McConnell: We have a voter mandate not to raise taxes

What is raising taxes supposed to accomplish?

tom daschle concerned on November 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM

If you mean with regard to stimulating the economy or reducing the deficit, absolutely nothing. I’d argue that Obama doesn’t really want the GOP to agree to higher taxes. The proof is that he had a deal on the table in 2011 that would’ve given him $800 billion over 10 years and he turned it down at the last minute. That’s pretty much the same amount he would get from repealing the Bush tax cuts on people making 200 grand or more a year. But he needed the deal to fall apart in order to use class warfare as a campaign tactic in 2012(that’s also why he wanted so badly to run against Romney).

This is why I want McConnell and Boehner to cave. Take this issue away from the Dems. If they get the Clinton era tax rates on upper income earners and the economy and deficit remain problems(which they will), the Dems have literally nothing to run on with regard to domestic policy. They’ll have to go even more overboard with the abortion and birth control nonsense which will eventually turn even a lot of staunch Democrats who continue to find themselves struggling to make ends meet.

Doughboy on November 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM

MAke up your mind. Either allwong the tax cuts to expire would do “absolutley nothing” to reduce the deficit, or it would raise about $800 million.

Nah, we have lots of domestic stuff up our sleeves. And, if Clinton-era taxes get us a Clinton era economy….

urban elitist on November 10, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Let me explain this to you so you understand. If the Bush era rates are allowed to expire on the top 2% of income earners(people and businesses filing as individuals making 200 grand a year or more) which is what Obama wants, at best it’s estimated those hikes will net $800 billion over 10 years or $80 billion annually. And that’s assuming no negative impact from raising taxes in an economy that just grew in the last quarter at a pathetic 1.3%. Our annual deficits are averaging around $1.2 trillion. So we’d be looking at lower the deficit from 1.2 trillion to 1.12 trillion. Big whoop.

If you allow ALL the Bush tax cuts to expire, you’ll net around $4.8 trillion or so over 10 years or $480 billion a year. Again that’s assuming no negative economic impact which is a pipe dream when every year you’re taking half a trillion out of the economy and the pockets of mostly middle and lower income earners. Even Obama and the Dems don’t want to do this. And even if they did, that would only cut the deficit by a little more than a third.

As for the Clinton-era tax rates getting us a Clinton-era economy, there’s a small problem with that theory. The mid-to-late 90′s were booming because of the rise of the Internet and the reduction in the capital gains tax rate which spurred investment. Those two things combined delivered all those new jobs and increased revenue. This is a very different economy. There’s nothing like the Internet on the horizon to spur all kinds of new jobs(except for maybe domestic energy production which Obama opposes) and even worse we’ve got Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, tax hikes, inflation, and rising energy costs which are scaring the crap out of businesses and investors. If you don’t believe me, look at all the layoffs announced once Obama secured another 4 years.

Doughboy on November 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM

China and India had not developed into manufacturing powerhouses at this time as well. The world has changed drastically since Clinton was impeached.

tom daschle concerned on November 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM

True. And we’re handcuffing ourselves with burdensome regulatory and taxation schemes that are driving companies overseas, out-of-business, or preventing their existence in the first place. I swear, those countries have to laughing their asses off at the nonsense being spewed by our leaders, specifically with regard to carbon taxes.

Doughboy on November 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM