How We Got Here
-
The articles get posted because at this point, in order to have any chance of getting through the layers of protective casing Republicans have encircled themselves in, you have to post something written by a Republican, preferably one who worked for Reagan. Otherwise, it's just the "librul media, blah, blah." Like Steve said the other day, based on nothing in particular, he just doesn't trust us to be honest. Okay. Well, then here's Bruce Bartlett, one of the few conservatives who hasn't lost his marbles, and who doesn't think tax cuts solve every problem from deficits to herpes. Here he is laying out the numbers on what cost what, and who is responsible for what costs. This is all we're trying to do. Like with those graphs from before, we're just trying to see if anyone can get on board with something other than "Obama's out-of-control spending ruined us" and to see what actually is driving the deficits.
And this? "Obama wants to raise taxes and has proposed tax hikes. That hits the economy in a very similar manner to currently raising taxes." Really? I know what your point is, but this is overstated. First of all, you'd have to specify which hikes you're talking about. And if you're talking about the top rate hike, then you're really overstating things.
Also, what regulations, other than the ones in the health care bill, do you find so onerous?
-
And get in the global warming thread. Let's play.
-
The articles get posted because at this point, in order to have any chance of getting through the layers of protective casing Republicans have encircled themselves in, you have to post something written by a Republican, preferably one who worked for Reagan. Otherwise, it's just the "librul media, blah, blah." Like Steve said the other day, based on nothing in particular, he just doesn't trust us to be honest. Okay. Well, then here's Bruce Bartlett, one of the few conservatives who hasn't lost his marbles, and who doesn't think tax cuts solve every problem from deficits to herpes. Here he is laying out the numbers on what cost what, and who is responsible for what costs. This is all we're trying to do. Like with those graphs from before, we're just trying to see if anyone can get on board with something other than "Obama's out-of-control spending ruined us" and to see what actually is driving the deficits.
And this? "Obama wants to raise taxes and has proposed tax hikes. That hits the economy in a very similar manner to currently raising taxes." Really? I know what your point is, but this is overstated. First of all, you'd have to specify which hikes you're talking about. And if you're talking about the top rate hike, then you're really overstating things.
Also, what regulations, other than the ones in the health care bill, do you find so onerous?
The articles get posted because at this point, in order to have any chance of getting through the layers of protective casing Republicans have encircled themselves in, you have to post something written by a Republican, preferably one who worked for Reagan. Otherwise, it's just the "librul media, blah, blah." Like Steve said the other day, based on nothing in particular, he just doesn't trust us to be honest. Okay. Well, then here's Bruce Bartlett, one of the few conservatives who hasn't lost his marbles, and who doesn't think tax cuts solve every problem from deficits to herpes. Here he is laying out the numbers on what cost what, and who is responsible for what costs. This is all we're trying to do. Like with those graphs from before, we're just trying to see if anyone can get on board with something other than "Obama's out-of-control spending ruined us" and to see what actually is driving the deficits.
And this? "Obama wants to raise taxes and has proposed tax hikes. That hits the economy in a very similar manner to currently raising taxes." Really? I know what your point is, but this is overstated. First of all, you'd have to specify which hikes you're talking about. And if you're talking about the top rate hike, then you're really overstating things.
Also, what regulations, other than the ones in the health care bill, do you find so onerous?
You mightve heard of Dodd-Frank. Put that and ACA together and you've got thousands of pages of unintelligible regulatory mandates. It's a problem. And it is costing an incredible amount of money already.
Closing corporate loopholes without lowering rates, raising taxes on cap gains and carried interest, raising the top rate (and applying it to a varying group of earners), uncapping payroll taxes, Medicare bonus tax, removing tax deductibility of state taxes... just off the top of my head. And then we end up in the gray area of what he says he wants to do v. what he would do if he had a Democratic Congress. Though I suppose the latter is off the table for the time being.
-
Yes, Dodd-Frank has new regulations in it, and yes sometimes those regulations cost money. That tells us nothing about whether they're good regulations or needlessly expensive. And if you're the banking industry, unintelligible is what you want. You can drive a truck through unintelligible. Complexity is your friend.
I'm not suggesting that we wade through Dodd-Frank and decide whether we need, say, resolution authority and stronger capital requirements and more transparency (sound like good ideas to me) and then discuss what that entails on paper, but saying that a bill designed to address (supposedly) the ways in which we would avert another meltdown of the financial system has regulations in it... well, of course it does.
As for the taxes you listed, I'm just not nearly as convinced - nor do I think the business community is convinced - that these are all just around the corner, or even large enough to hit the economy well before they're even enacted, even if you assumed they would be enacted. Of all the problems with the economy right now, tax hike uncertainty seems pretty far down the list, especially when we're talking about raising top rates on high earners or capital gains bumps. Uncapping payroll taxes isn't happening, and carried interest probably isn't either. These specters aren't what's holding us back. If there's any sense that future taxes are going to have to go up I'd say it comes from the understanding of our fiscal situation, and the knowledge that at some point taxes are going to have to go up. They can do the math just like anyone else can.
My big complaint is that the Democrats don't have their own version of tax reform beyond campaign stunts and Volcker rules, and they really just end up defending the status quo, or adding to it. They're just out of ideas. It's just a party that does interest group politics, and campaign season has only stripped away whatever veneer they'd slapped on that sad reality. There's no vision there. And if Obama doesn't come up with something his supporters can circle around soon I think he may very well lose. I don't think "Republicans want to go back to Bush" and Romney's loathsome personality are going to be enough.
I mean, hire more firefighters and cops and teachers? This is the new big idea? Jesus...
-
One small example:
when Obamao spoke plain out that his plan would make energy prices skyrocket.....
the affect on corps - was concern - and long term apprehension.
That was counter-productive to the goal of getting America back on track.
But all sorts of companies sat back and had to wonder - they would be
seriously hit hugely if that happened. When Obamao spoke of "spreading the wealth"
by going after the wealthy - corporations heard that. That's another example
of Obamao pandering to leftist interests, while making the wrong moves to help the economy.
That's party how we got here. That's on Obamao, because of his own words.
But Heck posted this, and it is excellent stuff:
"My big complaint is that the Democrats don't have their own version of tax reform beyond campaign stunts and Volcker rules, and they really just end up defending the status quo, or adding to it. They're just out of ideas. It's just a party that does interest group politics, and campaign season has only stripped away whatever veneer they'd slapped on that sad reality. There's no vision there. And if Obama doesn't come up with something his supporters can circle around soon I think he may very well lose. I don't think "Republicans want to go back to Bush" and Romney's loathsome personality are going to be enough.
I mean, hire more firefighters and cops and teachers? This is the new big idea? Jesus..."
-
Serious question:
Who among you actually wants to raise cap gains to match the top income tax brackets?
WSS
-
I think capital gains rates should be raised. I don't know what you mean by "to match the top income bracket." I don't know who is proposing that.
-
Isn'the buffet rule exactly that?
to make cap gains equal to your income bracket?
WSS
-
No, it's not.
-
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
So explain to me what is behind the empty suit honking about buffets secretary?
I'll give you time to look up some left wing websites.
WSS
-
It's a 30% tax floor.
-
It's a 30% tax floor.
It's a 30% tax floor.
Pretty much what I said.
Basically doubling cap games to approximate the higher tax brackets.
Gosh hard to see what would be anti investment about that.
WSS
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