Pelosi says National Sales Tax on the agenda.

[oreo]

Candor about taxes is rare in Washington, so when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admits that Democrats may have to impose a huge new tax on the middle class to fund their spending ambitions, believe her.

Speaking with PBS's Charlie Rose on Monday, Mrs. Pelosi mused publicly about the rising possibility of enacting a value-added tax, or VAT, as part of broader tax reform. "Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this," she said. "Of course, we want to take down the health-care cost, that's one part of it. But in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a value-added tax as well."

The allure of a VAT for politicians is that it applies to every level of production or service, rakes in piles of money, and is largely hidden from those who ultimately pay it—namely, consumers. With a $9 trillion 10-year budget deficit, $4 trillion in spending in fiscal 2010 alone, and a $1 trillion (at a minimum) health-care entitlement in the wings, Mrs. Pelosi knows that not even the revenue from the expiration of the lower Bush tax rates in 2011 will cover the bills. Nearly every European country that has passed national health care has also eventually imposed a VAT, and it's foolish to think the U.S. will be different.

Mrs. Pelosi is the second prominent Democrat to call for a VAT in recent weeks. John Podesta, an adviser to President Obama and president of the very liberal Center for American Progress, called in September for a "small and more progressive" VAT. Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Podesta argue a new tax is necessary to address the nation's exploding financial liabilities, as if those liabilities exploded on their own. Of course, VATs always start "small" and get bigger. The bills for the Democratic spending blowout are coming due even sooner than advertised, and the middle class will pay, whatever Mr. Obama's campaign promises.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457512007010416.html




"What the heck"--- What happened to the PROMISE that anyone making less than 250 K per year would not see their taxes raised by one single dime? So they're going to add a huge tax increase--& HIDE it from us--

The irony: The generation who will pay the most for this national sales tax will be the youngsters of this country that overwhelmingly voted for Obama. They will be out buying washers/dryers/T.V's & other large appliances- & paying not only state sales taxes but a national sales tax too.--

How's all that hopey & changey working for ya?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

"Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets." R. Reagan

 

[Xenophon]

I saw the clip, she wants a VAT tax.

For those that don't understand, that means at least a 7% sales tax ON TOP of any sales taxes you already have.

This will DESTROY the little guy, so go ahead and defend these Democrat morons, its your funeral too.

 

[oreo]

I saw the clip, she wants a VAT tax.

For those that don't understand, that means at least a 7% sales tax ON TOP of any sales taxes you already have.

This will DESTROY the little guy, so go ahead and defend these Democrat morons, its your funeral too.

Californians already pay a 10% state sales tax. Now add on an additional HIDDEN 5 to 7% for a national sales tax & they will be paying 15 to 17% in sales taxes on the goods they buy--

Another reason you never let LIBERALS LEAD. The one thing that never comes to the forefront of their inempt brains is to cut spending or the size of government. It's always -spend & tax.

"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other peoples money to spend" Margaret Thatcher

 

[Xenophon]

People don't understand how this will effect them.

They should have realized when Barry said Obamacare would be 'deficiet neutral' and be paid for from 'other sources of revenue' they meant massive tax hikes.

 

[Modbert]

Pelosi is an idiot, not a Liberal.

 

[Modbert]

"Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets." R. Reagan

Might want to look at all those tax increases under Reagan.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

"Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets." R. Reagan

Might want to look at all those tax increases under Reagan.

might want to look at who controlled the House of Rep's under Reagan.

 

[oreo]

"Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets." R. Reagan

Might want to look at all those tax increases under Reagan.

Might want to show some FACTS on that statement--

 

[Modbert]

might want to look at who controlled the House of Rep's under Reagan.

Republicans had control of the senate until the 1987 congress and still had a Republican as President. Never mind the fact that Reagan tried to justify the tax raises. Even if it was all Democrats, no reason for him to be going out and trying to justify the raises in taxation.

"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

It's conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan's watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was." Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.

This record flummoxes the best efforts of today's Reagan hagiographers to explain away. Peter Wallison, for instance, after proclaiming that Reagan "stayed the course against changes in his economic plan," later dismisses the president's tax increases as "a modest rollback" that "seems to have been the result" of his accepting a Democratic promise to cut spending by twice that amount. (Whatever happened to "Trust, but verify"?)

Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast. According to Wall Street Journal reporters Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray, whose book Showdown at Gucci Gulch chronicles the 1986 measure, "the conservative president's support for an effort once considered the bastion of liberals carried tremendous symbolic significance." When Reagan's conservative acting chief economic adviser, William Niskanen, was apprised of the plan he replied, "Walter Mondale would have been proud."

So would Russell Long. In 1975, the Democratic senator from Louisiana had passed into law the earned income tax credit (EITC), essentially a wage subsidy for the working poor. Long's measure was tiny to begin with and had dwindled to insignificance by the time Reagan agreed to expand it in 1986 as part of the tax reform act. Despite years of opposing social insurance programs, Reagan's support of the EITC gave rise to what has become one of the most effective antipoverty measures the federal government has ever devised--by the late 1990s, the EITC was lifting 4.3 million people out of poverty every year. Reagan's decision to expand it was "the most important anti-poverty measure enacted over the past decade," wrote The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt. The exemption of millions of low-wage earners from income taxes through the EITC and other reforms in 1986 added a significant measure of progressivity to the tax code. As evidence of its popularity with liberals, Clinton dramatically expanded the EITC in 1993.

At the time, many Republicans touted Reagan's support as proof that he wasn't the coldhearted tyrant liberals made him out to be. Other conservatives, like Niskanen, however, saw it as troubling evidence of their leader's weakness. Today, there is a growing movement within the Bush administration to roll back these changes by making the working poor pay their "fair share" of taxes.

 

[oreo]

People don't understand how this will effect them.

They should have realized when Barry said Obamacare would be 'deficiet neutral' and be paid for from 'other sources of revenue' they meant massive tax hikes.

Hey anyone--who believed Obama during the campaign season in which he repeated thousands of times:

"That 5% of this nation also known as the over 250K crowd would be able to give 95% of the rest of us a tax cut--& that the same 5% would be able to pay for their health care--pay down the deficit & pay for an additional 1 TRILLION in Obama's spending proposals didn't get through 3rd grade math"- This is the typical Obama voter -

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What does the Senate have to do with the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES you dishonest libtard hack? Not only that...your source is a fricken left wing loon!!!!

 

[Modbert]

Might want to show some FACTS on that statement--

Sure, look at my post above. Or if you're too lazy:

By the way, I'm sure you loved his bailout of Social Security.

Three year tax-hike, $100 billion.

1983: Gasoline Tax

1984: $50 billion over three years through closing tax loopholes for businesses.

1986: The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986,

Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.

Where is your messiah now?

 

[get_involved]

Aunt Nancy knows how to spend your money better than you do.

 

[Modbert]

What does the Senate have to do with the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES you dishonest libtard hack?

I was mentioning the Senate. The fact you call me a "dishonest libtard hack" means you are retreating to your last refuge, personal insults. Reagan kowtowed and even agreed to many tax increases. So while you may want to look at your hero and other Republicans as tax cutters who were for small Government, the GOP hasn't had one of those since Eisenhower if not going back to Coolidge.

You would of hated Eisenhower, that much I do know.

 

[oreo]

might want to look at who controlled the House of Rep's under Reagan.

Republicans had control of the senate until the 1987 congress and still had a Republican as President. Never mind the fact that Reagan tried to justify the tax raises. Even if it was all Democrats, no reason for him to be going out and trying to justify the raises in taxation.

"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

It's conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan's watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was." Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.

This record flummoxes the best efforts of today's Reagan hagiographers to explain away. Peter Wallison, for instance, after proclaiming that Reagan "stayed the course against changes in his economic plan," later dismisses the president's tax increases as "a modest rollback" that "seems to have been the result" of his accepting a Democratic promise to cut spending by twice that amount. (Whatever happened to "Trust, but verify"?)

Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast. According to Wall Street Journal reporters Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray, whose book Showdown at Gucci Gulch chronicles the 1986 measure, "the conservative president's support for an effort once considered the bastion of liberals carried tremendous symbolic significance." When Reagan's conservative acting chief economic adviser, William Niskanen, was apprised of the plan he replied, "Walter Mondale would have been proud."

So would Russell Long. In 1975, the Democratic senator from Louisiana had passed into law the earned income tax credit (EITC), essentially a wage subsidy for the working poor. Long's measure was tiny to begin with and had dwindled to insignificance by the time Reagan agreed to expand it in 1986 as part of the tax reform act. Despite years of opposing social insurance programs, Reagan's support of the EITC gave rise to what has become one of the most effective antipoverty measures the federal government has ever devised--by the late 1990s, the EITC was lifting 4.3 million people out of poverty every year. Reagan's decision to expand it was "the most important anti-poverty measure enacted over the past decade," wrote The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt. The exemption of millions of low-wage earners from income taxes through the EITC and other reforms in 1986 added a significant measure of progressivity to the tax code. As evidence of its popularity with liberals, Clinton dramatically expanded the EITC in 1993.

At the time, many Republicans touted Reagan's support as proof that he wasn't the coldhearted tyrant liberals made him out to be. Other conservatives, like Niskanen, however, saw it as troubling evidence of their leader's weakness. Today, there is a growing movement within the Bush administration to roll back these changes by making the working poor pay their "fair share" of taxes.

Reagan gave the largest tax cut to Americans prior to JFK. They both believed in "trickle down economics"---which WORKED to get Americans back to work.

Right now you are experiencing trickle down economics vs. Obama's trickle up economics.

Massive government spending does not equate to long term private sector job growth. Never has--never will. The only thing that is expanding in leaps & bounds is the federal government while the private sector is shrinking.

There has never been a poor person that has employed another poor person.

 

[Modbert]

Reagan gave the largest tax cut to Americans prior to JFK. They both believed in "trickle down economics"---which WORKED to get Americans back to work.

Right now you are experiencing trickle down economics vs. Obama's trickle up economics.

Massive government spending does not equate to long term private sector job growth. Never has--never will. The only thing that is expanding in leaps & bounds is the federal government while the private sector is shrinking.

There has never been a poor person that has employed another poor person.

Trickle down economics didn't work and didn't work under the Bush Administration. By the way, government expanded greatly under Reagan in both terms of power and jobs. By the way, the tax rate under JFK was at 70%. You would of raged against JFK. Reagan brought it down to a record low 28%.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What does the Senate have to do with the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES you dishonest libtard hack?

I was mentioning the Senate. The fact you call me a "dishonest libtard hack" means you are retreating to your last refuge, personal insults. Reagan kowtowed and even agreed to many tax increases. So while you may want to look at your hero and other Republicans as tax cutters who were for small Government, the GOP hasn't had one of those since Eisenhower if not going back to Coolidge.

You would of hated Eisenhower, that much I do know.

Well...your dishonesty is quite telling in yor failed endeavor to paint Reagan in a bad light. His tax increases were justified in my opinion.

What you're too dishonest to discuss here is this one single fact.
Tip O'neill and the Democrats ran the House of Representatives throughout the 80's and into the 90's. Many of the tax increases were proposed by the House Democrats and then the Senate compromised with them on nearly everything. This was when both partys worked together and kept the country UNITED unlike today when we have fucking stupid ass clowns from San Francisco and Vegas ruining the country and dividing our Nation along Red and Blue lines.
You can take your hate for the right and direct it where it belongs.....right back at you.

 

[Modbert]

Well...your dishonesty is quite telling in yor failed endeavor to paint Reagan in a bad light. His tax increases were justified in my opinion.

What you're too dishonest to discuss here is this one single fact.
Tip O'neill and the Democrats ran the House of Representatives throughout the 80's and into the 90's. Many of the tax increases were proposed by the House Democrats and then the Senate compromised with them on nearly everything. This was when both partys worked together and kept the country UNITED unlike today when we have fucking stupid ass clowns from San Francisco and Vegas ruining the country and dividing our Nation along Red and Blue lines.
You can take your hate for the right and direct it where it belongs.....right back at you.

So you defend tax increases when YOUR MESSIAH partakes in them! How rich! How grand! The irony is so freakin delicious. You're a Reaganbot just like so many Dems are Obamabots. Hope you enjoy being a zombie except with a R stamped on your forehead.

Also, to blame San Fran and Vegas for this country's entire problem is not a fact, it's you trying to pin the blame on Pelosi and Reid only. Those two are major fuckups, that much is true. However, they aren't the only two clowns in Congress by far. There are plenty of clowns on both the left and right side of the aisle. They are not just from Vegas and San Fran either. You want to talk about the lines between red and blue lines, I tell you to look in the mirror.

I don't have hate, I hold plenty of positions that would probably be considered Libertarian. I don't vote based on who has a (D) or (R) next to their name. I vote base upon my principles, something the Founding Fathers strived for. The only one here tossing out hate is you. I find this entire situation amusing with you trying to defend Reagan. I may be younger, but I have seen the light so to speak and I realize how badly BOTH sides are fucked up. Feel free to join the rest of us in reality when you get the chance.

Oh, and by the way, the fact stands, you would of HATED true Conservatives like Eisenhower.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Pelosi and Reid...... Those two are major fuckups, that much is true.

So it's OK bitch about Reagan...and not bitch about your Messiah's insane clown posse he has installed in the White House?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha