ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Aug 9, 2011 15:00:01 GMT -5
"House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Republican lawmakers to expect, and resist, increased pressure to raise taxes following the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating by Standard and Poor’s. “Over the next several months, there will be tremendous pressure on Congress to prove that S&P’s analysis of the inability of the political parties to bridge our differences is wrong,” Cantor wrote in a memo Monday to House Republicans. “In short, there will be pressure to compromise on tax increases. We will be told that there is no other way forward. I respectfully disagree.” In the same statement, Cantor added that this position — no tax increases on anyone at any time by any amount — is “what we must demand from the Joint Committee as it begins its work.” Soon after, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a statement endorsing this line, declaring that “raising taxes is simply the wrong approach.” The rhetoric isn’t surprising, but the context is critically important. Standard & Poor’s downgraded American debt just a few days ago and raised some specific concerns to justify the decision. Namely, the S&P analysis pointed to, among other things, the partisan gridlock in Congress caused by Republicans, and the fact that “the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.” www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/cantor_pushes_intransigence_ho031401.php
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 9, 2011 15:14:13 GMT -5
You gotta love it. I look forward to our next downgrade in 2013.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,446
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 9, 2011 15:15:21 GMT -5
I would have thought that S&P had more republicans working for them. They seem so ...capitalistic...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 14:52:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 15:18:44 GMT -5
Raising taxes is a band-aid and an easy way out. There's no way the GOP will agree to it.....ESPECIALLY if spending doesn't go down (not proposed spending...actual spending) year over year.
What's the point? Tax more people, take more money out of the economy, and still spend more than we take in?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 9, 2011 16:19:03 GMT -5
The Republicans are doing what their constituents want them to do.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 9, 2011 16:24:01 GMT -5
I just don't understand how republicans can make "no new taxes" their mantra while bitching about how the bottom 50% pays no income taxes at the same time. You can't have it both ways folks! If you want the bottom 50% to pay more, then you are going to have to raise taxes.
Republicans just seem to have some loopy logic sometimes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 9, 2011 16:26:41 GMT -5
Raising taxes is a band-aid and an easy way out. There's no way the GOP will agree to it.....ESPECIALLY if spending doesn't go down (not proposed spending...actual spending) year over year. What's the point? Tax more people, take more money out of the economy, and still spend more than we take in? that is precisely the point. and the point is not lost to anyone who has analyzed how we got out of the last Depression.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 9, 2011 16:31:48 GMT -5
I can't speak for Repubs but they don't want to see an increase in the tax rates but they are open to revenue increase from other proposals that eliminate certain tax credits or tax reforms...Paul Ryan has been trying to push his tax overhaul ideas for the past few months and the Gang of Six has similar ideas about tax reform..
They just don't think that rasing income taxes now is a good idea with so many companies not hiring and new taxes would only add to the unemployment numbers.. Some Liberals disagree with this repub mantra but it has some validity based on past recessions
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 9, 2011 16:37:50 GMT -5
They just don't think that rasing income taxes now is a good idea with so many companies not hiring and new taxes would only add to the unemployment numbers.. Some Liberals disagree with this repub mantra but it has some validity based on past recessions I don't disagree that raising taxes will hurt the economy right now. But, cutting spending is going to hurt just as much. There is no way to start to balance the budget without a lot of people feeling it & potentially lengthening our recession. Frankly, I don't know the answer. I think we are screwed regardless of what we do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 9, 2011 16:44:15 GMT -5
They just don't think that rasing income taxes now is a good idea with so many companies not hiring and new taxes would only add to the unemployment numbers.. Some Liberals disagree with this repub mantra but it has some validity based on past recessions I don't disagree that raising taxes will hurt the economy right now. i do. i don't think there is any evidence to show it is true whatsoever.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 9, 2011 16:46:08 GMT -5
Maybe that 94% tax rate of the 50's would look good again, huh dj, or did you know, , yet, , that it never happened?
Angel, maybe the cry about the 50% that pay no taxes is based on being fair, if not from an economic standpoint, then at least from a demographic standpoint. If there is an income tax at all, why should half the population not pay any.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Aug 10, 2011 7:20:39 GMT -5
During the debt limit gridlock, Paul Ryan stated any deal must be revenue neutral.Any cuts to loopholes or subsidies must be offset by tax cuts somewhere else.Revenue neutral means just that,no revenue increase,no revenue decrease.------"RYAN: What happens if you do what he’s saying, is then you can’t lower tax rates. So it does affect marginal tax rates. In order to lower marginal tax rates, you have to take away those loopholes so you can lower those tax rates. If you want to do what we call being revenue neutral … If you take a deal like that, you’re necessarily requiring tax rates to be higher for everybody. You need lower tax rates by going after tax loopholes. If you take away the tax loopholes without lowering tax rates, then you deny Congress the ability to lower everybody’s tax rates and you keep people’s tax rates high."
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Aug 10, 2011 9:02:40 GMT -5
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Aug 10, 2011 9:21:35 GMT -5
Obama wants to raise taxes on anyone making over $250K which would include a lot of small business owners that provide jobs. Is this the right time to raise taxes on small business owners? The numbers show that Washington has a SPENDING problem, not a revenue problem. They are like most American families - the more they make (tax), the more they spend (and then some). They tell you now that they just want to tax the "rich". After they do that, they still won't have enough. YOU'LL BE NEXT.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 10, 2011 9:42:49 GMT -5
Reid just appointed Patty Murray D Washington, Max Baucus D Montana, and John Kerry D Massachusetts who all have said that they think tax increases have to be part of the equation to resolve our debt crisis.... Now we need to see who are the other members of this super committee in congress I guess??
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 10, 2011 9:51:22 GMT -5
As many have said before, the problem isn't that the government doesn't tax enough, but spends too much. Even if you doubled all taxes on everyone, you'd still end up 400 billion or so short of balencing the budget JUST FOR THIS YEAR. This talk about a "balenced appraoch" is just blowing hot air. You can't tax enough to cover the spending binge that washington is in.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 10, 2011 9:58:32 GMT -5
"The numbers show that Washington has a SPENDING problem, not a revenue problem. They are like most American families - the more they make (tax), the more they spend (and then some). They tell you now that they just want to tax the "rich". After they do that, they still won't have enough. YOU'LL BE NEXT."
Most taxes on the rich end up getting pushed off onto the middle or lower classes in one form or another. (i.e. higher prices, fewer jobs, lower wages ect). It's silly to think a wealthy business owner is just going to reach into his own pocket to pay for taxes. He's just going to pass along the cost to consumers/employees as part of the cost of doing business.
"ly, the S&P analysis pointed to, among other things, the partisan gridlock in Congress caused by Republicans,"
This type of thinking pisses me off. If the democrats and republicans can't agree, then it's the republicans fault. I hate to break it to you but it takes two to tango. The republicans are representing the constiuents that voted them into office, obviously the people who voted them into office deserve no voice in what's happening in washington.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Aug 10, 2011 10:01:22 GMT -5
Was that really proposed in the debt talks? All I heard was cuts to some loopholes and subsidies, which republicans fought to protect.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 10, 2011 10:07:55 GMT -5
...I think we must cut spending AND increase revenues at the same time... let's start with the EIC...
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Aug 10, 2011 11:32:23 GMT -5
That's wrong, so very, very wrong. "Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem" www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-shows-americans-oppose-entitlement-cuts-to-deal-with-debt-problem/2011/04/19/AFoiAH9D_print.html"In his speech last week, the president renewed his call to raise tax rates on family income over $250,000, and he appears to hold the high ground politically, according to the poll. At this point, 72 percent support raising taxes along those lines, with 54 percent strongly backing this approach. The proposal enjoys the support of majorities of Democrats (91 percent), independents (68 percent) and Republicans (54 percent). Only among people with annual incomes greater than $100,000 does less than a majority “strongly support” such tax increases." It's in the majority even among Republicans. Also note the title of the article, with the majority against entitlement cuts. Anyone remember everyone screaming how there should be more legislation on abortion and how we're spending way too much on NPR? Me neither, but that's what Republicans made their first priority (cause I guess that jobs, jobs, jobs thing was fixed, huh?). I know, that was so earlier this year, so... "Boehner: I got ’98 percent’ of what I wanted in debt deal" thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/174925-boehner-i-got-98-percent-of-what-i-wanted-in-debt-dealDid anyone else get 98% of what they wanted? "Gallup: Massive Majority of Republicans Across Country Disapprove Debt Deal" www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-massive-majority-republicans-acro"By a margin of 64 percent to 26 percent, Republicans across the country say they disapprove of the debt-limit legislation ..." By an almost identical margin of 64 percent to 25 percent conservatives disapproved of the deal also. Independents also disapproved of the deal 50 percent to 33 percent, according to Gallup. By contrast, Democrats approved the deal 58 percent to 28 percent and liberals approved it 51 percent to 35 percent. Overall, Americans disapproved of the legislation, 46 percent to 39 percent, said Gallup." "Tea Party Supporters Oppose Debt Agreement, 68% to 22%" www.americasreview.com/u-s-political-news/tea-party-supporters-oppose-debt-agreement-68-to-22/So, I guess Boehner's constituents are dems and liberals, huh? (No, I did not approve of the debt deal and I'm guessing those dems and libs that approved aren't thinking Boehner did a wonderful job, and if a dem/lib approved just to make Obama look good, shame! shame! on you!) How about the Ryan plan? "Republicans ignored warnings on Paul Ryan plan" www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55466.html"the Ryan budget’s approval rating barely budged above the high 30s or its disapproval below 50 percent, according to a Republican operative familiar with the presentation..." So is there anything they're doing "right" at all? Anything? They even screwed up taking the oath of office (two members thought you could swear in while watching TV, but I'm sure they did the Norquest pledge without a hitch) and flubbed up reading the Constitution. Is it any wonder at all that Congressional approval rating is at a record low somewhere in the teens (even George W. Bush managed to keep his in the twenties)? But I know, let's fill these boards with inane threads like "Is Obama Intelligent?" or whatever that thread was that whined about Michelle Obama and wanting kids to eat healthy. You know, maybe take a minute or two away from your WAHHH!!!! OBAMAHH!!!! blare horns?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 10, 2011 11:35:51 GMT -5
I don't disagree that raising taxes will hurt the economy right now. i do. i don't think there is any evidence to show it is true whatsoever. Taxes take spending money out of people's pockets. People spending money drives the economy - they spend less & the economy hurts.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 10, 2011 11:37:38 GMT -5
Angel, maybe the cry about the 50% that pay no taxes is based on being fair, if not from an economic standpoint, then at least from a demographic standpoint. If there is an income tax at all, why should half the population not pay any. We have been over this & over this. The bottom 50% pay their fair share when you take into account all federal taxes. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy in the republicans 2 beliefs - a problem that certain groups don't pay enough taxes & the hardline approach that we can't raise taxes.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 10, 2011 11:43:24 GMT -5
I don't disagree that raising taxes will hurt the economy right now. But, cutting spending is going to hurt just as much. There is no way to start to balance the budget without a lot of people feeling it & potentially lengthening our recession. Frankly, I don't know the answer. I think we are screwed regardless of what we do. If our government was a financially sinking homeowner, the first thing we'd tell him to do was to CUT SPENDING. How is this any different? First, if we are going to compare the govt to a homeowner, then you have to admit the second thing we would tell them to do is INCREASE INCOME (aka raise taxes) Second, this isn't a great comparison & you have to realize govt spending drives the economy as well as individual spending. Cutting military spending means that maybe fewer people are hired as troops, or troops take a paycut, or we aren't throwing money at companies to purchase supplies which in turn hurts those companies & their employees. Cut SS & you are taking money out of the seniors pockets that gets spent in the economy. Cut something like transportation & you are taking away jobs in roadway planning, design, & construction. Cutting govt spending will definitely have an impact on the economy.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Aug 10, 2011 11:54:13 GMT -5
Ryan was for increasing revenue before he was against it-----"Oh yes," said Rep. Ryan. "I think we should clean up all those loopholes. And don't forget, there's a lot of corporate welfare spending that is in our budget put in there by both political parties because of powerful interests. We want to get rid of all that."
Ryan's comments come as President Obama dedicated his weekly address to encouraging Congress to eradicate oil subsidies.
"I do have a problem with the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies we've been handing out to oil and gas companies – to the tune of $4 billion a year," President Obama said in his address released on Saturday. "When oil companies are making huge profits and you're struggling at the pump, and we're scouring the federal budget for spending we can afford to do without, these tax giveaways aren't right. They aren't smart. And we need to end them."
Rep. Ryan insisted that his proposed budget would discourage these loopholes and eliminate them for industries beyond simply oil companies.
"What our budget does is we go after corporate welfare spending," Ryan told Amanpour. "There's corporate welfare spending on energy companies, both green and fossil energy companies. There's corporate welfare on large agri-business. There's corporate welfare on large financial companies. We want to get rid of all that corporate welfare."
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Aug 10, 2011 11:57:26 GMT -5
Palin said we can't afford subsidies before we could---"Asked Tuesday whether she supports the federal subsidy of ethanol, an always critical issue in the presidential nominating cycle, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin went one step further and called for the elimination of all energy subsidies. “I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be relooked at today and eliminated,” Palin told RCP during a quick stop at a coffee shop in this picturesque town tucked into the south-central Pennsylvania countryside. “And we need to make sure that we’re investing and allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products right now that aren’t going to necessitate subsidies because, bottom line, we can’t afford it.”"
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 10, 2011 11:59:19 GMT -5
We have been over this & over this. The bottom 50% pay their fair share when you take into account all federal taxes. Then the top 50% must pay their fair share and then some. Actually, none of the talking heads is talking about tax increases on the bottom 50%. In light of that, it's really not.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 10, 2011 12:03:09 GMT -5
I am just pointing out the hypocrisy in the republicans 2 beliefs - a problem that certain groups don't pay enough taxes & the hardline approach that we can't raise taxes. Actually, since the only tax increases mentioned by the talking heads is for the top 50% that already pay their fair share...and then some. In light of that, it's really not. So are you saying that the norquist tax pledge & this hardline approach against all tax increases actually only applies to tax increases on the top 50%? Does the norquist pledge say this or is everyone just supposed to know that is the case? Still seems a little hypocritical if after all this talk of no tax increases, republicans are only actually interested in protecting the top 50% from tax increases.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 10, 2011 12:30:09 GMT -5
So are you saying that the norquist tax pledge & this hardline approach against all tax increases actually only applies to tax increases on the top 50%? Who knows...I haven't read the pledge and couldn't care less about more empty promises made in some non-binding pledge by a bunch of talking heads that rarely keep their word anyway. I'm saying I believe when they say "no tax increases", they are talking about proposed income tax increases to soak the evil rich man (maybe they mean "all" who knows since I don't live in their head), not hypothetical tax increases that everybody with any common sense already knows will never even be proposed, never mind brought to the floor for a vote. It seems hypocritical to protect the ones likely to see any tax increases?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 10, 2011 13:19:01 GMT -5
It seems hypocritical to protect the ones likely to see any tax increases? No, it seems hypocritical to claim you are protecting everyone, if you are actually only planning on protecting the top 50%. The actually tax pledge reads: I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates. Personally, I take that to mean everyone won't have a tax increase even through reducing EITC or child tax credits. Maybe they only meant it to protect the top 50% from obama, but how can you sign such a pledge and then bitch that certain groups aren't paying enough in taxes? Seems a little stupid to promise to not raise taxes on anyone & then complain people aren't paying enough taxes.
|
|
ungenteel
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 20:26:26 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by ungenteel on Aug 11, 2011 0:16:34 GMT -5
<<that is precisely the point. and the point is not lost to anyone who has analyzed how we got out of the last Depression. >>
Please don't confuse the righties
|
|