raise personal income tax, lower corporate tax

[Polk]

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

I'd like to see that article if you can find it. As for liberals talking about restraining spending, I guess you totally forgot Obama exists (or you don't consider him a liberal). What do you think the Simpson-Bowles catfood commission was about? And if you think massive cuts to Social Security and defense are politically possible, I don't know which country you're living in, because it definitely isn't this one.

Here's your link. I started a thread about it a few days back.

It


Seriously, you've giving me Obama? Sure, he talks the talk, but have you seen his budgets? No spending restraint there, and the man totally ignored and discredited Simpson-Bowles. You're a total joke, you really think Obama would cut spending or limiting it? Sure, when pigs fly.

Why would you think Obama wouldn't be willing to cut spending? He signed the preposterous Budget Control Act in to law. He was willing to accept deep spending cuts until Boehner left the table because he found a single penny of tax increases to be unacceptable. Obama didn't embrace Simpson-Bowles because Simpson-Bowles was intended as a compromise measure. It would have been foolish to make the compromise proposal the left flank.

 

[Wiseacre]

I'd like to see that article if you can find it. As for liberals talking about restraining spending, I guess you totally forgot Obama exists (or you don't consider him a liberal). What do you think the Simpson-Bowles catfood commission was about? And if you think massive cuts to Social Security and defense are politically possible, I don't know which country you're living in, because it definitely isn't this one.

Here's your link. I started a thread about it a few days back.

It


Seriously, you've giving me Obama? Sure, he talks the talk, but have you seen his budgets? No spending restraint there, and the man totally ignored and discredited Simpson-Bowles. You're a total joke, you really think Obama would cut spending or limiting it? Sure, when pigs fly.

Why would you think Obama wouldn't be willing to cut spending? He signed the preposterous Budget Control Act in to law. He was willing to accept deep spending cuts until Boehner left the table because he found a single penny of tax increases to be unacceptable. Obama didn't embrace Simpson-Bowles because Simpson-Bowles was intended as a compromise measure. It would have been foolish to make the compromise proposal the left flank.

That's not the story I heard, the way I heard it Boehner agreed to a deal that did involve some tax hikes along with some spending cuts but it was Obama that wanted to change the deal at the last minute and that's when Boehner and Cantor left the table. I have never heard Obama offer any specifics on spending reductions, ever - nor any other top democrat either. It's all about tax hikes for them, cu that's their political mantra.

" Obama didn't embrace Simpson-Bowles because Simpson-Bowles was intended as a compromise measure. It would have been foolish to make the compromise proposal the left flank. "

Don't understand this, what would have been wrong with using S-B as a starting point? But no, Obama and the dems roundly condemned it from the getgo, they have NEVER shown any indication of compromise whatsoever even though they make pretty speeches about reducing the debt and deficits.

 

[Polk]

Why should Simpson-Bowles have been the starting point? That was the compromise position, drawn up by a bipartisan panel. Your take on the issue is basically that "compromise" is Obama giving the Republicans everything on their wish list.

 

[Wiseacre]

Why should Simpson-Bowles have been the starting point? That was the compromise position, drawn up by a bipartisan panel. Your take on the issue is basically that "compromise" is Obama giving the Republicans everything on their wish list.

What's so bad about starting from a compromise position drawn up by a bipartisan panel? Didn't S-B have some taxes in it? Seems like your take on the issue is giving Obama everything he and the dems want on their wish list.

I'll tell you what I think: Obama started the S-B Commission to avoid the debt/deficit issue until after the 2010 election, he wanted to protect the democrats running for office and give them an out. They could say "we're working on it, the president has this commission and we'll work on it after they come out with their report. Which they did, and then the dems thoroughly condemned it. Truthfully, I don't think the democrats have ever had any intention of cutting or reducing spending, all they care about is having an argument they can take to the voters. Inequality, unfairness, raise taxes on the rich; anything to avoid running on their own record.

 

[Ariux]

Personal income is personal income regardless of the source and shoul all be taxed the same. Unless it is a Veterans pension, SS or somesuch.

Why don't you just stick a sign on your back that says you're a shithead.

Personal income, regardless of source, should all be taxed the same. [period]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. It simply doesn't work anymore with the kind of wealth concentrations that have occured over the last three decades.

Wealth concentration has 6 liberal causes

1) liberals destroyed the family thus creating millions of poor single mothers

2) liberal unions and other anti-busines policies have shippped 20 million middle class jobs offshore

3) dual income college grad professional couples have formed families in the upper classes.

4) welfare entitlements have grown tremendously thus destroying the incentive to work into the middle class

5) liberal hip-hop culture promotes the idea that white middle class culture is not cool while the thug life is.

6) the inequality figures are wrong anyway since they do not include income from welfare entitlements

 

[Polk]

Why should Simpson-Bowles have been the starting point? That was the compromise position, drawn up by a bipartisan panel. Your take on the issue is basically that "compromise" is Obama giving the Republicans everything on their wish list.

What's so bad about starting from a compromise position drawn up by a bipartisan panel? Didn't S-B have some taxes in it? Seems like your take on the issue is giving Obama everything he and the dems want on their wish list.

I'll tell you what I think: Obama started the S-B Commission to avoid the debt/deficit issue until after the 2010 election, he wanted to protect the democrats running for office and give them an out. They could say "we're working on it, the president has this commission and we'll work on it after they come out with their report. Which they did, and then the dems thoroughly condemned it. Truthfully, I don't think the democrats have ever had any intention of cutting or reducing spending, all they care about is having an argument they can take to the voters. Inequality, unfairness, raise taxes on the rich; anything to avoid running on their own record.

That's not my take at all. The problem is that the instant Obama comes out in favor of S-B, that becomes the "Democratic" plan. Then the right gets to make a fresh round of demands, so "compromise" becomes something between the hard right plan and the existing compromise plan.

Consider this analogy. You're going to buy a car. The sticker price is 30k and you think 27k is a realistic price after negotiation. You'd be a fool to make 27k your opening bid.

As for your take on why Democrats didn't embrace S-B, I think it's because they knew it wasn't a realistic framework. The GOP will only accept a package that's all spending cuts. Better to not embrace, because doing so would move the debate further right. You're correct that some Democrats condemned the report, but so did most Republicans.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Personal income, regardless of source, should all be taxed the same. [period]

we don't want to tax the rich at all really since they create the products and jobs that got us from the stone age to here. Why limit their saintly activity at all???

Taxing the poor and middle class makes sense since they don't make anywhere near the contribution that the rich make.


Always remember, Steve Jobs created jobs, those he hired did not create jobs, they merely took the jobs Jobs offered to them.

 

[Polk]

The economy is a circular flow. Saying "Jobs created jobs" is cute, but meaningless. He wouldn't have created a single job if no one purchased the products he developed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The economy is a circular flow. Saying "Jobs created jobs" is cute, but meaningless. He wouldn't have created a single job if no one purchased the products he developed.

what??? it takes no talent whatsoever to purchase a product, but it takes a huge and rare talent to invent one!! Therefore, we need to do everything possible to nurture, support, subsidize, and glorify those who might invent products that, for example, cure cancer or otherwise enrich our lives!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

 

[Moonglow]

An even better solution: CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Jesus H. Christ, we're having deficits in excess of a trillion dollars a year and the liberals want to try for an extra 70 billion in more revenue.

You can't cut the budget to balance without slashing Social Security checks and gutting defense. It's entirely unrealistic.

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

Name me on republican president that didn't raise taxes since the Carter era.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You can't cut the budget to balance without slashing Social Security checks and gutting defense. It's entirely unrealistic.

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

Name me on republican president that didn't raise taxes since the Carter era.

Independents decide elections so Republican presidents don't get do what they want to do anymore than Democrat ones do.

See why we are sure a liberal will be slow?

 

[Polk]

The economy is a circular flow. Saying "Jobs created jobs" is cute, but meaningless. He wouldn't have created a single job if no one purchased the products he developed.

what??? it takes no talent whatsoever to purchase a product, but it takes a huge and rare talent to invent one!! Therefore, we need to do everything possible to nurture, support, subsidize, and glorify those who might invent products that, for example, cure cancer or otherwise enrich our lives!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

Invention doesn't mean squat if you don't have anyone to buy your product.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The economy is a circular flow. Saying "Jobs created jobs" is cute, but meaningless. He wouldn't have created a single job if no one purchased the products he developed.

what??? it takes no talent whatsoever to purchase a product, but it takes a huge and rare talent to invent one!! Therefore, we need to do everything possible to nurture, support, subsidize, and glorify those who might invent products that, for example, cure cancer or otherwise enrich our lives!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

Invention doesn't mean squat if you don't have anyone to buy your product.

too stupid!!! has there ever been a shortage of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mankind lived in dire poverty for 1000's of years until a rare few Republican supply sider geniuses began to supply the goods and services that got us from the stone age to here!!.

 

[expat_panama]

...we need to do everything possible to nurture, support, subsidize, and glorify those who might invent products...

Excellent comrade, we'll have the politburo name a new commissariat of product-invention-subsidy -praise'n'glorify!

Of course, another option is simply allow the inventor to (here it comes) sell his product on the open market. OK, the idea isn't new at all and it's in fact exactly what Americans are especially good at. We're world class product inventors, and folks from all over the world come here to buy our inventions. America trades inventions for foreign goods, we get rich, and the trade deficit soars.

What's not to like?

 

[Moonglow]

Personal income, regardless of source, should all be taxed the same. [period]

we don't want to tax the rich at all really since they create the products and jobs that got us from the stone age to here. Why limit their saintly activity at all???

Taxing the poor and middle class makes sense since they don't make anywhere near the contribution that the rich make.


Always remember, Steve Jobs created jobs, those he hired did not create jobs, they merely took the jobs Jobs offered to them.

You are wrong, again, Ed

Small business hires more people than corporation

Many visitors from abroad are surprised to learn that even today, the U.S. economy is by no means dominated by giant corporations. Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than 20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99 workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more employees.

Small Business in the United States

 

[Moonglow]

what??? it takes no talent whatsoever to purchase a product, but it takes a huge and rare talent to invent one!! Therefore, we need to do everything possible to nurture, support, subsidize, and glorify those who might invent products that, for example, cure cancer or otherwise enrich our lives!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

Invention doesn't mean squat if you don't have anyone to buy your product.

too stupid!!! has there ever been a shortage of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mankind lived in dire poverty for 1000's of years until a rare few Republican supply sider geniuses began to supply the goods and services that got us from the stone age to here!!.

care to back that up!? With quotes? Or are you trying to just bullshit us again. As usual?

 

[Moonglow]

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

Name me on republican president that didn't raise taxes since the Carter era.

Independents decide elections so Republican presidents don't get do what they want to do anymore than Democrat ones do.

See why we are sure a liberal will be slow?

every republican president has raised taxes, so side stepping the issue shows what a coward you are.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Excellent comrade, we'll have the politburo name a new commissariat of product-invention-subsidy -praise'n'glorify!

a like it far far better than a welfare entitlement politburo!! Extremism in support of entrepreneurial capitalism is no vice!

We're world class product inventors,

What's not to like?

We were world class but all indications are we're losing ground fast thanks in large part to liberalism. Imagine someone growing up today in the USA listening to the "you didn't do that," "tax the rich" rhetoric!
It is all destroying the entrepreneurial culture of America.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

every republican president has raised taxes, so side stepping the issue shows what a coward you are.

side stepping?? 100% of the energy to reduce government has been Republican since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. THey introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments and liberals killed every one of them.

Even a liberal ought to be bright enough to see a basic difference between the parties.