And so we begin... - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmbdiesel · #16 11-10-2012, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Hmm..... Was the country faced with $16T in debt, massive unemployment and such a massive deficit in those days? I don't think so.

The game today is different. One would hope that the POTUS, whoever he might be, would be able to figure that out and operate accordingly.

How do you think we got here, Larry?

Yes, the game is different, so should we not try doing something different?
At this point, the House is the only bulwark of opposition, and it is going to become real clear, real fast, that the R's are not interested in compromise or bipartisanship.
Expect Obama to press them as hard as ever. They have a choice, play ball, or be exposed as nothing more than an impediment to progress, which will kill them in the midterms.

Dubyagee · #17 11-10-2012, 08:42 AM

Seems to be the progressives wish. The house is going nowhere.

The system didnt completely fold as hoped and is still seeing to it that a few peoples politics dont crush the rest.

Only two years to convince the sheep that a correctly working system is at fault.

iPhone 4

link · #18 11-10-2012, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Obama is so intent on punishing the rich, just let him do it. Even if you took 100% of the income of the rich it would only represent about $250Billion. That's not enough to do much and it would shut down investment, in other words, no new jobs.

Tax increases for the masses will be easier to accept if the wealthy are perceived to be contributing more as well. The tax code being what it is, people who make, say $250K or more still have a lot of options to avoid paying taxes. If it costs this income group another 2-5 thousand dollars a year (a made up number range), it won’t really be missed or damaging to the life style and will most definately not reduce investment. i'm pretty sure that the opposite will happen.

elchivito · #19 11-10-2012, 09:11 AM

The purpose of the Bush cuts was to stimulate investment and jobs iirc. As it didn't work and was designed to be a temporary cut, I see no reason to continue it. A 39 percent rate. The horror! Up from what, 35?
Punish the rich indeed.

SwampYankee · #20 11-10-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by link

Tax increases for the masses will be easier to accept if the wealthy are perceived to be contributing more as well. The tax code being what it is, people who make, say $250K or more still have a lot of options to avoid paying taxes. If it costs this income group another 2-5 thousand dollars a year (a made up number range), it won’t really be missed or damaging to the life style and will most definately not reduce investment. i'm pretty sure that the opposite will happen.

I don't disagree. However the resulting influx of tax revenue would be akin to pissing into a lake.

If we assume 2.5% of taxpayers make $250K+, it's probably a little less, that would be 3,500,000 taxpayers (out of roughly 140,000,000+ total). There aren't enough of them.

That doesn't mean don't do it, just that there's a lot more that would need to be done. That $250K threshold would need to be much lower or the tax increase much higher to even start moving that needle when you're talking multiple to tens of Trillions.

If decreases in increases result in cries and shouts of cuts and slashing, the chances of actual budget cuts are slim to none. Essentially we have a lot of bluster from either side of the aisle, each claiming to be the ones to fix the deficit problem, but neither willing to concede that tax increases and actual budget cuts will be necessary if they really want to do something about the deficit and not just build up a cache of talking points for future use.

I have zero faith in either side to spend the necessary political capital needed to fix it. When the Republicans concede that tax increases & real cuts to the defense budget and the Democrats concede that real cuts to social programs are going to be needed, after I'm done plowing the driveways in hell, I'll believe they're truly serious about it. Unfortunately those concessions are detrimental to their re-election chances so I don't think I'll be needing that snowplow.

cullennewsom · #21 11-10-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

I don't disagree. However the resulting influx of tax revenue would be akin to pissing into a lake.

That's not a good argument for giving them a pass. Call it having some skin in the game.

SwampYankee · #22 11-10-2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennewsom

That's not a good argument for giving them a pass. Call it having some skin in the game.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

That doesn't mean don't do it, just that there's a lot more that would need to be done.

Everyone needs to have some skin in the game if we're going to get out of the mess Washington got us into.

oldsinner111 · #23 11-10-2012, 12:39 PM

I'll pay a extra 24 cent on a gallon of gas to help the government.Let the rich taxes stay the same,just pass the damn Bush cuts

retmil46 · #24 11-10-2012, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

I don't disagree. However the resulting influx of tax revenue would be akin to pissing into a lake.

If we assume 2.5% of taxpayers make $250K+, it's probably a little less, that would be 3,500,000 taxpayers (out of roughly 140,000,000+ total). There aren't enough of them.

That doesn't mean don't do it, just that there's a lot more that would need to be done. That $250K threshold would need to be much lower or the tax increase much higher to even start moving that needle when you're talking multiple to tens of Trillions.

If decreases in increases result in cries and shouts of cuts and slashing, the chances of actual budget cuts are slim to none. Essentially we have a lot of bluster from either side of the aisle, each claiming to be the ones to fix the deficit problem, but neither willing to concede that tax increases and actual budget cuts will be necessary if they really want to do something about the deficit and not just build up a cache of talking points for future use.

I have zero faith in either side to spend the necessary political capital needed to fix it. When the Republicans concede that tax increases & real cuts to the defense budget and the Democrats concede that real cuts to social programs are going to be needed, after I'm done plowing the driveways in hell, I'll believe they're truly serious about it. Unfortunately those concessions are detrimental to their re-election chances so I don't think I'll be needing that snowplow.

Agreed.

I'm beginning to think that in the end analysis, it might actually do more good than harm in the long run if they did let the automatic spending cuts happen on Jan 2nd - that might finally be what it takes to make some people on both sides of the aisle, in the country as a whole, to wake the eff up and realize just how serious this is.

When it's gotten to the point that the level of government spending, and the number of people on the government payroll, can have THAT BIG of an effect on the economy, things are way out of whack.

Hatterasguy · #25 11-10-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

I don't disagree. However the resulting influx of tax revenue would be akin to pissing into a lake.

If we assume 2.5% of taxpayers make $250K+, it's probably a little less, that would be 3,500,000 taxpayers (out of roughly 140,000,000+ total). There aren't enough of them.

That doesn't mean don't do it, just that there's a lot more that would need to be done. That $250K threshold would need to be much lower or the tax increase much higher to even start moving that needle when you're talking multiple to tens of Trillions.

If decreases in increases result in cries and shouts of cuts and slashing, the chances of actual budget cuts are slim to none. Essentially we have a lot of bluster from either side of the aisle, each claiming to be the ones to fix the deficit problem, but neither willing to concede that tax increases and actual budget cuts will be necessary if they really want to do something about the deficit and not just build up a cache of talking points for future use.

I have zero faith in either side to spend the necessary political capital needed to fix it. When the Republicans concede that tax increases & real cuts to the defense budget and the Democrats concede that real cuts to social programs are going to be needed, after I'm done plowing the driveways in hell, I'll believe they're truly serious about it. Unfortunately those concessions are detrimental to their re-election chances so I don't think I'll be needing that snowplow.

They are not going to fix the problem until they are forced to, look at Greece for example. Even when bankruptcy is looking the Greek politicians in the face they only slowly move to try to do anything meaningful.

Things will change in this country at the 11th hour when their is no further way to delay it, and the politicians are more worried about their safety from the people they screwed over than getting re elected.

SwampYankee · #26 11-10-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

They are not going to fix the problem until they are forced to, look at Greece for example. Even when bankruptcy is looking the Greek politicians in the face they only slowly move to try to do anything meaningful.

Things will change in this country at the 11th hour when their is no further way to delay it, and the politicians are more worried about their safety from the people they screwed over than getting re elected.

Nope, they won't do a damn thing about it. They'd lose a valuable campaign tool and that's their main concern. Talking about fixing it is as close they'll get.

Hatterasguy · #27 11-10-2012, 09:16 PM

Because they are politicians and not Statesmen.

Churchill expressed this very well. The difference is sometimes Statesmen know better than what the common person does and do things that benefit them that they don't fully understand.

IE a contemporary example would be fixing our fiscal problems at the expense of the election, because the common person would probably be pissed at the short term consequence.