Seriously though subby, there is no doubt the GOP will entertain revenue increases. It just matters where those revenue increases come from. Taxing the rich is class warfare. Class warfare is bad. Therefore the GOP will only entertain taxes on the poor and middle class. So again, revenue increases are not bad, it just matters that you don't enact class warfare in the process*.

See for instance: here (new window) and Cain's 9-9-9 plan.

*does not apply to middle class or poor people

thomps: i was listening to a planet money podcast the other day that was talking about a clinton era white house memo that detailed the effects to the economy if the US government had paid off its debt (at the time they were projecting that the debt would be paid off by 2012 if they stayed the course that clinton had set, which is obviously arguable, but not the point).

one of the guys they interviewed was a bush era white house economist who had argued for the tax cuts. even he said that no reputable economist could argue that those tax cuts were fully replaced by an increase in tax receipts. assuming that to be true, how can any republican argue against tax increases in the context of deficit reduction?

Because socialism.

/the only reason that matters to a Republican anymore

The GOP wants to increase money to the wealthy, reduce the government, reduce assistance to the poor and elderly, and increase unemployment so Obama looks bad. Good priorities, fellas.

Good news is: (new window)

The ADP National Employment Report showed on Wednesday the economy's private sector added 110,000 jobs in October, topping economists' expectations for a gain of 101,000 jobs. ADP also increased September's job additions, to a gain of 116,000 from the previously reported 91,000.

In spite of:

All of the various 250 program reductions in the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution probably eliminated more than 370,000 American jobs

Oh, look - more people who think "tax increase" always means "revenue increase."

cirby: Oh, look - more people who think "tax increase" always means "revenue increase."

Do you enjoy discarding all context and good sense?

What do you got there, numbers?

thomps: assuming that to be true, how can any republican argue against tax increases in the context of deficit reduction?

Because faith-based economic policy needs no evidence.

cirby: Oh, look - more people who think "tax increase" always means "revenue increase."

Yes. Up to a point (no where near what we're at now), a tax increase leads to a revenue increase. Especially on the "job creators." If we use that money to generate demand, via government spending or giving it to the poor and middle class, it will actually create jobs.

Without RTFA, I can tell you that the proof must be infinitesmally small, because when you got the crazy train of double down derp, there is no stopping at Taxincreaseville.

dahmers love zombie: This is getting ridiculous. Of course the Republicans have been OK with revenue increases. They've been in favor of them since day one.

I think the lefty-libs on Fark should admit this. No, I think they should shout it from the rooftops. Republicans won't support tax increases? That's a flat out lie.

Virtually every Republican leader in Congress, and every Republican presidential candidate, has supported significant tax increases on the poor.

You had me going until the end. I even started typing "6/10".

If you think the GOP actually is interested in cutting the deficit you are an idiot.

They are for cutting certain programs they don't like and they try to hide behind "fiscal responsibility". But they want to increase defense the largest discretionary spending there is.

Corvus: If you think the GOP actually is interested in cutting the deficit you are an idiot.

They are for cutting certain programs they don't like and they try to hide behind "fiscal responsibility". But they want to increase defense the largest discretionary spending there is.

640Trillion should be enough for anyone. -Bill "Boehner" Gates.

Today's GOP is the greatest threat this nation has ever faced.

On a related note, today's GOP is the greatest boon the future post-apocalyptic North American wasteland has ever faced.

Republicans support raising taxes on anyone who doesn't work for or contribute to Republican politicians.

Sock Ruh Tease: Today's GOP is the greatest threat this nation has ever faced.

On a related note, today's GOP is the greatest boon the future post-apocalyptic North American wasteland has ever faced.

I even hear Mad Max 4: Fury Road is being set in North America.

dahmers love zombie: I think the lefty-libs on Fark should admit this. No, I think they should shout it from the rooftops. Republicans won't support tax increases? That's a flat out lie.

Virtually every Republican leader in Congress, and every Republican presidential candidate, has supported significant tax increases on the poor.

I see what you're doing there, but you're still wrong. Sure they want to raise taxes on the poor, but that's as a smokescreen to reduce taxes on the rich by an even greater amount. Their flat-tax schemes, for example, do greatly increase to portion of revenue generated from low-income people, but greatly decrease the overall revenue.

xanadian: The bigger blue skyscraper thingee over "Debt Service Savings" is truly telling.

Which party is supposed to be concerned about fiscal responsibility again?

Also, this is compromise. See all those cuts the Democrats are willing to make? Everywhere? See where the Republicans are willing to not meet them a fraction of a way on revenue? See how little the debt savings and actually decreasing the deficit matters to them?

Your pie charts are misleading. The size of the "Democrats" pie should be 4/3rds the size of the "Republicans" pie, but you used a 4:3 ratio for the radii, not the areas, so it appears to be 16/9ths (almost twice) the size of the "Republicans" pie.
1 hour agoshare flag spamoffensivedisagreeoff topicReplyLike 1 more MsInformed 25 pts
dan.schmidt Don't you mean diameters, not radii


From the comments. Do we still teach maths in school anymore?

Corvus: If you think the GOP actually is interested in cutting the deficit you are an idiot.

You don't have to be an idiot. You could just be severely delusional.

Seriously though, Democrats will cut discretionary spending more than Republicans(!), how is your average derper going to justify that the Democraps are the big spenders now? Claim that cutting discretionary spending is now socialism?

How can you make the case that government does not have enough revenue when they admit to things MEDICARE wasting up to $80 billion a year, giving away money to build electric cars in Finland, finance socially aware puppet shows.and buildign of turtle tunnels.

I for one believe that the approx. combined $5 trillion in revenues that all levels of government take in is more than enough if we spend it better.

Revenue shortage is not the problem.

hasty ambush: How can you make the case that government does not have enough revenue when they admit to things MEDICARE wasting up to $80 billion a year, giving away money to build electric cars in Finland, finance socially aware puppet shows.and buildign of turtle tunnels.

I for one believe that the approx. combined $5 trillion in revenues that all levels of government take in is more than enough if we spend it better.

Revenue shortage is not the problem.

It's PART of the problem, unless you've forgotten the trillions of dollars we owe in debt. We need revenue to pay our bills.

Why does shiat have to be one-sided to partisan farking morons all the time? this is why we're farked.

hasty ambush: How can you make the case that government does not have enough revenue when they admit to things MEDICARE wasting up to $80 billion a year, giving away money to build electric cars in Finland, finance socially aware puppet shows.and buildign of turtle tunnels.

I for one believe that the approx. combined $5 trillion in revenues that all levels of government take in is more than enough if we spend it better.

Revenue shortage is not the problem.

You don't care about the deficit. You only care about forcing your extreme agenda on the American people. You're part of the problem.

impaler: Here's the data, reduced to 3 categories

[growlersoftware.com image 482x384]

You know that when Grover Norquist saw that teeny, tiny little red line over revenues that his left eye started twitching uncontrollably.

thomps:
one of the guys they interviewed was a bush era white house economist who had argued for the tax cuts. even he said that no reputable economist could argue that those tax cuts were fully replaced by an increase in tax receipts. assuming that to be true, how can any republican argue against tax increases in the context of deficit reduction?

Everyone who has graduated from the 'talking head' level to 'policy wonk' level knows that your current rates have to be on the right side of the Laffer curve for long-term economic growth to wash out short-term losses due to rate cuts. During the Ford administration, when Laffer was starting to get noticed, our top marginal rate was above the right side, higher than optimal for maximizing revenue (though the goal IS NOT to maximize revenue). But the other rates were below, even then. Republicans always overstate the significance of the top marginal rate; you have to look at them all. But Democrats certainly understate it. Now all of our rates are below the Laffer peak, been that way since Reagan.

Back to the subject at hand, neither party is making a serious play at any part of Bowles-Simpson. There are no heroes here, not yet. Revenue increases require broad spectrum participation. You can lower marginal rates (which conservatives should go for) and therefore enhance economic growth, AND actually grow revenue by eliminating lots of deductions and exemptions.

1) Reduce the 'zero' bracket and the EITC. This causes more participation by the poor. Conservatives should go for that.

2) Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and employer-provided healthcare deduction. This causes more participation by the middle class.

3) Treat capital gains, long and short term, as ordinary income. This is what Warren Buffet was asking for. Liberals should go for this part.

No one is proposing these things other than Bowles and Simpson. That has to change

hillbillypharmacist: thomps: assuming that to be true, how can any republican argue against tax increases in the context of deficit reduction?

Well, they hate the federal government worse than deficits.

I don't think they're arguing in good faith. They don't give a damn about deficits. They care about reducing the power of the federal government.

Reagan's attempts to restructure search and seizure laws and Bush's creation of the largest Federal law enforcement agency ever say otherwise

What do you mean "Proof that the GOP WILL Entertain Revenue Increases"?

ALL GOP support revenue increases.


//For those of you that think this is wrong, I suggest you learn the difference between revenue increases and tax hikes.

meat0918: Is Norquist the one that had his father steal his treats as a child and call them taxes? Or is that Liddy?

Heh. I do that to my kids on Halloween. I call it the "dad tax". I don't take it all, of course, just a few pieces off the top.

Well, if you take 100% of the combined income of everyone making $50,000 or less, you might be able to give more money to military contractors...

Rent is too damn high: Corvus: If you think the GOP actually is interested in cutting the deficit you are an idiot.

You don't have to be an idiot. You could just be severely delusional.

Seriously though, Democrats will cut discretionary spending more than Republicans(!), how is your average derper going to justify that the Democraps are the big spenders now? Claim that cutting discretionary spending is now socialism?

'Discretionary' spending these days is mostly 'Defense'.