believer;853615 wrote:Absolutely more revenue will help. But here's the unfortunate truth: When the Feds get their hands on "more revenue" they not only spend it with a vengeance, they spend far more than the revenue gain.

This is why CUTTING SPENDING - and you don't have to have a degree in economics to understand it - must happen first.

Show me the real cuts, pass a balanced budget amendment, end the practice of earmarks, simplify cumbersome tax codes, close loopholes top-to-bottom, and THEN let's talk tax increases.

I said they needed a balanced budget amendment. If that and a 1% tax increase had passed, the U.S. would be still sitting at AAA with possibly being even upgraded to neutral outlook.

LJ;853617 wrote:If that and a 1% tax increase had passed, the U.S. would be still sitting at AAA with possibly being even upgraded to neutral outlook.

We'd be fools to believe that even a 1% tax increase would be put towards the deficit. That would never happen under the current game plan.

I'm not sure why a 1% tax hike would have helped us maintain AAA status when common sense says it would be wasted on even more spending.

sleeper;853340 wrote:Your point is still irrelevant. Cutting taxes increases revenue as well as GDP. Raising taxes does the exact opposite. We need to cut spending, the taxes are fine where they are.

Bold print is patently false. Even conservative think tanks have buried that myth.

Footwedge;853628 wrote:Bold print is patently false. Even conservative think tanks have buried that myth.

Not a fan of the Laffer Curve - eh Footie?

believer;853630 wrote:Not a fan of the Laffer Curve - eh Footie?

Actually, the Laffer Curve confirms my statement. We are at the left side of the apex on the Laffer Curve....in which case lower taxes means lower revenues. When taxes are too high, then revenues go down as well. It' was Sleeper's blanket statement that was wrong.

LJ;853548 wrote:Bringing in more revenue to pay down debt won't do shit? Man, I think I need to go turn my degree in and probably never work another day in my life. And quit bringing up what Obama wanted. NOTHING proposed in Congress is what S&P wanted. NOTHING

Well, you should go back to school, LJ. Raising taxes won't help with the national debt for a few reasons:

1. At best, the gang of 6 was looking at $400 billion in deficit revenue. The projected deficit is $1.5 trillion. Doing some math, there is $1.1 trillion in the yearly deficit. The ONLY way to get this under control is real budgetary cuts, not reductions in projected budget increases. Raising taxes does not do the job. Period.

2. Raising taxes does not automatically equate to increased revenues to the treasury. As has been stated several times, the average tax receipts collected is between 15-19% of GDP. Raising tjem above this time-tested amount means people/corporations find a way to shelter their money rather than pay it.

3. Raising payroll taxes on the likes of Warren Buffet doezn't generate squat. He pays off the capital gains rate, so your class warfare on those like him yields zilch.

4. Finally, the Left has never understood static vs dynamic tax changes. Taking $400,000,000,000 out of the economy and giving it to our wasteful bloated gubmint is akin to taking $400 billion out of the private sector. Now, Econ 101.... Who provides the feds with cash ti spend to begin with? The feds create no wealth, only redistribute it from those that cause it. How can an organization that is great at waste, fraud & abuse be the ones to decide where it's best to spend these scarce resources?

BGFalcons82;853788 wrote:Well, you should go back to school, LJ. Raising taxes won't help with the national debt for a few reasons:

1. At best, the gang of 6 was looking at $400 billion in deficit revenue. The projected deficit is $1.5 trillion. Doing some math, there is $1.1 trillion in the yearly deficit. The ONLY way to get this under control is real budgetary cuts, not reductions in projected budget increases. Raising taxes does not do the job. Period.

2. Raising taxes does not automatically equate to increased revenues to the treasury. As has been stated several times, the average tax receipts collected is between 15-19% of GDP. Raising tjem above this time-tested amount means people/corporations find a way to shelter their money rather than pay it.

3. Raising payroll taxes on the likes of Warren Buffet doezn't generate squat. He pays off the capital gains rate, so your class warfare on those like him yields zilch.

4. Finally, the Left has never understood static vs dynamic tax changes. Taking $400,000,000,000 out of the economy and giving it to our wasteful bloated gubmint is akin to taking $400 billion out of the private sector. Now, Econ 101.... Who provides the feds with cash ti spend to begin with? The feds create no wealth, only redistribute it from those that cause it. How can an organization that is great at waste, fraud & abuse be the ones to decide where it's best to spend these scarce resources?

You do make points that are valid to a point, but what I think you need to understand, is that S&P wanted to see the deficit erased and a tax increase to pay down debt. I don't know where you get that I want a tax increase that would only cover deficits? I don't know where you ever got that I wanted to see them trying to cover the deficit?

Also, my "plan" is 1% on the 2 highest tax brackets and on capital gains. To say someone who is in the highest tax bracket is waging "class warfare" is downright ignorant and honestly, it kind of pisses me off to the point where I think you are just spewing shit at this point trying to downgrade my educated opinion. It's quite pathetic.

As for the government deciding where to spend it? It would be spent on paying down the debt. Now, either you can start sending them checks that say "use this money to pay off the national debt" or you can let them take it in taxes. To be honest though, it's quite clear that you are probably not in one of those tax brackets to begin with, so it doesn't really matter.

LJ;853548 wrote:Bringing in more revenue to pay down debt won't do ****? Man, I think I need to go turn my degree in and probably never work another day in my life. And quit bringing up what Obama wanted. NOTHING proposed in Congress is what S&P wanted. NOTHING

To suggest anyone would be for it? Who do you mean by anyone? All the rich people you know? Every rich person I know is 100% for it.

LJ, the point you are missing is that most conservatives would agree to a tax hike if it was to pay down the DEBT, not to pay down the DEFICIT or increase spending.

Unfortunately DC typically spends whatever tax hikes they take in, they don't use it to pay debt.

LJ;853822 wrote:You do make points that are valid to a point, but what I think you need to understand, is that S&P wanted to see the deficit erased and a tax increase to pay down debt. I don't know where you get that I want a tax increase that would only cover deficits? I don't know where you ever got that I wanted to see them trying to cover the deficit?

Also, my "plan" is 1% on the 2 highest tax brackets and on capital gains. To say someone who is in the highest tax bracket is waging "class warfare" is downright ignorant and honestly, it kind of pisses me off to the point where I think you are just spewing shit at this point trying to downgrade my educated opinion. It's quite pathetic.

As for the government deciding where to spend it? It would be spent on paying down the debt. Now, either you can start sending them checks that say "use this money to pay off the national debt" or you can let them take it in taxes. To be honest though, it's quite clear that you are probably not in one of those tax brackets to begin with, so it doesn't really matter.

#winning

LJ;853822 wrote: As for the government deciding where to spend it? It would be spent on paying down the debt. Now, either you can start sending them checks that say "use this money to pay off the national debt" or you can let them take it in taxes. To be honest though, it's quite clear that you are probably not in one of those tax brackets to begin with, so it doesn't really matter.

How are you going to make them spend it on the debt? Any increase in revenue isn't going to be used to pay down debt, it will be wasted like everything else.

jmog;853872 wrote:LJ, the point you are missing is that most conservatives would agree to a tax hike if it was to pay down the DEBT, not to pay down the DEFICIT or increase spending.

Unfortunately DC typically spends whatever tax hikes they take in, they don't use it to pay debt.

I agree with that. I love how the liberal media is making this all about tax increases, as if simply taxing the rich more makes the whole deficit/debt issue go away.

To be honest, I don't really think a balanced budget amendment would have that much weight with Congress either. They don't really seem too concerned about either bypassing or pretty much ignoring parts of the constitution that they don't like, I doubt an amendment forcing them to spend within the government's means would last more than a single election cycle. As soon as they start to get voted out for failing to bring the money back to their districts, the balanced budget would go out the window.

ccrunner609;852932 wrote:****ing Bush......he is killing us.

Well done.

RedRider1;853406 wrote:I'm willing to pay more taxes...but if and only if the 50% of this country who pay NOTHING in taxes are made to pay some as well. I guess it's only fair when talking about soaking the rich and playing class warfare.

Hell, I don't even care if the contribute anything; just don't leach off of the working class.

jmog;853872 wrote:LJ, the point you are missing is that most conservatives would agree to a tax hike if it was to pay down the DEBT, not to pay down the DEFICIT or increase spending.

Unfortunately DC typically spends whatever tax hikes they take in, they don't use it to pay debt.

According to the Standard and Poor press release, they sight expanding debt to GDP ratio....after the announced deal by Congress. They also state that the so callled 2.1 trillion in debt reduction is based on overall annual GDP growth at 3%. S and P say that that growth is most likely pie in the sky.

They blame both the lack of more discretionary spending cuts, but they call out the Republicans specifically for cockblocking any attempt at raising revenues.

In addition, they cited other countries, such as Canada, that has a very low GDP to debt ratio...and they feel very confident that the other countries are...and will manage their finances better than the US has.

BGFalcons82;853788 wrote:Well, you should go back to school, LJ. Raising taxes won't help with the national debt for a few reasons:

1. At best, the gang of 6 was looking at $400 billion in deficit revenue. The projected deficit is $1.5 trillion. Doing some math, there is $1.1 trillion in the yearly deficit. The ONLY way to get this under control is real budgetary cuts, not reductions in projected budget increases. Raising taxes does not do the job. Period.

2. Raising taxes does not automatically equate to increased revenues to the treasury. As has been stated several times, the average tax receipts collected is between 15-19% of GDP. Raising tjem above this time-tested amount means people/corporations find a way to shelter their money rather than pay it.

3. Raising payroll taxes on the likes of Warren Buffet doezn't generate squat. He pays off the capital gains rate, so your class warfare on those like him yields zilch.

4. Finally, the Left has never understood static vs dynamic tax changes. Taking $400,000,000,000 out of the economy and giving it to our wasteful bloated gubmint is akin to taking $400 billion out of the private sector. Now, Econ 101.... Who provides the feds with cash ti spend to begin with? The feds create no wealth, only redistribute it from those that cause it. How can an organization that is great at waste, fraud & abuse be the ones to decide where it's best to spend these scarce resources?

I agree that more cuts are necessary....so does S & P. But S & P is not subscribing to the same old rhetoric that we cannot raise revenues. Even the ultra conservative CATO Institute admits that taxes need to be raised to increase revenue in order to put a dent in the national debt.

Footwedge;853920 wrote:I agree that more cuts are necessary....so does S & P. But S & P is not subscribing to the same old rhetoric that we cannot raise revenues. Even the ultra conservative CATO Institute admits that taxes need to be raised to increase revenue in order to put a dent in the national debt.

It would only put a dent in the national debt if massive concrete spending cuts are established, a balanced budget amendment is implemented, tax loopholes (top-to-bottom) are closed, and the increased revenues are required by law to go towards paying down the debt...and nothing more.

But you and I both know that when the Feds get their hands on additional revenues, their eyes glaze over like a kid in an unattended candy store.

EDIT: What we are really fighting here folks is not income and outgo as we understand it. We're combating a Beltway "we must spend our way to prosperity" mindset that's been deeply entrenched for many decades.

I always laugh at the radio spots - paid by the Feds by the way - that lecture us to "feed the pig". You know the ones that tell us that our savings rates are the lowest since the Great Depression?

When the hypocrites in DC begin to practice what they preach, I'll gladly listen to the reasoning behind their desire to raise taxes.

tk421;853910 wrote:As soon as they start to get voted out for failing to bring the money back to their districts, the balanced budget would go out the window.

That's clearly the fear/motivation. Until America wakes up to the concept of "more" of a smaller pie equaling less pie things won't change. Hopefully the 2010 elections were a precursor, but I think when you have almost 50% of America paying no taxes and getting handouts that it's unlikely to change. I'd say I fear we are headed for the European style of socialism that means anemic growth and burdensome debt/deficits but looks like we are already there.

What's funny is Europe is starting to move away from that style some. They are getting their financial houses in order a lot quicker and better than we are.

tk421;853939 wrote:What's funny is Europe is starting to move away from that style some. They are getting their financial houses in order a lot quicker and better than we are.

Ummmm....the Germans sort of have it together and the Brits & French are hanging by a thread. But the Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Irish, etc. - not so much.

believer;853968 wrote:Ummmm....the Germans sort of have it together and the Brits & French are hanging by a thread. But the Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Irish, etc. - not so much.

Yes, but they are taking steps. We aren't even close to acknowledging we have a problem yet. I'd still say they are farther ahead of us.

Asia markets open up in the morning here...if the newspapers' predictions are correct it will be ugly.

No confidence that the western markets have anything resembling a plan or the gumption to do anything, and with Chinese inflation/wage pressures looming inflation will have to hit the U.S. market, I'm not sure how we've printed so much money and still haven't witnessed inflation...where is the money going?

tk421;853989 wrote:Yes, but they are taking steps. We aren't even close to acknowledging we have a problem yet. I'd still say they are farther ahead of us.

I wouldn't say all of us aren't even close to acknowledging we have a problem. Those eeeeevil, terrorist Tea Party Repubs have been very vocal about it.

Manhattan Buckeye;854016 wrote:Asia markets open up in the morning here...if the newspapers' predictions are correct it will be ugly.

No confidence that the western markets have anything resembling a plan or the gumption to do anything, and with Chinese inflation/wage pressures looming inflation will have to hit the U.S. market, I'm not sure how we've printed so much money and still haven't witnessed inflation...where is the money going?

When the money is basically worthless, it usually goes nowhere.

Pretty bad when the Chinese are telling us that excess debt and spending is bad for this country. You'd think Congress would be able to understand that.

It's kind of amusing to watch the conservatives clamor like they've done nothing to help this long time issue grow into the monster it is today. It doesnt matter what side of the plate your on EVERYONE is to blame and the sooner we stop trying to play the blame game the sooner we will get this mess fixed.

Liberals = guilty
Conservaites= guilty
Moderates = guilty

Quit bitching like whiney children and lets do something to fix this mess.

tk421;854023 wrote:Pretty bad when the Chinese are telling us that excess debt and spending is bad for this country. You'd think Congress would be able to understand that.

Like I said........

mrtinkertrain;854025 wrote:It's kind of amusing to watch the conservatives clamor like they've done nothing to help this long time issue grow into the monster it is today. It doesnt matter what side of the plate your on EVERYONE is to blame and the sooner we stop trying to play the blame game the sooner we will get this mess fixed.

Liberals = guilty
Conservaites= guilty
Moderates = guilty

Quit bitching like whiney children and lets do something to fix this mess.

I agree but the folks in DC who WANT to fix the mess are being characterized as wanting to kill life on this planet as we know it, satanic, anti-democratic, Taliban-like, extremists, dictators, gargoyles, etc.

Hard to build mature consensus when the so-called DC "establishment" throws temper tantrums.