Bar Stool Taxation

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

This President proposed cuts in exchange for letting the Bush tax cut expire on the wealthiest Americans.

Even that isn't the perfect solution that you want, jesus man, you and many others on this site refuse to acknowledge that it actually happened. Your party is beholden to an unrealistic pledge that taxes can NEVER be raised regardless of the situation.

And the hate/mischaracterization of Obama is insane. Even though I hated Bush, I never parroted bullsh*t about him - the reality was critical enough and could be summed up in two sentences - Why did we invade Iraq? Why did we cut taxes while fighting two wars?

I didn't need to speculate on who Bush hates or any other bullsh*t that is unprovable.

And never, ever bring up Nazism in a political debate unless theirs actual genocide involved in what you're talking about.

Right now, in round numbers, I pay at a 15% rate. If Obama has his way I pay at the 40% rate.
Obama is offering me exactly what? A screwing? While derelicts pay zip.
Bush never proposed class warfare. In actuality the poorer people got bigger breaks than the rich.
Relative to Nazi activities. Before there was genocide, well before, there was class warfare and absolutism. A leader who was unilateral in proclamation. Obama the Proclaimer.
I dislike Obama because he wants to model the U.S. after Europe. That's a winner.
BTW, if you are going to go to law school, I suggest you learn to read and comprehend. I said I am not against some tax increases. Screwing people is just wrong.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Since the idea is to raise rates to the Clinton Era, did he offer to cut spending to the Clinton Era as well (as a % of GDP of course)?

If so, I could support such a proposal.



I agree, the "pledge" is and was a very bad, political-based, idea on the right.



But no shortage of people did. More, IMO, than today and Obama.

After all, no one feared being called a racist for any criticism of Bush's policies and ideaology.



Bad Intel and general mismanagement/rush to judgement/post 9/11 pressure.

But you'll never believe it was that. You're convinced it was a conspiracy.



A very good question.



You don't get to dictate to others what they can and cannot "bring up". The Nazi (and the Communists as well) were about more than genocide, after all.

With that said, I find P's comparison to be less than apt.

Just a point. You do realize, I am sure, I am having fun with the Nazi comparison. It is just too much fun riling up libs like SB and FF2.
But I do remember Hitler mustaches on GWB, Cheney vilified as a Nazi and AG John Ashcroft called a criminal.
BTW, old Adolf was a far better speaker thamn Obama.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Rebuilding our infrastructure and restoring our credit rating need to happen. And to do so, we'll need more revenue.

Seems our disagreement will not be ending soon.

The amount of revenue of the proposed tax change will not, in any form, rebuild our infrastructure or correct/defend our credit rating. It's simply far too small in the overall Budget to make any meaningful dent.

Any sweeping debt reduction will include raising revenue - that's not just my position, that's fact.

It will also require a vast amount of cutting to our overall Govt. spending.

Also a fact.

But one party absolutely refuses to raise revenue. Why is it "both sides are guilty"?

Because "increse spending by 6.9% instead of 7.1% next year" is not cutting Govt. Spending meaningfully.

Lets be frank. Other than the Millitary, please tell me a few hundred billion you're personally supportive of cutting from our Budget. That would be a good place to start.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Seems our disagreement will not be ending soon.

The amount of revenue of the proposed tax change will not, in any form, rebuild our infrastructure or correct/defend our credit rating. It's simply far too small in the overall Budget to make any meaningful dent.

You understand that any raise in revenue will be matched by cuts in spending. The President has made that clear. The issue is, the GOP wants only cuts, which considering a 30 year trend of eroding the middle class - cutting services, ignoring infrastructure and limited to no government investment in the economy - will only further hurt the middle class, which already took it on the chin in '08.

We raise the SS retirement age for those under 40, we invest in public infrastructure, cut welfare for those without children, offer to those on welfare (or recently off it) jobs helping build said infrastructure all over the country (each state has sh*t that needs to be done), we end oil company subsidies, we cut defense by a third (including a 1/3 of our bases globally), we end medicaid and medicare and replace it with single-payer, we lengthen the school year and school day - we replace PE with the first hour of every day in school being exercise/athletics and we pull out of Afghanistan immediately.

Originally Posted by Warfish

It will also require a vast amount of cutting to our overall Govt. spending.

Also a fact.

Are the Democrats subject to a pledge that forbids them from cutting any government?

Originally Posted by Warfish

Because "increse spending by 6.9% instead of 7.1% next year" is not cutting Govt. Spending meaningfully.

Lets be frank. Other than the Millitary, please tell me a few hundred billion you're personally supportive of cutting from our Budget. That would be a good place to start.

Earlier in this post I address that, but a country cannot strictly do austerity, there must be some reinvestment, which is in my proposal anyway.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

You understand that any raise in revenue will be matched by cuts in spending.

I understand that makes a good talking point.

I have no faith that would actually occur, no.

The President has made that clear.

The issue is, the GOP wants only cuts, which considering a 30 year trend of eroding the middle class - cutting services, ignoring infrastructure and limited to no government investment in the economy - will only further hurt the middle class, which already took it on the chin in '08.

I'm squarely in the middle class and have been for years now, I think (what payscale defines the "middle class" today anyway?)

And I don't feel eroded in any form whatsoever, and would welcome reduction in Govt. waste and spending and a reduced tax burden.

The class you are referring to is the lower/taker class. The class who is a net-recipient of Govt. redistribution, not a net provider. I, in the middle class, remain a net provider.

We raise the SS retirement age for those under 40, we invest in public infrastructure, cut welfare for those without children, offer to those on welfare (or recently off it) jobs helping build said infrastructure all over the country (each state has sh*t that needs to be done), we end oil company subsidies, we cut defense by a third (including a 1/3 of our bases globally), we end medicaid and medicare and replace it with single-payer, we lengthen the school year and school day - we replace PE with the first hour of every day in school being exercise/athletics and we pull out of Afghanistan immediately.

Same old same old. Cut everything you demonize (millitary, energy, etc). Play accountign games with publci services (medicare/caid), and float a few good ideas (School year. raise SS age) that will not actually get passed.

Net savings when all said and done.....an increase in Govt. spending year to year of 6.98% instead of 7.11%. Whopee.

Are the Democrats subject to a pledge that forbids them from cutting any government?

They may as well be IMO, given their actions and how strongly they defend even the least valued or most fraud/waste ridden Govt. service or spending.

Earlier in this post I address that, but a country cannot strictly do austerity, there must be some reinvestment, which is in my proposal anyway.

Cutting Government is not "austerity" to anyone who is not a welfare recipient. For me, cutting Govt. is more of my money in my pocket as opposed to someone elses. Even couching it in that term exposes a deeply held bias for the role of Government in our life, that a life with lkess Govt. is somehoe more "austere", which is simply incorrect for the majority.