Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
Quote from: CBWx2 on December 05, 2012, 03:08:03 PMIt'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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?