Boehner Agrees To Trade Tax Rate Hikes For Entitlement Savings. Obama Says, Thanks Fo

[tooAlive]

With this compromise the GOP has infact shown good faith in trying to deal with the problem. If the media is honest they will have to report it and it would bode well going into next year when we do go over the cliff.
It can't be reported just as the GOP obstructionists.
People DO want the rich to pay more, but they also want less spending, so the ball may very well be in Obama's court.

Republicans want the focus to be on less spending rather than taxing the rich. They have never convinced the voters that they have any intention of combining spending cuts with a revenue increase on the wealthiest Americans.

That's because most voters have no idea what the tax rates even are, nor what the rich are already paying in taxes.

 

[ilia25]

I say give it to him and let 'em own it. Rand Paul has the right idea:

Rand Paul: Voting Present On Tax Hikes Would Be Better For GOP | RealClearPolitics

If only all Republicans were as stupid as Rand Paul!

Unfortunately, most of them don't buy their own propaganda. They know that rising taxes on the rich will not affect the economy, but will increase the revenues enough to make the case for dismantling the entitlements even less compelling.

In other words, rising taxes will ruin the Republican agenda by exposing their lies about taxes and entitlement programs.

Tell me. Will a 4% increase to top marginal tax rates even make a dent in the deficit?

Yes.

Will a 70% top marginal tax rate make a dent in the deficit?

Even more so.

Even if it did, taking 70% of a portion of anyone's income is flat out theft.

I'm so sorry you feel that way.

 

[Truthmatters]

why is it the republican try to insist Obama come up with all the ideas?

 

[Sarah G]

With this compromise the GOP has infact shown good faith in trying to deal with the problem. If the media is honest they will have to report it and it would bode well going into next year when we do go over the cliff.
It can't be reported just as the GOP obstructionists.
People DO want the rich to pay more, but they also want less spending, so the ball may very well be in Obama's court.

Republicans want the focus to be on less spending rather than taxing the rich. They have never convinced the voters that they have any intention of combining spending cuts with a revenue increase on the wealthiest Americans.

That's because most voters have no idea what the tax rates even are, nor what the rich are already paying in taxes.

Which with the tax shelters adds up to pennies on the dollar.

 

[eflatminor]

I say give it to him and let 'em own it. Rand Paul has the right idea:

Rand Paul: Voting Present On Tax Hikes Would Be Better For GOP | RealClearPolitics

If only all Republicans were as stupid as Rand Paul!

Unfortunately, most of them don't buy their own propaganda. They know that rising taxes on the rich will not affect the economy, but will increase the revenues enough to make the case for dismantling the entitlements even less compelling.

In other words, rising taxes will ruin the Republican agenda by exposing their lies about taxes and entitlement programs.

Increase revenues, eh? That didn't happen in France when they increased taxes on their rich. In fact, revenues fell. That didn't happen the UK when they increased taxes on their rich either. Again, revenues fell. Just last month, after California increased taxes, revenues fell. Looking back at US history, we have several examples where increasing tax rates did not result in more revenue, it resulted in less.

What makes you so sure increasing tax rates will result in more revenue this time?

But let's say you're right and revenues do increase. The best case scenario of enhanced revenues after taxing the rich would pay for only eight days of government spending...8 days!

So, even if you get your tax hikes and even if revenue increases, we're still spending more than a trillion dollars a year over what we take in. How is this still not a spending problem?

 

[ilia25]

why is it the republican try to insist Obama come up with all the ideas?

Because Republicans dream of dismantling Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- but they fear that voters will hate them if they propose it. So they ask Obama to do that.

Aren't they cute?

 

[tooAlive]

If only all Republicans were as stupid as Rand Paul!

Unfortunately, most of them don't buy their own propaganda. They know that rising taxes on the rich will not affect the economy, but will increase the revenues enough to make the case for dismantling the entitlements even less compelling.

In other words, rising taxes will ruin the Republican agenda by exposing their lies about taxes and entitlement programs.

Tell me. Will a 4% increase to top marginal tax rates even make a dent in the deficit?

Yes.

Will a 70% top marginal tax rate make a dent in the deficit?

Even more so.

Even if it did, taking 70% of a portion of anyone's income is flat out theft.

I'm so sorry you feel that way.

You know quite well that higher taxes on the rich will do absolutely nothing to cut down the deficit. Our level of spending is simply unsustainable. Ignoring the facts will not make them any less real.

And you're right, taking 70% of any portion of anyone's income isn't theft; it's downright immoral.

 

[ilia25]

I say give it to him and let 'em own it. Rand Paul has the right idea:

Rand Paul: Voting Present On Tax Hikes Would Be Better For GOP | RealClearPolitics

If only all Republicans were as stupid as Rand Paul!

Unfortunately, most of them don't buy their own propaganda. They know that rising taxes on the rich will not affect the economy, but will increase the revenues enough to make the case for dismantling the entitlements even less compelling.

In other words, rising taxes will ruin the Republican agenda by exposing their lies about taxes and entitlement programs.

Increase revenues, eh? That didn't happen in France when they increased taxes on their rich. In fact, revenues fell. That didn't happen the UK when they increased taxes on their rich either. Again, revenues fell. Just last month, after California increased taxes, revenues fell.

I don't think so. Where are your numbers?

But let's say you're right and revenues do increase. The best case scenario of enhanced revenues after taxing the rich would pay for only eight days of government spending...8 days!

It's a start. The whole fiscal cliff negotiations are about 15-20 days of govt. spending a year.

So, even if you get your tax hikes and even if revenue increases, we're still spending more than a trillion dollars a year over what we take in. How is this still not a spending problem?

How is that not a revenue problem?

 

[ilia25]

You know quite well that higher taxes on the rich will do absolutely nothing to cut down the deficit. Our level of spending is simply unsustainable.

I'm not aware of such "facts". In fact, I know for sure that these are simply right-wing lies.

And you're right, taking 70% of any portion of anyone's income isn't theft; it's downright immoral.

Your face is downright immoral.

 

[ilia25]

So, even if you get your tax hikes and even if revenue increases, we're still spending more than a trillion dollars a year over what we take in. How is this still not a spending problem?

For a 1001st time:
That Terrible Trillion

 

[Meister]

You know quite well that higher taxes on the rich will do absolutely nothing to cut down the deficit. Our level of spending is simply unsustainable.

I'm not aware of such "facts". In fact, I know for sure that these are simply right-wing lies.

And you're right, taking 70% of any portion of anyone's income isn't theft; it's downright immoral.

Your face is downright immoral.

I think you need to be more aware.
If Obama does get to raise the taxes on the top 2% to where he wants them....we're still going to have a trillion dollar deficit next year. It's the spending that's the problem.
No lie

 

[Meister]

So, even if you get your tax hikes and even if revenue increases, we're still spending more than a trillion dollars a year over what we take in. How is this still not a spending problem?

For a 1001st time:
That Terrible Trillion

Krugman would lead you over a cliff, dude.
Sooner or later, interest rates will rise, and with that our deficit/debt is going to become a huge problem for this country.

 

[tooAlive]

You know quite well that higher taxes on the rich will do absolutely nothing to cut down the deficit. Our level of spending is simply unsustainable.

I'm not aware of such "facts". In fact, I know for sure that these are simply right-wing lies.

And you're right, taking 70% of any portion of anyone's income isn't theft; it's downright immoral.

Your face is downright immoral.

Of course you would say something like that. You're a Marxist.

Marxism is a flawed-belief system that revolves around hate, envy and jealousy.

It's also no surprise you need to resort to childish insults to make your point. Typical Marxist ideology at work.

 

[ilia25]

You know quite well that higher taxes on the rich will do absolutely nothing to cut down the deficit. Our level of spending is simply unsustainable.

I'm not aware of such "facts". In fact, I know for sure that these are simply right-wing lies.

And you're right, taking 70% of any portion of anyone's income isn't theft; it's downright immoral.

Your face is downright immoral.

Of course you would say something like that. You're a Marxist.

Marxism is a flawed-belief system that revolves around hate, envy and jealousy.

And of course, since Marxism doesn't work with common sense or facts, you need to resort to childish insults to make your point.

Excuse me, but this is the only language you would understand. When I present you with facts and numbers, I only get a blank stare from you.

 

[ilia25]

So, even if you get your tax hikes and even if revenue increases, we're still spending more than a trillion dollars a year over what we take in. How is this still not a spending problem?

For a 1001st time:
That Terrible Trillion

Krugman would lead you over a cliff, dude.
Sooner or later, interest rates will rise, and with that our deficit/debt is going to become a huge problem for this country.

Where are your numbers?

 

[tooAlive]

I'm not aware of such "facts". In fact, I know for sure that these are simply right-wing lies.



Your face is downright immoral.

Of course you would say something like that. You're a Marxist.

Marxism is a flawed-belief system that revolves around hate, envy and jealousy.

And of course, since Marxism doesn't work with common sense or facts, you need to resort to childish insults to make your point.

Excuse me, but this is the only language you would understand. When I present you with facts, I only get a blank stare.

What facts? Your opinions aren't facts.

It's a fact that our spending is unsustainable. That's not my opinion, it's not a right-wing lie or propaganda. It is the truth.

 

[Meister]

For a 1001st time:
That Terrible Trillion

Krugman would lead you over a cliff, dude.
Sooner or later, interest rates will rise, and with that our deficit/debt is going to become a huge problem for this country.

Where are your numbers?

Take a math class and do the numbers.

 

[ilia25]

It's a fact that our spending is unsustainable. That's not my opinion, it's not a right-wing lie or propaganda. It is the truth.

Prove it.

 

[tooAlive]

You Marxists seem to be under the belief that if the government doesn't have enough money, the only possible explanation is that the rich aren't "paying their fair share."

That will always be the case with you people.

 

[Meister]

Of course you would say something like that. You're a Marxist.

Marxism is a flawed-belief system that revolves around hate, envy and jealousy.

And of course, since Marxism doesn't work with common sense or facts, you need to resort to childish insults to make your point.

Excuse me, but this is the only language you would understand. When I present you with facts, I only get a blank stare.

What facts? Your opinions aren't facts.

It's a fact that our spending is unsustainable. That's not my opinion, it's not a right-wing lie or propaganda. It is the truth.

He uses a leftwing journalist as his source.