Taxes: Fair compromise?

[NYcarbineer]

This is just another case of where the crackpot 60 vote rule in the Senate lets the obstructionist Republicans thwart the will of the people.

Yes, just like the Democrats did when the Republicans were in control, but I'm sure that was just dandy when they did it, right?

I said it's a crackpot rule; I certainly don't think it's a crackpot rule when one party's in power and a good rule when someone else is in power. Give me a little credit for god's sake.

It will be funny though if in the near future the GOP gets the presidency and 50 something Senators.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There's no such thing as a filibuster proof majority.

Uh... yeah there is. It's called one party having 60 senators and them banning together to vote the same way, but you already knew this, so stop lying.

Since the Democrats HAD that and still couldn't stop filibusters, that PROVES there's no such thing as a filibuster proof majority.

You're right. ObamaCare was never filibustered......

The idea of filibuster proof is just some idiot talking point mostly used by the media.

No, it's real, I assure you.

The reason there is no such thing as a filibuster proof majority is that no Senator is in any way obligated to vote with his party.

But when they do, guess what that means...

 

[Old Rocks]

No. If we really mean to address the deficit, then we need to go back to the Clinton era tax amounts. Then cut out a great many deducts. And see that the corperations actually start paying taxes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I said it's a crackpot rule; I certainly don't think it's a crackpot rule when one party's in power and a good rule when someone else is in power.

I have no problem with the rule of filibuster, but it does get used too much and abused. Maybe they should put a limit on how many times it can be used during a Congressional term.

 

[asterism]

I said it's a crackpot rule; I certainly don't think it's a crackpot rule when one party's in power and a good rule when someone else is in power.

I have no problem with the rule of filibuster, but it does get used too much and abused. Maybe they should put a limit on how many times it can be used during a Congressional term.

I think making them actually filibuster would solve that problem. No more of this "effective filibuster" just by threatening to do so. Make them put in the time.

 

[Common Sense]

What is Obama's credibility about cutting spending, having grown government 24% in two years?

you tout this fact on every thread. but never examine the reason why he had to spend so much.

he tried to stave of a depression. plain and simple. now the affect of the government spending has been mixed overall. i think some things have succeeded and some things have failed. so im not trying to saying it was only because of government spending that we pulled our of a recession, but you cant argue that it had somewhat of a positive affect in limiting its damage.

the alternative would have been much much worse has the government no attempted to inject capital into the economy. so he was damned if he did and damned if he didnt.

lets say as the economy declined, he shrank the size of government (as republicans typically want) by cutting programs, jobs and spending. this then accelerated the recession and led to a depression where unemployment stood at 15% or higher. then what would you're argument be? that he didn't spend enough and now its all his fault we are in a depression? but would this have been ok in your mind to have a depression, but government was smaller, spending was low and taxes were low?

now obviously this is not the only exact scenario of what could have happened, but the risk if it happening at the time (which the govt programs started under the republicans remember..) was too high for those in government not to get involved.

so tell me what you would have done back in 2008 given the state of the economy. Banks failing, businesses failing, unemployment on the rise, fighting 2 wars and foreclosures at record rates.

 

[Sallow]

I said it's a crackpot rule; I certainly don't think it's a crackpot rule when one party's in power and a good rule when someone else is in power.

I have no problem with the rule of filibuster, but it does get used too much and abused. Maybe they should put a limit on how many times it can be used during a Congressional term.

Good idea.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obviously this isn't politically doable in this insane environment,

but how about we tie the top tax rates to the UE rate, and adjust them every year or two?

The premise is based on the GOP claim (aka canard) that we shouldn't be raising anyone's taxes in a recession (they are using that to defend tax cuts for the 'rich')

...okay...

...then if the recession argument is legitimate, then that argument goes away when the economy shows strength again.

Therefore, extend the top tax rates until UE gets below 7 percent, and then they go back up and stay there until UE goes back up again.

 

[Placerville]

I believe the tax cuts should only be renewed for below $250K temporarily, say 3 years, because it will continue current consumer spending (pseudo-stimulus). and taxes over $250 return to Clinton rates.

1.) Tax cuts do not create Jobs. The current rates are in effect today and have been and jobs are not being created and we can not get them back so throw that myth out.
2.) Taxes do not hurt small business. A.) as the CBO defines small business that includes all billion dollar companies with limited partners and 3% means NOTHING to them. B.) If as a small business my taxes go down, I take money out, if taxes go up I buy equipment to take advantage on capital tax credits - as I know all small business do. So throw that myth out.
3.) Money in the hands of low wage earners rolls back into the economy at 1.7:1 where to high wage earners rolls at 0.3:1 so throw the "Trickle down" myth out.. There is my Pseudo-stimulus
4.) Tax cuts without spending cuts are deferred taxes. The "Bush" generation who didn't want to pay for anything and push the bill off - well the bill's due.

I could go on and on, but what's the point we as a nation are stupid, so I assume we will continue stupid..

 

[Meister]

No. If we really mean to address the deficit, then we need to go back to the Clinton era tax amounts. Then cut out a great many deducts. And see that the corperations actually start paying taxes.

But, but....what about the spending issues we have?????

 

[The T]

No. If we really mean to address the deficit, then we need to go back to the Clinton era tax amounts. Then cut out a great many deducts. And see that the corperations actually start paying taxes.

But, but....what about the spending issues we have?????

Interesting these people always seem to skirt around that factoid, isn't it?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

1.) Tax cuts do not create Jobs. The current rates are in effect today and have been and jobs are not being created and we can not get them back so throw that myth out.

The only myth is your claim. The tax cuts did increase employment and got the unemployment rate all the way down to 4.5% just a few years ago. What we are experiencing now is a whole new set of variables that have changed the equation.

2.) Taxes do not hurt small business. A.) as the CBO defines small business that includes all billion dollar companies with limited partners and 3% means NOTHING to them. B.) If as a small business my taxes go down, I take money out, if taxes go up I buy equipment to take advantage on capital tax credits - as I know all small business do. So throw that myth out.

Well then, let's just raise all business tax rates to 80%. It doesn't hurt them so that ought to save us, right?

3.) Money in the hands of low wage earners rolls back into the economy at 1.7:1 where to high wage earners rolls at 0.3:1 so throw the "Trickle down" myth out.. There is my Pseudo-stimulus

You need to provide a source for those numbers.

4.) Tax cuts without spending cuts are deferred taxes. The "Bush" generation who didn't want to pay for anything and push the bill off - well the bill's due.

That is correct.

I could go on and on, but what's the point we as a nation are stupid, so I assume we will continue stupid..

I have a feeling that you and I have a much different idea as to what stupid entails, but I share your conclusion.

 

[kyzr]

I wouldn't say stupid as much as unable to hold elected pols accountable
That's why the TEA Party is so energized
We need to put the fear of God into the GOP guys now to make them fiscally responsible

 

[asterism]

I wouldn't say stupid as much as unable to hold elected pols accountable
That's why the TEA Party is so energized
We need to put the fear of God into the GOP guys now to make them fiscally responsible

Yup