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

[ilia25]

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.

I did, and they show that we do not have a deficit problem. Here they are again, for you, and you only:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/opinion/krugman-that-terrible-trillion.html

 

[Seawytch]

Obama was elected on taxing the top two percent more.

When the GOP finally, finally, finally gets that through their heads, then maybe we will finally see some progress in the talks.

.

66 percent of the people want taxes AND cuts to entitlements. Obama will lose if he refuses to consider any cuts.

Are you sure about the cuts to entitlements part? I'd like to see something to back that up.

 

[ilia25]

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.

No, I use math as my source. The fact that the laws of arithmetics are the same for me as for a Nobel prize winner is hardly surprising.

 

[Meister]

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.

No, I use math as my source. The fact that the laws of arithmetics are the same for me as for a Nobel prize winner is hardly surprising.

In order to get where you want to get, you have to use cherry numbers that may or may not come about, dude. In the mean time, the rest of us are living in reality.

 

[Seawytch]

Obama was elected on taxing the top two percent more.

When the GOP finally, finally, finally gets that through their heads, then maybe we will finally see some progress in the talks.

.

66 percent of the people want taxes AND cuts to entitlements. Obama will lose if he refuses to consider any cuts.

Are you sure about the cuts to entitlements part? I'd like to see something to back that up.

I thought that was questionable...

http://www.people-press.org/2011/07/07/public-wants-changes-in-entitlements-not-change-in-benefits/

 

[ilia25]

He uses a leftwing journalist as his source.

No, I use math as my source. The fact that the laws of arithmetics are the same for me as for a Nobel prize winner is hardly surprising.

In order to get where you want to get, you have to use cherry numbers that may or may not come about, dude. In the mean time, the rest of us are living in reality.
Nobel prize winner for journalism....his opinion. sheesh.

I still have not seen a single number from you. Only empty words.

 

[eflatminor]

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?

You're saying revenues have NOT dropped in France, the UK, and California following tax hikes on the rich? Sorry pal, the truth may not fit your agenda, but that's EXACTLY what happened. Google it yourself. George Bush I learned the same lesson when he increased taxes in 1990. In 1989, federal revenues were 19.3% of GDP. In 1991, after the tax rate hikes, revenues slipped to 19.1%. According to the WSJ, the rich in particular paid LESS taxes after the rates where raised - $6.5 billion less! The WSJ report stated "81% of the revenues expected from the 1990 budget deal failed to materialize". There are plenty of other examples if you care to look with an open mind.

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.

It's not even a drop in the bucket and it's taking a HELL of a chance when history shows you're more likely to see a DECREASE in revenues and an increase in unemployment following a tax hike.

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?

Because there is NO WAY you can collect an extra trillion a year in tax revenues. Hell, even if you CONFISCATED all the wealth (100% of it) from America's billionaires, you still couldn't even balance this year's budget, much less begin to tackle the debt.

 

[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.

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

I am still waiting for you to prove that our government spending is unsustainable.

 

[eflatminor]

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

The world's biggest Keynesian thinks we should spend even more. Shocker...

 

[tooAlive]

[ame=http://youtu.be/ucoP4-06O7M]Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[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

The world's biggest Keynesian thinks we should spend even more. Shocker...

Where are your numbers?

 

[tooAlive]

This is a good one.. Really simple to understand as well.

[ame=http://youtu.be/pES9C7fX_Co]Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Meister]

No, I use math as my source. The fact that the laws of arithmetics are the same for me as for a Nobel prize winner is hardly surprising.

In order to get where you want to get, you have to use cherry numbers that may or may not come about, dude. In the mean time, the rest of us are living in reality.
Nobel prize winner for journalism....his opinion. sheesh.

I still have not seen a single number from you. Only empty words.

I can't fix your stupidity for you....try common sense and do the math once the rates start to rise......everytime you use the math with higher interest rates, the debt increases....it'll work everytime...I promise.


Lets see your numbers and please don't use Krugman as your crutch.....

 

[francoHFW]

Federal debt was higher at the end of the Clinton years than at the beginning — that is, the deficits of the Clinton administration’s early years outweighed the surpluses at the end. Yet because gross domestic product rose over those eight years, the best measure of our debt position, the ratio of debt to G.D.P., fell dramatically, from 49 to 33 percent.

Right now, given reasonable estimates of likely future growth and inflation, we would have a stable or declining ratio of debt to G.D.P. even if we had a $400 billion deficit. You can argue that we should do better; but if the question is whether current deficits are sustainable, you should take $400 billion off the table right away.

That still leaves $600 billion or so. What’s that about? It’s the depressed economy — full stop.

First of all, the weakness of the economy has led directly to lower revenues; when G.D.P. falls, the federal tax take falls too, and in fact always falls substantially more in percentage terms. On top of that, revenue is temporarily depressed by tax breaks, notably the payroll tax cut, that have been put in place to support the economy but will be withdrawn as soon as the economy is stronger (or, unfortunately, even before then). If you do the math, it seems likely that full economic recovery would raise revenue by at least $450 billion.

Meanwhile, the depressed economy has also temporarily raised spending, because more people qualify for unemployment insurance and means-tested programs like food stamps and Medicaid. A reasonable estimate is that economic recovery would reduce federal spending on such programs by at least $150 billion.

Putting all this together, it turns out that the trillion-dollar deficit isn’t a sign of unsustainable finances at all. Some of the deficit is in fact sustainable; just about all of the rest would go away if we had an economic recovery.

And the prospects for economic recovery are looking pretty good right now — or would be looking good if it weren’t for the political risks posed by Republican hostage-taking. Housing is reviving, consumer debt is down, employment has improved steadily among prime-age workers. Unfortunately, this recovery may well be derailed by the fiscal cliff and/or a confrontation over the debt ceiling; but this has nothing to do with the alleged unsustainability of the deficit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/opinion/krugman-that-terrible-trillion.html?_r=0

 

[eflatminor]

For a 1001st time:
That Terrible Trillion

The world's biggest Keynesian thinks we should spend even more. Shocker...

Where are your numbers?

Post 47 has a few as do the government stats on tax revenue coming out of France, the UK, California, and the US following tax increases.

 

[tooAlive]

And finally, here's one that shows how much we'd have to tax the rich in order to balance the budget.

[ame=http://youtu.be/FC5Gkox-1QY]Will Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[francoHFW]

Krugman won a Nobel in ECONOMICS, not journalism. Idiot.

The dupes don't think the stimulus worked. Brainwashed idiots top to bottom.

 

[ilia25]

Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget? - YouTube

1. Nothing in there about the current government spending being unsustainable.
2. The argument that the govt revenues stays "about the same" whit the different tax rates is lame. If we raise our tax revenues by just 2% of GDP (or $320 billions today) by taxing the rich, we will solve any imaginable long term deficit problems.
3. The claim that lower taxes make the economy growing faster is not supported by any model and is false.

 

[Sallow]

Okay....I'll play...what are the spending cuts offered by Obama...exactly? That's what I thought

Play all you want.

The Obama administration cut nearly a trillion dollars from entitlements over the last couple of years. Romney called it "stealing from medicare".

Well now they can do the "identifying".

Like I posted, Obama ran on the tax hikes...and owns them.

You are talking about the 800 billion from medicare to obamacare, right?
You're dodging my question....where IS the spending cuts from Obama?
Or, are you saying that he owns the tax hikes and he's not interested in spending cuts?

First off, that's not what happened and it was the overall intent of the ACA to produce savings and reductions via cutting redundancy, creating efficiency and getting rid of outright fraud.

Secondly..there are spending cuts in the sequester. If nothing is done..then the cuts agreed upon by the President and both houses of congress go into effect.

Third off, it was Obama that took a huge risk advocating for the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts. "Raising" taxes is a pitfall politically, and Obama took a hit both with the ACA and staying pat on the "hikes".

Now it's time for the GOP to put their big boy pants on..and tell the American public what they want to see cut.

Simple as that.

 

[tooAlive]

Krugman won a Nobel in ECONOMICS, not journalism. Idiot.

The dupes don't think the stimulus worked. Brainwashed idiots top to bottom.

[ame=http://youtu.be/MgPggTlnoxM]Does Stimulus Spending Work? - YouTube[/ame]