raise personal income tax, lower corporate tax

[Wiseacre]

You can't cut the budget to balance without slashing Social Security checks and gutting defense. It's entirely unrealistic.

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

Name me on republican president that didn't raise taxes since the Carter era.

George H. Bush? Bush43? Don't recall he raised taxes.

I remember Bush41 raised taxes on the democrat's promise that they would cut spending, cuz he thought it would be in the country's best interest. He did, they didn't, the dems lied their asses off to him like they did with Reagan.

 

[Rozman]

Really cut spending on everything..some gets cut more some get cut less...
Then maybe some support will be given regarding increasing revenue...
I wanna see the cuts first though..

 

[Polk]

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

Name me on republican president that didn't raise taxes since the Carter era.

George H. Bush? Bush43? Don't recall he raised taxes.

I remember Bush41 raised taxes on the democrat's promise that they would cut spending, cuz he thought it would be in the country's best interest. He did, they didn't, the dems lied their asses off to him like they did with Reagan.

I believe you're correct about George . Bush. As for George H.W. Bush, that's not accurate. H.W. didn't want the automatic spending cuts required by Gramm-Rudman to take effect, so he cut a deal with Democrats that raised taxes, while also cutting the budget (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990). The bill cut Medicaid spending and instituted the PAYGO rule.

Also, would still love to hear your take on the negotiation process.

 

[Wiseacre]

Name me on republican president that didn't raise taxes since the Carter era.

George H. Bush? Bush43? Don't recall he raised taxes.

I remember Bush41 raised taxes on the democrat's promise that they would cut spending, cuz he thought it would be in the country's best interest. He did, they didn't, the dems lied their asses off to him like they did with Reagan.

I believe you're correct about George . Bush. As for George H.W. Bush, that's not accurate. H.W. didn't want the automatic spending cuts required by Gramm-Rudman to take effect, so he cut a deal with Democrats that raised taxes, while also cutting the budget (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990). The bill cut Medicaid spending and instituted the PAYGO rule.

Also, would still love to hear your take on the negotiation process.

I always felt Bush41 did what was best for the country even though it cost him politically.

What negotiation process are you referring to?

 

[Polk]

George H. Bush? Bush43? Don't recall he raised taxes.

I remember Bush41 raised taxes on the democrat's promise that they would cut spending, cuz he thought it would be in the country's best interest. He did, they didn't, the dems lied their asses off to him like they did with Reagan.

I believe you're correct about George . Bush. As for George H.W. Bush, that's not accurate. H.W. didn't want the automatic spending cuts required by Gramm-Rudman to take effect, so he cut a deal with Democrats that raised taxes, while also cutting the budget (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990). The bill cut Medicaid spending and instituted the PAYGO rule.

Also, would still love to hear your take on the negotiation process.

I always felt Bush41 did what was best for the country even though it cost him politically.

What negotiation process are you referring to?

I think H.W. did the right thing. I think people now are starting to give him more credit for.

I was referring back to earlier in the thread we when were talking about Simpson-Bowles.

 

[Wiseacre]

About Simpson-Bowles, I thought there was a lot of stuff in there that neither side liked; higher taxes, spending cuts, but nobody seemed to want to compromise. I don't give anyone a pass here, outside of maybe the Commission itself, everybody else played politics instead of doing what was best for the country. This was before the repubs gained control of the House, but they were not exactly helpful or as interested in doing what was best for all of us. Neither was Obama and the Dems, and at the time they had control of the WH, Senate and the House.

I would like to have seen a serious effort on both sides to work together on some kind of deal. It's gonna have to get done sooner or later, and some kind of compromise will have to be reached. That means leadership on both sides will be required, something in short supply these days.

 

[Polk]

One thing I found most interesting was the House-Senate divide. If I recall correctly, I think 5 of the 6 senators voted for it, but 5 of the 6 House members voted against.

 

[Wiseacre]

One thing I found most interesting was the House-Senate divide. If I recall correctly, I think 5 of the 6 senators voted for it, but 5 of the 6 House members voted against.

If I remember right, 14 of the 18 members had to vote for the commission's final report, and it fell short by 2 or 3. This was in December 2010 I think, after the mid term elections were over. I think the leadership from both parties couldn't live with the political fallout of the report, neither side's base would accept the parts that were against their philosophy of gov't. Far as I know, nobody really tried to work out a deal on it, and we've been stuck in gridlock ever since.

 

[Polk]

I remember that 11 voted for the report and I think the only vote against that wasn't a member of the Congress was the union representative.

 

[Freemason9]

And maybe you're a fucking idiot. Do you really think you can rise taxes to over 90% at the top and get away with it? No consequences? Unbelievably stupid, I dislike to characterize someone else's posts that way, but God Almighty the idea is so beyond ridiculous.

Beyond ridiculous? Try some research, porkchop. The best economic growth in America has always occured when income taxes were the highest in terms of marginal progressive rates. There are no exceptions. When has the economy coughed and sputtered? Under "conservative" supply side tax-cutting economic plans. DUH! Simply use history and performance as a guide--instead of, perhaps, ideological rhetoric.

As we speak, rich frenchmen are leaving France to escape the tax hikes that Hollande says he will implement, as did the wealthy from other countries who also raised tax rates significantly. And the french are going to pay a price too, you can expect a ful depression in France over the next 4 years, bank on it.

No, you are either stupid or lying. Germany--the most "socialist" country of the industrialized nations--also has the lowest unemployment rate, the highest rate of economic growth, the highest union membership rate, the highest net trade surplus, the best wage structure, national health care, and BY FAR the best environment for working citizens. NO, "rich frenchmen" are NOT leaving France to "escape the tax hikes." French love France, and they are more than willing to fund her. The same goes for Germany.

And BTW, you realize the 1950s tax rates at the bottom were very high too, you ready for that? 17.40% for the first $4000 of income, bet you're not for that are ya?

The reason that worked? Workers were getting much better wages relative to adjusted inflation and cost of living. Workers can afford to pay a 4% higher tax rate when their wages are 75% better!

You see, your comment is a good example of how right wing politicians win elections--they just make shit up!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

French love France, and they are more than willing to fund her.

too stupid!!


Rich French Citizens are Leaving Francewww.thenewamerican.com › World News › EuropeCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Aug 9, 2012 – Plans announced by French President Francois Hollande to "tax the rich" are driving wealthy French citizens out of the country. by Bob ...
Prison Planet.com » Rich French Citizens are Leaving Francewww.prisonplanet.com/rich-french-citizens-are-leaving-france.htmlCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Bob Adelmann New American Aug 10, 2012. Vincent Grandil, a partner in the Paris law firm Altexis, which caters to rich French citizens, is increasingly being ...
Wealthy French to Leave Sinking Ship Francewww.dailysquib.co.uk/.../3321-wealthy-french-to-leave-sinking-ship...Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
May 7, 2012 – PARIS - France - Like rats jumping from a sinking ship, the rich French are leaving the country as the socialist election win becomes a reality ...
Wealthy French look to leave - World - The Boston Globewww.bostonglobe.com/news/world/.../wealthy...leave/.../story.htmlYou +1'd this publicly. Undo
May 13, 2012 – Jeremie Le Febvre, the 30-year-old founder of private equity marketing-services firm TBG Capital Advisors, plans to move to Singapore from ...