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

[ilia25]

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.

Revenues depend on two things: tax rates and the state of the economy. If the economy is depressed, the revenues are low.

Depression, however is always temporary. So the higher tax rates will bring more revenues eventually.

 

[tooAlive]

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.

I don't know what's so hard to understand.

Government revenue is at a historical high, yet we're still operating at a deficit.

As long as the government keeps spending more than it brings in, we will continue to grow the deficit.

Spending is the problem. We have to cut it.

 

[ilia25]

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

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem? - YouTube

Really easy to point out how it is a lie. The guy accounts for inflation. He accounts for the population grows. He does NOT account for rising productivity.

The fair comparison is with GDP -- and if you look at the speding as % of GDP, you would not see any significant increase. And if there is one, it is because we now have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

If you think that caring for seniors and disabled constitutes a spending problem, then you know what I have to say about you.

 

[J.E.D]

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.

The GOP hasn't shown shit except that they're a bunch of extremist assholes. What did Boner offer? Tax hikes on earnings over 1 million (Obama asked for hikes on income over 250K), and to cut 1 trillion from Medicare, Medicaid and SS.

**** Boner and **** the extremist GOP in congress.

 

[ilia25]

I don't know what's so hard to understand.

Government revenue is at a historical high, yet we're still operating at a deficit.

The government revenue is NOT "historically high"!

It is severely depressed by the weak economy, and even when the economy return to the full employment, it would still be less than in most developed countries.

 

[ilia25]

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

Will Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit? - YouTube

1. We don't need to completely balance the budget -- our debt as % of GDP will shrink if we have less than 400 billion deficit
2. The depressed economy is responsible for another 600 billion in deficit -- it will go away as economy recovers.
3. Rising taxes on rich will further add to the revenue, making any long term issues (aging population, etc) go away

 

[tooAlive]

I don't know what's so hard to understand.

Government revenue is at a historical high, yet we're still operating at a deficit.

The government revenue is NOT "historically high"!

It is severely depressed by the weak economy, and even when the economy return to the full employment, it would still be less than in most developed countries.

United States Government Revenue History - Charts

 

[Avatar4321]

Boehner is very good at negotiating with himself. If he keeps this up, he will giving up the shirt off his back and not getting a damn thing for it.

 

[Meister]

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.

Sarah....that's why, me....a middle class American want to go off the fiscal cliff. I think we all need to pay more with what the state of our nation is in. It's going to hurt, but we got into this mess with both parties at fault. If not, higher taxes will be ongoing for generation after generation for what we did.
My only complaint is that the media will only say that the GOP are obstructionists, and that isn't fair to them. Both parties are to blame, and it started before Obama was in office, but Obama didn't address the issue either.
I don't want us to look like some has been nation looking more like the european nations and the problems they are facing today.

 

[ilia25]

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

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem? - YouTube

Really easy to point out how it is a lie. The guy accounts for inflation. He accounts for the population grows. He does NOT account for rising productivity.

The fair comparison is with GDP -- and if you look at the speding as % of GDP, you would not see any significant increase. And if there is one, it is because we now have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

If you think that caring for seniors and disabled constitutes a spending problem, then you know what I have to say about you.

Just for the fun of it, I checked the numbers. In 1954 the government has spent 18% of GDP. In 2007 the figure was 20%.

Actually the guy said so himself in the other video, where he claimed that rising taxes has no effect on revenues. Now he claims the revenues are 3 times higher now than they were in 1954.

He is a a right-wing fraud, and anyone taking him seriously is a moron.

 

[ilia25]

I don't know what's so hard to understand.

Government revenue is at a historical high, yet we're still operating at a deficit.

The government revenue is NOT "historically high"!

It is severely depressed by the weak economy, and even when the economy return to the full employment, it would still be less than in most developed countries.

United States Government Revenue History - Charts

First, the chart shows total revenues, including state and local. Second, where is your "historically high" levels?

The chart ends in 2015, when the economy is projected to recover. But it also shows how the revenues fell after 2008, and how they are still depressed now. They are nowhere near historically high.

Third, the chart revenues as % of GDP, but GDP itself is depressed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I will believe Boehner's offer he publicly says he will seek dem votes to replace the TPM votes he will lose.

 

[ilia25]

It's going to hurt, but we got into this mess with both parties at fault. If not, higher taxes will be ongoing for generation after generation for what we did.

That is false on both accounts. We won't have to rise taxes to pay for current deficits.

I don't want us to look like some has been nation looking more like the european nations and the problems they are facing today.

What problems do you think Germany or Sweden are facing?

You should stop repeating right-wing lies. Republicans what you to be scared of deficits so they can dismantle the entitlements programs.

But the truth is that we do not have a deficit problem.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Revenues depend on two things: tax rates and the state of the economy. If the economy is depressed, the revenues are low.

Correct, if the economy is depressed, revenues go down. That's the point. History shows us (in America, in states, and in other countries) that there is a causal relationship between raising tax rates and a slowing of economic growth and therefore, tax revenues.

Depression, however is always temporary. So the higher tax rates will bring more revenues eventually.

We are not in an economic depression by anyone's measure, but that's beside the point.

What is on point is that higher tax rates often do not bring in more revenue, especially when those rates are increased on wealthy people who have the choice with regard to how they spend or invest and even how of if they take an income.

I'm afraid history does not support your assumption that higher rates will bring in more revenue. Not now, not ever. This is why the total tax revenues to GDP stay about the same regardless of the overall tax rates. It's also why you're correct that the best way to increase revenues is to grow the economy. The worst thing to do to grow the economy is to tax more those that are often the source of capital, investments, and big ticket spending (the rich). The best thing you can do to grow the economy is to keep taxes as low as possible.

There is just way too much evidence of increasing rates rates resulting in less tax revenue and a suppressed economy. There is also much evidence that decreasing tax rates results in a better economy and yes, more tax revenue. That was certainly the case after Clinton lowered the Capital Gains rate in '94. Tax revenues skyrocketed as the economy boomed. There are many other examples as well.

Bottom line, if you really want to get more money out of rich people, lower their tax rates, embrace free market measures, and the economy, right along with tax revenues, will grow.

 

[rdean]

GOP Sen. Coburn: "We don't absolutely need" Medicare, Social Security

Coburn got caught in a lie. Check out the video at the bottom.

Strange that Republicans vote for leaders who want to get rid of their hard earned benefits.

 

[Meister]

It's going to hurt, but we got into this mess with both parties at fault. If not, higher taxes will be ongoing for generation after generation for what we did.

That is false on both accounts. We won't have to rise taxes to pay for current deficits.

I don't want us to look like some has been nation looking more like the european nations and the problems they are facing today.

What problems do you think Germany or Sweden are facing?

You should stop repeating right-wing lies. Republicans what you to be scared of deficits so they can dismantle the entitlements programs.

But the truth is that we do not have a deficit problem.

At 16+ trillion in debt...which all of that was once deficit....I'm not seeing your rationalization.

Germany's population is around 81 million people
Sweden's population is around 10 million
United States population is around 314 million


A
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
B
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Bulgaria
C
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
D
Denmark
E
Estonia
F
Finland
France
G
Georgia
Germany
Greece
H
Hungary
I
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
K
Kosovo
L
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
M
Macedonia
Malta
Moldova
Monaco
Montenegro
N
The Netherlands
Norway
P
Poland
Portugal
R
Romania
Russia
S
San Marino
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
T
Turkey
U
Ukraine
United Kingdom
V
Vatica
List of countries in EUROPE, list of countries of EUROPE, European Countries list, European Nations

And you just want to talk about Germany and Sweden?

 

[ilia25]

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.

Revenues depend on two things: tax rates and the state of the economy. If the economy is depressed, the revenues are low.

Correct, if the economy is depressed, revenues go down. That's the point. History shows us (in America, in states, and in other countries) that there is a causal relationship between raising tax rates and a slowing of economic growth and therefore, tax revenues.

No, not at all. Sometimes other factors depress the economy around the time when taxes are raised, but there is no casual relationship.

Depression, however is always temporary. So the higher tax rates will bring more revenues eventually.

We are not in an economic depression by anyone's measure, but that's beside the point.

We are in a depression, and that is important. Particularly, that is the reason we still have big deficits.

I'm afraid history does not support your assumption that higher rates will bring in more revenue.

Of course it does. Bush and then Clinton raised taxes, and this led to a balanced budget once the economy recovered.

This is why the total tax revenues to GDP stay about the same regardless of the overall tax rates.

That is because the overall tax rates stayed about the same. Not because the economy was growing slower when taxes were high, as you seem to believe.

It's also why you're correct that the best way to increase revenues is to grow the economy.

You can't grow the economy faster that productivity growth times population growth. Tax level has little to do with either. But if they are too low to cover the necessary spending, you will have deficits even when economy is booming (like after Bush tax cuts).

The worst thing to do to grow the economy is to tax more those that are often the source of capital, investments, and big ticket spending (the rich).

Everyone who has savings is a source of capital. Whether it will be few gazilionairs or millions of middle class families, the result is the same.

The best thing you can do to grow the economy is to keep taxes as low as possible.

That is simply not true.

There is just way too much evidence of increasing rates rates resulting in less tax revenue and a suppressed economy.

No, there is none. There are studies showing that:
Study Questions Link Between Tax Cuts and Growth

 

[ilia25]

It's going to hurt, but we got into this mess with both parties at fault. If not, higher taxes will be ongoing for generation after generation for what we did.

That is false on both accounts. We won't have to rise taxes to pay for current deficits.

I don't want us to look like some has been nation looking more like the european nations and the problems they are facing today.

What problems do you think Germany or Sweden are facing?

You should stop repeating right-wing lies. Republicans what you to be scared of deficits so they can dismantle the entitlements programs.

But the truth is that we do not have a deficit problem.

At 16+ trillion in debt...which all of that was once deficit....I'm not seeing your rationalization.

For the third time today, look at the NUMBERS (not the author name):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/opinion/krugman-that-terrible-trillion.html?hp

Germany's population is around 81 million people
Sweden's population is around 10 million
United States population is around 314 million

Also they speak German in Germany, and in the US people mostly speak English. What all this has to do with deficits?

And you just want to talk about Germany and Sweden?

I wanted to know what do you find so terrible about European countries and what that has to do with dangers of large government spending.

 

[Zander]

The "fiscal cliff" is a manufactured crisis. Call Obama's bluff. At least we'll get some spending cuts that way.....

 

[Meister]

That is false on both accounts. We won't have to rise taxes to pay for current deficits.



What problems do you think Germany or Sweden are facing?

You should stop repeating right-wing lies. Republicans what you to be scared of deficits so they can dismantle the entitlements programs.

But the truth is that we do not have a deficit problem.

At 16+ trillion in debt...which all of that was once deficit....I'm not seeing your rationalization.

For the third time today, look at the NUMBERS (not the author name):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/opinion/krugman-that-terrible-trillion.html?hp

Germany's population is around 81 million people
Sweden's population is around 10 million
United States population is around 314 million

Also they speak German in Germany, and in the US people mostly speak English. What all this has to do with deficits?

And you just want to talk about Germany and Sweden?

I wanted to know what do you find so terrible about European countries and what that has to do with dangers of large government spending.

I read it, it's actual spinning reality. There are a lot of if's and based on if the economy turns around. Well, we have an anemic economy and it's going to stay that way for awhile as we rack up higher debt.
You as a liberal, seem to like the pie in the sky. Good for you....I guess

I listed a lot of european countries that aren't doing well, care to expound on them, or do you want to stick with Germany and Sweden?