| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| isobars wrote: | | He's simply trolling, and you bit. |
You're a funny guy, Mikey.
And nobody's laughing with you.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Faced with an argument, NW managed to come up with this:
| Quote: | | We're still fucked |
And I thought we had you guys actually thinking for a minute. Not Iso--he's going to blame the fraudulent loans that resulted from the Gramm deregulation of financial markets on easy money until he dies. But at some point it is important to have you guys do the math, and understand that the fiscal problems are shared--both in creation and in the necessity of compromise to find solutions. To have a seat at the table, and not have the leftish Democrats willing to run off the cliff because you won't actually negotiate, you need to learn to play nice on the playground. Listening would be a good start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac said: | Quote: | | To have a seat at the table, and not have the leftish Democrats willing to run off the cliff because you won't actually negotiate, you need to learn to play nice on the playground. |
Let's see - The left insists that the rich get taxed more by removing the Bush tax cuts, no exception.
The right at first insisted that there must not be any tax increase on the rich, but now are willing to increase taxes on the rich by eliminating some loop holes or by capping deductions.
Who here is willing to compromise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess I missed that in the news.
Both groups seem willing to compromise.Those caps are a vague idea rather than a proposal however. If they actually offer something a lot of people who paid a lot of money to Congressmen are going to freak out on them so they haven't given a real number for two years right up to today.
They both agree that the middle class Bush cut should continue. The Pres. wants to sign off anything that has agreement right away. So does the Senate.
The no votes to all proposals that make the Pres. look good are preventing House Repubs from voting yes to anything no matter how much they would otherwise agree.
Until that agenda, sometimes called the Tea Party Rule, is changed in the House all the rest is smoke and mirrors.
To position yourself correctly right now you need to support these things that obviously help the American people, while pleasing those who own you by having the agreements shot down by tne Teas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Techno--who here is willing to be serious? Certainly neither you nor Lindsey Graham, nor have you spruced up your math skills. Here from the New York Times editorial page:
| Quote: | Editorial
Still Dodging Reality on Taxes
Published: November 27, 2012
Congressional Republicans seem to think they are being flexible on taxes simply because a few of them have grudgingly admitted that some new revenues can be part of the current fiscal negotiations. We’re unimpressed.
No credit is due to a party that has suddenly accepted the obvious when it has no choice, particularly after two years of irresponsibly reducing the deficit only from the spending side. True flexibility means acknowledging that tax rates for the rich have to go up, and then negotiating how much and which ones. But, so far, Republicans have been just as closed to that reality as they have been for years, ignoring both the election results and the plain arithmetic of deficit reduction.
“No Republican will vote for higher tax rates,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, announced on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” recently.
Raising rates on the rich remains so taboo to party leaders that they have twisted themselves into knots to avoid it, coming up with several convoluted alternative schemes to bring in revenue just so they can tell their supporters that rates were left untouched. Most of them involve putting caps on popular deductions like the vital one for charitable donations. Apparently, Republicans are so wedded to keeping the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich that they would prefer to hurt charities and the vast nonprofit sector, which would inevitably suffer if donations from the rich could not be deducted.
A deduction limit also doesn’t raise very much money. Capping deductions at $50,000, as Senator Bob Corker, a Republican of Tennessee, has proposed, would raise only $727 billion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center, far less than the $1 trillion in revenues from ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Excluding the charitable deduction from that cap would raise only $473 billion.
In exchange for these nonconcessions, Republicans want vast cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that benefit the middle class and the poor.
Fortunately, President Obama is ignoring these head-fakes and holding firm to the principles that won him re-election. This week, he is embarking on a campaign to take his case to the public, meeting with middle-class taxpayers and visiting a toy company in Pennsylvania that he says would be hurt if a tax cut for middle- and lower-income levels isn’t restored.
So far, the House has refused to pass a Senate bill to keep those tax cuts, hoping to use them as leverage to preserve cuts for the rich. Speaker John Boehner even threatened yet again to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless he gets his way, another sign of how far Republican leaders are willing to go to cling to the failed policies of the past. |
Do the math and then make a proposal with some credibility before you start calling names. The Republicans have almost no leverage, and they are behaving like they have it all. I have no doubt that the Democrats would let the entire list of Bush cuts expire first.
The missing aspect of political reality is, of course, that there are lobbyists for each of the deductions, and eliminating or capping, for example home loan deductions, is almost certainly dead on arrival. Get some level of understanding of the political process if you want to be taken seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To be fair, techno900 did say that he would be willing to pay more if we all do. That represents some real acknowledgment on his part that new tax revenues will be needed, but we have to ask ourselves whether those in politics on the left and right could find agreement before the end of the year. Frankly, I don't think that will occur, especially when the Republicans can't even agree on letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire for those making over $200-250K. As I see it, at least at this juncture, both those on either the left or right don't want taxes to go up for those in the middle class because of the negative repercussions it might have on the recovery. While I think that it needs to happen now, that's not in the cards, unless we go over the cliff because no agreement can be reached by the end of the year.
Regarding the contrasting issues of letting the tax rates for those making in excess of $200-250K go up to the rates of the Clinton era versus capping deductions that folks might claim, I think that we should do both rather than one or the other. While I believe that contributions to charity could be considered exempt, as a minimum, there should be a cap on the mortgage deduction. As I've pointed out earlier, why should wealthy folks get to write off multi-million dollar mortgages, to include additional mortgages for multiple homes. Those kind of write offs exceed the reasonable bounds and the original intent to promote home ownership for average middle class Americans. In parallel, I also believe that property tax write-offs should be capped too. Why should folks owning 8 figure properties get such huge breaks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm betting on the guy who couldn't lead, but somehow managed to beat Romney in Ohio by 2%--the state everyone knew that Romney couldn't win without. The arrogance and ineptness of the Romney campaign was pretty much a preview of the kind of President he might have been. I think that he is way smarter than the Republican leadership, knows exactly what his leverage is, and what kind of a deal he can sell. I don't even think they know where their dick is after the election. Not headed for the White House, that's clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | | The right at first insisted that there must not be any tax increase on the rich, but now are willing to increase taxes on the rich by eliminating some loop holes or by capping deductions. |
That's no tax RATE increase, not no TAX increase. Romney has long openly advocated both closing loopholes and capping deductions. For example, whan an audience member asked Romney in the second debate with Obama what deductions would change for her, his answer was approximately but clearly and even repeated for clarity, "Up to the $25,000 cap, you get to chose whatever deductions benefit you best". Romney's consistent mantra was that regardless of just how the tax curve's shape is adjusted, the overall revenue would remain constant (military spending may have been included in the calculation; that part I've forgotten). Now the GOP has offered a slate of tax concessions, but only if the left will offer some spending cuts in return. The administration and Reid refuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I find hard to believe is that Republicans are thinking that we need to agree to spending cuts right now. There's what we need to do right now, and there's what might be accomplished in the months after the new year. It's a number of the various paths when we need to think about it over time.
One thing that doesn't seeming to get much play right now is the AMT tax, but ironically, it's arguably one of the most important short term issues that needs to be addressed before the end of the year. It's a no-brainer, but on wonders whether the Republicans can "unload" to give it the practical focus that is needs, especially because of the added millions that would be affected. The impact on the more robust middle class would be significant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mac says there must be compromise!
I give an example of the right offering a compromise.
Mac belittles the math.
The left offers NO compromise.
Gridlock! Gee, I wonder why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
