Bernie Sanders is one of the few members of Congress who gives a damn about the American people and isn't living in the pockets of giant corporations. Do you make over $250,000/year? No? Then why did you vote Republican? Obama gave the middle class a tax break, now he wants to tax Bush's extremely wealthy cronies. If you're not driving a solid gold bmw and eating your oatmeal with a 24 k gold spoon, I suggest you stop voting Republican because all Republicans want to do is screw you out of your money.

Click Here

Your just confused about trickle down economics, it only looks like reverse Robin Hood.

Well I enjoyed the chit out of it, thanks for posting!

Hey A-hole, you forgot to mention how much the top 1% pay in taxes. Here's a link, look it up for yourself. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html. I don't care how much people make, I care how much they can keep and what the government spends it on.

Too funny: "...non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers...

I just can't tell you how sorry I feel for those poor overburdened taxpayers in the top 1%. It must be just awful to have only a few billion of disposable income left over after paying taxes.

I really don't get why some here choose to be such patsies.

When it comes to being a ball washer of aristocrats, you lead the pack, Hank.

And how much does mr. Buffett donate to charity or put in foundations he owns? If he feels he doesn't pay his fair share, how much does he send to the US government after taxes to make sure he's being fair? I'll bet not one damn dime, so he can STFU. It's like bitching about gillnets but not helping orginazations who try to stop it. Mr. Buffet is all talk and no action.

Well I think Bernie Sanders is right about the China Connection, alot of the wealth a few are amassing is coming from outsoursing jobs to .65 an hour Chinese workers and then we provide them with tax loopholes. What a deal!

I seriously doubt I'm at the top of the list, Hank, but I will always support those that have a genuine concern for the commonwealth of the middle class, as opposed to the aristocracy that is hell bent to destroy it by establishing a plutocracy of oligarchs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GOP-Dems-nearing-deal-on-apf-3635579613.html?x=0


And the good news is....Sounds like nothing will happen, the rich get to hang onto their money and we will just borrow more from the Chinese to keep our unemployed just that. Sounds like Salmon management in the PNW.

Hey bait humper,

When you reach in your f'n pockets and come up with more than 40 billion to donate to a worthy cause, then you should flap your hole about Warren Buffet.

But not until then.

Thanks another good one!

And that 40 million is tax deductible, which helps him pay less in taxes than his secretary you fool. He is the hypocrite, not me. Upchuck, your just as moronic.

He gave 40 BILLION to charity.

You shot off your piehole.

I think the world is better off with him on it than you, and everyone on earth except you would agree with me.



Classic.

So he avoids taxes by giving it to charity, but wants everyone else to pay more in taxes but himself. I'm sure the worlds just as well off without you in it as well Danny boy. Insult me if it makes your dick bigger, but it won't make up for the fact that your not smart enough to get the point!

Once again, bait humpster demonstates his high cognitive ability.

Ignore Bait Dunker, he long ago achieved troll status.

Solid speech, which seems to my ears to be compelling, reasonable, and well argued. Meanwhile, on an election that largely turned on "deficit outrage" I find it laughably insane that we're about to pass a "compromise" today that extends unemployment (unfunded) AND extends these very same tax breaks on the top earners (also unfunded).

I know a reasonable number of folks who will BENEFIT from the tax break, and not one of them believes it's justified, nor will it affect their hiring/investments in their businesses.

This illustrates clearly the need for campaign reform, removing the influence of money in politics will be bad for special interests, but good for America.

[/quote]

Jesus christ you are even more delusional than a F'kn coog lately. Although at least they have some reaching academic status. Unlike yourself where hope has dwindled to nothing.

WB gave 40 billion dollars of his real money ... I could give a rats ass less if it was tax free. The fact is he gave it. WTF have you done for a charity other than pipe off your mouth on the internet about fuzz in your pants?

one thing your right about ... your not a hypocrite. Your a illogical whackjob[/quote]

Your changing the subject because you know I'm right. It doesn't matter what Buffet did with the money, it matters that he complains the rich don't pay enough in taxes, then avoids paying taxes by giving the money to charity. You're clueless, helpless and hopeless.

Bernies rant is just promoting class warfare. He and his fellow dems spend like crazy then complain people aren't giving them enough in taxes. Quit spending you tools! Borrowing from China is the politicians fault, not the taxpayers fault.

You avoid taxes by donating to charity?

You're f'n clueless, and what's worse, you're going to shoot off your hole until everyone KNOWS you're f'n clueless.

Go set yourself on fire.

Dan, EVERYBODY knows that increased income increases your tax liability, by donating to charity, you decrease that tax liability. By giving 40 billion to charity, WB avoided paying taxes on that money as well as wowing clueless people like you with his fake generosity. He avoided paying taxes on the money, then complains others aren't paying their fair share.

The only thing on fire around here are your hemorrhoids.

Please do not feed the Trolls.

Fake generosity huh?

Go kill yourself and do the world a favor.

Yeah.

Agree with Hank.

Sometimes you have to take the job you can get, not the job you want.

Your odds of success would be far greater if you let someone else do it.
If the internet is any indication, Baithumper doesn't succeed at anything very often.

I'll show the fuckin IRS...I'm going to give away 40 Billion Dollars to screw them out of taxing me on it!!

Anyone who believes this is why Buffet gave his fortune away is either retarded, brain damaged, or dumber than a box of rusty hammers.

Or all three.

Fish on...

Todd

Hank

"I don't want to pay $18 Billion in taxes, so I think I'll give away $40 Billion..."

I hope you manage your own debt and checkbook better than that, dunker.

Fish on...

Todd

Hank,

You and I agree 99 wks is too long. I know folks (perhaps you all do too) who are in "looking for a great job" mode, rather than "Make ends meet" mode, and have been there for 1+ years. I'm a believer in unemployment benefits, but I also believe in their expiration.

The second issue -- tax cuts (unfunded as they are) is interesting only because nobody can agree with the basis should be. If you claim the basis is today, then taking no action (letting bush tax cuts expire) equals a "tax increase". If you claim the basis is pre-bush-tax-cuts, then allowing them to expire is "ending stimulus" of a kind.

Of course I want low taxes. Of course I think I can spend my money better than the government can. Everyone thinks that way -- just like they think their kids are above average in whatever it is their kids do.

The real issue here is what is the right/reasonable tax rate given the current economic climate. I personally find it hard to believe we should make a decision to put $700B into stimulus-rebates to the top wage-earners. I don't believe that's better for our country right now. Those who I know personally who stand to benefit from this tax break UNIVERSALLY believe it will not cause them to hire a single new employee. Not one.

I don't know what the "optimal" tax rate is for our current national crisis, but I find it personally hard to believe that it's the status quo, or lower.

Ordinarily I'd agree that 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is more than enough. But these are not ordinary economic times. While there are no doubt some deadbeats who prefer collecting unemployment to earning a paycheck, I'm of the persuasion that far more people are are very willing and much prefer earning their money, yet simply cannot find work. Not just the good job they had, but anything they can qualify for that pays a living wage.

If I lost my job, downsized my house and transportation, gotten rid of all my luxuries (assuming some things I have may be perceived as such by a few), and then couldn't find work that pays enough to cover rent and food, I'd be inclined to make a career change to hunting down and killing bankers and politicians who created this mess. What's left to lose?

As for the Bush tax cuts, the way I see it, anyone who favors extending them is exhibiting the behavior of living beyond their means on credit. I'm a balanced budget advocate. Hank seems to think it's as simple as spending less. I don't agree that it's that simple. Although I favor low taxes, I think the U.S. let that train leave the station long ago. With high national debt and ongoing budget deficits, I think we're obliged to pay as we go and stop adding to the debt of the next generations of American taxpayers. Ya' know that high quality of life we've been striving for Hank? Forget it. The gov't. that represents us already spent it, and then some. And either we pay for it, or our kids and grandkids do.

Sg

SG: I really struggle with the unemployment issue... If there was a way to measure intent, sacrifice, desire -- then sure, I'd offer more than 99 weeks. But failing a good test, I think 99 weeks is a reasonable (if generous) line. 2 years + of looking for work, and not finding it? Maybe the carrot isn't helping at that point.

If it took me more than 99 weeks of searching to find a job, I'd turn to a life of crime to pay my bills and rationalize it by saying "they" made me do it.

No, it's more like I'll donate 40 billion over the next 20 or so years, because I make so much, writing off a couple billion a year is like you donating $100 to the Salvation Army.
WB has more than he can ever spend, instead of writing a check to uncle Sam, (since hes so concerned about the US economy) donates half his fortune to the Gates foundation over a period of time, securing his place as the most "generous" philanthropist in history, while saying everyone else needs to pay more. Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is. I don't care what he does with his money, even if it's writing off charitable contributions, just don't be a hypocrite and say I need to pay more.

Fascinating chart of the day, and notes:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/12/06/chart-of-the-day-u-s-taxes/

I'm really surprised nobody's done that yet.

Your goat on the rag again?

I've seen various flavors of this data charted, and they all point to the same conclusion. While spending is an issue, the real problem this nation faces is a revenue shortage. Which makes all the popular suggestions of cutting spending by reducing Social Security, or any other entitlements implausible; those measure will only compound the problem since they will inherently reduce revenue even more.

Don't know where you get that there is going to be a $700B rebate paid out to high income earners. There tax rates are going to be the same next year as they have been for the last 10 years. The government is not rebating any money. They are not getting a tax cut. It's been a great liberal talking point that confuses there uninformed base.

Kinda like how the R's keep calling a tax break that expires by its own terms the "biggest tax hike in history"...?

Fish on...

Todd

When did the bush tax cut cease being a cut?

And the opposite of tax cut would be tax _______?

Relative to this discussion it would be expiration, or return to normal rates. But for some reason, some of you have a problem comprehending the simplest of concepts.

#1. KK et al, if you IGNORE him he will go away. You give him power/energy when you respond.

#2. Basis, for JoJo et al, is the point. It is the definition of the zero point, of "normal". If you define NORMAL as today, then the expiring policy will cause a tax hike. If you define NORMAL as prior to that policy, then what you are seeing is the end of a huge discount, kind of like the day after labor day. Did they RAISE prices that day, or did the sale just end?

#3. I think the chart of the day pretty clearly shows that today is not a good proxy for "normal".

B

Ah, the classic arguments brought forward by the Glen Beck viewers. It's amazing that people can become so brainwashed that they defend the richest people in the world as if you have some sort of servitude towards them. This is feudalism at its best. You "consume" for them, die for them and defend their ways, yet all they do is trickle piss down onto your heads.

http://www.beavertonvalleytimes.com/news/story.php?story_id=128751170450896300



This move by one large company came very close to fixing Oregon's economic problems by itself..Kudo's

The real reason Intel is opening the new plant is the more than 10 million in tax incentives, as taxes are too high here.

http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_intel-ceo-calls-for-us-manufacturing-tax-breaks_1448299

But maybe we're better off without them? Apparently they have issues with paying taxes?
http://www.faceintel.com/senatorgrassley.htm

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1051679/intel-accused-massive-tax-evasion

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

That money could have gone into the Dalian Plant where my wife's brother is currently helping setting it up, 10 million in tax breaks is squat compared to the economic revenue it's going to produce in Oregon alone.

Can you give any examples of where the wealthy reinvested any of their tax breaks into creating jobs? Or will this convince the wealthy to move out sourced jobs back into the US?
Isn't this just arguing Reagonomics 101?

The super rich don't invest in anything unless there is something in it for them. They never have and never will invest for the purpose of creating jobs in the US or anywhere. Jobs for anyone are just a side benefit to the process of making the rich richer.

Jobs are created continuously by the low and middle income classes because they need to spend 100% and most of their incomes, respectively, on the cost of living, which stimulates manufacturing, distribution, wholesaling, and retail sales. The rich spend the lowest percent of their incomes on consumer goods. They spend most of their money on making more money, and Reaganomics demonstrated that damn little of that trickles down to the poor and middle classes.

You also have to remember a company like Intel is publicly traded and is competing on the Global Market, they need to be competitive to thrive. Now if Paul Otellini was complaining about his personal tax bracket that's a different story.




http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=intc

http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/12/corp_duwamash_12_06_10.html


Great News from Boeing on the cleanup but since I don't follow this company anymore what happened to the production jobs that used to fill these buildings?

Here's two examples for ya.
There's two stadiums in Seattle that are creating jobs right now and both of those are there because of the middle and lower class tax payers.

Exactly!

The economic state of America can be laid at the feet of the wealthy, so why not let them bail the country out of this mess?

"At some point, they'll just leave. Then who will be paying most of the taxes?"



Oh and leave all the great crabbing and fishing in PS, bet you don't Aunty..

Your theory on only the wealthy creating jobs is delusional. It's the same as the chicken and egg theory. If there are no middle-class to buy things, and support businesses, there are no wealthy people. Therefore, wealthy people do not exist without preying on the buying habits of middle-class people.

They WANT us to feel like we depend on them. This schit has happened many times before in the past as you would know if you read anything about history.

They WANT us to have 15% unemployment so people go through their lives in fear of being broke. This in turn causes people to take any job, and work at any pay rate with no benefits, just as long as they have a job. Cheap labor, blaming unions, the list goes on. I for one am getting sick of this crap and I'm sick of being called a "consumer" by Obama and Glen Beck.

I should also add that most businesses in this country are owned by middle-class people.

Yes, actually you DID say that only the wealthy create jobs. This language we write and speak has many subtleties, one of which is that you can imply something without actually writing or saying it. It's the beauty of this language that few other languages have.

Edit: Had to color and bold some more text from AM.

Wow, maybe you shouldn't provide your sources !

I can tell you that a weathy individual in this area has keep approx. 200 people employed for the last 2 years with a large building project at their private residence. If not for that job our company would have been in trouble.

If you wernt so busy fluffing Sam Adams, you might have read it correctly.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ more like what you were thinking of???

The problem with the Democraps is that they pretend that anyone over 250K is a billionaire. It is all about using class warfare and scaring the hell out of poor people. I almost forgot their favorite......creating boogiemen to scare an uninformed base.

"The "rich" are holding you down. The corp fat cats, the bankers, the CEO's.......get them. Dont look at us putting it in your butt. It is them."

I am so tired of hearing the tax breaks for rich people line. For anyone here that thinks that 250K is rich, its not. The people making this amount of money are your boss, you wifes boss, the ma and pa shop owner that worked for years to make his shop work. The small companies that employ. They are not fat cats living on the hill looking down on everyone else as they would have you believe. That group makes far more than 250K.

If you start raising their taxes they will be forced to lay off workers. Your wives, your children, yourselves. As a small corp we carry people through these times when they are not needed as much. We do not wish to lay off as we feel obligated to help the people that work for us. They all have families. Raises taxes and eat into that bottom line we will be forced to lay off then you will see employment tank.

Now lets hear from those who pay their employees with hay and stump love. Tell us how it really is.

WTF are you talking about? You clearly stated that only the rich create jobs. I refuted it, and now you're blabbering about a different issue that I brought-up. Although in the same topic, these issues are different, hence I made 2 separate posts.

So, getting onto your issue, I never said anything about small businesses. I said MOST businesses are owned by the middle-class. I'll say it again: Most businesses in the U.S. are owned by the middle-class.

Well, not really. In fact, that's false.

First, I'm qualified to answer this as a guy who personally runs a 100 person business.

Second, I can tell you from having done the taxes, that I don't pay taxes on REVENUE, I pay it on PROFIT. So raising taxes really has no ability to "force me to lay off workers". Because I only pay income taxes on my profits AFTER expenses/payroll. I'm not making this up, you can take a class in accounting if you want to check me on this.

Any other questions?

The only thing more ridiculous than that claim is for people to whine about the "fact".

Anyone making 250k a year that isn't rich (or, more accurately, wealthy) within a few years has a problem. I feel like I have a fairly high standard of living and I'm not ANYWHERE close to that number.

Less than 3% of people in the U.S. make more than $250k/year. If the top 3% isn't considered "rich", then where do you draw that line?

-AP

Just took a look at this topic. Word of warning, some bankers are pretty well armed.

I hope he was referring to the Bernie Maddof types, not the guys who helped me buy a house..

Fluffin Sam Adam's................

That theres funny chit, don't care who ya are or how much tax you pay..

I am pretty sure that the majority who cry that $250,000 is not a good definition of wealthy will never see a year that good. And what’s so wrong with taxing them at the same level Clinton did, which BTW was a ton lower than we saw from 1950 - 1995. As I recall we prospered pretty well in that period. Under the "repressive" Clinton tax policy we did very well. How much better did we do after Bush cut taxes for his cronies? Oh yeah, we dove in the toilet under Bush. Yeah, let’s keep that up.

The Bush cuts coupled with two wars DID dramatically increase deficit spending. Now his ball washers say they are concerned about our growing debt. Where were they when Bush was spending and borrowing?

I think you'd be hard put to find ANY conservative that thought Bush was a fiscal conservative.

AP, do some research on how income is figured for an S Corporation. Cosnider that at 250K that person will already be paying 60k or so in federal taxes. Then consider the person took a loan to purchase that business and pays another 60k per year toward that loan. 250k shrinks pretty quick. The 60k paid toward the loan is a shareholder distribution so is taken out of the 250k net, not the gross income. 250k becomes a lot less quickly when many other taxes are factored in and taken out of the net income.

It's easy to look at others and think they have it made when in reality they're being hit pretty hard also. You can also take into account that loans taken out for a variety of business purposes are guaranteed by the individual, not sheltered by some corporate entity.



Sounds like you run your business a bit like mine. I keep my employees working because I see them as more than just a number.

3% above 250k is not a deciding factor. I was just giving an example of how people perceive that amount as being the "rich" number when it really isn't that much.

I think you also have me pegged with some form of bias because politically I ain't what you think. I guess I should just come on here and take shots at people to show my true leanings..?

Raise revenue and reel in the spending. Both are needed but it seems many just want to raise revenue.

With the help of my accountant I'm still in business after 16 years. What happened to your C corp's, S corp's, LLC's, etc? I must be failing at something 'cause I don't have that extensive resume. I hope they all ended up in a profitable sale.

Who really caused the the economic collapse? Was it those making over $250K annually, or was it the middle class?
Who got the bail out money, the 3% or the 97%?
Time for those who f'd up this country to pay the piper.

Where do all those 100, regardless of political affilliation, come out on the income scale?

Fish on...

Todd

That's exactly what I'm saying

That debate will never find an answer because someone making 100k will say 150k is rich. 500k will say 750k is the line.

WNTRRN, you need to take your own advice here. The "loan to purchase the biz" indeed might have payments of $60K, but unless you structure your purchase of the business foolishly, that will be accounted as a business expense, and will NOT be taxed as income tax at the owners marginal rate. Nor should the loan payment be a shareholder distribution. All this stuff you're saying is unsound business advice.

How about making the 1% of people who've been feeding off of the government [censored] to foot the bill to reduce our national debt? Oh wait, we can't do that because the Repubs wouldn't like it... After all, those top 1%, or ever top 3% for that matter are the "base" for the Retard party. I mean, they earned all of that money the hard way, right? I'm sure each and every single one of them shed their blood, sweat and tears for their fortunes.

You have no idea how successful/unsuccessful QE1/QE2 were/are because there is nothing to measure them against.

We don't have a US economy with no stimulus enacted to see how it is doing.

Oh I dunno, maybe it has something to do with the fortunes of wealthy people continuing to grow, meanwhile most of America is struggling to pay bills, jobs are being outsourced by said wealthy people to China and the Philippines, and young men are being blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan in wars to further enrich these people.

Just a thought.

Most of the extremely wealthy people I've met in my life I would say all have one specific personality trait.. There very good at taking and have no qualms about it..

So you think the top 1% are the trolls who feed off the gubimint the most?




Dah!!! Chuck I think this is way over your head. Stick to the Purple and gold..... lets hear a little cougar hating... or better yet.......... how about those Sea Hawks?

I don't argue that point, if we split all the money in the world up within a year 3% would have the majority of it..Not sure it would be all the same ones that have it now.

Giving tax breaks...money...to people who won't use it to stimulate the economy is why giving tax breaks to the already rich won't help a damn thing.

The funny thing is, the same dumbasses who keep saying it will help the economy to do so are the same dumbasses who keep saying giving TARP funds to banks didn't stimulate the economy...because the banks didn't put it back into the economy.

It's funny how they can understand FauxNews' argument about why Obama's Bank Giveaway Fund is a bad idea, and can also easily accept FN's talking point about "job creation" and "economic stimulation" when doing exactly the same thing for the already rich...it's called a "contradiction", one that is typically accepted by one of two types of people.

Type 1: Don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, but thankfully have Fox News to tell them what to think, or...

Type 2: Know they are full of $hit, but it never really was about the truth to begin with, was it?

Fish on...

Todd

I bet if you took all the money that rich people spend every day on mega mansions, yachts, and luxury cars, and put it in a pile...and then took all the money that the other 97% of us spend on gas, food, rent, insurance, and a million other things, you'd find that the pile of money contributed by the rich folks ain't fukallnuthin' compared to the "poor people" pile.

Fish on...

Todd

Sure. I don't have any qualms with that label. Class warfare has happened many times before in history and it will continue to happen as long as a select few take advantage of the less fortunate to enrich themselves.

The only difference between this class warfare now compared to the Peasant Revolt in England in medieval times is that the poor people today are brainwashed by Fox News and the teabaggers into thinking that they should be defending the ultra-rich for some fuked up reason.

I just have problems with a select few buying politicians so they can continue to export jobs to China and keep most of us suppressed into having a job where we make no money and have no benefits, meanwhile they take bailout money from the gov't at our childrens' expense. If it makes me a poster boy to want everyone to have decent health care and decent wages and have their voices actually heard by politicians, so be it.

I agree...I think there is class warfare going on right now, and the fukked up part about it is that the ultra-rich have talked the dumb and unwashed masses to actually act as their foot soldiers, commanded by the lieutenants on FauxNews.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. If you do it not because you are told to by Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh, but because you think that you might actually become one of those ultra-rich some day...good luck...ain't gonna happen.

Your comment is utterly unrelated to anything I said that you are quoting...

Fish on...

Todd

Just saying theres givers and takers in the world, it's what makes the world work. You could go into any ghetto and still find the same 3% not because their brilliant it's because their better at taking. Guess they deserve a tax break too.

Now that there is a quality post!

Nice to see intellect and reason factored into a debate without personal attacks.

I just watched Bowles & Simpson try to tell the media a few days ago that their tax plan would help working class America.

They couldn't even keep a straight face. It was like watching an SNL parody where they keep cracking up.

If you're on the lowest rung, the guy working at Burger King or some jackoff X-Ray tech trying to support 3 estranged children, it will save you $400, or 8 tanks of gas.

If you are in the wealthiest 1%, however, you will save $500,000...

...Or enough to buy a McMansion and still have enough left over to outsource your X-Ray image processing to India, lay off your jack-off X-ray techs, saving you another $75,000 a year, enough to hire him back as your personal toilet valet, paying him $7 an hour to wipe your ass and shake off your cock after you're done pissing on him.

True That!!!

Some call it class warfare; I prefer to call it social justice.

Tax breaks for the wealthy 3% create jobs; I call that bull schit.

Companies will leave if they have to pay more tax; you must have missed the mass exodus so they could hire cheap labor over seas.

Taxes and hiring are connected; oh really, no one is hiring because no one is buying.

The rich work hard so they should be able to keep their money; this one makes me laugh. Hard work is running a jack hammer all day for a few a bucks an hour (back in the 70s). My life got easier the more money I made.

Again, why do people who are middle class continue to work against their own self interest? I mean, it really doesn't make sense to me when middle class people start using the term, "class warfare", to defend the rich against paying a just portion of their income towards the needs of this country.

I already outlined the reasons above...they are either of the very mistaken idea that they will join the ultra-rich in being ultra-rich, or they are the unwitting dupe foot soldiers of the FauxNews/Rush Limbaugh idiocies...there's no other explanation.

Fish on...

Todd

You are so detached from reality. You should try using nicer words as well. It might get you somewhere in life.

I'm STILL not rich enough--or dumb enough--to vote Republican.

I wish like hell I was rich enough.

there's been 30 years of class warfare against the poor and middle class. union busting, reduced taxes on the wealthy, jobs shipped overseas, etc. and the rich complain that changing tax rates back to the low rates during the clinton administration is "class warfare".

this would be amusing if it weren't for the bank bailouts with all that money being poured into the rich's wallets. at the same time, the bailout of the auto industry to actually save jobs of american workers who create and build real stuff is fought tooth and nail as a waste of government funds. which was wasteful now?

we are facing a fiscal crisis, and all obama and the republicans want to do is kick the can down the road two more years.

obama sucks... not because he's a kenyan marxist socialist but because he doesn't stand for anything. he'd rather negotiate than fight for what he was elected to do. let's hope some democrats will filibuster this crappy tax deal.

of course the last sentence of what you quoted could easily be changed to "...for the last two decades the rich have been making more and more while the poor have been earning less and less."

we're not going to agree on the expiration of the bush tax cuts. i believe that they were irresponsible policy that put us deeper in debt and that we cannot afford them as a country. while the right wants to frame this as "class warfare" it isn't. class warfare would be confiscatory tax rates on high incomes and seeing bankers and wall street crooks hanging from gallows... not increasing the top tax rate back to the historically low levels of the clinton administration.

We don't just have a spending problem, or a revenue problem, we have BOTH. IMO the problem is people--with absolute certainty--concluding that the problem is one or the other exclusively.

Yet what passes as a "compromise" these days is to increase spending while reducing revenue. It's insanity.

And this is exactly what you get when money buys politicians, remove money from our election process, then see what happens.

Aunty,

Of course I agree with you that you can solve the problem with ONLY spending cuts. But you're sort of making my point by being black/white about this and insisting that ONLY spending cuts should be considered. This is EXACTLY the sort of inflexible thinking that has us in our current mess IMO. These are complex issues, and they require multi-dimensional solutions, not sound bites.

Tax revenues, as a fraction of our GNP, are at the lowest they've been in 50 years (see my earlier link). While I ABSOLUTELY believe spending cuts are warranted/needed/essential and I've posted that many times previously.

However, I also believe that we've made our current situation much worse by creating and extending massive, unfunded, ongoing stimulus (tax breaks). In our current situation, I'd return tax rates to the median they have been over the last 50 years, and cut spending aggressively to close the remaining gap.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around for this economy; wall street, banks, congress, and individual citizens.

You frame it as spending problem, but what we are really talking about is the deficit. So why renew a tax break for the wealthy that adds an additional 700 billion to the deficit? For all the middle class Republican voters, did everyone get the fact that the Republicans were holding the chronically unemployed hostage to get their tax break renewal for the wealthy?

So who's fault is it that we now have such a huge deficit?
Was the budget balanced when Obama took office?
Was the budget balanced when Bush Jr. took office?
Answer these question truthfully and you'll see clearly where the problem lies.

Freespool: I know you know the answert to that. When Bush inherited the Clinton surplus he told us we need a rebate on our taxes because we were paying too much which was why we had a surplus.

Of course,the huge Bush tax cut and two wars got rid of the surplus. So perhaps we should slow spending and end the rebate. Taxes on upper income earners were at one of the lowest leves in history when Bush cut them further. Returning to the pre Bush rates would still leave us at one of the lowest tax rates in modern times, add in a bit of fiscal restraint and we would soon wipe out deficits.

Take a look at historical tax rates. Note that in 1962 the incremantal rate on upper income levels was 70% or more.


Now the guys who buy our politicians whine about rates of 36% while we run huge deficits.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.pdf

Cutting taxes on the rich for the last ten years sure didn't help the deficit, and it never will...and you can never cut spending enough to end the deficit, not without a revenue stream coming in.

Fish on...

Todd

Not to mention that reducing spending translates either directly or indirectly to increased unemployment, which subsequently adds to the defecit and further reduces revenue. It's a dilly of a pickle we find ourselves in today, friends.

AM

NO arguments here on the last paragraph, and given that, I don't know why (in your first paragraph) you're worried about rich people BUYING the argument they should pay more. I will restate my two core points, both of which are contrary to that assertion:

1. The people I personally know who are in the "Over $250K" income bracket, ALL, 100%, uniformly believe the continuation of the bush tax cuts for them is a policy mistake, nor do they think it will affect hiring (for those who own businesses) in any fashion. They are not eager to pay more to the Govt, who is? But they believe it would be reasonable to be asked to do so.

2. All I am supporting is a return to tax rates that represent what I believe is a sustainable/reasonable "normal" level. I believe, and have provided supporting documentation to show, that our current tax rates are historically low (for my lifetime), and it is no surprise we are in a budget crisis as a result.

You can argue all day whether we got here as a result of spending or revenue, but the bottom line is we have a HUGE debt and a huge deficit that need to be addressed. We're in a giant hole and need to climb out.

I hope you're not implying that I'd do something nutty. Never said I would. Never said I'd endorse such actions.



That's more what I was thinking. There's got to be a lot of people who lost their retirement and now have nothing to lose.

Now there calling extending unemployment benefits an economic stimulus plan..

Ah your right KKK left home at a very early age for reasons I wouldn't rather discuss so advanced education wasn't an option, guess I'll stick with something I know alot about and very few people on this board know anything about..Fishing...Best of luck getting your weekly stimulas check..

I-Fish the Bastion of misinformation as one ODFW manager called it, feel free to fit right in down there. Maybe the nutbag attorney can read you bedtime storys..

What's the payback on the dollar borrowed to pay the unemployment extension.

I think KK's point is that *IF* you're going to borrow a dollar, you get more economic activity FOR that borrowed dollar if it ends up as unemployment, than you do if you give that same dollar as a tax break for folks making $250K+.

People do seem at times to be confused about the difference between writing a check and giving tax breaks. Both cost dollars, and dollars are all equivalent.

Yeah, if I don't continue getting that tax break, I'm going to . . . what? send a couple more jobs to China? Jeez, like IR said, people benefiting from the tax break (pretty much all of us) while keep doing the same things with our money except for that increased fraction that is taxed (and it really is a pretty small amount; for all the bruha you'd think it doubled or tripled our taxes) and contributes to a somewhat smaller deficit, but still doesn't balance the budge.

I'm disgusted that so many Democrats and Republicans are promoting deficit spending. Have they lost their frickin' minds? Maybe my mistake for assuming they had a mind to start with.

Sg

Which philosophical point of view most resembles pay as you go, tax and spend, or give tax breaks to the wealthy and barrow and spend?

I think the problem is that most politicians are willing to run the nation into the ground in order to continue the feel good grope they get from their owners and masters who slather them with $$.

I don't believe this is the issue actually. I think they're doing it because they're mad about anyone compromising. Just like the GOP gets mad anytime someone compromises (RINO anyone?). It's all outrage all the time.

And again, WTF is the estate tax issue doing tied into this mess? Goodness me, how can THIS be the tax cut the GOP so desperately wants that in this current situation it deserves to be part of the package? You only pay this tax WHEN YOU ARE DEAD. Good grief.

Yeah, but those poor kids only get to pocket $50 Million instead of $65 Million when you die, too...how the hell can they get by on that?

Fish on...

Todd

no, but neither do the democrats with their 1M exemption.



i'm curious about why capital gains and dividends shouldn't be taxed at ordinary income rates. say jimmy "trust fund" mcgee earns $500,000 via capital gains and dividends. he pays 15% in taxes on those earnings. then you have johnny "boot straps" johnson who owns a company that produces a useful product, employs workers, and pays 35% on his $500,000. why? most tax laws are written for a supposed purpose (home interest deduction increases incentive for home ownership, for example) so what is the purpose of lower rates on un-earned income?

Virtually every penny in circulation has been taxed multiple times...it only isn't "fair" when it's the ultra-rich having to do it...

Fish on...

Todd