If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Obama: $1.6 trillion in taxes on the wealthy, $50 billion in short-term stimulus spending and $612 billion in recycled cuts. GOP: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. Obama: Ok...what's YOUR proposal then? GOP: *crickets*. The Party of 'No' is back, baby   (nytimes.com) divider line 456
    More: Obvious, President Obama, GOP, close election results, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, George Bush, entitlement reform, Peter R. Orszag, Dan Pfeiffer  
•       •       •

4310 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 12:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



456 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 03:32:16 PM

un4gvn666: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Please, PLEASE let the Republicans vote down a bill of tax cuts for 98% of Americans after we hit the cliff. I want their asses to be mounted on the wall for it in 2014.


Team over country. I'd expect no less.
 
2012-12-03 03:33:07 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.


Was it hard to pull the lever for Obama with both hands full of all the water you carry for the right?
 
2012-12-03 03:34:26 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan. delusional


Because forced abortions, the end of Medicare and Social Security, and increased borrowing to pay for more military excursions and lower taxes for rich people do not, a monster, make.
 
2012-12-03 03:35:02 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: un4gvn666: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Please, PLEASE let the Republicans vote down a bill of tax cuts for 98% of Americans after we hit the cliff. I want their asses to be mounted on the wall for it in 2014.

Team over country. I'd expect no less.


That "country" you're referring to agrees with me. Please see: Election, 2012.
 
2012-12-03 03:35:53 PM

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: spif: bwilson27: bwilson27: Weaver95: Muta: US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 -- All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

Shouldn't the House of Representatives be the ones submitting the proposals?

the President is permitted to make suggestions. Hell, ALL of us are allowed to make suggestions on budget issues. its just that the President gets heard more often than you or I.

So... No budget then?

Who put these people in? Who is responsible for Boehner being there? The Tea Party? Which was started by who? Yeah, you got it; Fox news.
Thanks Fox!

Lol, because the 1% or so of the population that actually watches this channel has that much impact on the system.

Lot's of people watch Fox.


1.865 million viewers in primetime (number taken from your article) divided by 314,877,334 people in America is still less than one percent. It's actually just a bit more than half a percent.
 
2012-12-03 03:39:12 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.


My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.
 
2012-12-03 03:40:46 PM

DeaH: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: spif: bwilson27: bwilson27: Weaver95: Muta: US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 -- All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

Shouldn't the House of Representatives be the ones submitting the proposals?

the President is permitted to make suggestions. Hell, ALL of us are allowed to make suggestions on budget issues. its just that the President gets heard more often than you or I.

So... No budget then?

Who put these people in? Who is responsible for Boehner being there? The Tea Party? Which was started by who? Yeah, you got it; Fox news.
Thanks Fox!

Lol, because the 1% or so of the population that actually watches this channel has that much impact on the system.

Lot's of people watch Fox.

1.865 million viewers in primetime (number taken from your article) divided by 314,877,334 people in America is still less than one percent. It's actually just a bit more than half a percent.


And just think, that half-a-percent has been able to take control of 1 out of the 2 viable political parties in our country. Stunning to think about.
 
2012-12-03 03:41:10 PM

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.


I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though
 
2012-12-03 03:42:53 PM

skullkrusher: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though


What do they have to lose really? Even if it pisses off the wealthy who back them what are they going to do, vote Democrat?
 
2012-12-03 03:43:19 PM

skullkrusher: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though


They will alienate Grover Norquist and everyone that thinks like him, aka most of the teahadists, and will then be primaried out of office in 2014. That's why they haven't proposed this (admittedly reasonable) counter-offer to start with.

Not that I'm complaining, since splitting the vote between a teatard and an establishment Republican might give Democrats back the House, and shiat can finally get done again in this country.
 
2012-12-03 03:46:13 PM

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.


Let's hypotheticlly say the GOP sticks to its guns and refuses to accept the administration proposal. This isn't hard to envision considering that they were almost willing to cause a default with the debt ceiling stuff last year.

The dems have two options. Extend for all (costing us $4.5t as opposed to the $3.7t you want to spend) or go over the cliff. Which would you prefer?
 
2012-12-03 03:47:57 PM
Here's the GOP counter-proposal

Link
 
2012-12-03 03:48:16 PM

skullkrusher: I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though


That's not the way they went.

However, Republicans led by Boehner object to any increase in tax rates, even for higher levels of income earned by 2% of Americans.

Instead, the counter-offer Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including raising an unspecified amount of revenue by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.
 
2012-12-03 03:49:12 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though

That's not the way they went.

However, Republicans led by Boehner object to any increase in tax rates, even for higher levels of income earned by 2% of Americans.

Instead, the counter-offer Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including raising an unspecified amount of revenue by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.


that won't end well for them
 
2012-12-03 03:52:53 PM

jst3p: skullkrusher: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though

What do they have to lose really? Even if it pisses off the wealthy who back them what are they going to do, vote Democrat?


the intransigence is really bad for them for obvious reasons - if they are gonna allow us to go over the cliff for tax cuts on the top 2% that ain't gonna play well.
However, if they propose higher end tax cut but push that cut off up a bit, they can come out looking ok even if BO rejects the offer (though I don't think he would depending on where the cut off is).
In the long run, that's probably the best deal for the country too - again pending this hypothetical new cutoff compromise I just made up
 
2012-12-03 03:53:31 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though

That's not the way they went.

However, Republicans led by Boehner object to any increase in tax rates, even for higher levels of income earned by 2% of Americans.

Instead, the counter-offer Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including raising an unspecified amount of revenue by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.

that won't end well for them


assuming the WH doesn't accept it of course
 
2012-12-03 03:55:24 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though

That's not the way they went.

However, Republicans led by Boehner object to any increase in tax rates, even for higher levels of income earned by 2% of Americans.

Instead, the counter-offer Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including raising an unspecified amount of revenue by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.

that won't end well for them


I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

The Dems are the ones who want to carve out a specific group in their extension of cuts, the GOP would extend for all right now of given the opportunity.
 
2012-12-03 03:56:25 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Obama's not being hard enough on them. He should demand an immediate lay-down on any pending White House appointments, passing a gay-marriage bill, and filibuster reform before the GOP is even allowed to sit at the table and plead their case on fiscal policy.


you should see his (lack of) veto record
 
2012-12-03 03:57:10 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

Let's hypotheticlly say the GOP sticks to its guns and refuses to accept the administration proposal. This isn't hard to envision considering that they were almost willing to cause a default with the debt ceiling stuff last year.

The dems have two options. Extend for all (costing us $4.5t as opposed to the $3.7t you want to spend) or go over the cliff. Which would you prefer?


Go over the cliff. It seems you don't have a firm grasp at what that means, but that is because "fiscal cliff" is a poor term to describe it, it is more like a fiscal slope. You see the pain isn't instant. It can be averted in the days immediately afterward by congress passing bills to undo the damage, all of it. But the Senate and Obama will get to craft the legislation and then dare the GoP to vote against it. And I would bet dollars to donuts that it wont include tax cuts for the very wealthy. I actually see this as the most likely course of action because this way the incumbant Republicans don't have to compromise with Obama and raise taxes on the wealthy directly, which would get them replaced by Tea-bagging 'Mehrikans! 

The whole "fiscal cliff" was a huge gamble on both sides. Both sides knowing that whoever took the White House wins the game. The GoP choose poorly.
 
2012-12-03 03:58:29 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?


for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.
 
2012-12-03 03:59:02 PM
$1.6 trillion in taxes on the rich!? Isn't the defecit only $1.3 trillion?

Oh, I see what you did there. You saw that the tax increase on the "rich" wasn't really going to have any impact on the deficit at all. so you projected it out tfor ten years to make it start to look like real money.

nice try Times/subtard

We need to axe all the bush cuts AND raise rates on EVERYBODY. but that will never happen.

So lets just make a token attack on the rich to make the proles feel good.

And you sheeple are just gonna eat it up and say thank you.
 
2012-12-03 03:59:35 PM

skullkrusher: I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but by raising the threshold for the rate increases.

 
2012-12-03 04:01:42 PM

skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.



They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.
 
2012-12-03 04:04:25 PM

fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.


45% at $1 Million and 49% at $1 Billion sounds good to me:

Link
 
2012-12-03 04:07:47 PM

mrshowrules: Here's the GOP counter-proposal

Link


Bullet Points:

1) End Medicare as we know it
2) Convert Medicaid to a block grant, effectively ending Medicaid as we know it
3) Cut compensation for federal employees and cut funding to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

These are the reforms that Republicans believe are "absolutely essential to addressing the true drivers of our debt".

They also outright refuse to accept higher tax rates, "in order to protect small businesses and our economy", instead generating revenue by closing loopholes and deductions, with no details whatsoever.

Please proceed, Republicans.
 
2012-12-03 04:08:12 PM

fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.


yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth
 
2012-12-03 04:08:19 PM

skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


Yeah, raise the threshold and that difference between $4.5t and $3.7t that you astutely pointed out gets smaller. Instead of a pound of flesh from the rich, the dems will get a few ounces of flesh.
 
2012-12-03 04:08:52 PM

jst3p: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

45% at $1 Million and 49% at $1 Billion sounds good to me:

Link



Sure, then they could technically extend the tax cuts for all existing brackets and claim victory.
 
Bf+
2012-12-03 04:09:19 PM

mrshowrules: Here's the GOP counter-proposal

Link


wow.just.wow.
/Thanks!
 
2012-12-03 04:09:44 PM

skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth


Do you really think there's much chance of an agreement to create a new tax bracket?
 
2012-12-03 04:10:50 PM

skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth



Great. Problem solved. I assume that their salaries will be going to us now. Will they be sending their checks to Fark or to each Farker directly?
 
2012-12-03 04:11:39 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.

Yeah, raise the threshold and that difference between $4.5t and $3.7t that you astutely pointed out gets smaller. Instead of a pound of flesh from the rich, the dems will get a few ounces of flesh.


raise the threshold and I think (almost) everyone is happy. GOP can walk away with a partial victory, Dems can walk away with a partial victory. No one has the appearance of capitulation beyond the norm necessary for functioning government.
Yay!
 
2012-12-03 04:11:42 PM

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?

What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

Let's hypotheticlly say the GOP sticks to its guns and refuses to accept the administration proposal. This isn't hard to envision considering that they were almost willing to cause a default with the debt ceiling stuff last year.

The dems have two options. Extend for all (costing us $4.5t as opposed to the $3.7t you want to spend) or go over the cliff. Which would you prefer?

Go over the cliff. It seems you don't have a firm grasp at what that means, but that is because "fiscal cliff" is a poor term to describe it, it is more like a fiscal slope. You see the pain isn't instant. It can be averted in the days immediately afterward by congress passing bills to undo the damage, all of it. But the Senate and Obama will get to craft the legislation and then dare the GoP to vote against it. And I would bet dollars to donuts that it wont include tax cuts for the very wealthy. I actually see this as the most likely course of action because this way the incumbant Republicans don't have to compromise with Obama and raise taxes on the wealthy directly, which would get them replaced by Tea-bagging 'Mehrikans! 

The whole "fiscal cliff" was a huge gamble on both sides. Both sides knowing that whoever took the White House wins the game. The GoP choose poorly.


And as I said, the GOP house can continue to pass bills retroactively extending the cuts for all in January as well. The dems will have to reject them, saying "we're not going to let the 98% have their tax cut unless the rich pay at Clinton era rates".

Which would you prefer? We go back to Clinton era rates for all indefinitely, or full extension for a couple or four years? Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?
 
2012-12-03 04:12:44 PM

eraser8: skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth

Do you really think there's much chance of an agreement to create a new tax bracket?


No, I think the GOP will continue to shoot themselves in the face. There's always hope that reason and the instinct of political self-preservation wins the day, however.
 
2012-12-03 04:13:03 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?



Yes.
 
2012-12-03 04:13:19 PM

fracto: skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth


Great. Problem solved. I assume that their salaries will be going to us now. Will they be sending their checks to Fark or to each Farker directly?


Drew ain't getting a cut of this
 
2012-12-03 04:14:01 PM

skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,


Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.
 
2012-12-03 04:14:16 PM

fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.


can't agree on that.
Making everyone else pay more is gonna do bad juju for the economy. If we gotta push the fiscal cliff out another year or 2, that's better than going over it
 
2012-12-03 04:14:59 PM

un4gvn666: skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,

Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.


skullkrusher: I think the GOP will continue to shoot themselves in the face.

 
2012-12-03 04:15:39 PM

fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.


Yes.
 
2012-12-03 04:17:32 PM

mrshowrules: SlothB77: Obama wants us to go over the fiscal cliff. He wants those large cuts to defense to go into effect. He wants the economy to crash again. When it does, he can introduce new reforms that will significantly expand the reach and power of the federal government.

Putting aside the fact you are detached from reality, if this is true, why is the GOP letting have his way?


They do whatever they are told to do. Bilderberg Group, Illuminati, etc...choose your name. You really think the largest economy and military in the world is actually being entrusted to a bunch a people elected by common citizens?

DOnt forget about FEMA, the secret government.

/might be trollin
//might actually believe that stuff
 
2012-12-03 04:18:11 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: And as I said, the GOP house can continue to pass bills retroactively extending the cuts for all in January as well. The dems will have to reject them, saying "we're not going to let the 98% have their tax cut unless the rich pay at Clinton era rates".


Two things:

Someone just won an election and part of his schtick was "raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans" so he has support on this issue.

If we do "go over the fiscal cliff" Americans think two things: It is bad and it is the fault of the GoP.

The GoP simply does not have the leverage. They are playing chicken. The Dems are in one of these:

www.personal.psu.edu

And here comes the GoP:

brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com

To imply that they are on equal footing is completely wrong.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:38 PM

jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.


Hell yes.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:48 PM
The people that are struggling to buy food and shelter should not have to sacrifice for the people that are struggling to find that perfect $5000 shower curtain for their 5th beach house...
 
2012-12-03 04:19:17 PM

skullkrusher: un4gvn666: skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,

Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.

skullkrusher: I think the GOP will continue to shoot themselves in the face.


Gotcha. I agree.
 
2012-12-03 04:19:19 PM

skullkrusher: eraser8: skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth

Do you really think there's much chance of an agreement to create a new tax bracket?

No, I think the GOP will continue to shoot themselves in the face. There's always hope that reason and the instinct of political self-preservation wins the day, however.


I'm guessing most Republicans are more concerned by the possibility of a primary challenge than they are from losing the general. So, that sense of political self-preservation, I suspect, would push them away from an agreement rather than towards one.
 
2012-12-03 04:20:15 PM

eraser8: skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth

Do you really think there's much chance of an agreement to create a new tax bracket?


Especially considering once you hit "incomes" that high, what you're actually getting into are of the "cap gains + salary = BAZILLIONS AND BAZILLIONS OF CURRENCIES" stripe. When your yearly earnings are that astronomical, you weren't just getting direct deposits twice a month.

Which is why the only way I'd accept new brackets like that are if we had some kind of "standard deduction-esque" way of handling it. If your salary + cap gains from this year are over $5m, you get a standard deduction equal to median salary, and the rest is taxed at the bracketed rates for income. (I'm forgiving on the details.)

Something so that someone who makes 90% of their earnings through cap gains (but only $1 salary, LOLs) doesn't get to hide behind the same low rate that helps my folks retire earlier.
 
2012-12-03 04:20:20 PM

un4gvn666: skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,

Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.



Fear. They know they will carry the blame among many. A not insignificant number of Dems would rather they go up for everyone anyway, those that don't will blame the Repubs. For the Repub base any increase is bad. The best they can hope for is partial victory that they can spin the hell out of to their base. Any way this goes down will probably hurt them more than it will hurt the Dems, it should be all about damage control at this point.

Unless they 'unskewed' the data about where the blame will fall, then they certainly wouldn't concede in their moment of triumph.
 
2012-12-03 04:21:15 PM

jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.


I actually agree with you guys that we need to go back to Clinton era rates. But that's my preference over raising it for only the 2%, as it raises over 5x the revenue.

My question was more aimed at those who would prefer the Obama proposal of extending for the 98%, under the hypothetical assumption that that was off the table and you had to choose between all or none get extended.
 
2012-12-03 04:22:46 PM

skullkrusher: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

can't agree on that.
Making everyone else pay more is gonna do bad juju for the economy. If we gotta push the fiscal cliff out another year or 2, that's better than going over it



I agree that it would hurt the economy. I think it would be better in the long run to end them though. I would prefer to keep them around for a while longer where they are doing the most good (lower/middle incomes) but given a choice between ending the cuts and kicking the can down the road for the next few decades, I would say to end them now.
 
Displayed 50 of 456 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report