'Revenue' increases would be great, although the GOP wants to slash taxes to do so, relying on discredited and ass-back-wards concepts that have only increased tax Revenue' twice over the course of a century, longer even, and all other applications have resulted in 'Revenue' decreases.

Oh look, another Republican saying that lowering tax rates increases revenues. File this under "BS".

The democrats need to keep hammering home the point that the republican party is more interested in representing wealthy donors than the citizens of this country. We've always known that, but it's never been so painfully and undeniably clear to independent voters.

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: I remember when the WaPo was a good newspaper.

You can't fault them for including some conservatives in their opinion section, which they have done for at least the last thirty years.

The problem is that those conservatives have gone off the deep derp end.

FTFY

From TFA

Has the president ever publicly proposed a single significant structural change in any entitlement? After Simpson-Bowles reported? No. In his February budget? No. In his April 13 budget "framework"? No. During the debt-ceiling crisis? No. During or after the supercommittee deliberations? No.

Indeed, Obama was AWOL from the supercommittee - then immediately pounced on its failure by going on TV to repeat his incessantly repeated campaign theme of the do-nothing (Republican) Congress.

Can someone explain to me why there is this weird obsession with complaining that the executive branch isn't doing the legislative branches job? Per the constitution the President can suggest topics for consideration and force congress to convene, but isn't there to write legislation. Is the 'suggest topics' part what they're complaining about?

I'm old enough to remember when republicans loathed deficit spending. Good Times.

Shaggy_C: Oh look, another Republican saying that lowering tax rates increases revenues. File this under "BS".

You reading a different article?

Shaggy_C: Oh look, another Republican saying that lowering tax rates increases revenues. File this under "BS".

Whatever lib. If taxes were set at 0%, we'd have infinite revenue. Of course they'll never do that because they need you to believe the big lie.

NkThrasher: Can someone explain to me why there is this weird obsession with complaining that the executive branch isn't doing the legislative branches job?

Because... Obama.

I thought we were all on-board with the "do nothing-fix everything" plan.

NkThrasher: From TFA

Has the president ever publicly proposed a single significant structural change in any entitlement? After Simpson-Bowles reported? No. In his February budget? No. In his April 13 budget "framework"? No. During the debt-ceiling crisis? No. During or after the supercommittee deliberations? No.

Indeed, Obama was AWOL from the supercommittee - then immediately pounced on its failure by going on TV to repeat his incessantly repeated campaign theme of the do-nothing (Republican) Congress.

Can someone explain to me why there is this weird obsession with complaining that the executive branch isn't doing the legislative branches job? Per the constitution the President can suggest topics for consideration and force congress to convene, but isn't there to write legislation. Is the 'suggest topics' part what they're complaining about?

It upsets them greatly when they can't pin stuff on him, so the complaint becomes that he's "AWOL". Never mind that he wasn't supposed to be involved in the first place.

want to see something awesome? $80b per year is mere pennies on the dollar, but $100b per year is ONE TRILLION OVER THE DECADE AND IS TOTALLY GONNA FIX EVERYTHING!

The Simpson-Bowles commission - appointed by President Obama and endorsed by Coburn - used the same formula. Its tax reform would lower tax rates at a "cost" of $1trillion a year while eliminating loopholes that deprive the Treasury of $1.1trillion a year. This would leave the Treasury with an excess - i.e., new tax revenue - of $100 billion a year, or $1trillion over a decade.

Later in the article:

(2) We're talking pennies on the dollar. Obama's coveted repeal of the Bush tax cuts would yield the Treasury, at the very most, $80 billion a year - offsetting 2 cents on the dollar of government spending ($3.6 trillion).

Closing loopholes is a terrible idea. Let's say your corporation owes 10 million in taxes. Let's also say there is a tax deduction loophole for building new factories in the US. Every corporation out there would invest in new factories if the alternative is giving all the money to Uncle Sam. Why conservatives can't seem to understand this is beyond me.

RosettaStone: I'm old enough to remember when republicans loathed deficit spending. Good Times.

So you're 100 years old?

I smelled Krauthammer before I even opened the Politics page.

HotWingConspiracy: Shaggy_C: Oh look, another Republican saying that lowering tax rates increases revenues. File this under "BS".

Whatever lib. If taxes were set at 0%, we'd have infinite revenue. Of course they'll never do that because they need you to believe the big lie.

is it a "lib" thing to not read the article?

PanicMan: want to see something awesome? $80b per year is mere pennies on the dollar, but $100b per year is ONE TRILLION OVER THE DECADE AND IS TOTALLY GONNA FIX EVERYTHING!

The Simpson-Bowles commission - appointed by President Obama and endorsed by Coburn - used the same formula. Its tax reform would lower tax rates at a "cost" of $1trillion a year while eliminating loopholes that deprive the Treasury of $1.1trillion a year. This would leave the Treasury with an excess - i.e., new tax revenue - of $100 billion a year, or $1trillion over a decade.

Later in the article:

(2) We're talking pennies on the dollar. Obama's coveted repeal of the Bush tax cuts would yield the Treasury, at the very most, $80 billion a year - offsetting 2 cents on the dollar of government spending ($3.6 trillion).

hehe you noticed that too?

Cinaed: 'Revenue' increases would be great, although the GOP wants to slash taxes to do so, relying on discredited and ass-back-wards concepts that have only increased tax Revenue' twice over the course of a century, longer even, and all other applications have resulted in 'Revenue' decreases.

Know how I know you didn't read the article?

FTA:

Raising revenue through tax reform is better than simply raising rates, which Democrats insist upon with near religious fervor. It is more economically efficient because it eliminates credits, carve-outs and deductions that grossly misallocate capital. And it is more fair because it is the rich who can afford not only the sharp lawyers and accountants who exploit loopholes but the lobbyists who create them in the first place.

No "voodoo economics" or "trickle-down" claim is being made.

GentDirkly: Cinaed: 'Revenue' increases would be great, although the GOP wants to slash taxes to do so, relying on discredited and ass-back-wards concepts that have only increased tax Revenue' twice over the course of a century, longer even, and all other applications have resulted in 'Revenue' decreases.

Know how I know you didn't read the article?

FTA:
Raising revenue through tax reform is better than simply raising rates, which Democrats insist upon with near religious fervor. It is more economically efficient because it eliminates credits, carve-outs and deductions that grossly misallocate capital. And it is more fair because it is the rich who can afford not only the sharp lawyers and accountants who exploit loopholes but the lobbyists who create them in the first place.

No "voodoo economics" or "trickle-down" claim is being made.



/beware jerking knees

Raising revenue through tax reform is better than simply raising rates, which Democrats insist upon with near religious fervor.

apparently, raising revenue isn't what the liberals want. look how stupid you guys are.

skullkrusher: hehe you noticed that too?

It's like, come on man. Krauthammer, you have to be able to do better than that.

I also like how his proof about what happened inside the super-committee is to cite things that happened outside the super-committee.

Grover Norquist's pledge is a perfect example of why the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to get things done if every Democrat signed a pledge to a powerful special interest promising to never cut spending?

Politics is about compromise, so of course it's damn near impossible to solve budget problems when one side has chained themselves to a "We will never compromise on anything ever" pledge.

skullkrusher: You reading a different article?

All of the alternatives mentioned include lower tax rates made up for with the elimination of mysterious "loopholes". There is a built-in assumption that the lower rates grow the economy and therefore increase tax revenue.

PanicMan: skullkrusher: hehe you noticed that too?

It's like, come on man. Krauthammer, you have to be able to do better than that.

I also like how his proof about what happened inside the super-committee is to cite things that happened outside the super-committee.

I guess his point was that a single example of a loophole reduction could net more revenues than an increase to pre-Bush tax rates but it did look funny.

PanicMan: want to see something awesome? $80b per year is mere pennies on the dollar, but $100b per year is ONE TRILLION OVER THE DECADE AND IS TOTALLY GONNA FIX EVERYTHING!

The Simpson-Bowles commission - appointed by President Obama and endorsed by Coburn - used the same formula. Its tax reform would lower tax rates at a "cost" of $1trillion a year while eliminating loopholes that deprive the Treasury of $1.1trillion a year. This would leave the Treasury with an excess - i.e., new tax revenue - of $100 billion a year, or $1trillion over a decade.

Later in the article:

(2) We're talking pennies on the dollar. Obama's coveted repeal of the Bush tax cuts would yield the Treasury, at the very most, $80 billion a year - offsetting 2 cents on the dollar of government spending ($3.6 trillion).

He shouldn't have disparaged Obama's proposal as too small.
What Krauthammer should have said is that Obama would have the top marginal rate at almost double where Simpson-Bowles put it (39.6% vs. 22%). Republicans believe that, of all the laws on the books that can affect economic growth, the top marginal rate has the largest impact. They might be wrong about that. But a lot of economists agree with them.

Shaggy_C: skullkrusher: You reading a different article?

All of the alternatives mentioned include lower tax rates made up for with the elimination of mysterious "loopholes". There is a built-in assumption that the lower rates grow the economy and therefore increase tax revenue.

No.

Coming soon to a Congress near you, the Defense of Grover Act since an oath to Norquist is much more sacred than any Republican's wedding vow and gender doesn't matter -- he's that good in bed.

Shaggy_C: skullkrusher: You reading a different article?

All of the alternatives mentioned include lower tax rates made up for with the elimination of mysterious "loopholes". There is a built-in assumption that the lower rates grow the economy and therefore increase tax revenue.

nowhere in the article does he say that lowering tax rates would lead to an increase in revenues.

"The Republican proposals raise revenue, despite lowering rates, by opening a gusher of new income for the Treasury in the form of loophole elimination."

The "built in assumption" is your own. It's not in the article.

I alone am best: No.

Yes. Did you read the Simpson-Bowles report? Huge chunks of the revenue increases are expected to come from nebulous "increases in competitiveness" that come from reducing tax rates, namely the corporate tax rate to 26%.

Ah, yes, a republican apologist, Krauthammer no less, cherry-picking tax revenue projections to prove Democrats are bad.

This truly is some wisdom for the ages.

GentDirkly: Cinaed: 'Revenue' increases would be great, although the GOP wants to slash taxes to do so, relying on discredited and ass-back-wards concepts that have only increased tax Revenue' twice over the course of a century, longer even, and all other applications have resulted in 'Revenue' decreases.

Know how I know you didn't read the article?

FTA:
... And it is more fair because it is the rich who can afford not only the sharp lawyers and accountants who exploit loopholes but the lobbyists who create them in the first place.

No "voodoo economics" or "trickle-down" claim is being made.
`
And these same lawyers and lobbyists will ensure that 'The Rich' will still have ways to shelter their hard earned wealth while the rest of us pay out the ass.