process, that always says that despite a century of evidence to correct it.  Unless he's gone over to the madness.  In which case, nevermind.

56 ace, since you don't want the country to be destroyed why not add in a few more TARPs as well? Taxes feed the beast. More taxes destroy the USA, too. Have some Ovaltine and buck up.

57 If taxes are increased, they will consider the new money to be 'revenue' and increase spending.  That's what they've always done.

Exactly right. Go Reagan and 'cut off the allowance.'

58

I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increaseses.

Too true, Ace.  Only by including the middle and especially the lower classes (few of whom pay any federal tax) in the tax hikes will our nation ever get itself on the right side of the debt.

Both parties have exempted a large part of the population from responsibility for out of control spending.  So far that group is happy to vote for those who provide them so much with little pain for themselves.  By raising income taxes across the board and insisting that all but the poorest pay something, we'll finally demonstrate that over spending hurts everybody. 

That will make it harder for serial spenders to be elected.

59 Also, I know its the border; not boarder. Can I blame auto-fill? Probably not.

60

Gov is spending $1.40 for every dollar it takes in. A tax increase would change that? 

Yeah, for the worse, if you ask me.

61 Yea, yea, yea. But we will have high speed trains and free electricity. I know this because smart people tell me so. And then we will have no borders so it really doesn't matter if any particular region goes bankrupt, we just migrate to new pastures. Right? The Odyssey of the Locusts continues.

62 48 Dear LReader will be lecturing droning on at us at 12:35pm EST

fify

63 Posted by: frode
-------
But Ace's solution shows the Dems up for what they are.. cheaters stealing from our future.  They've been hiding this debt for years.  It is intangible, but becoming less so.

The point is this:  Taxing people enough to balance the budget shows Americans they have a choice.. high taxes and lots of questionable benefits - i.e. income redistribution, or lower taxes and less spending and les redistributing.

64 History starts anew for erg every morning, when his mom kicks him out of bed.

65 Is this sarcasm or stupidity?

Posted by: Blue Hen at April 13, 2011 10:33 AM (6rX0K)

It might be ergie, just before he goes to fluff the Indonesian Imbecile for his sooper genius speech. 

66 My position on taxes and spending is evolving, I have to admit. If the Republicans won't cut spending, as they apparently will not, always promising to get serious on cuts after the next election cycle (and then, when that cycle has passed, declaring the next cycle is even more important so we mustn't cut until after that one, too), then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

You're wrong on this, Ace. Revenues are always between 15 and 20 percent of GDP, regardless of tax rates. Raising taxes will decrease revenue, because you'll get the same percentage of a pie made smaller by taking more money from the private sector. Government can never allocate resources as efficiently as the market can.

67 Taxes Explained...from the Free Republic

68 >"If the Republicans won't cut spending, as they apparently will not"

How can they with Obama in the White House and the Democrats still controlling the Senate? 

I can see why you're disappointed in what's happened in the House so far, but however deficient it is, you have to admit its the best move in the direction of reducing spending we've seen in a long time.
 

69

Tax increases will lead to more spending, not lower deficits.

http://tinyurl.com/4ebs4c3

Historically, each dollar in new tax revenue has ben used to justify about $1.25 in new spending.

Not to mention, each increase in tax rate shrinks the economy.  An increase in the tax rate of e.g., five percent, produces less than five percent in new tax revenue. The thing being taxed shrinks the more it is taxed.

 

70 Could this be happening. Are networks not allowing Obama to  lie his way out of this one?

Oh jury is out on that. However, even the NYT had a moment of clarity....before they realized the error of their ways. I'm not sure who at the NYT thought it would be okay to say the words 'Obama' and 'policies failed' in the same sentence but I'm sure they're cleaning out their desk as I type.

71 I will gladly bankrupt you Tuesday after I tax you today!

72 Tonight He finally unveils the unicorn, and Friday the Dow hits 20,000. Hey, it's as convincing as anything else He's likely to do.

73 then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Forgive me if this has already been said, but we're way past the point on the Laffer curve where raising taxes increases government revenue.  All "significant tax increases" will do is tank the economy further and put us deeper in an economic morass.

We *need* the massive government cuts.  There is no other choice. 

74

I have an idea, since Boehner is new to this bargaining thing and just got gang-raped. Start the bidding at 1600 Billion in cuts or the equivalent of our defecit. You've already been called a child murderer, and civilian bomber and starving 3 million grannies for cutting just 8 billion. Time to earn that kind of rhetoric and start the bargain high this time. If they can raise the budget 760 billion in 1 year, we can surely CUT it the same in the same amount of time. Its not rocket surgery. No need for it to take 10 years either Ryan.

75

Too true, Ace.  Only by including the middle and especially the lower classes (few of whom pay any federal tax) in the tax hikes will our nation ever get itself on the right side of the debt.

Both parties have exempted a large part of the population from responsibility for out of control spending.  So far that group is happy to vote for those who provide them so much with little pain for themselves.  By raising income taxes across the board and insisting that all but the poorest pay something, we'll finally demonstrate that over spending hurts everybody. 

That will make it harder for serial spenders to be elected.

Posted by: Pigilito

 

You presume that that cause and effect will finally produce a desired result.  Neither the specter of reduced largesse or that of increased taxation can guarantee this. This is precisely why policy makers kick the can; they have no surety that this will happen, or instead provoke a reverse result. The union rioting and thug tactics, combined with the rhetoric promulgated by everyone from the media to the US Conference of Bishops work against this.

76 TPTP supports capping the tax rate for top earners at 25% and eliminating loopholes, but the legislation has not yet been written because taxes fall under Ways & Means. So Obama can criticize what he's heard they're going to do-- and Budget Chairman Ryan and W&M Chairman Camp support a flat tax system-- but he has no actual legislation to pin to them, at least not yet.

77

Obama's speech will mainly provide new terminology for "increase taxes."  Apparently they are going to mainstream the government's "recovered revenue."  If the government fails to tax something it could have, that can be counted as a loss to them.  See? (In government logic increased taxes automatically lead to exact amounts of increased revenue, never mind actual practice in history, or tax rates causing economic stagnation.)  Wonder what they will call a VAT?  Proactive Revenue Enhancement System? 

78 Could this be happening. Are networks not allowing Obama to  lie his way out of this one?

Probably the SOP I remember from the Clinton era. MBM are total lickspittles at the start. Then to recover some of their  "independent/unbiased" cred they're mildly critical and the President complains bitterly about how he's being unfairly brutalized in the press. Then they go back to being lickspittles leading up to the election.

79 Raising taxes will just accelerate the collapse.  Bring it on.  Our politicians won't do dick until they can no longer hide it.

80
We pay income taxes to support the govt and its expenses.

So why do we also pay:
Sales Tax
Property Tax
Death Tax
Inheritance Tax
Excise Tax
Gas Tax
Telephone Tax
FICA
Medicare

Enough with the taxes, already. Revenue is not the problem; SPENDING is the problem.

81

Flat Tax
No Deductions

(and no one escapes it)

Posted by: chuck in st paul at April 13, 2011 10:34 AM (EhYdw)

At what tax rate?  This better come with truly epic spending cuts at the same time.  Given that the top incomes pay the vast bulk of taxes, you're looking at a massive tax cut at the top end, which must be compensated for in the middle and bottom.  The people at the bottom don't have enough to tax away to make a difference.  If the middle class has to suddenly take on the rather huge rate increase necessary to balance out the revenue stream, the consumer economy will be obliterated over night and a true collapse will follow almost immediately. 

Besides - we all know the government will never give up the ability to control behavior through the deductions/credits. 

 

82 I can see why you're disappointed in what's happened in the House so far, but however deficient it is, you have to admit its the best move in the direction of reducing spending we've seen in a long time.
 

Posted by: looking closely at April 13, 2011 10:38 AM (6Q9g2)

That was my position until I found out that Boehner was lying to me about just how great it was.  I'm in favor of changing the direction, and maybe this is the best strategy for the long term; but I'll be surprised if it's nothing more than a small bump on the highway to serfdom.

83

I think Ace gets the fact broad-based and significant tax increases are a stake to the heart of the economy.  The point is - correct me if I'm wrong - that sometimes a viewpoint is so widely held without regard for what it means in reality that things must play out for a more realistic view to take hold.  If then of course.  The delusion is strong in us.

  

 

84

I am 100% behind a tax increase.  I'll say that right now and I will continue to say it.  No matter what kind of tax scheme you have, when nearly half of the people don't pay any tax, you've got a major problem.  It's human nature that when people are given free stuff that they want more.  It's also obvious that a strong voting block can be created by giving people free stuff.  The problem is that the human nature factor that goes along with having to keep giving that block of people more and more rapidly becomes unsustainable.

Everybody has to have skin in the game, and not for reasons of fairness.  It's to counteract the effects of human nature.

85  I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

So Ace, are you planning on voting just for Rockefeller Republicans or are you going all-in and voting for Democrats?

86

 then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Since I don't want the country to be destroyed.

 

So, kicking the can 6 inches down the road to disaster is saving the country? What bullshit. Count me out.

87 I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

This would makes sense if the money went to debt reduction, but it almost never has and never will again. The only time  in recent memory we have done that is during a Boom in the late 90's and even then for every dollar of debt paid goodies increased the same amount.

If we have two parties which are determined to spend this much money, then there is no alternative than to bring "revenues" (as I guess I'm supposed to call them) to match this level of "investment."

And maybe when the public actually gets a big tax hike they'll start to reconsider whether subsidizing themselves is a smart idea.

No, as long as it's broad based they won't reconsider. They will just commiserate with everyone else and pay while the "poor" get an even larger, unearned, cut of the pie than before. You'll just have one more step towards total income redistribution. Hell, in England they considered having all pay sent in to the government to be distributed. They are even talking about going after retirement funds.

88
"All told, [Obama's proposed tax hikes only for conveniently small groups of people] -- which would affect individuals making at least $200,000 and couples making $250,000 and up -- would reduce deficits by just under $1 trillion over 10 years."

No it wouldn't. I'll bet my leftnut this doesn't take into account the compounding interest debt over the ten years, not to mention the negative affect of tax hikes on the economy/GDP over ten years.

89 If we have two parties which are determined to spend this much money, then there is no alternative than to bring "revenues" (as I guess I'm supposed to call them) to match this level of "investment." A CURIOUS GAME. THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS NOT TO PLAY. That's why I'm in Canada until the republic falls. Soon, you'll be begging for someone to lead you oot of the darkness. Which reminds me, ladies - still plenty of openings left in my Pleasure Battalions. But don't think you can just binge on Twinkies until The Dark Times. I've got standards to uphold and my Death's Head Legions deserve your enthusiastic and athletic participation.

90 I could go along with any of the "Zero Plans."  My itemized deductions don't come close to the amount I would save under even the 12%-22%-28% tax bracket plan.

I'm on-board with Bowles - Simpson!

91 Ace is going to save the country by dropping it down the socialist shit hole. That makes a lot of sense.

92 That is, as long as we still get the standard deductions.

93

No, Ace.  No.  Europe should be all you need to look at to see why this will never happen.  Raise taxes and people will eventually come to terms with paying higher taxes.  They'll tell themselves that's what it takes, or, like in Greece, everyone will just cheat on their taxes.

Keeping taxes low is the ONLY defense we have against an out-of-control government.  Raising taxes to support an ever-expanding government sector only forces people into government dependency.  That's what we're supposed to be against.

Look, we were all pretty excited with Ryan's budget.  Has any of that changed just because the FY2011 budget compromise doesn't cut as much of the fringe as advertised?

The fact is, we lost the FY2011 fight the minute it became news that troops wouldn't get paid.  Whatever leverage the Republicans had in a government shutdown went out the window as soon as predictions of soldiers' families losing their homes started circulating.  Yeah, we could've pinned the blame for that on Obama, but how long would that have lasted?  Maybe a week, tops.

So drop the Eeyore bullshit.  We have a real fight on our hands, and it's called the 2012 budget fight.  You can bet the press is circulating this little "only $15 billion cut" story specifically to dispirit conservatives at the outset of this much larger and much more important battle.

And you're falling for it, Ace.  Hook, line, and sinker.

94
We need to tax carbon.

That will reduce the deficit, create jobs, and increase our national security.

95 Fox & Piven must be snickering up their sleeves.

96 Lets see....destroy the country or turn it into Greece. What's the fucking difference?

97
More taxes is the answer.

Because what we need is more $100M museums dedicated to a lout senator, Edward Kennedy.

98
btw, did you know the CEO of Planned Abortionhood makes almost $400K/yr?

yeah, compromise with the Democrats and agree to raise the debt ceiling because she needs a raise.

99 The reason the Dems will never go along with Simpson-Bowles is not because there will be less money for the poor and middle class.  There will actually be more.  The main reason is that Dems will no longer be able to manipulate the tax system as a money laundering operation.

100

Haters gotta hate.  Your priorities are sick, people, sick!

101 VAT's a-coming, or else a national sales tax. I'll be surprised if Bambi doesn't propose something like that in his daily TOTUS reading today.

102 The fact is, we lost the FY2011 fight the minute it became news that troops wouldn't get paid.  Whatever leverage the Republicans had in a government shutdown went out the window as soon as predictions of soldiers' families losing their homes started circulating. 

Posted by: Caiwyn

 

Does anyone know why they aren't passing budgets by department or agency? If the House controls spending, and if they elect to send to the Senate and President CRs for individual departments, wouldn't this obviate the problem?

103 I agree with Kratos that we are on the negative slope of the Laffer curve, however, I agree with Ace that the solution is to increase taxes.  Precisely because it will decrease revenue.

104 #86

So in effect, you're saying that the reason to increase taxes is just so that after several years of high tax burden, when it becomes plain that higher taxes haven't made a dent in the deficit, THEN spending will get cut, because its the only thing that hadn't been tried yet?

I don't think it will work.   One chorus will say "we didn't raise taxes high enough", and meanwhile the economy will be wrecked, so not only do we not increase revenues, there is no economic growth either.

I think this is real simple.  Our spending levels are unsustainable.  They *WILL* be cut.   The only questions are when, by whom, and how.

Note that I'm all for tax reform.  Our system is highly lopside, and I think it should be both simpler and more equitable.  I just don't think tampering with tax rates is going to alter revenues enough to fix the spending problem.

 

105 Nice Cooter.

106
We had Obama & the Democrats on the ropes.

Just last December the Democrats were shitting bricks. They agreed to extend the Bush tax rates, for fuck's sake!

We had our boot on their throats and we let them up.

107 then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Since I don't want the country to be destroyed.

Hi! Come on in.

108 106 Does anyone know why they aren't passing budgets by department or agency? If the House controls spending, and if they elect to send to the Senate and President CRs for individual departments, wouldn't this obviate the problem?

They're beginning work on the House Budget Committee budget tomorrow. My understanding is that they have to finalize appropriation levels before Rogers & co. break the bill apart.

109
good thing we dodged that bullet of a govt shutdown, though

{{phew!}}

110 Oh, and PAWLENTY!!!

111 Those rich people. Do they drive SUV's?

112 Democrats have never met a tax increase they didn't like. The only reason they passed an extension of the Bush tax cuts last fall was because Obama needed the cover and more leverage, not because they actually supported the measure.

113 I've also heard cannibalism isn't all that bad. Posted by: Barbarian at April 13, 2011 10:26 AM (EL+OC) Long pig, baby! It's what's for dinner!

114

I think we have already reached the point where this will be decided for us by the bond market. PEMCO is shorting treasurys and the IMF just said yesterday that the US has no credibility on it's debt and has to go through extreme austerity and tax increases.

If rates go up 3% as they are predicted to that will be another $480 Billion a year just in interest which would equate to a $5 Trillion tax increase over 10 years just to pay the extra interest.

115 We need to tax carbon.

That will reduce the deficit, create jobs, and increase our national security.

How does taxing coal increase national security?
A carbon tax will only have the opposite result since mideast oil is one of the cheapest forms of energy and can absorb the carbon tax and still be cheaper than natural gas

A carbon tax will only keep the money flowing to the mideast, while crippling our manufacturing sector and discouraging coal and domestic oil.

116 Ace has his flags confused. We run up the BLACK one, not the WHITE one when things get tough.

117

Factoid:

If the government were to seize ALL wealth and property from the top 10% income earners, it would only fund 75% of just this year's debt

118
that's my point -- the Democrats were running for political cover because of the  wave of Conservatism seen in the election.

Our ideology was winning. But Boehner and the rest of the Republicans don't know how to handle being neither boss nor conservative ideologues.

119

Amazing you still talk about this.   And, talk about it as if it's fixable with the right "Plan". 

The math on this was done in 2007, when the correction should have occurred.

It's now 4x, going on 5x worse than it would have been then, with all the kicking of the can down the road, hoping for a turnaround.

Tax Everyone 100%, and it's not fixed.  In fact, it'll be worse, as I'm sure not going to work for no gain.

There simply isn't enough money in the world to fix this, and it is a worldwide problem.  

It's NOT FIXABLE.  You're therefore better off preparing youself for what's coming, in whatever form it comes. 

If you won't "do" the math, then the math is going to "do" you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

120 First, there's also the point that raising taxes to whatever you want doesn't really increase revenue because that's not how the real world works. Second, in reconsidering the GOP idiocy regarding what the WashPost called deep budget cuts. It could be like this, we've established that the other side are whores, the GOP now just has them haggling over price. The first cut is the hardest, the next cuts will be easier. right?

121 then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

The only problem with this is that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

A huge tax rate increase that allows the DC asshats to pat themselves on the back claiming they've solved the problem is the worst possible solution, because they lock us into real spending based on projected tax revenues. When those projections fall short, as you know they will because we've never been able to sustain taking more than about 20% of GDP out of the economy in income taxes regardless of the tax rate schedule, we are beyond boned.

The only way to solve our problem is to really, really cut spending. Really.

And since we won't do that ... DOOM!

122   No matter what kind of tax scheme you have, when nearly half of the people don't pay any tax, you've got a major problem. 

Everybody has to have skin in the game, and not for reasons of fairness.  It's to counteract the effects of human nature.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at April 13, 2011 10:47 AM (jx2j9)

I don't know about you, but I've never met a person over 12 years old that hasn't paid tax.  Income tax is only a portion of the overall tax burden.  Nobody escapes sales tax, property tax, use taxes, fuel taxes, etc. 

It's not that people aren't paying - they just have no idea how much they're paying.  Just think what would happen if we disclosed the total gas tax, right at the pump.  And that's just one tax of many. 

But here's the other part of the problem - as soon as people are paying, they assume they've got a return coming.  That's also human nature.  The mantra is "I paid my taxes for X years, and I demand my due!"  It's the same thing with the SS system.  People paid in for years, not understanding that they were not saving anything for themselves but were instead paying other retirees, and that's the first thing they say when cuts come up.

When it comes to tax, I say that the only thing that matters is what is the best way to drain money out of the economy so that the least social and economic harm is done.  That is the only purpose taxes serve at the federal level - to prevent inflation and do so in a way that maximizes economic activity.  States and localities need dollars, but the federal government needs only maintain its purchasing power.  It is not dollar constrained.

123
Let's tax sugar, too.

Taxing sugar will solve all our problems and make everyone skinny and healthy, therefore reducing health care costs and thus reducing the deficit.

(It will create jobs, too.)

124 Raising taxes is the worst of the "feel-good/less hurt" solutions. Recall: No matter the level of taxation or the collection scheme, the actual taxes collected always remains around 20% as the citizenry puts more and more effort into reducing (evading) their own taxes as the rates go up.
So the R's and D's get a tax hike and--sure as the Sun rising in the East--there will be no increase in revenue. To which, having "just the tip" in, they'll propose more tax hikes. With exactly the same lack of increase. And if you thought we had class warfare now, that coming eventually will draw a nuclear firestorm of class warfare. (which benefits one party while the other party will have been destroyed by their base for the tax hikes in the first place)

No, better to let the whole thing crash down without sucking our citizens dry first through higher taxes.

125 I think the tax on China in terms of tariffs is the way to go forward. Trump says the same.

126 100 Lets see....destroy the country or turn it into Greece. What's the fucking difference?

Posted by: maddogg at April 13, 2011 10:53 AM (OlN4e)

Ouzo? _*hic*

127

Regarding the massive tax increase Ace is talking about, I guess my question is where that burden will fall.  How will that money be drained from the economy?  What's the proposal?  The form of the tax matters. 

Given our current employment situation, I vote for an import tax on anything other than energy.

128

We need to raise the Tax Rates on every former Representative, Senator or President that uses / profits from the Title of their Office.

When Bill Clinton gets a speaking fee by using the title 'President (of the United States)' he owes us royalties.  Without the title, he's a worthless piece of shit who couldn't command a penny. 

Hit the career pols where it hurts.  Tax the fuck out of their increased income that comes from 'service'.

129 anyway, welcome to Great Depression 2.0 if this stuff succeeds.

130 I think the tax on China in terms of tariffs is the way to go forward. Trump says the same.

So did we.

131 I'll go along with ace's tax increases if and only if they are increases to income tax only, they eliminate pretty much all deductions, and everyone has to pay the same rate. The leeches say that they want fairness, and they say they want the rich to pay more. Fine. Everybody gets the 44% rate. The stupid greedy bastard public can negotiate rates again starting April 16th of next year.

132 my prediction --
barry will propose a lot of DELAYED tax increases. He will not increase the tax rate for next year, since he wants to be reelected. He will ask for commissions and study groups to add another six months and push any serious changes out to 2012. He will also not "clearly" raise taxes on those under 200k, since he  seems to try really hard to avoid mistakes from past presidents and Bush I got snakebit on the "read my lips" pledge. His increases will  rely on things like bracket creep and lost deductions to hit the middle class when they kick in.

Meanwhile, he will set the strategy to blame the R's  if the economy continues to tank, and take credit if it improves.

133 Summary of every Democrat plan since the beginning:

1. Tax
2. Spend
3. Get Re-Elected!

134 I have believed for a while now that it doesn't really matter.  Simple math will not be denied.

Without severe draconian cuts to all levels of govt, we are both boned and doomed.  What is severe?  say $1.5 T deficit on $3.5T spending, 42%.  That gets us just even for 1 year.

Or just keep spending, taxing, inflating.  Whatever.  Even the f'ing IMF world socialist finance spendaholics are complaining.

135 I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Without exception, anytime Washington raises taxes they raise spending, figuring that it's a nice new pile of money to spend. Spending other peoples money brings in donations and votes, not paying the bills with it

Ace is also making the assumption that liberals commonly make that producers will produce at the same rate no matter what the government confiscates. If your hard work and investments just end up going to the government, why bust your ass

Never assume that politicians and bureaucrats will be wise or responsible with your money. In the words of PJ O'Rourke;

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys

There's a reason that a sizable percentage of lottery winners go broke

136 Raise the tea tax!

137

Regarding the massive tax increase Ace is talking about, I guess my question is where that burden will fall.  How will that money be drained from the economy?  What's the proposal?  The form of the tax matters. 

Given our current employment situation, I vote for an import tax on anything other than energy.

Posted by: Reactionary

 

Why exclude energy? Double the tax on imported energy. That includes Prius batteries. And overturn the drilling moratoriums.

If the Dear leader really did want to cure energy 'dependence' he would so this. And it would include CFL lightbulbs, solar panels and wind turbines made in the PRC.

138 In Oregon the stupid voters decided to tax the "rich" and the evil business owners last year.  The cost of everything went up 15-40% immediately after the tax measures took effect.  Items like milk and bread which normally aren't taxed in most states went up too.  Our idiot voters passed these measures 71% to 29% thinking they would stick it to the man and get him to pay for our bloated state government. 

139 then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases. This completely ignores the fact that no matter how much you raise taxes, you are unlikely to yield more than 20% GDP which would still leave you about 600B shy of current spending. Then what Ace? Hope the people pull their head out before we go down in flames? First off, even if that would work, I don't think we have that kind of time. Second More likely than not the tax hike will finish choking the remaining life out of the economy and hasten our arrival at DOOM.

140 And to answer the question tax the Rich, but what then Mr. President:

"get re-elected."

141
The answers are so obvious.

Start building new nuke plants.
More domestic drilling.
More new fuel refineries.
Get govt out of the education and health care business.
Stop supporting crap such as NPR, PP, the UN, Pakistan, and museums for lousy dead senators.

And get the fuck out of Afghanistan.

Problems solved.

142

And get the fuck out of Afghanistan.

Can we nuke it then?

143
I have no problem with nuking everything outside of Kabul.

144 I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

17 quotes and counting...

145

And get the fuck out of Afghanistan.

Can we nuke it then?

Posted by: garrett

 

When one considers that at least part of the problem is Pakistan, and that it has nukes, the issue becomes somewhat convoluted.

146 Oh. Chuck @ 53 already said it. "flat tax no deductions on exceptions" I still kinda want one year of "rich man" tax rates to apply to all the moochers just to punish them and possibly open an eye or two, but that's just my inner child wanting to fling poo.

147

I have no problem with nuking everything outside of Kabul.

Sweet. 

Does that includes Iran and Pakistan, too?

148 Have you seen the Bill Whittle video (a take off on Iowahawk) that shows, if you sucked all the wealth from everybody, including corporations, you would have enough money to run government for about a year. Then what? After the wealth is wasted, what do you do?

149 We're trying the tax-hikes-without-cuts approach here in CA, and it doesn't work.  You can mandate RATES, you cannot mandate REVENUES.

150 From what I'm reading, Obama isn't really going to change much from what his Admin. said in their budget other than briefly hinting at SS reform. Otherwise, he's taking parts of Bowles-Simpson to justify what was said in his draft. So we're going to be told that higher taxes, cutting defense spending, and ObamaCare will cure all our ills.

151
I'm so upset about the debt ceiling being raised. We're going in the wrong direction.
We're raising the debt ceiling to pay for what??? For abortions, NPR, and Dead Kennedy's friggin museum? Fuck that.

152 2008 FY budget $2,900,000,000,000
2011"Budget deal" $3,820,000,000,000

I see a problem here.  Hmmm, what can it be?

153

Lemmiwinks,

Call it the Fatcat's Fair Share Act and try it again!

 

 

154 I can see why you're disappointed in what's happened in the House so far, but however deficient it is, you have to admit its the best move in the direction of reducing spending we've seen in a long time.
 

Posted by: looking closely at April 13, 2011 10:38 AM (6Q9g2)

So for decades we've had a bleeding ulcer.

In 2009 the Democrats decided to fix this by decapitating the patient, and got as far as opening the carotid artery before the Republicans took the House.

In 2011 Boehner promised to put a big medical grade bandage on the open wound - applying pressure to the wound would still be too "extreme" though  - but in fact he actually bargained for a bandaid. And not even a name brand one as we've found out.

155 I still kinda want one year of "rich man" tax rates to apply to all the moochers just to punish them and possibly open an eye or two, but that's just my inner child wanting to fling poo.

Posted by: Troll Feeder

 

Great idea. We've had decades of unrealistic, dishonest class warfare combined with what deToqueville predicted would be the demise of this Republic (Congress bribing people with tax receipts), and you want to double down.

156 honestly, the tax burden does need to get rearranged to go back to a broader base--the unspoken truth the CNN bit danced around, but never confronted.

I've wondered about what that phrase, "broadening the base", really means, since I hear it a lot lately.  MSM reports usually don't define it, but I heard one recently say it meant closing loopholes for corporations.  That would help, but what I think it must really mean is making everyone, everyone, pay taxes.  No, you won't get that much money from the poorer classes, but much of our current predicament is a result of the disconnect between those who receive from the government, and those who pay.  The takers simply don't see any problem with getting more free stuff, and don't really care about who is paying, since they aren't. 

157 We're raising the debt ceiling to pay for what??? For abortions, NPR, and Dead Kennedy's friggin museum? Fuck that.

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at April 13, 2011 11:18 AM (uFokq)

And pulling trains out to the masses!

158
Remember the scene in Planes, Trains, & Automobiles when they fell asleep and got turned around on the highway and people on the other side were screaming,

"YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!"

159 If only there was some way to tax all the income from the entire population, and somehow give everyone a tax credit based on merit such as the value of their work to others in society.

And then if we taxed all  assets and redistributed based on qualities such as giving more to those that save and invest, and less to those that waste.

But this is absurd. It would take the entire population working all day just to determine the relative value of each profession and product.

Either that, or a couple hundred pelosi's, obama's and reid's to run things.

160 I fully support a 100% tax on Hungarian billionaires who collaborated with the Nazis in World War II.

(Did I get all the talking points?  Tax the rich... check.  Tax foreigners who are not part of a significant Democrat voting block... check.  Throw in a reference to the Nazis for effect... check.)

161 Taxes are going up. Welfare payments, per capita, will be cut. More people will be on welfare, social security, and medicare -- but they will get less (often through long waits and other rationing). On the positive side marijuana and morphine will be handed out liberally. So, literally, more opiates for the masses is the preferred government solution. What the govt probably hopes for is some nice bird flu epidemic that just kills off everybody over 70. Get rid of millions and millions of wrinkled old white widows who are so expensive to care for. Our fiscal problem could be solved in a few short months in that scenario.

162 "It's just a scientific experiment, what could go wrong," You know, Ace, you're descending Rapidly toward Gungan status, not quite Jar Jar,

163 The takers simply don't see any problem with getting more free stuff, and don't really care about who is paying, since they aren't. 

Posted by: pep at April 13, 2011 11:19 AM (GMG6W)

The tragedy of the commons.

If you don't have an individual stake in the resource, why not always take more?

164

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at April 13, 2011 11:13 AM (uFokq)

This.  This is the right direction to go.  Cutting the deficit, without first (or simultaneously) stimulating the economy will be a horrible mistake.  We'll (rightly) be blamed for kicking the recession back into high gear, while doing nothing to fix the underlying problems. 

Frankly, the political capital we're wasting on deficit reduction that nobody really wants, should instead be devoted to doing what every regular working person wants - getting the productive economy going again.  That will do more good in terms of killing the deficit than any cutting that our side is capable of winning.

Of course, maybe we just want to hang a bad economy on Obie's neck.  That's not an entirely bad plan either, if it works.

165 For anyone who is still defending Republicans, based on the "they control only 1/2 of 1/3 of the government", consider this:

If they simply said "no" and stood uniformly in opposition to spending- there would be no spending. Blocking bills works both ways.

What they are doing, however, is playing into the whole "compromise" game. "Compromise" would imply that both sides give in on some things, but maintain portions of their position in exchange for the other side giving in on some things.

For the 2011 budget compromise, Republicans were elected on the basis of insisting on $100 billion reduction in spending... as a start. Obama and the rest of the Dems responded with $33 billion in "cuts" from Obama's ludicrous budget proposal- aka- money that was never allocated, spent, or part of any budget. In other words, they cut zero from the budget.

What we ended up with in $38 billion in the same imaginary "cuts"  (with the exception of legitimate cuts to our border security and roads). The big "win" against Democrat agenda is the claim that the IRS will not hire 16,000 MORE people. This is being pitched as "taking a bite of of Obamacare". No mention of the fact that the increased 1099 requirements was repealed (aka- the reason that the addition IRS staff was needed... and a source of significant funding for Obamacare. In other words, everything about Obamacare is still in effect, but it now has a gaping hole in it's budget that will need a fix in the next 3 1/2 years, before it gets implemented).

Setting aside the details, the fact is that the 2010 budget is significantly higher than the 2009 budget, with was significantly higher than the 2008 budget, etc.
So where is the cut? If we're spending more this year than last year, there is no cut.

And we are being told that that Republicans forfeiting 100% of their campaign promise was a "historic compromise".

166 A thing that can't go on forever, WON'T.

167 156 2008 FY budget $2,900,000,000,000
2011"Budget deal" $3,820,000,000,000

I see a problem here.  Hmmm, what can it be?

How much of that is an increase in mandatory spending? That's something that needs to be addressed more drastically, is that those things are raised automatically but the spigot can be turned-off once they hit at certain point, like the 20% cut to Social Security.

168 "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!" How do YOU know where we're going?

169 4 The Democrats' definition of "rich" is "anybody with a job".

Ah, yes. The old kulak gambit.

170 Throwing money at the poor isn't "investing", it's "insanity".

171 172 156 Let me try that again:

2008 FY budget $2,900,000,000,000
2011"Budget deal" $3,820,000,000,000

I see a problem here.  Hmmm, what can it be?

How much of that is an increase in mandatory spending? That's something that needs to be addressed more drastically, is that those things are raised automatically. However, the spigot can be turned-off once they hit at certain point, like the 20% automatic cut to Social Security once obligations are not met.

172

This may be an interesting line to take.  Let's see how it plays out. 

173
quick, someone make a poster:

[Auntie Zetuni dressed as Uncle Sam]

; font-weight: bold;">Auntie Zetuni Wants YOU
; font-weight: bold;">To Raise the Debt Ceiling

174 Nancy’s One–Party System: Pelosi Says ‘Elections Shouldn’t Matter as Much as They Do’ VIDEO

175 And we are being told that that Republicans forfeiting 100% of their campaign promise was a "historic compromise".

No school like the old school.

176 169 In a sane world...

177

Why exclude energy? Double the tax on imported energy. That includes Prius batteries. And overturn the drilling moratoriums.

Posted by: Blue Hen at April 13, 2011 11:12 AM (6rX0K)

I'd agree with you - assuming we could get policies in place to allow full us of our own resources like you suggest.  Short of that, I wouldn't want to increase costs to US producers on a vital feed stock.  Though even then, I might exempt Canada from the tax.  They're the world's only friendly oil producer, after all, and sometimes buy American stuff in return.

178

If we have two parties which are determined to spend this much money, then there is no alternative than to bring "revenues" (as I guess I'm supposed to call them) to match this level of "investment."

Sorry, but this is WRONG.  If you have two parties who just wish to contine spending money, you CHANGE one of the parties.

The idea that you cannot change a major political party is not supported by history... just as the idea that it takes a long time to change them is also NOT true... The Whig party was destroyed, and rebranded, within 8 years using 1850s technology...

Many have been led to believe, by the two major parties, that it MUST be a two party system or it will fail.... and thus we must keep THESE two parties (which, IMO, have become two sides of the same debased coin)...

What is needed is a Constitutional Conservative party, based on the premise that we need to get back to being a REPUBLIC (rule of LAW, and the Government MUST follow its own rules)... you know, what we were all taught in school that we were?

179 1st step to this plan: stop withholding taxes. 2nd step to this plan: everyone writes a check on April 15th for the whole amount of taxes. Want to see the results of this? I sure do!

180 Actually, make the check date November 1.

181

Steyn brings the DOOM.

"As was revealed yesterday re the sham budget cuts, the government classÂ’s response to its fiscal fraud is to obscure it via political fraud, a sleight of hand that demonstrates utter contempt for the citizenry. If this is the best they can do, theyÂ’re ensuring that everything is going to get worse. Real worse, real poor, real fast.

The entire Western world is institutionally committed to living beyond its means in perpetuity. The expiry date on “perpetuity” is looming."

182

What's so great about Kabul?

I'm afraid my compassionate conservatism is showing.

183 Posted by: Romeo13 at April 13, 2011 11:25 AM (NtXW4)

+1

184 The Rent-Seeking is too damn high!

185 The 10% solution; 10% cuts in everything, across the board.

The reason the GOP lost the last round is because they got sucked into the debate about numbers. Big numbers sound like big cuts--even when, relatively, they are pennies.
Psychologically, you are trained to think big numbers equal bigger. Generally, if I offer you 1000 pennies or 10 dollars, most of the time, you're going to take the 1000 pennies 'cause you feel like you got more.That's a crude example, but in the real world, that's how it plays out. That's why the public thinks the cuts were big.

We have to change the narrative to a small number, make the public think we're just trimming the edges--5% or 10%, what family can't cut their expenses that much?--and never, ever, ever, ever talk about the actual amount or programs cut; let the dems do that and respond with, "It's just a 5% cut, what are you crying about?"

But, stupid party only does one thing well: Live up to their name.

186 186 1st step to this plan: stop withholding taxes.
2nd step to this plan: everyone writes a check on April 15th for the whole amount of taxes.

Want to see the results of this? I sure do!

Posted by: Jay in Ames at April 13, 2011 11:25 AM (UEEex)

cut, jib, newsletter?

187 >>If we have two parties which are determined to spend this much money, then there is no alternative than to bring "revenues" (as I guess I'm supposed to call them) to match this level of "investment."

Problem is that it ain't going to happen.

No politically plausible tax regime is going to bring in enough cash to cover ongoing spending levels (and certainly not ones tantamount to a return to Clinton era tax policy, as Obama seems to be fixated on).

188 If you tax all income over $1 million, if nothing else changes, this would yield $850 billion per year.  The deficit is $1400 billion this year.  What about the other $550 billion for this year ?
... and who thinks there will be anything like that $850 billion the second year ?  Of course, it's progessives

189 "Every normal man must be tempted at times to bend over and grab his ankles. Again." Bring on the destruction of the country, I say. We may deserve it. Maybe not us individually, but as a nation, we've enabled it by allowing fools, knaves and whores to lead us to the brink. The only problem is that the blameless among us will suffer just as much as the guilty, if not more so.

190 For the record, there is one tax increase that will lead to massive amounts of new revenue for the foreseeable future.

Tax the lawyers.

Specifically, a progressive tax on legal fees for plaintiff's attorneys would result in such massive economic growth, we would be unable to contain it.

191 Oh and speaking of tax the rich....

I bring you 'Patriotic Millionaires Assholes'

192 The Whig party was destroyed, and rebranded, within 8 years using 1850s technology.

You say that as if 1850s political technology were inferior to today's.

193
If you tax all income over $1 million, if nothing else changes, this would yield $850 billion per year. 

...minus this year's debt-interest payment of $200B, which is compounding...

194 OT, but WTF:

TSA Defends Groping Six-Year-Old Girl Crossing Through Airport Security CheckÂ…

The brave TSA, defending airlines from the scourge of 6-year olds!  Certainly Roman Polanski and Mohammad surely approve...

195 Better yet, send everyone a statement every year like they do for SSI telling them how much of the deficit they are scheduled to be responsible for. You know:

"At the current rate, you can expect to be paying $458.23 / month more in taxes by the time you reach 50 years old to pay off accumulated debt. Your children can expect to have reduced cumulative take home pay of $854,234.91 over their lifetime"

196
AP removes HOAX story of GE repaying IRS!

AP takes it up the squeakhole, and it's not April Fool's.

197

196 It might not lead to anything better you know, right???

 

198 198 Oh and speaking of tax the rich....

I bring you 'Patriotic Millionaires Assholes'

So what's stopping them from paying more now?

199 @159 poor old poo man "I still KINDA wantÂ… but that's just my inner child" Most people would take that to mean that I' recognize that the proposal isn't worth the price, and that I'm willing to let it go.

200 198 Oh and speaking of tax the rich....

I bring you 'Patriotic Millionaires Assholes'

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 13, 2011 11:28 AM (pLTLS)

Why don't these dumb motherfuckers set up a site where they donate their own money to the gubmint?  If you stupid liberal fucks want to give more than you owe to the IRS GO AHEAD AND DO IT!!!  There is nothing stopping you.  Write a check...now.  Then fucking go away!

201 Another idea.
The R's are all hot to eliminate withholding of union dues, so lets do that for the gov. as well. Make all non-essential departments send a bill to the citizenry every year. The irs can take care of defense, courts, fbi, etc. but let the DOE, and friends send out  bills trying to get paid for the shit they do.

202 Ah I see there is a lot of thinging like mine.   Is it time to 'go Galt'?  It feels like it is impossible to overcome the tide of all the "gimme mine" people. Today it doesn't feel like it is worth it to try to push for "extreme" Eye roll - changes to the budget and entitlement system. Why should conservatives invest so much emotional and political energy just to save the socialist system we fundamentally disagree with from collapsing? Let the effing Marxists and facists (in the true sense of big businesses wanting government protections from new competitors/small businesses) have free rein and collapse the dam thing sooner rather than later. We *might* still have enough intelligent people now to set up a new REPUBLIC but the longer we prop up this crappy system the more time they have to erase memories and history of how things worked when the government existed to enforce rule of law that applied equally to the person starting up a business from home as to the wealthy scion with money for bribes and personal guards.

203 When govt employment exceeds a significant portion of the rest of the populace, plus the govt employees get paid more than that populace, it simply can't work.  It can only be financed thru debt which creates interest which is then added to the debt etc etc.  Boned.

204 #142 At least your people voted their stated leftist convictions unlike the left in the state of Washington who voted opposite of what they spew in public.

205 The brave TSA, defending airlines from the scourge of 6-year olds!  Certainly Roman Polanski and Mohammad surely approve...

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta)

 

This isn't off topic. This is another government patronage program. It is inefficient, expensive, and possibly hurts the economy ( cost/benefit anaylis based upon cost of the TSA, the number of people willing to fly because they now feel safe versus the number of people who will not go near an airport now).

The Chicago school banning homemade lunches is yet another example. No one cares if the kids go hungry or throw it away. The priccipal is spewing PC dogma, the contractor is fed, and control is extended.

 

Such behaviors and schemes flourish in this environment. And we're talking about raising taxes yet again, exaserbating the debt servicing issue AND increasing negative forces upon our economy, all to reward things such as this?

206 Don't buy into the "we must raise the debt ceiling, or we will collapse the global economy...OMG!!! DOOOM!" spin.

We can either A: get another metaphorical credit card, or B: cut an equal amount of spending.

The only reason that raising the debt ceiling is necessary is because of the increase in interest payments. Interest payments are going up because 1. we are borrowing vast amounts more than any time in history to fund shit like Obamacare, cowboy poetry, "green jobs", new entitlements, foreign aid,... and yes, 3 wars, and 2. our creditors are hiking our interest rates because we are no longer a good credit risk, and 3. our 10% inflation rate is making money more expensive.

Increasing the debt ceiling only serves to compound these problems in exchange for a short term accounting gimmick which will keep us solvent for a few more months and allow for more spending.

If we do not raise the debt limit, if forces a choice: A: cut spending, or B: default.

It is 100% within the Republican's power to not raise the debt ceiling and force this choice. Without House Republican support, the Senate and White House cannot do anything about it.

207 "Raising all six income tax rates by 1 percentage point would yield an additional $480 billion over 10 years."

Shhhh....not now! That's coming in 2013.

208 "My position on taxes and spending is evolving"

Oh, good grief, that's not evolution, Ace, it's devolution.

"...then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases."

Check, please!

209
If I could get my hands on the focus-group firms advising the Republicans...

210 So what's stopping them from paying more now?

Nothing of course. They'd just rather rant and rant and get their names in the press to show how much they love their fellow man. They won't do anything about it of course, they'll never *voluntarily* pay more. They just want to give the impression they would actually pay more if those gosh darn wingers weren't so stubborn.

211

TSA Defends Groping Six-Year-Old Girl Crossing Through Airport Security CheckÂ…

If you don't want your pre-pubescent daughter manhandled by someone they are not related to cover them with the Hijab!

Filthy Infidel.

212 A Republican finally noticed that Obama asking for tax hikes so close to tax day is ironic.

213 As already suggested: If we want to really reform the taxing and spending system, end automatic, mandatory withholding from paychecks.
That, right there, is way worse than the union withholding. And it's so stupid obvious that the Stupid Party will never go for it. It's a win-win-win: We reform the system with and absolute check on spending and taxes; we end the money laundering of taxes for Dem campaigns; and there's no one but politicians who would dare oppose this or protest.

That it isn't even being considered tells you the Stupid Party loves spending just as much as the Evil Party.

214 219 Nothing of course. They'd just rather rant and rant and get their names in the press to show how much they love their fellow man. They won't do anything about it of course, they'll never *voluntarily* pay more. They just want to give the impression they would actually pay more if those gosh darn wingers weren't so stubborn.

Indeed. It was a rhetorical.

215 I'll be your huckleberry ...

216 Posted by: Jay in Ames at April 13, 2011 11:25 AM (UEEex)

Why do you think I work for myself and I am very careful to keep my profits under the threshold which would require quarterly deposits? Easier than you'd think to do.

217 The Progressive are contemplating their knavels this morning on the idea that if Congress did nothing (i.e. a "do nothing Congress"), the deficit would go down over time.

Besides the fact that most conservatives already knew that, this calls in question whether Nancy Pelosi's "most productive Congress ever" was just the opposite.  Which conservative already know that answer, but it might dawn on the Progressives eventually, but dismiss it with a simple "Nay."

218 And maybe when the public actually gets a big tax hike they'll start to reconsider whether subsidizing themselves is a smart idea.


By then it will be too late, a government that has the power to confiscate that kind of revenue won't give that power up and a people willing to let it get to that point won't care enough to do anything about it.

219 "200
If you tax all income over $1 million, if nothing else changes, this would yield $850 billion per year. 

...minus this year's debt-interest payment of $200B, which is compounding..."
  That would work for one year, then would it would provide bumpkis thereafter. Why not try equality and tax everyone at the same rate? Everybody would have some skin in the game. It may result in the majority realizing that taxes are a cost not an investment with a return. Shoosh.

220 Someone tell me why this can't work.
http://tinyurl.com/3ve7m4y
It's Rand Paul's budget.

221 "Perhaps this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning! Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a renaissance!... Naaah!"

222 Did we have a ethnic blog cleansing?  My username and email address wasn't posted when I logged on. 

223 We need to find a goose that lays golden eggs, and then cut it open so we can take as many golden eggs as we want.

224 Indeed. It was a rhetorical.

Taxes for thee, but not for me!

225

... and the only downside is the country is going to be destroyed.

Here's your challenge: Make this outcome more real.

Before you can convince people who currently don't believe this claim, try making this likely future less abstract for the people who do believe you. What does DOOM! look like?

226

Whoa to those who institute a tax on honey badgers!

It will be on like donkey kong!

227

If the Republicans won't cut spending, as they apparently will not, always promising to get serious on cuts after the next election cycle (and then, when that cycle has passed, declaring the next cycle is even more important so we mustn't cut until after that one, too), then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Since I don't want the country to be destroyed.

Thats the Obama strategy.  He will either get his huge tax increases to expand the role of government or he will destroy the nation.

228 231 Did we have a ethnic blog cleansing? My username and email address wasn't posted when I logged on. Posted by: Soona at April 13, 2011 11:45 AM (5FMhB) That stuff is stored on your end.

229 The country was destroyed the minute the marxist cock holster  got into the white house. I keep saying it, the dude is a suicide bomber on his run to destroy the united states.  If you actually wanted to ruin the country, you would not do things any different. Nobody is as stupid as him in real life.   This is by design. He does everything directly opposite of what is needed.

230 I say we go the default route.  Many other countries have and they survived, let's see what happens.  Sure there will be pain, but it will be alot worse if there is a total collapse.  Plus its quicker than Ace's "make them understand" solution.

FYI - due to current distribution channels, we are always just 2 weeks away from empty grocery store shelves if there is a disruption.  Something to think about.

231 Can't we just nuke Pakistan too?

232 What does DOOM! look like? Posted by: FireHorse at April 13, 2011 11:45 AM (JuKNT) Detroit with national parks?

233 229 Someone tell me why this can't work.
http://tinyurl.com/3ve7m4y
It's Rand Paul's budget.

Only because it will never be enacted. The House Republican conference refused to endorse cutting spending to go back to '06 levels on numerous occasions, and now some of them are on-record* as being leery Ryan's budget. They weren't going to vote for it anyway, but they're scared because they might lose their seats. 

_{*As opposed to their anonymous leaks}

234 And you may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
And you may ask yourself
Where does that highway go?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right?...Am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
MY GOD!...WHAT HAVE I WE DONE?

Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...

235 and that would be "Woe" ... honey badgers are badass but we do have spelling issues!

236 That stuff is stored on your end.

Posted by: right at April 13, 2011 11:47 AM (XF91n)

 

Ah.  So I cleansed myself.  At least my friends will appreciate that.

237 Joni Mitchells song comes to mind when I think of the state of our nation and it's freedom:  You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.  Bet she didn't realize at the time the sage wisdom of "what goes around, comes around".  Fucking leftist freaks. 

238 My position on taxes and spending is evolving

Is that like when a conservative gets elected, then begins growing in office?

239 If we do not raise the debt limit, if forces a choice: A: cut spending, or B: default.

Posted by: Damiano at April 13, 2011 11:38 AM (3nrx7)

Actually, there's also choice C.  Simply get rid of the fiction that we need to borrow money, or that the federal government is revenue constrained.  At the federal level, all money that is spent is created when it is spent, and all money that is taxed is destroyed when the tax payers' accounts are debited.  We're already printing money to pay for stuff.  Let's just accept that fact.

Instead of worrying about who to tax and how, simply allow inflation to do its work.  Once we are in that mode we can be more honest about what we need to do.  Either we need to rein in spending, or we need to figure out how to drain more of the excess reserves from the economy.  If nothing is done, inflation will be the default "tax."  The beauty is that it will be tax shared by all dollar holders, so the foreigners holding dollars will share the suffering.

The best way to handle this is to change policy to bring about helpful deflationary forces.  Like lower energy costs.  Greater food production.  You know - supply side stuff. 

240 The best part of DOOM!! No taxes. The debt ceiling with be raised. You might see a couple cuts to placate the serfs but there will be no entitlement reform and there will be massive new taxes. The American experiment is over. It was a good run. But let's not dwell in the past. Invest in tomorrow, I'm jumping on roadkill futures and urban scrap recovery that's going to be huge.

241 But the amount of the tax increase will destroy the country too. The middle class will become poorer than the poor.

242 It is good to see you have come to the dark side on taxes Ace.  Now all we have to do is get the Republicans to up the ante on spending and we can wrap this Republic up and replace it with our socially progressive empire.  Have you seen the medical plans for our fodder storm troopers?  And as long as the empire can keep expanding at an exponential rate we might even be able to pay for it.

243 My position on taxes and spending is evolving, I really don't think we have time for the additional political maneuvering. We either get substantial cuts on the comming budget or we will go down.

244 Sad part? You have put framed this more concisely than any Republican will.

245 To take a line from a song from Crazy Heart- Funny how falling feels like flying......for a little while.

246 I heard this morning that Boehner said something like, if tax increases are part of the plan everything is off the table.  Mr. Weepy can't have it both ways... you can't be protecting spending and refusing to budge on tax increases.  I think he takes this facetious stand on tax increases to protect his ass and nothing more.  If there's any spine left in the GOP his ass should be pretty close to being replaced as speaker.

247
Obama is still personally popular and the GOP doesn't want to one-term America's first black president. Obama will be reelected in 2012.

Taxes will go up between now and then. Oil (and all other forms of energy) prices will go way up. With the help of the MFM, the electorate will blame it on the Republicans. The GOP will lose the House in 2012.

By 2016 we'll have had three or four years at least as bad as the worst of Carter's term. Normalcy will be defined as 8.5% unemployment, 2.4% annual GDP growth, $5.00+/gal gas and a top tax rate of 90%.

Maybe by 2016 people will get mad enough to change the direction of the country, but I doubt it. I predict that before 2016 the GOP will splinter into factions: true conservatives and mainstream Republicans. Moderates will find this split so unappealing at least 70% of them will align with the Democrats. The number of Americans dependent upon government handouts will have doubled. The Democrats will consolidate their power base like never before.

Sometime in the third decade of the 21^st century America will crumble. The only question will be whether it will crumble like the Roman Empire or Argentina.

248 This does not get fixed until we have 67 senators (veto proof senate) willing to cut trillions from the federal budget.   What are the odds of that happening in our lifetime? 

I don't care who gets elected president, without at least 60 senators willing to cut trillions with a t, it ain't happening. 

Think about it.  Even with the Tea Party freshman, Boehner hasn't got the votes for any actual cuts bigger than a round off error. 

249 I say go long morphine. We're gonna be handing it out like jelly beans in the 2020s and 2030s. Hey little old white lady. What's that? You say your hip hurts? And you can't walk? And you're in agonizing pain? Awww, that's a cute story little old white lady. Here, have some Obama-brand morphine. There, there. Feel all better now? See, I told you there was nothing wrong with your hip. Here let me give you a little extra of that wonderful Obama-brand morphine you love so much. It'll help you sleep. And remember, because Obama loves you so very, very much, you can have all the morphine you want.

250 Since I don't want the country to be destroyed.

Why would you think that raising taxes wouldn't destroy the country (looks over at Euro-zone)? Do you really think that if they did raise taxes, that they'd take that money and apply it to the deficit?

Really? Why is that?

What has the current administration ever shown you that would indicate that they are actually concerned about the deficit?

251 A "country" and its "government" are two different things.  I'm just saying...

252 The taxes will not cover it. The government cannot pay for it. Appropriate scapegoats will be found. Atlases of various stripes will shrug. The barbarians will sack the city. Leibowitz will have many, many canticles. Nothing is new under the sun.

253 At this point the only winning play is to kick over the table.  Stop playing the game the Progressives have written the rules for and make them play a game where the rules say "We Win, You Lose." right on page one.

Right now the rules say Congress only needs to have a majority for a program one time, after that it is immortal, receiving automatic increases for inflation plus a couple of points for good measure.  The only way to cut one is for a majority of the House plus a fillibuster proof majority of the Senate to change and then not get vetoed by the POTUS.  And always within huge bills with hundreds of other things and with conference committees ready to silently undo a hard won vote to cut behind everyone's back.  So of course They Win, We Lose since They are the Party of Government.  Compromise consists of taking what both parties in the House and Senate want, along with the policy inititives in the POTUS's budget and essentially ORing it all together

If Baynor the Orange had a pair he would call a big splashy press conference and announce the new rules of the game.  Zero baseline budgeting.  Every budget cycle we start at zero and every program justifies it's existence and level of funding.  There will be separate bills passed for each small block of funding, in the 20-50 billion range instead of massive omnibus bills.  The Senate and POTUS are free to argue how the money is allocated and pass things back for conference but the AMOUNT isn't debatable.  They are also free to reject a program entirely and 'shut down' that part of the government.  So that the set of programs that receive funding becomes the logical AND of the wishes of the House, Senate and Executive.

Finally, the House should loudly reclaim it's mandate to control taxing and spending.  Obama doesn't raise taxes, Obama doesn't spend.  The House does. Explain, for the majority who don't know, that the Senate gets to Advise and Consent on Judges, Treaties and such but it is the House that controls the money.  We only control the House but for what we want it is exactly what we need.  We don't need to wait until 2012.

254

then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Since I don't want the country to be destroyed.

What is this? we have to destroy the village to save the village double-talk? you do realize that a tax increase will pretty much tank our otherwise moribund economy?

You'll raise taxes to only find out that your revenue streams have diminished. You won't get 25% of the GDP in taxes for very long.

This is why I think we're terminally boned: no one has the stones to actually cut deficit spending significantly enough to put a dent in it.

I'm not even talking about tackling the debt, just trying to balance the budget. And you can't tax your way out of it, either.

255 The Honey Badger is screaming and running in circles.

That's never happened before.

I think we're all going to die.

256 tax HOT AIR tax AL GORE and GREENPEACE the biggist producers of HOT AIR

257 then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases. This is why when Republicans ask whether I would vote for Obama over Romney/Pawlenty/Daniels/Huckabee I say yes. Plus, Obama is black and historic, so my white guilt might as well get assuaged in the bargain. Republicans keep disappointing me. They are going to cut spending or enjoy their much-deserved political irrelevancy. Here in New York, I feel great about having voted for Mario Cuomo, even if we're stuck with Bloomberg.

258 More tha 45% of American households pay NO Federal income tax, but people want someone ELSE to pay more...

259

If the Republicans won't cut spending, as they apparently will not...then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Since I don't want the country to be destroyed.

And maybe when the public actually gets a big tax hike they'll start to reconsider whether subsidizing themselves is a smart idea.

But that WILL destroy the country, Ace.  After which "the public" will no longer HAVE a choice.  It's the ultimate crisis to exploit of Red Barry's wettest wet dreams.

Reminds me of how economic sanctions were supposed to bring down Saddam Hussein.  How'd that one turn out?

Also reminds me of how Adolph Hitler decided in his bunker at the end that the German people DESERVED to perish at the hands of the Russians because THEY had failed HIM.

And finally, it reminds me of how tighty-righties thought that by taking a walk on the GOP in 2006 they'd "teach the GOP a lesson".  How's THAT one turning out?

260 evening dresses evening dresses uk designer evening dresses long evening dresses plus size evening dresses cheap evening dresses

261

Soft revolution. Massive civil disobedience. Go to barter. Grow your own, build your own. Pay cash where you gots, do without when you don't gots. Pay as little in taxes as legally possible, then go further. Don't answer summonses, don't appear. Starve the beast. Let them try to jail 20. 30, 40 million, see how that gets paid for if no taxes coming in. Don't get violent; ineffective and, of course, very dangerous for you and loved ones. Jail won't be that dangerous is your gang is waaaaaaaaaaay larger than the other gangs. I'm a few years from what I was told would be retirement age, not many years at all. My current plans do not include retirement; I won't live off my children's wages. The plan is to work until no one will pay me anymore and then eat a bullet or go the Val-U-Rite and closed garage route. Your mileage, of course, may vary. I'm thinking three hots and a cot in the big house might be a fair alternative to that as well, especially if I'm joined by large numbers of like-minded geezers. Sounds like a plan to me.

262 You can may be discovered to be very splendid looking all round person, by just picking your most beloved where how can you buy abercrombie and fitchand fitch through the uk. even although you will step from home, each and every person.