Just so we’re clear, we all understand these tax hikes would accomplish zilch, right?

posted at 2:41 pm on November 13, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

And I quote:

But as I’ve said before, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue. And that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes. … That’s how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy. …

Now, already, I’ve put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. I want to be clear: I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan. I’m open to compromise. I’m open to new ideas. I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenges.

But I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced. I am not going to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes.

Yes, by all means, let’s be serious — and acknowledge that tax hikes on the wealthiest among us is not going to accomplish anything even remotely meaningful in terms of long-term deficit reduction. Talking about how expensive the two wars have been and ginning up populist resentments (Obama likes to add the “rich people like me” bit to fend off claims of class-warmongering, but the “fairness” implication is of course still there) while consistently failing to produce any concrete plans except on how the government can spend more money, is not a solution. The hit on economic growth that will come at the cost of steepening our already graduated income tax is a much less effective way of increasing revenue than the lowered taxes that would allow the economy to grow at a more robust rate and bring more people into the middle and upper tax brackets (and with the president’s proposed arrangements, we can count on more of the same economic stagnation that only adds people to the food stamp/unemployment benefits/etcetera welfare rolls and deepens our fiscal woe).

As Conn Carroll aptly reminds us, sure, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthy could bring in as much as $824 billion over ten years (which, given that it’s from the CBO, I’d wager is a somewhat rosy estimate). But when you put that in the context of, oh yeah, Obama’s been running up trillion-dollar deficits every year of his presidency, you can see what a hugely insurmountable problem this is.

I merely highlight this all again because this is what the lame-duck Congress that reconvened today has already started fighting about. President Obama can certainly talk a good game about being open to entitlement reform and compromise, rabble rabble rabble, but his declaration that “we cannot cut our way to prosperity” is just plain wrong. We can, and we should cut our way to prosperity — not because we want to take benefits away from people who currently need them, but because we want to create opportunities for people so that they don’t need those benefits anymore. This pattern of insanely frivolous government spending, as if the Obama administration somehow knows how to spend and allocate our money better than we do in bringing about economic growth, is not the answer.

But no matter, it’s all going to be pinned on those dastardly Republicans, no matter what happens. Oof.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

”Well, the math stuff I was fine with up until about seventh grade,” Barack Obama

EnglishRogue on November 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Less than a band-aid.

It’s more like picking a scab just as the wound is trying to heal, and letting the bleeding continue unabated.

UltimateBob on November 13, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Let them have 50% taxes on the rich. Go for it. All in.

faraway on November 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Absolutely. Which is exactly why I think the GOP should go ahead and give them to him.

If I were Boehner, I’d ask the President to write the legislation. Then, I’d address it on the floor of the House, allowing every member the chance to speak out against it, and make it clear that they have no fairytale dreams that it’s going to do anything to help the economy beyond one or two years.

Then I’d pass it.

If we continue to fight this particular point -taxes on the rich- we’ll continue to lose elections. We have to let America get what they voted for. Stop protecting the idiots that cast their vote for recession. Let them have one, and let Obama and progressive economists own it.

Then we can finally start the healing process.

BKeyser on November 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Notice Obama talks about reducing the deficit … not the national debt. He still plans on borrowing a massive amount of money, probably close to or over a trillion every year for the next ten years. That’s his plan.

darwin on November 13, 2012 at 2:47 PM

And to clarify my above comment- the only “help” this will provide the economy is a short-lived increase in revenue. It’ll surely be spent. It won’t reduce the deficit or the debt. And it’ll only last until people figure out where to park their money so it’s untouchable by the IRS.

I wasn’t trying to indicate that his was actually a plan with any sort of corrective element to it. It will harm the economy.

BKeyser on November 13, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Dear leader not going to work with Congress hes going to take his case to the people and blame gop for not working with him

Talking trash but not going to get anything done and there’s already a poll out that says if nothing gets done the gop will be blamed
This dude doesn’t have to do squat for the next 4 years….the lsm has his back

cmsinaz on November 13, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Cuts are great–not just for balancing the budget, but also reduces how much the government displaces “real” demand and drives up prices.

But cutting spending alone won’t, in my opinion, be enough to spark economic growth. We also have to get rid of the crushing and imminently-even-heavier regulatory system. Liberals can argue that increased government spending is at worst economically neutral, but nobody can refute the fact that most of the regulations we have are purely parasitic.

Mohonri on November 13, 2012 at 2:51 PM

And folks want us to be like the dems?

I don’t think so

cmsinaz on November 13, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You know that, I know that, most conservatives know that…..

Even some liberals know that – they don’t care – it’s all about “fairness”…..

The rich already pay more than their fair share….

The rich should sell as much as they can and stop giving to charities….

If the rich have foundations, etc – they should liquidate and shut them down….

Let the government be overrun with liberal zombies once all the food pantries for the poor shut down….

My first raids will be on the poorly defended food pantries….

All low security facilities will be the next targets – business’s owned by democrats will be first on the list.

redguy on November 13, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You do know that when the sheeples see that extracting blood from a rock(taxing the rich into oblivion), isn’t changing their meager lives, PBHO will just redefine the evil rich to be anyone with reportable income.

Then, and only then, will some of the sheeples start to think that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to practice Affirmative Action with the Office of the Presidency.

belad on November 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

As Conn Carroll aptly reminds us, sure, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthy could bring in as much as $824 billion over ten years (which, given that it’s from the CBO, I’d wager is a somewhat rosy estimate). But when you put that in the context of, oh yeah, Obama’s been running up trillion-dollar deficits every year of his presidency, you can see what a hugely insurmountable problem this is.

To borrow a buzzword, “revenue neutral.” In other words, in a purely static analysis, the tax hike could raise less than one years deficit worth of revenue over the course of 10 years at best, which is laughably tiny.

But it’s not a static world, and raising the taxes will not raise one cent of revenue because the economy will actually slow down due to the tax hike more than enough to offset any gain.

You can’t explain that to these people, of course. These are people who still can’t grasp that a business can make more money by cutting prices.

tom on November 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

the Congressional Budget Office has projected that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthy could bring in as much as $824 billion over ten years

Which is $82.4 billion a year, versus $1.4 trillion annual deficit, or at best, 5%.

rbj on November 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Francios Hollande makes a great role model Barry, I wont argue…you guys won, 75% or bust!

NY Conservative on November 13, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Tax and spend… Nothing new under the sun… Obama is just another socialist that has been advocating the same crap since Woodrow Wilson, going through FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Let it burn….

jawkneemusic on November 13, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Let them have 50% taxes on the rich. Go for it. All in.

faraway on November 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Starting with Hollywood, the recording industry, Silicon Valley and Seattle, Pro sports (beginning with basketball – hockey players last, lunch pail guys that they are), private college endowment funds and lobbyist firms.

Did I forget anyone?

Make. Them. Scream.

Bruno Strozek on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Perhaps it would have helped if the Republicans had cut ads pointing out that the Democrats’ tax plans will only reduce the Obama deficit from about $1.2T to about $1.1T?

Oh, and start calling it the Obama deficit.

18-1 on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Yeah, we understand that. That’s the whole point of caving on this one issue. It negates the “GOP are for the rich” talking point of the Dems and undercuts their entire economic message which is that everything will be fine if we just force upper income people to pay just a little bit more.

Now I would like Boehner to get at least some cuts in return for caving, don’t get me wrong. But we need to start thinking long-term with these political showdowns. Obama knew exactly what he was doing in 2011 when he had that debt ceiling deal on the table from Boehner with $800 billion in new revenue over 10 years and promptly rejected it. He was thinking about 2012 and how he could run against the Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney(who was the presumed frontrunner at the time). And it worked perfectly.

Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Here’s what Boehner should do: pass a conditional tax hike on the rich, with a sunset clause if it doesn’t produce the expected revenue. Word it something like this:

“The highest tax bracket will be 39.5%. If tax revenue from those making > $1m /year does not increase by an average of xxx% (adjustef for inflation) over the next 5 years, this rate will permanently revert to 35% beginning with the 2018 fiscal year.”

That puts the democrats in a tough spot–either vote against it (and therefore be voting for “tax cuts for the rich”), or vote for it, and when it fails to deliver the promised revenue, watch the lower rates become permanent.

Mohonri on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Allow all cuts to expire and enforce sequestration. Let it burn!

a capella on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

The actual government budget today calls for $2.5 Trillion income and $3.8 Trillion payout, for a deficit of $1.33 Trillion. The IRS says they collected $2.45 Trillion, leaving us $1.4 Trillion in new debt this year.

Obama has two basic choices. He can reduce his spending by $1.4 Trillion to bring the budget in line with revenue, or increase everyone’s taxes by 56% to cover his expenses. In context of anemic economic growth, continuing inflation and devaluation of currency, and government welfare demands, the tax increase rate will quickly reach well over 56%.

Question to us average tax payers is, given those who still have jobs in this economy and experiencing an average economic advance of 1.5%, are we ready to jump in and shoulder a 56% increase in our average tax burden?

Here’s the final kicker …. numbers above do not include the costs of Obummercare because we don’t really know yet how it will actually cost.

Lawrence on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

This all goes back to that moment in the primary debate when the moderator actually pointed out that tax cuts sometimes generate more revenues than tax increases, and Obama flat out said he didn’t care, it was a matter of fairness.

Progressive Heretic on November 13, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Of coarse we know this I think they know this and expect us to defend no new taxes to no end.

The Republican House is facing a no win situation.
Stick to their guns and the Obama media will crucify them blaming them for the coming recession and their majority will be lost in 14.

Or give in, give Obama most of what he wants but with the understanding Obama will own all of economic downturn. Then the right will crucify them and the media will still blame them, except it will be they were not the grown ups in the room.

maddmatt on November 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM

If you wan tto do something about the debt let the sequester stand and let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire.

Yes, there are better ways to solve the problem(IT is the biggest problem we have) but at least it will get us closer to a balanced budget.

Tater Salad on November 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Sound policy and economics have never been the basis for their desire to raise taxes. It’s all about sticking it to the haves in this never-ending quest to breed class resentment, as well as to get more cash to spread around to the have-nots so they’re even more dependent on gov’t (read: Democrats) for “stuff”.

changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Let them all increase. it will raise my taxes but it also means the lower tax brackets will be increased.

I read that the bush tax cuts were the major reason that the lower income people don’t pay taxes.

gerrym51 on November 13, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Yes, by all means, let’s be serious — and acknowledge that tax hikes on the wealthiest among us is not going to accomplish anything even remotely meaningful in terms of long-term deficit reduction.

It’s not about deficit reduction. Remember, back in the 2008 campaign when Obama was asked if he would raise taxes even knowing that they would bring in no additional revenue – he said raising taxes was “fair”.

Some of us tried to warn the sheep that SCOAMF was the first Occupier, but they would rather have free <expletive deleted>.

Steve Eggleston on November 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Sorry Erika didn’t see your last linky

cmsinaz on November 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Let them eat punishment politics.

Speakup on November 13, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Starting with Hollywood, the recording industry, Silicon Valley and Seattle, Pro sports (beginning with basketball – hockey players last, lunch pail guys that they are), private college endowment funds and lobbyist firms.

Did I forget anyone?

Make. Them. Scream.

Bruno Strozek on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Leave the hockey players out of it…owners have locked them out.

Mitsouko on November 13, 2012 at 3:02 PM

We (read Boehner) need to call their bluff, let the tax cuts expire. Assume the mantle of solving the deficit crisis without actually doing anything.

Always when interviewed just claim “we (GOP) realize elections have consequences and are doing what the Dem’s voted for”.

Tater Salad on November 13, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Here’s what Boehner should do: pass a conditional tax hike on the rich, with a sunset clause if it doesn’t produce the expected revenue. Word it something like this:

Mohonri on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Note my previous message, Obama’s budget numbers call for a tax increase of 56% across the board.

It is also known that “the rich” already pay at least half the tax burden. So if we are tax “the rich” enough to cover the budget deficit we’ll have to increase their taxes by at least 112%.

Lets look at those top “the rich” people and realize they are the primary drivers of the private investment capital driving our economy (all economies thrive on private investment capital, no matter what type of government is in place) and see how long it takes to drive us all into one giant depression when they take whatever cash they have left and go someplace else with it.

Lawrence on November 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Let them all increase. it will raise my taxes but it also means the lower tax brackets will be increased.

I read that the bush tax cuts were the major reason that the lower income people don’t pay taxes.

gerrym51 on November 13, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I agree. If fairness is what you’re after, than everyone’s rates should go up. And, everyone should pay something, so they have some skin in the game. When about half the country has no income tax liability to speak of, it’s no wonder they vote for the party that wants to take more and more from the folks that do. Maybe they’ll be a little more discerning if they know it’ll hit them, too.

changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM

If we continue to fight this particular point -taxes on the rich- we’ll continue to lose elections. We have to let America get what they voted for. Stop protecting the idiots that cast their vote for recession. Let them have one, and let Obama and progressive economists own it.

Then we can finally start the healing process.

BKeyser on November 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Absolutely, but the tag line in 2016 will be “Republicans raised taxes, and look at what happened!”

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Let them have 50% taxes on the rich. Go for it. All in.

faraway on November 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Exactly! Bow to the will of the American people.

PattyJ on November 13, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Which is $82.4 billion a year, versus $1.4 trillion annual deficit, or at best, 5%.

rbj on November 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

And it won’t even be that. They can kiss the dividend revenue goodbye, as well as alot of cap gains. As for the income tax hikes- this along with ObamaCare taxes will cause the rich to reduce their taxable income by incorporating, deferring, taking more equity, you name it.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I’ve been hearing talk of caps on some tax deductions in place of changes in tax rates. A cap of $20000 on the deduction for state taxes paid, for example, which theoretically could raise roughly the same amount of revenue as allowing the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ to expire.

agmartin on November 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM

After the revolution, it should be in the Constitution that you can not vote if you have not paid taxes. No representation without taxation! This crap where tax takers can vote for people who promise to gouge tax payers has got to stop.

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM

If you wan tto do something about the debt let the sequester stand and let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire.

Yes, there are better ways to solve the problem(IT is the biggest problem we have) but at least it will get us closer to a balanced budget.

Tater Salad on November 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM

The problem of debt is one of spending, not income. Income doesn’t increase or decrease debt. Raising or lowering taxes doesn’t increase or decrease debt.

The only thing that decreased debt is to stop borrowing in the first place, and then paying back what you owe.

All we are doing with monkeying with taxes is destabilizing the economy and making it to risky for private investors to grow the economy.

Solution is leave taxes as they are and let the economy heal itself. Letting the taxes expire just pulls the scab off the wound and we just end up bleeding more.

Obama can’t raise taxes enough to cover his proposed budget shortfall anyway.

Lawrence on November 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Absolutely, but the tag line in 2016 will be “Republicans raised taxes, and look at what happened!”

tdarrington

If they don’t raise taxes the headline will be “Republicans did not raise taxes, and look at what happened!”

I wish I had answer for this but I do not. I can’t see winning either way.

maddmatt on November 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM

This all goes back to that moment in the primary debate when the moderator actually pointed out that tax cuts sometimes generate more revenues than tax increases, and Obama flat out said he didn’t care, it was a matter of fairness.

Progressive Heretic on November 13, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Actually, IIRC, that was the 2008 Presidential debate and Brit Hume was the debate moderator.

0bama is completely economically illiterate.

UltimateBob on November 13, 2012 at 3:11 PM

The fixation on higher tax rates for those who already pay a hugely disproportionate amount of taxes instead of fixing the tax code, and focusing on revenue and spending is clearly not a matter of fairness but one of punishment and retribution by the Dear Leader.

RightTurn on November 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM

He did tell us to vote for revenge.

So revenge it shall be.

I suspect there will be surprises.

Lily on November 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM

the GOP’s message isn’t working. give the voters what they asked for, and make democrats own it. when unemployment is over 10% for the 2014 elections, we’ll see if America learns economics 101

burserker on November 13, 2012 at 3:16 PM

because we want to create opportunities for people so that they don’t need those benefits anymore

because we must create situations wherein people who are receiving benefits that have any chance of being self-reliant or family-reliant instead of government-reliant recognize that they would be wise to change their host source or they will regret their inaction.

and/or create opportunities – but the opportunity must be far better than the current situation to get people to react, and the opportunity must be permanent and cost less than the status quo. And it must be simple.

tomg51 on November 13, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Much easier to say “we need to tax the rich” than “give me back your Obamaphone.”

Even if most of Obama’s policies are idiotic, they are simply meant to appeal to the 47%, plus the 4% of liberals that got Obama to 51.

milcus on November 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

There could be a ‘win-win’ on Taxes, but the GOP insiders aren’t smart enough, and neither is the Dem leadership…

phreshone on November 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

CUT PBS
CUT PBS
WE HAVE TO CUT PBS

NO NO NO don’t raise taxes on the rich and take in a trillion over 10 years

Yet another reason your clowns lost

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Let them all increase. it will raise my taxes but it also means the lower tax brackets will be increased.

I read that the bush tax cuts were the major reason that the lower income people don’t pay taxes.

gerrym51 on November 13, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The Bush tax cuts eliminated at least one tax bracket (I’ll have to look up how many) and expanded EIC to pay out more $$ to the poor. Obviously, Zero likes those parts. He’s only unhappy with the top tax brackets.

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 3:20 PM

So if we cut the PBS portion of 400 million CPB budget, that will save us all from a thousand years of darkness but 80 Billion dollars? Naaahh. That’s nothing.

Conservative “math”.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM

There is only one option…

Seven Percent Solution on November 13, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I have already emailed my Congressman and told him there were be no repercussions for voting ‘Present’ on budgetary issues.

The Republicans will be demonized/blamed no matter how they vote on this. The Dems need to own this. SPIN

Spinstra on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Conservatives do. And some liberals do. But a lot of them don’t understand, and don’t really care to try. To them, taking money from the rich is justice, and that’s a goal more worthy than reducing the deficit.

But it’s time we abandoned defense of the tax cuts. The rich don’t seem to appreciate being defended, it’s clear that people are fine with the down economy continuing, and it’s time to let Obama own the state of the country.

If we successfuly oppose the tax hikes, whatever ill fate happens to the economy in the next 4 years will be blamed on the GOP. That’s true regardless of the actual facts on the ground.

I don’t support caving on immigration, but giving up the bush tax cuts for the rich makes good short-term sense. In fact, I’d give Obama the freedom to create whatever tax and spending package he wants. If that causes pain soon, it’ll be better than putting off the pain until later.

hawksruleva on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

So if we cut the PBS portion of 400 million CPB budget, that will save us all from a thousand years of darkness but 80 Billion dollars? Naaahh. That’s nothing.

Conservative “math”.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Raising taxes will not have a negative effect on economic activity! Jobs will come out of nowhere! The poor will miraculously be better off! The oceans will cease to rise! The planet will heal!!!!

Leftist “economics.”

UltimateBob on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Yes, by all means, let’s be serious — and acknowledge that tax hikes on the wealthiest among us is not going to accomplish anything even remotely meaningful in terms of long-term deficit reduction.

It’ll accomplish a meager-amount of deficit reduction, but more importantly, it will get the issue off the table, which has been hurting the GOP since Obama first started pounding away at it, with an assist from Romney’s 47% remarks.

As Jindal said:

“We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

Stoic Patriot on November 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM

What does this matter?

According to the geniuses around here:

We’re not anywhere close to bankruptcy. deficits don’t matter.

sesquipedalian on November 13, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Chip on November 13, 2012 at 3:28 PM

BKeyser on November 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The GOP should make their statements and then all vote “present” to let it pass while making the Dems completely own it!

dominigan on November 13, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Let them have 50% taxes on the rich. Go for it. All in.

faraway on November 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Starting with Hollywood, the recording industry, Silicon Valley and Seattle, Pro sports (beginning with basketball – hockey players last, lunch pail guys that they are), private college endowment funds and lobbyist firms.

Did I forget anyone?

Make. Them. Scream.

Bruno Strozek on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

And if possible be sure to alert the public which of these rich folks are hiding their money in the Caymans and using tax avoidance deductions.

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Stoic Patriot on November 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Why do you support the nation’s decline?

Chip on November 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM

NO NO NO don’t raise taxes on the rich and take in a trillion over 10 years

Yet another reason your clowns lost

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

–Abraham Lincoln

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM

So if we cut the PBS portion of 400 million CPB budget, that will save us all from a thousand years of darkness but 80 Billion dollars? Naaahh. That’s nothing.

Conservative “math”.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM

So you don’t think we have a spending problem?

changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM

CUT PBS
CUT PBS
WE HAVE TO CUT PBS

NO NO NO don’t raise taxes on the rich and take in a trillion over 10 years

Yet another reason your clowns lost

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Is it true that Canada is being run by a conservative in Prime Minister Stephen Harper and is off on a world wide jaunt to try to promote Canadian trade?

Is it also true that the National Socialist Party (sorry NDP) has been relegated to a Quebec only party and has virtually no federal standing anymore?

Is that why you’re here, bro? That Canada is rejecting socialism and socialists?

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Do what you will! The “rich” will not pay more taxes than they want to! They have the means and know how to avoid excessive taxes!

Marco on November 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM

It’ll accomplish a meager-amount of deficit reduction, but more importantly, it will get the issue off the table, which has been hurting the GOP since Obama first started pounding away at it, with an assist from Romney’s 47% remarks.

Stoic Patriot on November 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM

You’re kidding yourself if you think it takes the issue off the table. When expected revenues don’t materialize, they’ll simply look for another increase and play the same class warfare games to get it.

changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Raising taxes will not have a negative effect on economic activity! Jobs will come out of nowhere! The poor will miraculously be better off! The oceans will cease to rise! The planet will heal!!!!

Leftist “economics.”

UltimateBob on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Isn’t that what you said about Clinton? And it didn’t pan out, in fact it turned out to be the exact opposite.

Looking forward to Obamacare getting all the conservatives Alzheimer’s coverage.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Raising taxes will not have a negative effect on economic activity! Jobs will come out of nowhere! The poor will miraculously be better off! The oceans will cease to rise! The planet will heal!!!!

Leftist “economics.”

UltimateBob on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Well sure – according to the geniuses of decline on the Left, de-regulation and tax reductions cause economic crisis galore.

So by that ‘logic’, with all of the new regulations and taxes (from Obamacare and elsewhere) the economy soon should going swimmingly.

Ain’t that right Leftists?

Chip on November 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Let them have 50% taxes on the rich. Go for it. All in.

faraway on November 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Funny you mention a 50% tax rate – it is the second Obama rate bid as he “reduces” his demand of new revenue from the rich from $800-1,200 billion last year to $1.6 trillion.

Steve Eggleston on November 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM
lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM

See above: tax hikes close about 6% of Obama’s massive deficits, if everything goes to plan, which it won’t. So yes, the rest will have to come from massive spending cuts.

How much longer do you little dreamers want to deny this?

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Raising taxes will not have a negative effect on economic activity! Jobs will come out of nowhere! The poor will miraculously be better off! The oceans will cease to rise! The planet will heal!!!!

Leftist “economics.”

UltimateBob on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM
——–

Another reason why your clowns lost. You’re detached from reality.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Which group voted for the deliberate decline of the nation?

Chip on November 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I doubt anybody votes for the deliberate decline.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 12:33 PM

So are you saying that those folks Weren’t Intelligent enough to realize what they were doing?

Chip on November 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM

CUT PBS
CUT PBS
WE HAVE TO CUT PBS

NO NO NO don’t raise taxes on the rich and take in a trillion over 10 years

Yet another reason your clowns lost

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

We lost because a whole bunch of idiots thought that 1 Trillion raised over ten years will cover 1 Trillion borrowed each year of that ten years.
The lower threshold will be dropping from $200,000 quite quickly.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Isn’t that what you said about Clinton? And it didn’t pan out, in fact it turned out to be the exact opposite.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Clinton massively cut taxes on the rich in 1997 through the reduction of capital gains and the exemption of real estate sales up to $500k.

FYI

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM

See above: tax hikes close about 6% of Obama’s massive deficits, if everything goes to plan, which it won’t. So yes, the rest will have to come from massive spending cuts.

How much longer do you little dreamers want to deny this?

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM
———-

Where and when did Obama say he wouldn’t cut spending?

I’m all for cutting spending by a shit ton.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM

No representation without taxation!

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Ooooh. I like this. Sounds “fair” to me.
Never likely to become reality, but I can dream about it and support it as part of a platform.

freedomfirst on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM

According to the geniuses of decline on the Left, de-regulation and tax reductions cause economic crisis galore.

So by that ‘logic’, with all of the new regulations and taxes (from Obamacare and elsewhere) the economy soon should going swimmingly.

Isn’t that correct?

Chip on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

We lost because a whole bunch of idiots thought that 1 Trillion raised over ten years will cover 1 Trillion borrowed each year of that ten years.
The lower threshold will be dropping from $200,000 quite quickly.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM
——

You lost because you continue to choose your own facts and ignore the rest.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Anyone else noticing the lefties have their long knives out all over the web?

txhsmom on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

CUT PBS
CUT PBS
WE HAVE TO CUT PBS

NO NO NO don’t raise taxes on the rich and take in a trillion over 10 years

Yet another reason your clowns lost

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

So if we cut the PBS portion of 400 million CPB budget, that will save us all from a thousand years of darkness but 80 Billion dollars? Naaahh. That’s nothing.

Conservative “math”.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Awww look… the children came out to play! Look children… cutting PBS is an example of one of the MANY cuts that have to be made. Let me say that again since you’re both struggling to find two brain cells to rub together… CUTS HAVE TO HAPPEN TO EVERYTHING!

Besides, since Sesame street IS THE RICH… why are you trying to remain unfair by keeping their free money? Or is millions and millions of dollars still on the “poor” scale for you? Let’s face it, you like your pork. You like your rich lobbyists.

Oh, and it’s not tax rates that matter… it’s tax REVENUE that matters. The Bush tax cuts increased revenue, not decreased it. Thus… (say it with me children)… increasing taxes will CUT REVENUE, not increase it.

dominigan on November 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Tax the “rich”. Let them take as much as they can. And let Obama do what ever else he wants while we’re at it.

We’re past the point of trying to stave off ruin, the best we can hope for now is let the liberals do EVERYTHING they want and get the ruin here as fast as possible with as much suffering as possible for the takers who put this man in power. Some people need to learn the hard way.

Angainor on November 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

No representation without taxation!
tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM
Ooooh. I like this. Sounds “fair” to me.
Never likely to become reality, but I can dream about it and support it as part of a platform.
freedomfirst on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Yep. Exempt food and clothing. Tax the rest.

txhsmom on November 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Another reason why your clowns lost. You’re detached from reality.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM

$80B per year / $1.3 trillion deficit = 6% And that doesn’t include the recession we’re about to go through that will make this worse. Clowns are people aren’t serious, like those who support this plan.

Can’t live off others forever, Drywall. Time to put on the old “big boy pants” and stop spending money you don’t have.

Solution? Cut spending massively, now.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

You lost because you continue to choose your own facts and ignore the rest.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Really… you actually said that knowing that we were just discussing that the estimated amount was over 10 years? Wow. Talk about ignoring the facts.

dominigan on November 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM

According to the geniuses of decline on the Left, de-regulation and tax reductions cause economic crisis galore.

So by that ‘logic’, with all of the new regulations and taxes (from Obamacare and elsewhere) the economy soon should going swimmingly.

Isn’t that correct?

Chip on November 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I am impressed by your knowledge of our Norther Neighbor’s economy.

Here I thought the only things they sent south were fat comedians and wet goose farts.

Bruno Strozek on November 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Where and when did Obama say he wouldn’t cut spending?

I’m all for cutting spending by a shit ton.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM

In defense only, of course.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM

So if we cut the PBS portion of 400 million CPB budget, that will save us all from a thousand years of darkness but 80 Billion dollars? Naaahh. That’s nothing.

Conservative “math”.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM

No, we need to cut 300 billion dollars a year at least from the parasite class that vote democrats…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I say give the libs everything they want. Let them own it. In the meantime, just wait for it to burn. Elections have consequences.

RedInMD on November 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I already called my Rep/Sens asking them to vote present on econ bills. Let the Dems/Looters (apparently the majority of the electorate) own it.

In the meantime, I hope people slash their spending and focus on paying down as much personal debt as possible along with a good dose of emergency prep. This isn’t going to be fun for anyone.

batter on November 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM

NO NO NO don’t raise taxes on the rich and take in a trillion over 10 years

Yet another reason your clowns lost

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

What an ignorant clown. A trillion over ten years? Obama is BORROWING over a TRILLION every year.

darwin on November 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Isn’t that what you said about Clinton? And it didn’t pan out, in fact it turned out to be the exact opposite.

Looking forward to Obamacare getting all the conservatives Alzheimer’s coverage.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Teaching remedial history gets very tedious…

1. Clinton did not raise taxes during a recession
2. Clinton presided over the tech bubble

So does teaching basic ecomonics…

1. Slight tax increases during economic booms can be beneficial to the treasury, however taking rates too high slows growth and proves detrimental to the treasury
2. The tax increases proposed by Obama will slow growth and shrink the economic pie for everyone
3. The rich do not have enough income (or enough cash on hand if you want to get authoritarian about it) to affect more than a tiny fraction of the deficit
4. Entitlement spending is so high that eliminating the military and all other discretionary spending would still not be enough to balance the budget

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I wish I had answer for this but I do not. I can’t see winning either way.

maddmatt on November 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Let them have what they want, step back, and watch it burn. Be prepared for the chaos, and make sure Liberty wins when the system is rebuilt. The USA is over, it is time to start planning the rebirth.

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I will only feel better if Dave Rywall’s taxes are increased.

Tater Salad on November 13, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Where and when did Obama say he wouldn’t cut spending?

I’m all for cutting spending by a shit ton.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Actions speak louder than words. Care to point out any cuts in spending by Obama in the last four years?

darwin on November 13, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Where and when did Obama say he wouldn’t cut spending?

Have you seen his budget submissions?

I’m all for cutting spending by a shit ton.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM

GREAT! How do 2006 spending levels sound?

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I disagree, this tax hike on the rich will accomplish alot. It will tell the middle class your next. It will tell the poor that pay no income taxes to get ready your time will come.

meci on November 13, 2012 at 3:46 PM

The wise (notice I didn’t say smart) will sell into this market and near the bottom of the meltdown buy back in. Let the Dem’s fret as it gets worse and take advantage of their self proclaimed smarts.

Tater Salad on November 13, 2012 at 3:46 PM

To all the liberal fools on this forum… You have a business owner who makes 1 million dollars a year and he employes 6 people… Now going from 35% to 39.6% tax rate he is going to pay an extra $ 40,000 a year in taxes and that is no adding the extra taxes he would pay for capital gains tax going from 15% to 20%… Guess what liberal fools, he is not going to take a loss of $ 40,000 a year but instead he is going lay off one of his employees to make up for the loss… So now we have one additional person on unemployment collecting tax payers money… That is what you liberal fools want, more poverty and more misery…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 3:47 PM

R’s should make it clear Obama refuses to compromise. Out tax hike the tax hikers and spenders with a BIG increase in taxes on the rich over $1mil. Spike the bill with a return to the Bush Tax Cuts in 2017.

txhsmom on November 13, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3