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.

(Christian Science Monitor)   More Republicans agree to higher tax rates for the wealthy. Republicans outraged   (csmonitor.com) divider line 257
    More: Obvious, Republican, tax rates, House Republican Conference, Jeb Hensarling  
•       •       •

6792 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2012 at 12:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-10 10:55:05 AM
The paid in the pocket legislature is outraged. Let's get it right...
 
2012-12-10 12:12:17 PM
Grover Norquist is outraged, perhaps...
 
2012-12-10 12:14:37 PM
Sound like the GoP is learning to pick and choose their battles more carefully.
 
2012-12-10 12:14:50 PM
Like pissin on a forest fire
 
2012-12-10 12:15:15 PM
I think this adds republicans to the list of people conspiring against the GOP
 
2012-12-10 12:15:23 PM
my 55 year-old underemployed, un-insured bro-in-law is furious with this direction

/why-oh-why?
 
2012-12-10 12:15:44 PM
Sounds like the GOP is recognizing why the President was elected for a second term. Give the people what they want... not just bread and circumcisions.
 
2012-12-10 12:16:00 PM
Are they starting to eat each other already?.
 
2012-12-10 12:16:23 PM

I Said: I think this adds republicans to the list of people conspiring against the GOP


They were already on the list
 
2012-12-10 12:16:31 PM
But Republicans, you have Obama on the ropes. Keep doubling down. He'll fold. Trust me, I'm a liberal - I like facts and stuff.
 
2012-12-10 12:17:19 PM
MEH!
 
2012-12-10 12:17:44 PM

KidneyStone: Like pissin on a forest fire


It will make a bigger dent in the problem than cutting funding for NPR. If that was on the table why is this not significant enough to matter?
 
2012-12-10 12:19:33 PM
Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?
 
2012-12-10 12:19:54 PM
Instead of raising taxes how about slowing the perpetual war machine and closing tax loopholes. Oh right that makes too much sense and cuts into massive corporate lobbying profits.
 
2012-12-10 12:20:33 PM

jst3p: Sound like the GoP is learning to pick and choose their battles more carefully.


I would prefer if, and perhaps it isn't particularly "new" but this game of "pretend that we can't get anything done until the day of the deadline, usually with a midnight session to placate the base" could stop. Our credit rating was downgraded because of it last year; this brinksmanship in absence of leadership is costing us.

Yeah, there are primary challenges for ideological politicians, but showing some reasoned restraint like "I chose to grab the rudder and keep the economy out of the ditch after fighting as hard as I could to keep taxes in check" is better than "I'd rather die than compromise!"
 
2012-12-10 12:20:46 PM
Wow, that's good. I was wondering how Obama was going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.
 
2012-12-10 12:21:40 PM

jst3p: KidneyStone: Like pissin on a forest fire

It will make a bigger dent in the problem than cutting funding for NPR. If that was on the table why is this not significant enough to matter?


Maybe looking for Party obedience by forcing someone's hand to cut off another's as proof or tribute?
 
2012-12-10 12:21:42 PM
I still maintain the intelligent thing for the Republicans to do is before the end of the year (although time is rapidly passing) to write up the exact middle tax cuts Obama wants, slam them through Congress, and drop them on Obama's desk before Christmas Break.

If he signs, they strut around and talk about how they preserved tax cuts for something like 80% of Americans. Take all the credit.

If he doesn't sign, they have a legit avenue to attack Obama over bipartisanship.

If Reid kills it in the Senate, attack Reid and the Dems for doing that.
 
2012-12-10 12:21:42 PM
Take away my mortgage interest deduction and I'll get all stabby. I'm not rich.
 
2012-12-10 12:21:47 PM

Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?


If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?
 
2012-12-10 12:22:24 PM
That's cute, they realize that if they don't do anything they'll be blamed for years if not decades. It's kinda like telling your kid to clean up his toys or they're getting tossed. They'll pick up their shiat.
 
2012-12-10 12:22:41 PM
9 out of the 10 richest counties voted for Obama, so give them the tax increases they want.
First, cap mortgage interest deductions at the $250k loan level.
Then eliminate the deductability of state and local taxes.
Viola! Tax increases on wealthy americans who voted for them!
 
2012-12-10 12:22:58 PM

flynn80: how about slowing the perpetual war machine


To be fair, defense spending is dropping. Just not fast or far enough.
 
2012-12-10 12:23:02 PM
Call me crazy.,... but shouldnt we stop spending first and formost,.. figure out what we 'need' then work on finding the money,...
finding more money but not stoping spending is what i like to call "when my wife finds my paycheck" moneys gone,... nice shoes. are those new?
 
2012-12-10 12:23:13 PM

CruJones: Take away my mortgage interest deduction and I'll get all stabby. I'm not rich.


If they touch it anytime soon it'll be a cap (and hopefully not allow it for second homes because come on). I do think it should be phased out long term though.
 
2012-12-10 12:24:38 PM

Carn: Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?

If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?


you would still have 10 billion. its in the bank already,. its not income.
 
2012-12-10 12:24:41 PM

Carn: Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?

If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?

How many billionaires will the US have to tax if they pull something like that?
 
2012-12-10 12:25:56 PM

factoryconnection: jst3p: Sound like the GoP is learning to pick and choose their battles more carefully.

I would prefer if, and perhaps it isn't particularly "new" but this game of "pretend that we can't get anything done until the day of the deadline, usually with a midnight session to placate the base" could stop. Our credit rating was downgraded because of it last year; this brinksmanship in absence of leadership is costing us.

Yeah, there are primary challenges for ideological politicians, but showing some reasoned restraint like "I chose to grab the rudder and keep the economy out of the ditch after fighting as hard as I could to keep taxes in check" is better than "I'd rather die than compromise!"


True, I wonder if Republicans hate Grover as much as non-republicans, they just can't admit it.
 
2012-12-10 12:27:02 PM

jst3p: It will make a bigger dent in the problem than cutting funding for NPR. If that was on the table why is this not significant enough to matter?


Pretty much this.

I love how republicans want to attack things like NPR and Sesame Street as waste that should be cut to save money, but when it comes to raising taxes on the rich they whine it won't solve the problem so why bother...

Dipshiats.
 
2012-12-10 12:27:14 PM
Republicans mad at each other? I happens more than you think. Barry Goldwater's only a good example.
 
2012-12-10 12:27:17 PM

jst3p: Sound like the GoP is learning to pick and choose their battles more carefully.


I dunno, I see GOP victory written all over this debate. In the long run, the GOP is remembered as fighting long and hard against any and all taxes. This debate will keep that solidified in the minds of the public. In exchange for a short term miniscule increase in taxes on the top 2%, the GOP wants significant cuts to SS and Medicare. There will be a day the GOP regains control. The day they do, they'll be able to cut taxes for the wealthy again. But it's going to be significantly more difficult to propose an expansion of SS or Medicare. If we agree to raise the age, we'll never get it back down.
 
2012-12-10 12:28:32 PM
Finally, some reason among the right. If we were to simply cut our way out of this mess we wouldn't even have any basic infrastructure, even as shoddy as it is now. But we'd still be able to occupy any middling-sized country for a decade...
 
2012-12-10 12:28:38 PM

Doom MD: Carn: Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?

If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?
How many billionaires will the US have to tax if they pull something like that?


If you take 2/3 of the wealth from the top 1%, you just solved the entire debt.
 
2012-12-10 12:28:40 PM
Facing a bunch of angry fellow Republicans is preferable to facing a bunch of angry voters and a bunch of angry military contractors, which is why they'll eventually cave and pass something strongly resembling Obama's plan.
 
2012-12-10 12:29:05 PM

strapp3r: my 55 year-old underemployed, un-insured bro-in-law is furious with this direction

/why-oh-why?


I know. Now he's never going to find the incentive to create himself a job!
 
2012-12-10 12:29:08 PM

Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?


Why do you hate Capitalism?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion
-Adam Smith
 
2012-12-10 12:29:46 PM
If the higher tax rates for the wealthy is indeed passed, does anyone really think the millionaires in Congress (Reid, Pelosi, Etc) will pay their fair share? Will Obama's good friends Jay-Z, Beyonce,
Madonna gladly fork over their royalty checks?
 
2012-12-10 12:29:47 PM

Doom MD: Carn: Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?

If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?
How many billionaires will the US have to tax if they pull something like that?


A: They don't really care. Their idea of 'fairness' (You have it, I want it, I'll vote for someone who will arrange the transfer) doesn't extend to unintended yet predictable consequences.

Besides, the billionaires that such people want to target will ensure that so many loopholes are built into a 90% tax that they'll still pay a low effective tax rate (but still millions of dollars a year,)

None of that matters to the leftist, though. As long as they feel like they're advocating 'justice' or 'fairness', the results or history of the policies they advocate are irrelevant.
 
2012-12-10 12:30:02 PM

KidneyStone: Like pissin on a forest fire


SO much THIS
 
2012-12-10 12:30:13 PM

Doom MD: Carn: Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?

If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?
How many billionaires will the US have to tax if they pull something like that?


You act like less billionaires is a bad thing. The pie is only so big, if you hold back the masses with your elected goons so you can eat 9/10th of it then the only way to get our fair share back is cutting open your massive gullet.
 
2012-12-10 12:31:20 PM
we have millions of so called Republicans that are ok with just about anything. it is True Conservatives that are outraged
 
2012-12-10 12:31:55 PM

lennavan: jst3p: Sound like the GoP is learning to pick and choose their battles more carefully.

I dunno, I see GOP victory written all over this debate. In the long run, the GOP is remembered as fighting long and hard against any and all taxes. This debate will keep that solidified in the minds of the public. In exchange for a short term miniscule increase in taxes on the top 2%, the GOP wants significant cuts to SS and Medicare. There will be a day the GOP regains control. The day they do, they'll be able to cut taxes for the wealthy again. But it's going to be significantly more difficult to propose an expansion of SS or Medicare. If we agree to raise the age, we'll never get it back down.


If you are correct then it sounds like the GoP is learning to pick and choose their battles more carefully, right?

/I agree with you, lets see what cuts they end up getting.
 
2012-12-10 12:32:17 PM

NathanAllen: Doom MD: Carn: Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?

If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?
How many billionaires will the US have to tax if they pull something like that?

You act like less billionaires is a bad thing. The pie is only so big, if you hold back the masses with your elected goons so you can eat 9/10th of it then the only way to get our fair share back is cutting open your massive gullet.


Who's holding back the masses? They have every opportunity for success. Just becuase they (we) are incapable of it is no reason to penalize someone who actually did do something with their lives.
 
2012-12-10 12:32:25 PM

dfenstrate: First, cap mortgage interest deductions at the $250k loan level.


What does that even mean? Do you understand how mortgage interest works?
 
2012-12-10 12:32:35 PM

NathanAllen: You act like less billionaires is a bad thing. The pie is only so big, if you hold back the masses with your elected goons so you can eat 9/10th of it then the only way to get our fair share back is cutting open your massive gullet.


Having them all move to the Caymens doesn't increase the amount of pie left over for everyone else, though. Of course the entire argument is predicated on a strawman. No one is realistically proposing a return to the 70-90% Eisenhower era rates and I doubt too many are going to leave the country over an increase from 35% to 39%.
 
2012-12-10 12:32:44 PM
I for one am not opposed to a tax increase so as:

1. It's done with the understanding that the anticipated revenues will never come close to what the Obama administration says they will.
2. It is accompanied by cuts (not just reductions in increases) in entitlement spending, including a roll back to the welfare rules as of 2000 (the end of the Clinton era).
3. It is accompanied by serious, across the board tax reform, and not just people mouthing the words.

Since I seriously doubt of that will happen, good to a few of you as you make your new homes in Costa Rica or Bermuda.
 
2012-12-10 12:33:05 PM

lennavan: Doom MD: Carn: Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?

If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?
How many billionaires will the US have to tax if they pull something like that?

If you take 2/3 of the wealth from the top 1%, you just solved the entire debt.


A tax rate of 67% on the richest isn't even the highest historical US tax rate. I fail to believe that would solve debt all by itself; you can't tax wealth away from people, only on exchange. But it sure would go a long way to balancing the current budget, and would placate may of the Debtor-cons.
 
2012-12-10 12:33:21 PM

NathanAllen: Doom MD: Carn: Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?

If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?
How many billionaires will the US have to tax if they pull something like that?

You act like less billionaires is a bad thing. The pie is only so big, if you hold back the masses with your elected goons so you can eat 9/10th of it then the only way to get our fair share back is cutting open your massive gullet.


Way to miss the point. They aren't taking "your pie" in the example, they are only taking some of what you add to it in the future. Your pie is untouched and you can still add more.
 
2012-12-10 12:33:30 PM

lennavan: Doom MD: Carn: Gunderson: Why not just outlaw wealth. Then everyone would be happy, right?

If you have $10 billion in the bank and we raise taxes to 90% on top income tax bracket, how many billions would you still have next year?

Won't somebody think of the billionaires?
How many billionaires will the US have to tax if they pull something like that?

If you take 2/3 of the wealth from the top 1%, you just solved the entire debt.


The conversation is not about, and has never been about, going after the already-in-possession wealth of the top 1%.
 
2012-12-10 12:33:46 PM

NathanAllen: You act like less billionaires is a bad thing. The pie is only so big, if you hold back the masses with your elected goons so you can eat 9/10th of it then the only way to get our fair share back is cutting open your massive gullet.



Rubbish. If the pie is limited, then where did all of today's material wealth, enjoyed by a large portion of the earth's 6 billion people, come from? It sure as hell didn't exist 200 years ago.
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report