Obama, taxes, and the dailyKos alternative betaverse.

[soulflower]

They both loose if another recession hits. And really, this argument is so much about little. Is anyone talking about the unfunded liabilities? Until they do, it's just a spit shine on old boots.

The fact of the matter is, the public is so polarized, nothing much changes. If nothing gets done, the same cheerleaders will spew the usual talking points.

The POTUS has nothing to lose because he's a lame duck

[CajunRaven]

The POTUS has nothing to lose because he's a lame duck

True, but I doubt the faithfull followers in congress will accept that line of reasoning.

[soulflower]

True, but I doubt the faithfull followers in congress will accept that line of reasoning.

Nothing gets passed without the Lame Duck's signature. He's in the driver's seat.

I'm all for gridlock.

[CajunRaven]

Nothing gets passed without the Lame Duck's signature. He's in the driver's seat.

I'm all for gridlock.

Well, he can pretty much blow off the party, but ..........

GWB was a lame duck when he tried to push SS reform through. And Immigration?

[soulflower]

Well, he can pretty much blow off the party, but ..........

GWB was a lame duck when he tried to push SS reform through. And Immigration?

I'm sure you understand the difference between trying to implement new programs versus doing nothing to prevent tax increases and spending cuts.

The President can do nothing and still get most of what he wants..

[dsummoner]

Who wants to join me in jumping off the fiscal cliff? More revenue + mandatory cuts in domestic and military spending = a guaranteed lower deficit. Maybe even a surplus.

You might want to take a look at the following.

Anyone recall the budget situation when we last had the Clinton-era tax rates?

What Clinton era bubble do you want to see reinflated?

[CajunRaven]

I'm sure you understand the difference between trying to implement new programs versus doing nothing to prevent tax increases and spending cuts.

The President can do nothing and still get most of what he wants..

I doubt he's real keen on those social cuts, but maybe he'd take them.

I think the MIC needs to take a hit anyway, they're just as wasteful and inefficient as any regular government entity.

If we have a recession next year, Potus will go by unscathed?

When you consider the effects of the cliff plus the cost on implementing ACA next year, a lot of jobs might be lost.

Maybe Potus is lame, but I bet he worries about his legacy. 4 more years of a lousy economy and he goes down as Carter doubled down.

[soulflower]

I doubt he's real keen on those social cuts, but maybe he'd take them.

I think the MIC needs to take a hit anyway, they're just as wasteful and inefficient as any regular government entity.

If we have a recession next year, Potus will go by unscathed?

When you consider the effects of the cliff plus the cost on implementing ACA next year, a lot of jobs might be lost.

Maybe Potus is lame, but I bet he worries about his legacy. 4 more years of a lousy economy and he goes down as Carter doubled down.

He probably doesn't want to go over the cliff but he's in a strong negotiating position whether you choose to admit it or not. The republicans know this, which is why they will cave on tax rates for upper incomes...

[SomeIdiot]

You might want to take a look at the following.



What Clinton era bubble do you want to see reinflated?

This is the argument I never understand. I agree that the success of the 1990's isn't without major caveat but I also don't think federal income tax rates had, or have, anything but the loosest relationship to economic growth this far to the left of the Laffer curve.

I know what your answer is going to be, but I ask it rhetorically anyway; is it ever, under any circumstances, acceptable for taxes to be raised, and further, what is the purpose of taxation?

I ask because constantly ratcheting down rates, without any sort of commensurate change in spending, strikes me as far worse at this juncture than any sort of over-taxation. Since Reagan we've been continuously on the edge of fiscal crisis and nowhere near confiscatory levels of taxation (I use the term confiscatory to mean so high that they'd retard growth or create a disincentive for entrepreneurial activity).

[georjec2]

According to the dailyKos alternative betaverse, yes.

Who would believe such lies?

This time I'm betting on a stronger more determined Obama than lasts terms Kum By Yah go along to get along Obama. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Paul Ryan ? Deep in the throes of anger and denial.

[zenwalk]

This is the argument I never understand. I agree that the success of the 1990's isn't without major caveat but I also don't think federal income tax rates had, or have, anything but the loosest relationship to economic growth this far to the left of the Laffer curve.

Repubs are still dining out on that? The truth is when Reagan lowered the corporate tax rate it was high and had nurtured a cottage industry in tax evasion. Simplifying that was a huge enough task that yes, it triggered a wave of new investment. But the proposed increases don't strike me as enough to impact the Laffer Curve at all.

[dsummoner]

This is the argument I never understand. I agree that the success of the 1990's isn't without major caveat but I also don't think federal income tax rates had, or have, anything but the loosest relationship to economic growth this far to the left of the Laffer curve.

I know what your answer is going to be, but I ask it rhetorically anyway; is it ever, under any circumstances, acceptable for taxes to be raised, and further, what is the purpose of taxation?

I ask because constantly ratcheting down rates, without any sort of commensurate change in spending, strikes me as far worse at this juncture than any sort of over-taxation. Since Reagan we've been continuously on the edge of fiscal crisis and nowhere near confiscatory levels of taxation (I use the term confiscatory to mean so high that they'd retard growth or create a disincentive for entrepreneurial activity).

In theory, taxation should be purpose of funding the actual national defense (not meddling in Iraq or Libya) and the payment of such taxes should be linked with the privilege of voting. That being said, any discussions of constitutionality are somewhat moot secondary to the massive expansion of Federal powers under the 'general welfare' (aka welfare state) and interstate commerce clauses. So-called governance has become nothing more than exactly the following (295 U.S. 330 (1935)):

Thus the Act denies due process of law by taking the property of one and bestowing it upon another. This onerous financial burden cannot be justified upon the plea that it is in the interest of economy, or will promote efficiency or safety.

Until such a time as the voting to oneself the work product (property) of other is ended, there is no time at which I would agree that tax raises are justified. Unfortunately, this problem will not correct itself until the reset button is hit (by foreigners who say no). It is not a matter of if such will happen but a matter of when. The sooner it happens the better.

As the shift accelerates from the goods based manufacturing economy to a predominantly finance/services based economy, the degree to which the tipping point is reached in regards to the finance component comes all the quicker and it is far easier to move one's business and capital to friendlier climates.

[SalisburySage]

I think that there needs to be a third party. The Constitution Party. Let the Republican Party Die on the vine. There is no saving it now. The Obama zombies have seen to that.

[Phineas Finn]

Throughout the campaign, Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan made this election a referendum on President Obama's policies, and now after months and millions of dollars spent on ads driving home their point that America had been given a great choice between two different views of government, they're trying to claim that voters have not rejected their ideas.

[dsummoner]

Throughout the campaign, Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan made this election a referendum on President Obama's policies, and now after months and millions of dollars spent on ads driving home their point that America had been given a great choice between two different views of government, they're trying to claim that voters have not rejected their ideas.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. The facade of 'two different views' was merely that... a facade. A little bit more statism in one area than another but with no underlying paradigmatic differences.

Thankfully the foreigners are coming with legitimate made in China heavy machinery for a bit of forest clearing.

[SomeIdiot]

In theory, taxation should be purpose of funding the actual national defense (not meddling in Iraq or Libya) and the payment of such taxes should be linked with the privilege of voting. That being said, any discussions of constitutionality are somewhat moot secondary to the massive expansion of Federal powers under the 'general welfare' (aka welfare state) and interstate commerce clauses. So-called governance has become nothing more than exactly the following (295 U.S. 330 (1935)):

I'm not sure that there are many people out there who vote who pay zero taxes. Even folks who end up getting money back on their tax returns are paying FICA and payroll taxes, not to mention various other taxes (like when they fill up their cars with gas). How much do you have to pay before you get a seat at the table?

Until such a time as the voting to oneself the work product (property) of other is ended, there is no time at which I would agree that tax raises are justified. Unfortunately, this problem will not correct itself until the reset button is hit (by foreigners who say no). It is not a matter of if such will happen but a matter of when. The sooner it happens the better.

As the shift accelerates from the goods based manufacturing economy to a predominantly finance/services based economy, the degree to which the tipping point is reached in regards to the finance component comes all the quicker and it is far easier to move one's business and capital to friendlier climates.

I think this is contradictory. Even funding the national defense, as you reference in the previous paragraphs, is taking the money of another and giving it to someone else, be it to build tanks, rifles, or give a wage to a soldier. Everything the government does is inherently redistribution. Hell, redistributing to the military and their associated contractors is welfare pretty much on the same scale as Social Security and Medicare under current conditions.

I think you're arguing for anarchy (or maybe de facto oligarchy) at this point, not constitutionally constrained government. I also don't think a collapse is going to bring about the society you want. It's more likely to bring about roving bands of thugs taking whatever they want at gunpoint and maybe not even leaving you alive afterward. That strikes me as a much nastier fate than dealing with taxation.

[regularguy]

I think that there needs to be a third party. The Constitution Party. Let the Republican Party Die on the vine. There is no saving it now. The Obama zombies have seen to that.

Would the Constitution Party be as hostile to gay rights as the Republican Party has been?

[songfourone]

In theory, taxation should be purpose of funding the actual national defense (not meddling in Iraq or Libya) and the payment of such taxes should be linked with the privilege of voting. That being said, any discussions of constitutionality are somewhat moot secondary to the massive expansion of Federal powers under the 'general welfare' (aka welfare state) and interstate commerce clauses. So-called governance has become nothing more than exactly the following (295 U.S. 330 (1935)):



Until such a time as the voting to oneself the work product (property) of other is ended, there is no time at which I would agree that tax raises are justified. Unfortunately, this problem will not correct itself until the reset button is hit (by foreigners who say no). It is not a matter of if such will happen but a matter of when. The sooner it happens the better.

As the shift accelerates from the goods based manufacturing economy to a predominantly finance/services based economy, the degree to which the tipping point is reached in regards to the finance component comes all the quicker and it is far easier to move one's business and capital to friendlier climates.

You keep speaking of these friendlier climates? You mean Hong Kong, Qatar, or Singapore? Are you packing yet?

[reg_indy]

I think that there needs to be a third party. The Constitution Party. Let the Republican Party Die on the vine. There is no saving it now. The Obama zombies have seen to that.

HOw did the "Obama zombies" wreck the GOP?

[songfourone]

HOw did the "Obama zombies" wreck the GOP?

LOL more like a self induced implosion.