You Taught The GOP A Lesson: You Want Higher Taxes So They Will Grant Your Wish

[P@triot]

At yesterday’s fiscal cliff campaign stop in Redford, Michigan, President Obama delivered these remarks and hammered away at his “balanced” plan to avert the fiscal cliff.

"Balance", as defined in the President’s plan, consists of $4 in tax increases up front for every $1 in loosely defined spending cuts promised down the road. The balance scale at the White House, it seems, needs to be recalibrated.


Tax Increases Won

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rootweiler, as above, can be sensible when not posturing. It should be $8 in spending cuts over the next two years, guaranteed, for every $1 in taxation.

 

[bripat9643]

Every body should pay something, I agree.

And those who have benefited so much from our social compact should certainly pay their fair share.

Sure and that 49% should be paying their fair share as well.

Kinda funny how only SOME FOLKS need to pay that FAIR SHARE.

There is no "social compact," and no one has benefitted from it.

 

[JoeB131]

Rootweiler, as above, can be sensible when not posturing. It should be $8 in spending cuts over the next two years, guaranteed, for every $1 in taxation.

Again, cutting what?

frankly, we've been cutting government services to the bone for years...

If you want to talk about meaningful cuts, they'd have to come out of social security, defense, and Medicare. .. And no one has the will to cut any of those.

 

[Mac1958]

.

"Fair share" is a phrase that always gets me. It's used almost off-handedly, as if everyone agrees with precisely what it means.

Two problems, of course: Who gets to decide what is "fair"? And why do I never hear specifics? I agree with progressive taxation and that everyone should contribute, but this is (yet) another national conversation that needs to be had.

"Fair"? Okay, that sounds nice, that sounds reasonable. But could someone get specific with the numbers?

And why do I get the feeling that, for some people, another word for "fair" is always going to be "more"?

.

 

[JoeB131]

.

"Fair share" is a phrase that always gets me. It's used almost off-handedly, as if everyone agrees with precisely what it means.

Two problems, of course: Who gets to decide what is "fair"? And why do I never hear specifics? I agree with progressive taxation and that everyone should contribute, but this is (yet) another national conversation that needs to be had.

"Fair"? Okay, that sounds nice, that sounds reasonable. But could someone get specific with the numbers?

And why do I get the feeling that, for some people, another word for "fair" is always going to be "more"?

.

You know what, the tax rates they were paying under Clinton were just fine. And we balanced the budget and had a prosperous economy.

That would be a "fair" starting point.

 

[Mac1958]

.

"Fair share" is a phrase that always gets me. It's used almost off-handedly, as if everyone agrees with precisely what it means.

Two problems, of course: Who gets to decide what is "fair"? And why do I never hear specifics? I agree with progressive taxation and that everyone should contribute, but this is (yet) another national conversation that needs to be had.

"Fair"? Okay, that sounds nice, that sounds reasonable. But could someone get specific with the numbers?

And why do I get the feeling that, for some people, another word for "fair" is always going to be "more"?

.

You know what, the tax rates they were paying under Clinton were just fine. And we balanced the budget and had a prosperous economy.

That would be a "fair" starting point.

I agree, but (a) I'd like to see some (legitimate) stats on the revenue that would provide, and (b) I'd like to have our "leaders" (cough) have an honest and open discussion about the rates they'd like to see. With real numbers and some truth serum.

.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd raise the taxes on the FREE SHITTERS. You wanted more taxes??? Well, here you go, assholes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sure and that 49% should be paying their fair share as well.

Kinda funny how only SOME FOLKS need to pay that FAIR SHARE.

They are, already. It's progressive taxation. Bill Gates pays the same on his first hundred grand in income, that I do. And at anytime Bill chooses to not pay income tax, he merely needs to lower his income to that of the 49% who you claim are not paying taxes, but in fact are, including FIT. The 49% was estimated, ONE YEAR, due to a special tax credit, which was in place in hopes of dragging our ass out the the Bush 43 Great Recession trough.

Fact. Check it out.

So you're telling me that 47% of people are in the zero income tax bracket? Because the last time I checked anyone with an AGI of up to 17,400 was in the 10% bracket.

Or is it all the bullshit tax credits, deductions and exemptions that some people get?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We reform SS with higher income limits, later retirement, and a no tolerance vault for SS $s that Congress have to leave in the vault.

Major cutting must be done in defense. We spend more $$ in defense than the the next 25 countries combined. What an incredibly unwise waste of national assets.

Rootweiler, as above, can be sensible when not posturing. It should be $8 in spending cuts over the next two years, guaranteed, for every $1 in taxation.

Again, cutting what?

frankly, we've been cutting government services to the bone for years...

If you want to talk about meaningful cuts, they'd have to come out of social security, defense, and Medicare. .. And no one has the will to cut any of those.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem with those "reforms" is that there's no stomach for them. You tell people they can't get SS until they are 70, they aren't going to want to pay into it at all.

I agree we should cut defense, but that would 1) Cost a lot of jobs and 2) be a tacit admission we are no longer a "Super-power".

We reform SS with higher income limits, later retirement, and a no tolerance vault for SS $s that Congress have to leave in the vault.

Major cutting must be done in defense. We spend more $$ in defense than the the next 25 countries combined. What an incredibly unwise waste of national assets.

Rootweiler, as above, can be sensible when not posturing. It should be $8 in spending cuts over the next two years, guaranteed, for every $1 in taxation.

Again, cutting what?

frankly, we've been cutting government services to the bone for years...

If you want to talk about meaningful cuts, they'd have to come out of social security, defense, and Medicare. .. And no one has the will to cut any of those.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hard situations mean we make the hard choices.

Screw the far left on entitlements reform and the right on defense.

I mean it: screw em and make the right choices.

 

[Mac1958]

If you want to talk about meaningful cuts, they'd have to come out of social security, defense, and Medicare. .. And no one has the will to cut any of those.

If we had term limits and publicly-funded elections, the politicians wouldn't be worried about fundraising and getting re-elected, so they would just fucking do what was needed rather than having to "have the stomach".

Sorry, can't help myself...

.

 

[JoeB131]

Hard situations mean we make the hard choices.

Screw the far left on entitlements reform and the right on defense.

I mean it: screw em and make the right choices.

I don't think it's far left to think it's patently unfair to tell someone they now have to work well into their 70's before hoping to retire.

Especially when people in their 60's are effectively unemployable.

 

[JoeB131]

If you want to talk about meaningful cuts, they'd have to come out of social security, defense, and Medicare. .. And no one has the will to cut any of those.

If we had term limits and publicly-funded elections, the politicians wouldn't be worried about fundraising and getting re-elected, so they would just fucking do what was needed rather than having to "have the stomach".

Sorry, can't help myself...

.

Not that I'm against term limits, I think that's fine.

But if they are afraid of getting voted out of office for making the tough choices, then the problem isn't them.... it's us.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Rootweiler, as above, can be sensible when not posturing. It should be $8 in spending cuts over the next two years, guaranteed, for every $1 in taxation.

Again, cutting what?

frankly, we've been cutting government services to the bone for years...

If you want to talk about meaningful cuts, they'd have to come out of social security, defense, and Medicare. .. And no one has the will to cut any of those.

Everything. Each and every line of the budget should be slashed. Start with 25% across the board, and keep going from there. The money simply is not there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one said into the 70s. All agree that those over 50 or 55 will grandfathered. Those who are younger and will live longer if they take care of themselves can accept an extra one, two, or three years.

You make assertions that don't stand up to inspection.

Hard situations mean we make the hard choices.

Screw the far left on entitlements reform and the right on defense.

I mean it: screw em and make the right choices.

I don't think it's far left to think it's patently unfair to tell someone they now have to work well into their 70's before hoping to retire.

Especially when people in their 60's are effectively unemployable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hard situations mean we make the hard choices.

Screw the far left on entitlements reform and the right on defense.

I mean it: screw em and make the right choices.

I don't think it's far left to think it's patently unfair to tell someone they now have to work well into their 70's before hoping to retire.

Especially when people in their 60's are effectively unemployable.

they don't have to work into their 70s. they merely have to wait until then to collect social security

 

[JoeB131]

Why grandfather them in? Frankly, you'd be waiting 20 years before you saw any savings if you did that. We have a problem NOW, not in 20 years.

The real problem, those baby boomers who made good money when we used to have a middle class are being supported by a bunch of McJob earners thanks to folks like your hero, Mitt Romney, who downsized all the good paying jobs.

That's why Social Security is broke.

No one said into the 70s. All agree that those over 50 or 55 will grandfathered. Those who are younger and will live longer if they take care of themselves can accept an extra one, two, or three years.

You make assertions that don't stand up to inspection.

Hard situations mean we make the hard choices.

Screw the far left on entitlements reform and the right on defense.

I mean it: screw em and make the right choices.

I don't think it's far left to think it's patently unfair to tell someone they now have to work well into their 70's before hoping to retire.

Especially when people in their 60's are effectively unemployable.

 

[JoeB131]

Hard situations mean we make the hard choices.

Screw the far left on entitlements reform and the right on defense.

I mean it: screw em and make the right choices.

I don't think it's far left to think it's patently unfair to tell someone they now have to work well into their 70's before hoping to retire.

Especially when people in their 60's are effectively unemployable.

they don't have to work into their 70s. they merely have to wait until then to collect social security

You know, every time I think you can't possibly be more of a douchebag, you prove me wrong.

Try getting hired for a job when you are in your sixties... then come back and talk to me.