Clinton Apologises
-
Woa! Steve, YOU'RE almost 65.
-
If Clinton said so something you didn't agree with would his time as president still have made him wiser on your eyes?
Are you asking me?
I'd say yes.
I'd say 8 years as president certainly gives you an insiggt that most others wouldn't have whether or not I agree with the ideology. That's 1 reason I'd have preferred hillary to obama.
That's not why I posed the question.
I think the obama team knows that repealing those tax cuts would be a kick in the economy's balls.
That's why he extended them the last time.
But he's smart enough to know that he has to keep up the occupy wall street rhetoric.
Clinton give an honest answer and the democrats slapped him down.
I was only surprised that he bent over so quickly.
And it was hilarious that the dems suggested he was senile....
WSS
I think the obama team knows that repealing those tax cuts would be a kick in the economy's balls.
That's really not what the economy depends on. This is a myth and I don't think they believe it at all.
It might help slightly to keep those tax cuts in place for a spell, but to suggest that without them we're going to kick the economy in the balls is ridiculous. Plus, all Clinton was saying is that we should re-up them now to get a deal done so we don't have a crisis. He doesn't believe they should be extended permanently. That was his next sentence.
You do remember the 90s, right? When there was this president who wanted to raise top rates and all the Republicans and their minions predicted economic calamity because this was taking money out of the hands of job creators and putting it in the hands of government? And they didn't give Clinton one single vote for it? Remember that?
I'm pretty sure that was Bill Clinton.
And then the economy didn't get kicked in the balls, and the additional revenue helped close the budget gap. But why not try to break out that same argument all over again? Who can remember the 90s, after all?
-
What are you talking about Heck?
Politicians clearly know more about the economy than economists
-
Never said the economy depended on it.
just saying it would slow things down and they didn't want to be the guys to do it.
I also don't think repealing them would be any boost at all, probably the opposite.
if team obama thought that it would have helped they could have repealed them on day 1.
you only need 51 percent for a budgetary matter.
they want the issue, not the tax rate hike.
WSS
-
What are you talking about Heck?
Politicians clearly know more about the economy than economists
What are you talking about Heck?
Politicians clearly know more about the economy than economists
Oh get off it woody.
Different economists have different ideas and all politicians turn to them for advice.
WSS
-
Never said the economy depended on it.
just saying it would slow things down and they didn't want to be the guys to do it.
I also don't think repealing them would be any boost at all, probably the opposite.
if team obama thought that it would have helped they could have repealed them on day 1.
you only need 51 percent for a budgetary matter.
they want the issue, not the tax rate hike.
WSS
Never said the economy depended on it.
just saying it would slow things down and they didn't want to be the guys to do it.
I also don't think repealing them would be any boost at all, probably the opposite.
if team obama thought that it would have helped they could have repealed them on day 1.
you only need 51 percent for a budgetary matter.
they want the issue, not the tax rate hike.
WSS
Well, you kind of are. You're saying without those low rates on top earners it would kick the economy in the balls. I don't think that's true.
As for the issue, I think you're right about that. It's one of the few things that polls really well. Though you're not remembering that they did push to repeal the Bush cuts for high earners, then relented to gain votes from Republican and conservative Dems.
I'd ask you: don't you think it's a little strange that all of these exact same arguments were made when Clinton wanted to raise the rates, and they didn't have the effects on growth that Republicans claimed they would, and the economy did just fine, and yet they're all out again making the exact same argument?
-
Well I don't know how many people you can muster up to claim that a huge across the board tax hike wouldn't be a drag on the economy.
And I think we'd both agree that either way it's not a panacea or an armageddon.
Why do I think obama refused to do it in his first couple years when it would have been a piece of cake?
Because if the economy had responded as slowly as it has he'd have been blamed.
Of course every politician once more tax dollars just throw at his constituents.
Who wouldn't want to hold on to a cake job?
I also think the republicans have given the democrats an out.
Reform the text code, eliminate deductions and you get more revenue then just raising be marginal rate.
But both sides are invested in this game of chicken.
By the way to the politics of it had I been on stage and was asked If Id accept 1 dollar tax hike for 9 dollars spending reduction?
I'd say hell yes. Put your money where your mouth is show me the real cuts not just a shell game and I'll give you a buck for every nine.
it probably won't ever happen so I'd never be painted into that corner.
WSS
-
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
-
Well I don't know how many people you can muster up to claim that a huge across the board tax hike wouldn't be a drag on the economy.
And I think we'd both agree that either way it's not a panacea or an armageddon.
Why do I think obama refused to do it in his first couple years when it would have been a piece of cake?
Because if the economy had responded as slowly as it has he'd have been blamed.
Of course every politician once more tax dollars just throw at his constituents.
Who wouldn't want to hold on to a cake job?
I also think the republicans have given the democrats an out.
Reform the text code, eliminate deductions and you get more revenue then just raising be marginal rate.
But both sides are invested in this game of chicken.
By the way to the politics of it had I been on stage and was asked If Id accept 1 dollar tax hike for 9 dollars spending reduction?
I'd say hell yes. Put your money where your mouth is show me the real cuts not just a shell game and I'll give you a buck for every nine.
it probably won't ever happen so I'd never be painted into that corner.
WSS
Well I don't know how many people you can muster up to claim that a huge across the board tax hike wouldn't be a drag on the economy.
And I think we'd both agree that either way it's not a panacea or an armageddon.
Why do I think obama refused to do it in his first couple years when it would have been a piece of cake?
Because if the economy had responded as slowly as it has he'd have been blamed.
Of course every politician once more tax dollars just throw at his constituents.
Who wouldn't want to hold on to a cake job?
I also think the republicans have given the democrats an out.
Reform the text code, eliminate deductions and you get more revenue then just raising be marginal rate.
But both sides are invested in this game of chicken.
By the way to the politics of it had I been on stage and was asked If Id accept 1 dollar tax hike for 9 dollars spending reduction?
I'd say hell yes. Put your money where your mouth is show me the real cuts not just a shell game and I'll give you a buck for every nine.
it probably won't ever happen so I'd never be painted into that corner.
WSS
I don't know if you intentionally tried to muddy the waters there, but either way that's what you did. I'd certainly agree, as would just about every economist, that a "huge across the board tax hike" would be a drag on the economy right now. But no one is talking about a huge tax hike, or an across the board tax hike, or a huge across the board tax hike. They're talking about raising the top rates back to where they were under Clinton as a way to help increase revenue in a time of massive deficits Republicans and Tea Party members supposedly care so much about.
So I'll ask again: don't you think it's a little strange that all of these exact same arguments were made when Clinton wanted to raise the top rates, and they didn't have the effects on growth that Republicans claimed they would, and the economy did just fine, and yet they're all out again making the exact same argument?
-
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
-
Nope.
First because the tax no tax kabuki dance has been going on for centuries.
But mainly because nothing is really all that easy to discuss in hindsight.
It was a different bubble and a different set of circumstances then.
So how big an improvement in today's economy do you expect we'd had if obama changed the taxes on day 1? And you can use your own current talking point scenario, just hit the rich?
Would we be where we are now? Better? Or worse?
WSS
-
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
His acolytes should be embarrassed.....
But come on, you don't think obama care is a huge step forward in the history of the united states?
Even if you say you don't, I'm pretty sure the president and his gang do.
WSS
-
think the first sentence is clearly wrong.
**********************************
Feeble minded Heck translation:
"I'm the last man standing on earth who thinks Obamao is non-partisan and I'm stupid, yes."
***********************************
The second sentence is embarrassing.
***********************************
Feeble minded Heck translation
"I'm going to love Obamaocare, and I know it's constitutional, even if the U.S. Supreme Court says it isn't,
because I lick Obamao's toes for a paycheck"
***********************************
And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
************************************
Feeble minded Heck translation
"Obamao is my perfect boyfriend, and by damn, I won't admit he's European Socialist minded,
even if the rest of the universe knows better, because I'm paid to be a liberal, I'm born to be a liberal,
and even if Obamao orders the U.S. Constitution null and void, it will be a good thing.
*************************************
Cal could have typed that.
*************************************
Feeble minded Heck translation
"whine" Steve always kicks my ass. Cal does, T does, Bunker does, John does, Diehard does, Ballpeen does, Lady Z does,
and almost everybody else... kicks my ass, too. That's why I love me my Little Johnnie Woodpecker, and gas passing Vapor. I wish Shep
and mz the pussy the pussy would come back. whine"
-
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
His acolytes should be embarrassed.....
But come on, you don't think obama care is a huge step forward in the history of the united states?
Even if you say you don't, I'm pretty sure the president and his gang do.
WSS
His acolytes should be embarrassed.....
But come on, you don't think obama care is a huge step forward in the history of the united states?
Even if you say you don't, I'm pretty sure the president and his gang do.
WSS
I wouldn't say it's a huge step forward, no. I think it's an improvement. You're still going to have a very expensive system, but at least most Americans would be covered under it. Nobody got what they wanted out of it, it was a series of deals and victories and capitulations from beginning to end, so I don't imagine you've captured the mood in the West Wing correctly either.
I don't think you're very good at imagining what other people believe or think.
-
Nope.
First because the tax no tax kabuki dance has been going on for centuries.
But mainly because nothing is really all that easy to discuss in hindsight.
It was a different bubble and a different set of circumstances then.
So how big an improvement in today's economy do you expect we'd had if obama changed the taxes on day 1? And you can use your own current talking point scenario, just hit the rich?
Would we be where we are now? Better? Or worse?
WSS
Nope.
First because the tax no tax kabuki dance has been going on for centuries.
But mainly because nothing is really all that easy to discuss in hindsight.
It was a different bubble and a different set of circumstances then.
So how big an improvement in today's economy do you expect we'd had if obama changed the taxes on day 1? And you can use your own current talking point scenario, just hit the rich?
Would we be where we are now? Better? Or worse?
WSS
My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.
So nobody is discussing my policy preferences. Paul Ryan, for all of his bullshit, is at least entertaining the idea that the whole tax code needs to be simplified and overhauled. And that's about as much good you can say about Paul Ryan's plan.
But one of the greatest things holding us back from having a sensible discussion about tax reform is the Republican insistence that what keeps us from darkest night are low rates on the wealthy, and the party's complete unwillingness to understand that we simply need to bring in more revenue than we do now in order to tackle the long-term deficit. And part of that means taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than we do now. But quite the contrary, you've got a whole party, from leaders on down to the base, who scream about deficits and debt (when they're not in office) and then promote policies that everyone with a brain knows are going to make the problem even worse.
The mainstream Republican view on tax and budgetary policy is just fantasy mixed with idiocy. There's just no way around it.
So you want to know what happens if we reclaimed some revenue by putting the top rates back up where we were under Clinton? Not much. The economy would take a small, mostly negligible hit, and the budget picture would be slightly improved, but not nearly enough.
And that's the current state of debate for you: much ado about nothing important.
But again, ask yourself how serious the Republican Party is about deficit reduction if they won't even agree to any increases in revenue, all while saying the tax code sucks. Translation: the tax code sucks. Now let's not change a thing in the tax code, because it's perfect as is, except for the part where we tax rich people.
-
How serious?
I would say it's not very serious if your only trump card is raising that rate.
Just because it polls well with the great unwashed.
And who cares if that pittance comes from raising the rate for closing a loophole?
But if we can untangle ourselves from the non serious plans of the 2 parties I personally have no gripe with raising that rate a tad if there were some real remember I said real cuts to go along.
And using that money to take a bite out of the debt.
But I simply don't trust you guys.
It seems to me that first and foremost the democrats are dying to use the broken tax pledge like they did on bush 1.
If anyone were serious simpson bowles would have gotten more traction.
WSS
-
His acolytes should be embarrassed.....
But come on, you don't think obama care is a huge step forward in the history of the united states?
Even if you say you don't, I'm pretty sure the president and his gang do.
WSS
I wouldn't say it's a huge step forward, no. I think it's an improvement. You're still going to have a very expensive system, but at least most Americans would be covered under it. Nobody got what they wanted out of it, it was a series of deals and victories and capitulations from beginning to end, so I don't imagine you've captured the mood in the West Wing correctly either.
I don't think you're very good at imagining what other people believe or think.
I don't think you're very good at imagining what other people believe or think.
And I don't think you are particularly honest about it.
WSS
-
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
-
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
No. Not at all.
People make the mistake of thinking the complex part of the tax code are the different tax rates, and if we go to a flat tax that makes everything more simple, when actually the simplest part of the tax code are the different rates. The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs - that's the complex part. That's what fills up all of those pages in the tax code.
This part fits on to a page or two:
10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%,
35%.
-
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
No. Not at all.
People make the mistake of thinking the complex part of the tax code are the different tax rates, and if we go to a flat tax that makes everything more simple, when actually the simplest part of the tax code are the different rates. The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs - that's the complex part. That's what fills up all of those pages in the tax code.
This part fits on to a page or two:
10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%,
35%.
No. Not at all.
People make the mistake of thinking the complex part of the tax code are the different tax rates, and if we go to a flat tax that makes everything more simple, when actually the simplest part of the tax code are the different rates. The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs - that's the complex part. That's what fills up all of those pages in the tax code.
This part fits on to a page or two:
10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%,
35%.
Heck, I am talking about removing "The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs".
Do it on a post card: You pay x.
I'll even make it a bit progressive: if you make x you pay y%; if you make 1.25x you pay z% and so on.
PS And you get to lay off many people working for the IRS and, more importantly - perhaps - is lowering demand for tax attorneys.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login