Super Committee Democrats Reject GOP Tax Proposal

[Inthemiddle]

Fine, we'll just send the Gestapo after you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't tax the poor for heavens sake...they pay to much as as it is and they create all those jobs.

The poor do indeed create jobs, and are the ones who spent the most of their comparative wealth to do so. Every time they spend their paycheck down to their last $10 to pay their basic needs, like rent, food, utilities, clothes, hair cuts, toiletries, etc, the poor are helping to create and maintain demand for goods and services, i.e. jobs. These are the people who give the most of their selves to support the economy that drives millions into the hands of those at the top. They are the ones who sacrifice the most so that others can become super rich. They are the people whom we are least able to do without.

The lower class of an economy is more important to it than the upper class. As long as people exist, markets will exist, and as long as markets exist people will fill them. The strength of an economy is dependent upon how well money moves and cycles through it. The majority of the wealth of the lower class is regularly cycled into the economy on a frequent and continuing basis, by necessity. This makes the lower class a foundation upon which the rest of an economy thrives.

what a load of marxist class warfare pap.......the do-nothing sheeple poor do no0t creATE JOBS.....people with guts and determination, smarts and self-sacrifice, people who may start with nothing but have innovative ideas and positive outlook and the willingness to work hard.....those are the ones who create jobs....

if you were to put all the movers and shakers....into one state and put all the "sacrificing" sheeple into another state......guess which state will do well and which won't.....?

if you don't know......take a look at Texas vs California for a clue....

What corporatist drivel. No consumer, no jobs, SE. Go read your basic Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Oldstyle]

“Any super committee deal that does not include higher taxes for millionaires should be killed.” - Patriotic Millionaire$ for Fi$cal $trength

Now let's wait for all the conservative wing nuts who DON'T make that much money come in and whine about how higher taxes on the rich is unjust and oppressing people's rights.

Whine? Nah, I'll just point out that even Christina Romer, President Obama's former Chief Economic Adviser and a die hard liberal Keynesian has come out and said that raising taxes on anyone at this time would be a mistake. Gee, does that make HER a "wing nut" as well?

 

[Oldstyle]

What's really pathetic about this is that Barack Obama himself knows that raising taxes will hurt the economy but he's willing to push a bad agenda if it works for him politically.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most economists disagree with that assumption, Oldstyle. The figure a 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 cuts to revenue is the way to go. Why do you resist that?

 

[paulitician]

I don't mind getting rid of Corporate Welfare. I think that's something most of us can agree on. So they should start there. Start with the things you can agree on and go from there. Getting rid of Corporate Welfare does not = Raising Taxes. So the Corporate fatcats are just gonna have to bite the bullet on this one. We're $16 Trillion in Debt,the gravy train has run out of gravy. But i still say cutting spending is the number one priority. The Taxpayers didn't cause this mess. The Government did. So they shouldn't be punished.

 

[Oldstyle]

Most economists disagree with that assumption, Oldstyle. The figure a 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 cuts to revenue is the way to go. Why do you resist that?

Most economists think raising taxes in a weak economy is economically sound? Love to see you back that statement up with something factual, my friend. Look...when Christina Romer thinks raising taxes on anyone is a recipe for an economic downturn then you need to take a good hard look at what's really going on here. That's not a conservative economist making that statement...that's a very liberal economist making that statement.

I don't resist 8 to 1 ratios of cuts to revenues. Like S&P I don't CARE how we lower the deficit only that it's done. My problem is the prevailing concept from progressives that the only way to increase revenues is to increase taxes. If we raise taxes it will slow down economic growth which is what we don't want. So lets increase revenues by other means than tax increases. Let's revamp the tax code. Let's repatriate corporate profits made over seas to jump start the economy. Let's increase revenues by stimulating the economy...something that will also provide relief to all those millions on unemployment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can't show the majority agrees with Romer. That is why you posted only her. No, cutting spending and increasing revenue at 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 will spur spending. But you are welcome to demonstrate how that is wrong.

Let's remember the consumer is the heart beat of the American economy, not the corporation. Consumer $$$s are king, business is subject.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Most economists disagree with that assumption, Oldstyle. The figure a 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 cuts to revenue is the way to go. Why do you resist that?

Most economists think raising taxes in a weak economy is economically sound? Love to see you back that statement up with something factual, my friend. Look...when Christina Romer thinks raising taxes on anyone is a recipe for an economic downturn then you need to take a good hard look at what's really going on here. That's not a conservative economist making that statement...that's a very liberal economist making that statement.

I don't resist 8 to 1 ratios of cuts to revenues. Like S&P I don't CARE how we lower the deficit only that it's done. My problem is the prevailing concept from progressives that the only way to increase revenues is to increase taxes. If we raise taxes it will slow down economic growth which is what we don't want. So lets increase revenues by other means than tax increases. Let's revamp the tax code. Let's repatriate corporate profits made over seas to jump start the economy. Let's increase revenues by stimulating the economy...something that will also provide relief to all those millions on unemployment.

How about lets have a supply and demand capitalist based economy instead of a dictated model???

Government spending is nothing more than favoritism and dictation... All the stimulus went to the fucking unions - which demand wages and are not based on supply and demand - Obama tyrannically took over GM and bailed out an insolvent UAW union...

Maybe we have a fucked up economy because progressives continue to bailout their voting base with everyone elses money???

Progressive fucks want to raise taxes to continue this idiotic path...

It's funny how the non-union small business owner down the street doesn't get a bailout yet unions get bailouts its funny how venture capitalists can fail yet the democrats stimulate their union voting base so they wont fail...

It's not Wall Street thats the problem its our fucking government and more specifically democrats who want to manipulate an economy that are the problem...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nic, you really are that ignorant, aren't you?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Cutting spending now is not the # 1 priority.

 

[Listening]

Cutting government spending at the federal level is the #3 priority.

Cutting government spending at the federal level is the #2 priority.

Cutting government spending at the federal level is the #1 priority.

 

[Oldstyle]

And yet the population in Texas is growing and the population in California is shrinking for the first time ever...

Yeah, because Texas is a cesspit. Populations tend to grow when 15 year olds are having their second or third kid because they don't know how to use a condom.

Oh, so that's a problem they have in Texas that they don't in California?

The fact is, more people are leaving California than are coming in for the first time ever. The State is in such bad shape fiscally it's our very own Greece. That's all due to a Democratic legislature that can't stop spending money it doesn't have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Cali is not like Greece. That is called hyperbole. Troubled, yes, disastrous, no.

 

[Oldstyle]

No, Cali is not like Greece. That is called hyperbole. Troubled, yes, disastrous, no.

California is exactly like Greece! It's run by progressives that can't get entitlements under control which have put the State so far into the red that the only way they can not go bankrupt is if the other States that haven't been fiscally stupid bail them out.

Still waiting for you to show me some statistics showing most economists agree that a tax increase now will grow the economy, Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You made the claim, you supply the stats, please, both for revenue and for Cali. We will all be waiting because you don't have them. Romer by herself is not a majority.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Oh, so that's a problem they have in Texas that they don't in California?

The fact is, more people are leaving California than are coming in for the first time ever. The State is in such bad shape fiscally it's our very own Greece. That's all due to a Democratic legislature that can't stop spending money it doesn't have.

No, I promise you they don't have that problem in Cali anywhere near what it's like in Texas. Cali teaches their kids about condoms and safe sex. Texas does not. Literally. They passed an abstinence only law for their schools several years ago. Texas also has a greater influx of illegals than Cali, which just goes to show that the whole sanctuary city idea is a bust. All cities are sanctuary cities when employers continue to hire illegals at will and we fail to enforce labor laws against illegals.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Cutting government spending at the federal level is the #3 priority.

Cutting government spending at the federal level is the #2 priority.

Cutting government spending at the federal level is the #1 priority.

I would just modify this slightly:

Ending the Federal Reserve is the #1 priority.

Cutting government spending at the federal level is the #2 priority.

Cutting government spending at the federal level is the #3 priority.

Cutting government spending at the federal level is the #4 priority.

 

[AmericanFirst]

With just two weeks left to craft a deficit reduction package, members of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction remain far from a deal, this according to both Democratic and Republican aides close to the negotiations.

Two days after Republicans on the so-called super committee, led by Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, offered a $1.5 trillion package that included, for the first time, new tax revenue to the tune of about $300 billion, Democrats are rejecting the offer.

"We have a big gap with respect to where we are on revenue," panel Democrat John Kerry told a handful of reporters Wednesday morning. "The Toomey approach will not work. We've told them that very directly. We have to find a different way to come at it."

The senior Massachusetts senator met behind closed doors in his third floor Capitol office Tuesday night with a key bipartisan core group from the committee, including Toomey, Reps. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Dave Camp, R-Mich., Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

"This is not complicated. They've got to put real revenue on the table that helps us get the job done," Kerry said, adding that he is "still hopeful" a deal can be reached by November 23.

In reality, that deadline will hit even sooner, though. The budget crunchers at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) must get a complete product soon, in order to have time to analyze and score a bill for floor consideration. Super committee aides say CBO must then publish that score by November 21.



Read more: Super Committee Democrats Reject GOP Tax Proposal - Fox News

Kerry is code speaking saying they, the dimwits, want to drain Americans through higher taxes. But then what do you expect from kerry, not the truth that is for sure.

 

[Oldstyle]

You made the claim, you supply the stats, please, both for revenue and for Cali. We will all be waiting because you don't have them. Romer by herself is not a majority.

No, actually YOU made the claim and I refuted it by bringing up Romer and asking you to provide some statistical basis for your claim. I'd be happy to bring up the post where you made the claim in the first place. Would you like me to?