The GOP's last chance

[sjt18]

No meaningful cuts? What if it were $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in revenues, for total deficit reduction of $4 trillion?

Once again you are swallowing... a bunch of non-sense. The tax increases would go into effect for next year. The cuts would be "to be determined later".

The way he's worded it is this... he gets tax increases then agrees that he MIGHT sign spending cuts once Congress put them forth. IOW's, he gets what he wants then gets to demagogue the GOP later. That's why he is so frustrated that Cantor "called his bluff".

You make a valid point, but I think that is what the GOP has to insist on -- that the revenue generated by eliminating the Bush tax cuts go directly to paying down the debt. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

What revenue? That tax increase would directly effect wealth creation, economic expansion, and employment. It would VERY LIKELY result in less revenues to the gov't.

 

[NEO]

Focus of debt talks to narrow without deal by Friday, sources say - CNN.com

Translation: If the GOP will not deal today on a $4 trillion plan (or thereabouts) for deficit reduction that includes eliminating tax loopholes and Bush tax cuts to go along with trillions in spending cuts, the President is going to tell them they have to sign off on a no strings attached debt ceiling increase.

If the GOP then balks at that, politically the mess is squarely in the lap of Boehner and Cantor. If that happens, its adios for Republican controlled House or Senate.

Bullchit.

Your leader has no idea how to lead or find common ground and gets up and storms out of these debt meetings like a toddler.

 

[therealUT]

Tax hikes would have both an immediate and long term detrimental effect on the economy AND tax revenues.

Not necessarily true and there are economies in the world that consistently prove the antithesis to your statement. The only taxes that have been shown to consistently detrimental effect on the economy and tax revenues are corporate income taxes; hence, my suggestion to get rid of the corporate income tax and temporarily (five to ten years) raise taxes for every income level.

Attempting to raise taxes to help a weak economy is the logical equivalent of a retail store raising prices to improve sales.

False.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Not necessarily true and there are economies in the world that consistently prove the antithesis to your statement. The only taxes that have been shown to consistently detrimental effect on the economy and tax revenues are corporate income taxes; hence, my suggestion to get rid of the corporate income tax and temporarily (five to ten years) raise taxes for every income level.



False.

Which economies prove the antithesis?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

Which economies prove the antithesis?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

China; China has boomed since reducing their "Corporate Tax" (State Ownership) in the 1980s and implementing very high individual income tax rates (45% top bracket).

Germany.
Israel.
Sweden.

 

[JayVols]

Cuts will have a marginal, short term negative effect on demand as the economy adjusts. Tax hikes would have both an immediate and long term detrimental effect on the economy AND tax revenues. Attempting to raise taxes to help a weak economy is the logical equivalent of a retail store raising prices to improve sales.

Not an appropriate comparison, imo.

 

[rjd970]

I ask again, if anyone can provide a link where I can read about all the specific details of spending cuts being delayed, or specific timelines on when they take affect, or what the specific tax hikes would be, I would be much obliged. Thanks.

:hi:

 

[tvols75]

i don't understand this belief that 10% of the country has to pay for everyone else. it's like the kid who still takes money from his parents after college graduation because "they can afford it."

I am stealing this.... genius quote :salute:

 

[NEO]

China; China has boomed since reducing their "Corporate Tax" (State Ownership) in the 1980s and implementing very high individual income tax rates (45% top bracket).

Germany.
Israel.
Sweden.

China's real estate bubble makes ours look like a joke.

Their growth numbers are artificial.

 

[MG1968]

China's real estate bubble makes ours look like a joke.

Their growth numbers are artificial.

not only that, but China has built entire cities that are essentially empty

 

[vols4sure]

I ask again, if anyone can provide a link where I can read about all the specific details of spending cuts being delayed, or specific timelines on when they take affect, or what the specific tax hikes would be, I would be much obliged. Thanks.

:hi:

Just search "boehner immediate spending cuts debt deal"; you won't find specifics but plenty of sources stating obama wants future cuts as opposed to immediate cuts

 

[BigPapaVol]

China; China has boomed since reducing their "Corporate Tax" (State Ownership) in the 1980s and implementing very high individual income tax rates (45% top bracket).

Germany.
Israel.
Sweden.

None of those qualify as antithesis. Lack of corporate tax is not particularly different than lower marginal rates for the wealthy either.

China has also only benefitted from liberalization, which has opened them up ax the free labor source to the world.

The other three have had more than their share of problems and have generally trudged along.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[golfballs]

China benefits, most importantly - pegging the value of their currency.

Germany??? Seriously? If we are holding them as an example then we are really pathetic.

Also, Sweden is a very interesting example. Per Capita, they are one of the most resource-rich countries on the planet.

 

[droski]

China; China has boomed since reducing their "Corporate Tax" (State Ownership) in the 1980s and implementing very high individual income tax rates (45% top bracket).

Germany.
Israel.
Sweden.

Opening of their economy no factor? Easy to have low corporate tax rates when the govt forces private business 50% public ownership.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[lawgator1]

The notion of no corporate income tax but taxing all levels a bit higher, particularly the top levels, has some interesting logic to it. If the rate is zero, that means the incentive to create the loopholes and manipulate the code is gone. At the same time, the payouts to the top earners still get taxed, and when the numbers are at their highest, maybe you can place the bulk there, i.e. make the rate 45% for all income over $5 million. I'd include passive income in that, naturally.

And maybe limit deductions for those with gross income over a certain level -- say, $1 million -- to a set amount, so as not to create the artifice of AGI.

 

[OJ]

Obama just said that we just need a modest adjustment to get our house in order.

 

[lawgator1]

"The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically ... they boxed themselves in with previous statements," he said.


From CNN blog.

And that assessment by him is 100 % correct.

There was a chance here for real reform and progress, real cuts. But TPers have gummed it up.

 

[droski]

"There was a chance here for real reform and progress, real cuts. But TPers have gummed it up.

please explain how pelosi's "absolutely no cuts to social security and medicare and absolutely no tax cuts to the wealthy (meaning not increasing taxes)" is a sign of comprimise from the democrats?

 

[lawgator1]

please explain how pelosi's "absolutely no cuts to social security and medicare and absolutely no tax cuts to the wealthy (meaning not increasing taxes)" is a sign of comprimise from the democrats?

First, it is correct to say that she should not have made such absolutist statements. She should be criticized for that.

Second, however, that is not the problem. The problem is that the GOP is stuck. Intransigent due to the TP. Obama will run over Pelosi and make the cuts to entitlements.

The GOP will not budge on taxes to go along with the budget cuts. Breakdown is their fault and there is going to be hell to pay for them as Obama and Dems can accurately portray missed opportunity to reduce deficit as caused by GOP protecting millionaires and billionaires, Wall Street execs, etc.

This is a political gold mine for the Dems in 2012.

Well done, Cantor. You just got Obama reelected for sure.

 

[droski]

you are high if you don't think a comprimise will happen.

 

[utvolpj]

as Obama and Dems can again lie and portray missed opportunity to reduce deficit as caused by GOP protecting millionaires and billionaires, Wall Street execs, etc.

fixed for accuracy (unless the etc includes people like me or my kids who would also be hurt by tax increases and no real spending cuts)

 

[lawgator1]

you are high if you don't think a comprimise will happen.

Clearly one will occur in terms of the debt ceiling.

I'm saying that we had a great chance here to take a sizable bite out of the total debt but the TP wired our collective jaws shut with ideological intransigence.

Obama and Dems will contend, correctly, that the reason the deficit moving forward will not be $4 trillion lower than it might have been was because 1) Boehner is ineffective and can't herd the cats; and 2) the TP wing of the party wanted to protect the rich.

 

[utvolpj]

now you're just parroting the lie from the Dems. Seriously, just link us to the talking points and stop pasting them here

 

[sjt18]

"The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically ... they boxed themselves in with previous statements," he said.


From CNN blog.

And that assessment by him is 100 % correct.

There was a chance here for real reform and progress, real cuts. But TPers have gummed it up.

And Obama is not entrenched?
He could do a deal right now that the GOP would go with that did not include tax hikes. He could actually get effective tax hikes by going along with code simplification, rate drops, and REAL budget cuts. What Obama has offered is this: Give me tax hikes and I will let you guys offer spending cuts that in theory I might accept so long as they are far enough out that I don't have to deal with them.

The reality is that he would get his hikes... and would turn around and demagogue any attempt to actually cut spending. Just like he was uncivil while decrying GOP incivility... he's now claiming that others are playing political games while knowingly doing so himself.

 

[sjt18]

Not necessarily true and there are economies in the world that consistently prove the antithesis to your statement.

Yes. Taxes collected to spend on consumption are uniformly detrimental to an economy. Name those nations and demonstrate that their spending structures and global responsibilities are on order with ours. Demonstrate that they have a diverse population like ours.

False.

True. How's that?

Even Obama acknowledged that raising taxes during a weak recovery was a very bad idea... now he wants to do it. Why?