U.S. economy growing faster than forecast

[CBWx2]

It's about priorities. The argument is about 2% of the population's tax rate. Supposedly, R's and D's agree that rates for the remaining 98% should stay low. So why not just pass the 98% that they agree on and haggle over the 2% later? Because the R's want to hold the 98% hostage in order to ensure low rates for the 2%. Spin it however you want, but that's essentially the gist of it.

The President is willing to increase taxes on 100% of Americans and tank the economy just so he screw the "rich." He is not willing to listen to any alternatives and has presented no plan to address the deficit. It is obvious it is not about raising additional revenue because plans have been put forward to do that and they have been immediately dismissed. So is he vindictive, stupid or heartless?

Let me ask you a question, spartan. Do you seriously think that the plan presented by the Republicans actually raises revenues? I mean, seriously? They are digging in their heals to protect a 2% income tax increase on the top 2% of the population, yet you expect me to believe that they are actually looking into eliminating deductions on just the top 2 brackets? What their plan does is shift the tax burden onto the middle class by eliminating deductions that they take advantage of, and that's what the real debate is about. It's not about being vindictive against the poor, innocent rich man. It's about which side do you want to be affected more, the wealthy, or everyone else.

[spartan]

If that were true the top tax rate would be 37% next year, but it is not. It is close to 40% which is 3% points more than you say. On top of that you have the "Affordable care act" "surcharge" of another 4%, and on top of that, we have the President talking about additional "revenues." So, before you know it the President wants to increase taxes by approximately 10%, AND what's more, all to fund 1 week of the Govt. The President is doing this not because he thinks it is good fiscal discipline, but because he thinks the rich obtained their wealth unfairly and they need to be punished. He has said this himself. If you think this is good policy, fine, fill your boots, personally, I think it is dumb.

[VinBucFan]

If that were true the top tax rate would be 37% next year, but it is not. It is close to 40% which is 3% points more than you say. On top of that you have the "Affordable care act" "surcharge" of another 4%, and on top of that, we have the President talking about additional "revenues." So, before you know it the President wants to increase taxes by approximately 10%, AND what's more, all to fund 1 week of the Govt. The President is doing this not because he thinks it is good fiscal discipline, but because he thinks the rich obtained their wealth unfairly and they need to be punished. He has said this himself. If you think this is good policy, fine, fill your boots, personally, I think it is dumb.

Good fiscal discipline would be to raise revenues AND cut expenses SIMULTANEOUSLY.  Isn't the current plan to raises taxes NOW but cut spending in a decade?

[CBWx2]

Good fiscal discipline would be to raise revenues AND cut expenses SIMULTANEOUSLY. 

Agreed. So why don't Republicans want to raise revenues?

Isn't the current plan to raises taxes NOW but cut spending in a decade?

Raising taxes now cuts the deficit down over the course of a decade as well. You cannot raise taxes or cut spending at a rate that would eliminate the deficit in a year or two that wouldn't send us straight into a full blown depression. So I guess it just depends on what you want more, slow but steady deficit reduction and economic stabilization, or scorched earth cutting and taxing that eliminates the deficit, yet destroys any chance of an economic recovery.

[RoddyBama1]

The Republicans are holding out for spending cuts to go along with the tax increases. They realize that if they give in now, they lose whatever leverage they have in negotiations, and know that they Democrats have no interest in keeping their word on spending cuts as they have shown over and over again.

In reality, we have a spending problem and there is no amount of tax increase on the "rich" that will solve the problem. Most tax payers think it is laughable to even engage in discussion about raising taxes until the government shows a real commitment to cut spending, as it is just throwing more money into a black hole.

America is too addicted to federal money, but now the producers are outnumbered by those with their hands out. There will be no real change, just another kick down the road to when the problem is even more out of control. We will continue to print and make the pain even worse for ourselves when reality sets in and we can no longer keep our interest rates at 0 and continue to print money and sell debt.

To be honest at this point, I feel like fighting it is a waste of effort. We should give Barry whatever he asks for, let him put the pedal to the metal on spending, like he wants,  until we crash in to the wall at 10,000 mph's and hopefully pick up the pieces more responsibly.

[VinBucFan]

Raising taxes now cuts the deficit down over the course of a decade as well. You cannot raise taxes or cut spending at a rate that would eliminate the deficit in a year or two that wouldn't send us straight into a full blown depression. So I guess it just depends on what you want more, slow but steady deficit reduction and economic stabilization, or scorched earth cutting and taxing that eliminates the deficit, yet destroys any chance of an economic recovery.

That ^^^^ is a good example of CBW bullspit.  You took my comment (i.e. cut spending and raise taxes) and turned it into an extreme and seemed to suggest that raising taxes is the ONLY alternative.  Here, let's break it down to show everyone how you roll. Let's start with your first sentence:

 "Raising taxes now cuts the deficit down over the course of a decade as well"  DUH -- so does cutting spending. Doing either or both cuts the deficit. Favoring one over the other by you is a reflection of PARTISANSHIP. 

Now, here comes the CLASSIC CBW STRAWMAN. Next senetence:

"You cannot raise taxes or cut spending at a rate that would eliminate the deficit in a year or two that wouldn't send us straight into a full blown depression." 

Please point out to me where I suggested that we should cut spending and raise taxes to, in your actual words, " eliminate the deficit in a year or two"  As you are fond of saying, "link?" That is your total BS strawman.  Because you dont want to support spending cuts you create the strawman to support a scare tactic: "straight into a full blow depression"

You close by using your strawman to reinforce the scare tactic. Last sentence:

"So I guess it just depends on what you want more, slow but steady deficit reduction and economic stabilization, or scorched earth cutting and taxing that eliminates the deficit, yet destroys any chance of an economic recovery."

Lol -- "scorched earth" that "destroys any chance of an economic recovery"  LMAO. As if tax increases are the only way to have "slow but steady deficit reduction and economic stablization" (lol) and anythign else is "scorched earth"  man . .

Goodness gracious. No one said that the SIMULTANEOUS tax increase and spending cut now had to TOTAL what it would in 11 years when spending cuts kick in on top of tax increases. Just do both, in a lesser amount, and that way both sides get what they want (Republicans, less tax increases, Democrats, less spending cuts). Let me give a simple hypothetical.  If we have a $10 deficit.  You could cut the deficit to zero by raising taxes by $10.  You could cut the deficit to zero by cutting spending by $10.  If both sides accept only one approach, then cut the deficit by doing both and NOTHING says you have to do it immediately and fully (your strawman) just because you do both.  If, hypothetically, the current plan it to cut THE DEFICIT (not pay off debt) by 20 years and that plan achieves that goal by raising taxes in years 1 through 20 but only cutting spending in years 11 through 20 then just reduce the tax burden slightly (even on a sliding scale) by implementing some spending cuts in years 1 through 10.  If the economy can bear it (lol-since you want to scare every one) increase taxes and cut spending earlier to actually PAY OFF DEBT.

This discussion is a classic example of why things don't get done in Washington. It is filled with political hacks who put ideology over common sense . . . and compromise.

[CBWx2]

Wow, you are a special kind of moron. Your comment...

"Isn't the current plan to raises taxes NOW but cut spending in a decade?"

My response to that was that the tax hikes, as well as the spending cuts proposed by the D's are both aimed to reduce the deficit over the course of a decade, you idiot. You seem to think that the D's have proposed only raising taxes now and have put some sort of 10 year referendum on spending cuts. As usual, you are just pulling things from your a$$. When someone says, "it will cut 10 billion off  the budget by 2022", that doesn't mean it will cut 10 billion off of the budget in 2022, genius.

[VinBucFan]

Wow, you are a special kind of moron. Your comment...

"Isn't the current plan to raises taxes NOW but cut spending in a decade?"

My response to that was that the tax hikes, as well as the spending cuts proposed by the D's are both aimed to reduce the deficit over the course of a decade, you idiot. You seem to think that the D's have proposed only raising taxes now and have put some sort of 10 year referendum on spending cuts. As usual, you are just pulling things from your a$$. When someone says, "it will cut 10 billion off  the budget by 2022", that doesn't mean it will cut 10 billion off of the budget in 2022, genius.

Nobody said that either, but nice try.  I could give you a million examples, but here is one of the President's Men getting called out by the Washington Post for claiming that Obama health care savings are greater than Simpson Bowles.  When the Post estabslished that was false, The President's man backtracked. I put the admissions in bold and then  at the bottom you can see the Posts analysis of why having LARGE front-loaded tax increases with the promis of spending cuts PRIMARILY  (not exlcusively) THROUGH BACK LOADED SPENDING CUTS is virtually meaningless. I put that part in red. Note the LAST SENTENCE

"Van Hollen argued that the White House proposals are significant because the health-care cuts were more or less equal with Simpson-Bowles at the end of the first decade — and then really kicked in during the second decade. “The president’s policies do not phase in until late in the 10-year budget window,” he said, noting some key provisions are aimed at new Medicare beneficiaries, not current beneficiaries.

Indeed, Sperling has written that Obama has “proposed larger long-term health savings ... than Bowles-Simpson.” (Our emphasis on “long-term.”)

Given that Congress can always step in and change things, we’re not sure it is good practice to be claiming savings more than 10 years down the road. Health-care provider cuts mandated in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 are routinely deferred by Congress

"I will increase your taxes now but cut your spending later" is a fraud, a shell game. The DEMOCRACT politics of the situation are highlighted in this sentence "he said, noting some key provisions are aimed at new Medicare beneficiaries, not current beneficiaries"  NOT CURRENT BENEFICIARIES.  That is because no one want to cut actual spending for current voters.  That is total BS. If you want to raises taxes now by $10, cut spending now by $10. Or at least dont make the ratio now $10/$1, that is not real fiscal discpline.

simple point that I will leave with you so you can  . . . spin, spin, spin

[CBWx2]

You highlighted the wrong part...

"Van Hollen argued that the White House proposals are significant because the health-care cuts were more or less equal with Simpson-Bowles at the end of the first decade — and then really kicked in during the second decade."

In other words, the cuts are equal to the cuts proposed by Simpson-Bowles for the first decade, meaning that there are proposed cuts in the first decade, meaning that they are NOT proposing cutting spending later, as you said. They are simply proposing cutting additional spending later. Learn how to comprehend what you post, smart one.

[VinBucFan]

You highlighted the wrong part...

"Van Hollen argued that the White House proposals are significant because the health-care cuts were more or less equal with Simpson-Bowles at the end of the first decade — and then really kicked in during the second decade."

In other words, the cuts are equal to the cuts proposed by Simpson-Bowles for the first decade, meaning that there are proposed cuts in the first decade, meaning that they are NOT proposing cutting spending later, as you said. They are simply proposing cutting additional spending later. Learn how to comprehend what you post, smart one.

LMAO . . . and you IGNORED the only part . . . what a hack

typical style over substance. spin spin spin. They are not proposing cutting addtional taxes later, what a joke. They are proposing the CUTS now as if they are happening now when they ONLY happen later, IF AT ALL. See Washington Post

So when, for example, the White House says "we are raising $200 in taxes and cutting $200 in spending," what they mean is we are raising $200 in taxes TODAY and we are cutting spending by $5 starting NEXT YEAR and for the next 10 years and then in years 11 through 20 we cut $150. As the Washington Post pointed out -- and you conveniently ignored -- the $150 will NEVER HAPPEN.  It's a "plan" that occurs over 20 years, but the TRICK is the taxes come first and the CUTS dont come at all . .  well, at least not most of them.

again, a simple point that you want to ignore and spin spin spin.

[Biggs3535]

Geebus, the lame is overflowing.

[spartan]

The devil is in the details. The President has stated he will "look" at spending cuts later on. Much like he said would "listen" to the Simpson Bowles recommendations. How did that work out? He listened then said no. Anyone one think that "looking" at future cuts is going to result in anything different?

[dbucfan]

The devil is in the details. The President has stated he will "look" at spending cuts later on. Much like he said would "listen" to the Simpson Bowles recommendations. How did that work out? He listened then said no. Anyone one think that "looking" at future cuts is going to result in anything different?

It is pretty clear on poster has bought the President's statement.  I believe it is "hook, line and sinker"

[Dolorous Jason]

The fact that both sides admit the economy will tank if we don't agree upon a way to continue to spend massive amounts of money we don't have is laughable to me. It also shows you how much of a fraud our economy really is. Am I the only one that finds this whole debate in Washington utterly ridiculous ?

The "fiscal cliff" should be called the "fiscal reality"... the reality is it would take major cuts AND a crippling tax hike to run this monstrosity we call a federal government in a responsible manner....but , please ! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

[spartan]

The reality is that nobody wants to admit to or be responsible for the pain that will be a necessary evil of a real solution. The fact of the matter is that some pain will be involved and as soon as someone grows a pair and is honest about it the sooner we will actually start solving the problem.