House GOP sacrifices progress for purity
By any rational measure, House Republicans were on the verge of a major accomplishment a couple of weeks ago.
Even though they held control of only one legislative chamber, they had backed President Obama into proposing a $4 trillion deficit-reduction package, including more than $3 trillion in spending reductions over the next decade. Enacted into law, it would have easily been the largest budget-cutting package in U.S. history. All they had to do was say yes.
But they could not bring themselves to utter that word.
Their victory, you see, must be absolute and total or it is not victory at all. A “win-win” outcome — fine for liberals and RINO pansies — is insufficiently decisive to those who feel morally obligated to turn politics into scorched-earth warfare. They are Harry Truman demanding unconditional surrender from Imperial Japan.
And they have the Bomb.
As a result, a historically significant reduction in the federal deficit and in once-untouchable entitlement programs had to be rejected, because in their minds its purity was tainted by an increase in taxes on the wealthiest of Americans.
In his latest column, David Brooks assesses the messianic radicals of the GOP with brutal clarity:
“They do not see politics as the art of the possible. They do not believe in seizing opportunities to make steady, messy progress toward conservative goals. They believe that politics is a cataclysmic struggle. They believe that if they can remain pure in their faith then someday their party will win a total and permanent victory over its foes. They believe they are Gods of the New Dawn.”
Well, they’re not.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
621 comments Add your comment
md
July 19th, 2011
10:56 am
Have to say Paul…….your response to Kayaker was a bit silly for you. We do already have a progressive tax structure, and for a large segment to not pay any income tax is faulty.
Why should we allow folks that choose to drop out of a taxpayer assistance program the right to not participate in the society they also live in?
Paul
July 19th, 2011
10:57 am
josef
“What is the point and what is the purpose? Anybody?”
The hope that, in the face of new information, people will reassess their opinions and progress in the quest for more knowledge?
bye, Midori! Have a good one!
DebbieDoRight
July 19th, 2011
10:57 am
josef: What is the point and what is the purpose? Anybody?
Well it’s keeping me awake during another LONG, BORING, UTTERLY SENSELESS MEETING!!!! I can’t speak for anyone else though.
I’ll probably be back on tomorrow, we have a meeting at 9:30 to go over what we discussed in today’s meeting, ad naseum…………….
Left wing management
July 19th, 2011
10:59 am
Good points, Keep.
By the way Kayaker, you’re ignoring my point and doing yourself a disservice.
As Bernie Sanders said — and as Left Wing Management says — no kidding the less fortunate aren’t paying in very much. They’re busy scraping to feed their kids and keep a roof over their head.
Will be interesting to see if you address this or just sail on in your blissful ignorance.
By the way, you wrote: “The “wealthiest of Americans”, the evil 1%, who, according to liberals, are responsible for this whole debt ceiling fiasco, pay a tax rate of close to 35% of net income”
First of all, what does the rich being “evil” have to do with the fact that they need to be paying MORE? It’s got nothing to do with their moral qualities or lack thereof, I say they need to pay more. What’s it got to do with “evil”? Could it be your right wing talking points here is a straw man?
And what does pointing out the indisputable, manifestly demonstrable FACT that the rich paying less is due largely to the Bush tax cuts is responsible for the fiscal problems have to do with being “liberal”? Are you implying that knowledge of simple math is “liberal” ? Huh? Just because your ideological lieutenants — Limbaugh, Hannity and other FOX propagandists — put that linguistic connection into your mouth, that doesn’t mean Left Wing Management is going to fail to cut it to shreds. .
ty webb
July 19th, 2011
10:59 am
No, you call Brooks a “conservative”, for the same reason jay qoutes him, and other liberals book him for their shows…He’s a “useful idiot” whose opinions are used to paint conservatives as extremist.
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
10:59 am
Actually…David Brooks calls himself a moderate conservative.
Which I think in TeaPartySpeak means Satan.
md
July 19th, 2011
11:00 am
“What is the point and what is the purpose? Anybody?”
Social interaction?
kayaker 71
July 19th, 2011
11:00 am
Debbie,
If you combined all of the wealth that that 1% of those evil rich people have…. total assets….. and took it away from them to fund our government,, you could probably run the government for about 6 mos. It isn’t the evil rich’s fault. It’s SPENDING, Debbie. Once more Debbie, it’s SPENDING. If you don’t get that under control, all of the taxes you collect will not amount to a tinker’s damn. Bozo harped on about corporate jets. If you lumped all of them in a pile their total worth would not amount to more than 0.01% of our debt obligation. One more time Debbie, for emphasis…… SPENDING!!!!
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
11:01 am
and for a large segment to not pay any income tax is faulty.
You can’t fault Paul or his response for that. Lay blame for that where it lies, within the framework of the great tax sale brought to America by Bush and his GOP Congress. Before they slashed rates, there was about a third of the segment who’s effective tax rate was zero. Within that group, you have people working who don’t earn enough to have a tax rate, and you also have elderly who are on a fixed income that’s not high enough to have an effective tax rate. Are you saying we should tax the hell out of grandma living day to day as well as lil Johnny who’s working his first job while in high school?
md
July 19th, 2011
11:02 am
“Not everyone who is wealthy *earned* their riches, and not everyone who busts their hump becomes well-to-do. Your Horatio Alger fantasy does not measure up to reality, and I am not moved by it.”
All money was earned at some point……..who are we to decide how the family decides to spend it. You would also need to include kids currently enjoying the fruits of their parents labor………how far do you want to take that argument?
DebbieDoRight
July 19th, 2011
11:02 am
LWM: Will be interesting to see if you address this or just sail on in your blissful ignorance
How much you wanna bet he’ll skip over that part? I got a $20 bill that says he’ll skip, hop, and jump all around the obvious. Who’s wants in?
ty webb: He’s a “useful idiot” whose opinions are used to paint conservatives as extremist
Like “conservatives” aren’t doing it by their little ole selves……….
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
11:03 am
ty
would it surprise you to know that I don’t think you are a conservative?
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
11:05 am
and for a large segment to not pay any income tax is faulty.
damn straight – in the good old U S of A to have that many citizens who make so LITTLE money that they are not required by our tax code to pay income tax is beyond faulty it’s obscene
DebbieDoRight
July 19th, 2011
11:05 am
Which I think in TeaPartySpeak means Satan.
Bad Granny!! Bad, bad bad!!!
ty webb
July 19th, 2011
11:06 am
Granny,
no, it wouldn’t. Although I would disagree…I’m somewhere between a conservative and a libertarian…and a drunk.
md
July 19th, 2011
11:09 am
“You can’t fault Paul or his response for that.”
His comparison to the stated facts was bogus…..and we all know it.
“Are you saying we should tax the hell out of grandma living day to day as well as lil Johnny who’s working his first job while in high school?”
I’m saying it has already been established that increasing the tax on the rich will not solve the problem………IF we need to raise taxes, it needs to be done on everybody following the same progressive structure we have in place, with a minimum for those oh so pitiful poor (many of which made choices to get them there). Something along the lines of Ga Corp tax…..which is $10 for corps that had no profit or lost money.
DebbieDoRight
July 19th, 2011
11:09 am
All money was earned at some point……..who are we to decide how the family decides to spend it.
OK then let’s take your statement to its logical conclusion. If all money was earned at some point, then why do the Conserves want to cut Social Secuirty Income, Disability, and SSI Survivor Benefits?
kayaker 71
July 19th, 2011
11:09 am
Management,
OK, give me some numbers. How much more would you take from those really kind, hardworking, considerate, patriotic rich Americans? What’s your new brackets for those making more than 379K/yr?
I wish liberals knew how to add and subtract…. it would make all of this a lot easier. Once again, as I pointed out to Debbie, all of the Bush tax cuts, raising taxes on “wealthy” taxpayers….. it’s all smoke and mirrors. If you don’t control spending, you are lost from the start. How come all of you liberals seem to continually dodge this aspect of our debt crisis?
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
11:09 am
ty
that makes a world of sense to me
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
11:11 am
“I’m saying it has already been established that increasing the tax on the rich will not solve the problem………”
Where? When?
md
July 19th, 2011
11:11 am
“damn straight – in the good old U S of A to have that many citizens who make so LITTLE money that they are not required by our tax code to pay income tax is beyond faulty it’s obscene”
No……obscene is allowing folks to drop out of one taxpayer funded program and then turn around and sign up for another………that is obscene………
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
11:15 am
with a minimum for those oh so pitiful poor (many of which made choices to get them there).
While I don’t subscribe to the idea of kicking the misfortunate, I see merit to your overall idea. I’ve stated all along that everybody should have to pay something. If we’re gonna require income taxes to do so much to so many people, what about the other millions of taxes that are already paid?
Those taxes hit the lower incomes at a much more disproportionate level. When you’re earning less than $30K and you’re having to use your entire income just to exist, you’re paying a much larger percentage of your income in sales taxes and other taxes. There’s probably not much room to siphon income taxes as well.
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
11:15 am
“OK, how about return to the tax rates at the end of Reagan’s Presidency?”
Fine, dandy. Will sign up to support that just as soon as I see a concrete action to return spending to the same levels as existed at the end of Reagan’s Presidency. Better yert, how about the rates that existed at the end of Clinton’s Presidency, along with the spending level at that time? You know, when the so-called surplus existed?
The problem with promised cuts is we have good examples of them and they never seem to actually materialize. Witness the Medicare “doc-fix”. In 1998, Congress determined that Medicare spending could not continue as it had and enacted, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to create a formula that would adjust Medicare reimbursements to doctors in accordance with what was called “Sustainable Growth Rate”. The formula would keep Congress from having to enact new spending rules over and over again. What happened? Not one time has spending actually been cut. Instead Congress has continually enacted hold-off legislation, at least 7 times by my count, Congress has decided to postpone implementation of the cuts. It is unlikely that this law, forcing spending cuts, will ever be allowed to take effect.
But the tax increases in that same law all took effect and have been collected ever since.
Neon Frog
July 19th, 2011
11:15 am
kayaker 71
July 19th, 2011
10:49 am
The “wealthiest of Americans”, the evil 1%, who, according to liberals, are responsible for this whole debt ceiling fiasco, pay a tax rate of close to 35% of net income.
If only those 1% paid 35%, then maybe we could make a dent in the debt. Here is a nice article from that evil liberal rag Forbes:
“WASHINGTON, D.C.–The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%–the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.”
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
11:16 am
md
are you suggesting it would be better for those unfortunate few or our grand Nation to have the hungry and homeless wonder the streets?
what exactly does you post mean?
md
July 19th, 2011
11:16 am
“OK then let’s take your statement to its logical conclusion. If all money was earned at some point, then why do the Conserves want to cut Social Secuirty Income, Disability, and SSI Survivor Benefits?”
That’s not earned income, that’s projected income…….unless you want to build in some guarantees, which would not be wise………it’s much like a 401k………the numbers on your statement is what you would get if you cashed out at that instant…..as we all know, that number changes daily…….
Jefferson
July 19th, 2011
11:16 am
The theory, and rightfully so is that if you work and until you pull yourself out of poverty because of low wages you own no federal income tax. You do pay fica and medicare taxes and maybe state income and sales taxes.
President GHW Bush saw the fact that the previous administration ran up too much debt and rightfully so raise taxes to pay the bills, something his son never did.
Bring back those tax rates.
Some folks just can’t get over the bottom tax brackets — there aren’t no fish in those ponds to catch, you fish where there is fish.
pat
July 19th, 2011
11:17 am
Oh brother. Pot, meet kettle.
mm
July 19th, 2011
11:18 am
“Maybe because the $4 trillion in cuts was a just full of reductions in increases and cuts ten year from now that almost certainly will be overturned. None of it was real, solid, immediate cuts that will make a difference.”
So said the GOP. Sucker.
If America doesn’t wake up and realize the GOP is as dangerous as Al Qaeda, this country is doomed.
The GOP recruits voters the same way Al Qaeda recruits bombers. By promising them heaven and riches but delivering hell and poverty.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
11:19 am
md 10:56
“your response to Kayaker was a bit silly for you. We do already have a progressive tax structure, and for a large segment to not pay any income tax is faulty.”
We do have a progressive tax structure, but many seem to discount that with such cites of ‘this percent pays that percent.” My response was based on trying to interpret kayaker 71’s point and a solution. We hear the breakdown over and over so I was just asking “what’s your solution? If you’re making the case that this percent of the population pays this percent in taxes, do you want the revenues to match the population percentage?”
Do you have an idea on how to change it?
“Why should we allow folks that choose to drop out of a taxpayer assistance program the right to not participate in the society they also live in?”
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘drop out of a taxpayer assistance program” or ‘not participate.’
Does that refer to the thousands of people with AGIs over $379k who pay zero tax? The assistance programs that enable them to pay no tax?
josef
July 19th, 2011
11:19 am
I like a good train wreck as well as the next person, but at least the Murdoch one has some dead and magled bodies.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
July 19th, 2011
11:21 am
Well, I don’t know about anybody else, but a country boy will survive. I been laying in cases of PBR and big bags of fried pork skins for that day next month when everything goes bust and we’re all out of work. Other people will starve and whine, but me and mine will be fat and drunk. Don’t have anything in the bank anyway and don’t own no stocks, so everything closing down won’t hurt me. I guess my 401k could take a whupping, but something tells me alot of people will be drowning their sorrows in beer and that means my 401k will be OK.
I’ll pay the cable TV bill first followed by the light bill and the gas bill. Long as I got Fox News and power, I can ride this thing out. And the beer and fried pork skins are just icing on the cake.
And I expect Bookman will see about 5,000 posts per topic, since everybody will be out of work and will have plenty of time to whine and gripe.
Bring it on, you librul wimps! We finally got you by the short hairs and we’ll be pulling hard. If we can’t get what we want, we’ll see that nobody else gets anything either. Let’s see how those lazy codgers and the jobless bums do when the checks don’t come.
Have a good day everybody.
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
11:21 am
In the last year for which data is available, 2008, the highest marginal tax rate was 35%. This rate is paid on AGI above $357,700. Certainly a family with AGI over that value is in the well-to-do category, but are unlikely to be “millionaires and billionaires” (but this is immaterial to my point). According to the IRS, the number of returns that were in this highest marginal rate was 971,510. So there’s nearly a million households in this country that are, at least by the IRS bracket definition, “rich”. Not too shabby, it seems the USA is indeed the land of opportunity.
According to the IRS, the cumulative amount of AGI subjected to this highest rate was $622,765,389,000, so let’s round up to $622.8B. The taxes generated on this money is therefore 35% * $622B which is $218B (the IRS reported $217,967,886,000 collected). The overall effective income tax rate for these returns (taxes paid / income) was 28.9%.
Let’s assume for a moment (no matter how unrealistic the assumption is) that no one affected would change a lick of their income-generating behavior as a result if we raised the top marginal rate to 100%. How much revenue would that generate? Why, all of $622.8B, if no one modified their behavior in any way that affected their income and tax impact. That is, it would generate an additional $404.8B in revenue relative to the current 35% bracket (since we collected $218B at 35% already).
If you added that $404B to the revenue pot, our deficit this year would still be over $1T…
md
July 19th, 2011
11:21 am
“There’s probably not much room to siphon income taxes as well.”
Speaking from experience, when I was dirt poor raising several kids, we had absolutely nothing and at one point lost both jobs……..but we always seemed to find enough money for our vices…..smokes and beer……..and then pay the bills…….wants vs needs…..not always prioritized properly. My rationale was screw them, I want mine too………
RedEye
July 19th, 2011
11:23 am
Federal revenue relies more on the economy than tax rates, history…boom.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
July 19th, 2011
11:23 am
First of all the president did not present a specific plan detailing how and where those cuts would be implemented. The 3 trillion plus I think was to be over 12 years not 10 and the only specificity offered by Obama was raising taxes on the wealthy which wouldn’t make a dent in the deficit. It sounded like deception coming out of the White House and the Republicans in Congress saw through it. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised and it causes the disaster being thrown out to the public it will be on Obama and the Congressional Democrats. Both sides are playing too much politics but Obama is way beyond the pale.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
11:24 am
md
to add to Brocephus’s comment, it’s been observed here before the reason the earned income credit was adopted was to encourage the working poor to keep working. They may not pay taxes on a 1040 but they’re working rather than taking benefits.
So add up all the people who receive EIC and that casts a new light on the integrity and ethic of many of those at the lower rung of the economic ladder, doesn’t it?
Neon Frog
Nice about the 17% rate. Much more pertinent than what percent of the total revenue take they pay.
Jefferson
July 19th, 2011
11:24 am
For people to take a large deduction for mortgage interest paid because they have the cash flow to make payments and own a home and then cry about someone who works all day long each weak and don’t have the cash flow to do anything but rent and drive used cars make one wonder where their head and hearts are.
It is not wrong to take a mortage interest deduction, but it is a subsidy in effect.
md
July 19th, 2011
11:24 am
“what exactly does you post mean?”
It means we currently have almost 1/3 of students dropping out of school……which has been proven to lead to hardship and assistance, and instead of requiring them to complete the first assistance program, we create more assistance programs that don’t solve their problem…………
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
11:25 am
My nomination for QUOTE OF THE DAY
“I do not accept ultimate responsibility. I hold responsible the people that I trusted to run it and they people they trusted,” Murdoch said.
(Translation: the buck stops way the hell over there)
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
11:26 am
md
and if their problems cannot be “solved”….then what?
Paul
July 19th, 2011
11:27 am
md
to quote Granny, “what exactly does you post mean?”
That was the basis of my initial response to kayaker 71 on what group pays how much.
“Lots of people bring me problems, very few people bring me solutions.”
First Sergeant
July 19th, 2011
11:27 am
kayaker 71
July 19th, 2011
10:35 am
Debbie,
Bozo has out spent the previous 43 presidents in toto in the last 2 and one half years. Are you not a bit upset? He has amassed more debt in this short time than ALL of our previous presidents COMBINED!!!! And all you libs can do is harp on about Bush. Where is YOUR indignation, Debbie? Are you not just a little perturbed at out glorious leader for his insane spending and accumulation of debt?
kayaker 71, why don’t you address Debbie’s question?
kayaker 71
July 19th, 2011
11:27 am
Many of the very wealthy in this country pay so little in taxes because their earnings are so small. You only pay federal income tax on earnings, not total assets. With a lot of their money in trusts and non-taxable assets, I wonder what the true increase would be on those whose total assets are, say, 50M and up. Say that 50M earned, at 3%/yr, a total of 1.5M. After juggling the numbers and adding up all of the deductions, the added tax, say from 35 to even 40% wouldn’t amount to much. If Bozo is counting on revenue like this to solve the debt crisis, he is barking up the wrong tree.
DebbieDoRight
July 19th, 2011
11:30 am
md: IF we need to raise taxes, it needs to be done on everybody following the same progressive structure we have in place, with a minimum for those oh so pitiful poor (many of which made choices to get them there).
Yes, people made a choice to be poor! Even in the bible, what did Jesus say again?; something about how there would always be the poor among us because of their bad choices to be poor.
md: Something along the lines of Ga Corp tax…..which is $10 for corps that had no profit or lost money
Can you tell me how well that’s working out for Georgia?
k71: Once again, as I pointed out to Debbie, all of the Bush tax cuts, raising taxes on “wealthy” taxpayers….. it’s all smoke and mirrors. If you don’t control spending, you are lost from the start. How come all of you liberals seem to continually dodge this aspect of our debt crisis?
k71, you should be a politician!! How you artfully dodge direct questions made specifically to you, why it’s almost poetry! You are wasting your talents here on this blog, please run for public office ….. your dodging skills rate right up there with our governor “Real” Deal! You go boy!
Left wing management
July 19th, 2011
11:30 am
Kayaker:
MY point is that we should broaden this whole discussion and stop quibbling over a few percentage points here and there. If we had a solid safety net in this country for example, with guaranteed health insurance and ways to obtain affordable training and education to improve one’s status in the labor market, not to mention if we had a stronger trade policy that was based on a sound understanding of the US role in the world economy and manufacturing, then we could talk about tax rates in a
Tax receipts are at all time lows while corporate profits are at all-time highs, with CEO pay spiraling at stratospheric levels. The public must understand what level of “civilization” (functioning roads, places to get medical treatment, actual law enforcement as opposed to mob or gang rule) corresponds to what percentage of revenue receipts to GDP, and then the political process must go from there.
Neon Frog
July 19th, 2011
11:31 am
kayaker 71
July 19th, 2011
11:27 am
Their income is so liitle? Top 400 made $105 Billion in AGI!!! Which part of adjusted gross INCOME don’t you understand?
You are a complete joke.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
11:31 am
An, “compromise” ………………. the language of the devil.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 19th, 2011
11:32 am
k71: Many of the very wealthy in this country pay so little in taxes because their earnings are so small. You only pay federal income tax on earnings
Many of the very
wealthybottom 50% in this country pay so little in taxes because their earnings are so small. You only pay federal income tax on [adjusted net]earnings…..K71…you answered your own questions but your idology blinds you to the answer.
md
July 19th, 2011
11:32 am
Those 1/3 that drop out of school, costs society 300 billion annually……that’s 1/3 of a trillion.
And it isn’t an either or situation……there are some at the top that skirt their obligations as well.
The solution, is for ALL to carry their weight, and no passes for those that choose not to participate….
El Jefe
July 19th, 2011
11:35 am
To the lefties, compromise is “do it my way”
To the righties compromise is doing something in the middle.
To the lefties, bipartisan means do in it their way
To the righties it is called reaching across the aisle.
To the lefties, tax reform is raising income taxes
To the righties it is helping business and the tax payer.
Gee, where did Obama go wrong.
Normal
July 19th, 2011
11:36 am
DebbieDoRight
July 19th, 2011
10:46 am
You go girl!!!
md
July 19th, 2011
11:37 am
“and if their problems cannot be “solved”….then what?”
Not sure what you mean by “cannot”, but we have an obligation to take care of the “cants’”. It’s the “wonts” that need a swift kick in the butt…………….
blue_unicorn
July 19th, 2011
11:38 am
The Fiscal Commission appointed by President Obama made a number of specific proposals to shrink the deficit and grow the economy. Which of those are the President and House Democrats proposing to implement?
El Jefe
July 19th, 2011
11:39 am
How about this for a tax plan.
Everyone pays 12% from their paycheck, individual, corporate, capital gains, etc. – no SSI, no Medicare, no FICA, etc. Just a flat 12%
Then the Federal government levies a 12% retail sales tax.
Simple and it is proven in many countries.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
11:39 am
kayaker 71
“OK, give me some numbers. How much more would you take from those really kind, hardworking, considerate, patriotic rich Americans? What’s your new brackets for those making more than 379K/yr?”
I believe President Obama has said the rate on income above $379k should go from the current (after the temporary Bush tax cut) rate of 35% to what they were before the Bush tax cuts.
In 2000, before the cuts, the top rate was 39.6% on an AGI over $288,350.
So Pres Obama has proposed raising the percentage by 4.6%, which means every hundred dollars above $379,150 gets taxed an additional $4.60.
And he hasn’t proposed lowering the AGI back down to $288,350, which has the effect of shielding nearly a hundred grand from the higher rate.
So it comes down to $4.60 per hundred on earned income over $379,150.
And that’s what Republicans are fighting so hard to protect?
’scuse, me, I believe that was the President’s initial proposal.
Hasn’t he since modified it so only those earning millions or billions will pay the additional $4.60 per hundred dollars?
Which is what Republicans are really fighting to protect? ’cause they won’t hire more people (all those guys own factories and businesses, don’tcha’ know?) if they have to pay an additional $4.60 per hundred!
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
11:40 am
JAY:
Did you miss this recently?
HEADLINE: “Casino magnate (AND BIG DEMOCRAT) Wynn says business owners ‘fear’ Obama”
“Wynn blasted Obama on a recent conference call with investors, saying business people are sitting on their money out of “fear of the president.”
“I’m telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States,” Wynn said. “And until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.”
This …………. from someone who employs 20,000 people unlike our current “ruler” who has never had to meet a payroll in his life.
md
July 19th, 2011
11:40 am
“Can you tell me how well that’s working out for Georgia? ”
Well Deb……you take the total # of corps that paid that $10 to arrive at a figure that Ga would not have otherwise………
Don’t know about you, but something has always been greater than nothing in my book……….
Soothsayer
July 19th, 2011
11:40 am
“The solution, is for ALL to carry their weight, and no passes for those that choose not to participate….”
Unfair U.S. Tax Burden Falls Disproportionately on Individuals and Small Business
Although the nominal US corporate tax rate of 35% seems high, and especially so given all the corporate funded propaganda promoting more tax cuts and givebacks, in fact the realized corporate rates are relatively low both in terms of historical experience and other countries. This is because of the many loopholes, subsidies, and accounting gimmicks available to its more influential corporate citizens from the corporate friendly government.
I thought I would interject a little truth into this cesspool of conjecture. If you love charts, you’ll love this article. If you love the truth, you’ll like it even more. If you’re a Republican, you probably won’t like it much at all.
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
11:41 am
md
again and for those who can’t……?
Message from Matti
July 19th, 2011
11:42 am
The use of the word “purity” in connection with these ideological whores is intensely ironic. I can think of no other arena in which ideals and values have been more twisted, perverted, cherry-picked, and subverted than in the modern Republican Party platform. They have morphed every ideal into a vehicle for their own ambitions, gratifications, and personal wealth, serving only the master that is the wealthiest, highest bidder at any given time. The double standard is no longer a tool, but the center of every single argument. These are not your Grandfather’s Republicans. The clean cut icons that once represented the American face (illusion) of purity are rolling over in their graves.
Purity? My Congressman? HAHAHAHA! Filthy whore.
El Jefe
July 19th, 2011
11:42 am
md,
I agree with what you said, but disagree also.
Yes, WE are required to take care of the less fortunate. However, the federal government is not.
The State, the religious organization and secular organization, they are the outlets to care for those that need help.
Craig Baker
July 19th, 2011
11:43 am
@Kayaker- If working hard were all it took to succeed in this or any other economy there would be a lot of very rich construction workers and vegetable pickers. Also, how much is the amount you earn from your “hard work” the result of processes put in place by others before you? LIke the roads your product travels on?
Paul
July 19th, 2011
11:43 am
Keep Up 11:32
And he scores!!!!!!
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
11:44 am
Put it this way, what tax rate on the rich would be acceptable to Democrats? 50%, 60%, how much is enough? Because if you are talking about putting tax rates on the rich back to what they were under Bill Clinton for instance, the facts very clearly show that this would do very little to reduce the deficit. So, what tax rates would satisfy Democrats? Let’s know that number and start the argument from there…
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
11:45 am
Speaking from experience, when I was dirt poor raising several kids, we had absolutely nothing and at one point lost both jobs……..but we always seemed to find enough money for our vices…..smokes and beer……..and then pay the bills
Not that I’m asking you to tell how old you are, but what was the comparative cost of living versus nowadays? the same… a little lower… a lot lower… I can remember working my ass off right after college and not having two nickels to rub together after paying bills. If I wanted those vices that I enjoyed, beer and strip clubs, I had to work even more to have the money for them.
No two people have the same exact life experiences. You can’t judge the situations of others based upon your personal experiences. You can make observations, comments, and/or suggestions, but beyond that it’s all speculation.
md
July 19th, 2011
11:46 am
“again and for those who can’t……?”
What does “obligation to care for” mean to you?
Paul
July 19th, 2011
11:46 am
El Jefe
“To the righties compromise is doing something in the middle.”
Does that mean Republicans don’t really mean “NO” tax increases on the top n percent, but “something more than NONE and something less than what the President proposed?”
kayaker 71
July 19th, 2011
11:47 am
Woodstock Mike,
I have been asking the same question for nearly an hour now.
md
July 19th, 2011
11:48 am
Sooth……..corp tax is not as cut and dried as you would like to make it. Since tax is nothing but an expense, the tax rate has a direct relationship with the cost of goods…….which happens to effect all of us.
F. Sinkwich
July 19th, 2011
11:49 am
Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts in Las Vegas, made some excellent points yesterday about the debt ceiling debate and the economy in general. I believe his views are shared by the vast majority of CEO’s in this country.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/18/wynn_slams_obama_on_business_responsible_for_this_fear_in_america.html
Paul
July 19th, 2011
11:49 am
Woodstock Mike
As has been noted, it appears Democrats would be satisfied with 39.6% on AGI above $379,150 for millionaires and billionaires.
That in and of itself would not, as you noted, solve the problem. Which is why the President also proposed higher cuts than Republicans were willing to accept.
Seems a two-pronged strategy is the most promising approach.
DebbieDoRight
July 19th, 2011
11:50 am
md: That’s not earned income, that’s projected income…….
Neither is inherited money — however you cite that as earned, hence my question to you. As for SS Benefits / Disability received as of this date, that statement is not true.
unless you want to build in some guarantees, which would not be wise………it’s much like a 401k………the numbers on your statement is what you would get if you cashed out at that instant…..as we all know, that number changes daily……
Not necessarily. The Disability payments some people receive now are not contingent upon the “what ifs” like a 401K account. Neither are the SSI and SS Benefits. You’ve stated that ALL income is earned income no matter how it was garnered, but I think you should’ve said, “All inherited, (trusts, etc.); income is sacrosant, any other income, (especially if it’s less than a certain amount), is food for fodder.
Why are lottery winnings and employee bonuses, (employees making less than 350K/yr) taxed at 50% yet Hedge Fund Managers’ bonuses (perks) are taxed at less than 1%? If ALL income is earned, shouldn’t it all be taxed at 1%?
md
July 19th, 2011
11:51 am
“No two people have the same exact life experiences. You can’t judge the situations of others based upon your personal experiences. You can make observations, comments, and/or suggestions, but beyond that it’s all speculation.”
You are correct, but with enough observations, the law of averages creeps in at some point………and I’ve been around long enough to have lots of observations………
Libertarian
July 19th, 2011
11:51 am
Increase taxes on everyone. Already almost half the country pays no income tax (its true whether you choose to believe it or not). Why should the achievers of America continue to shoulder the burden for everyone?
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
July 19th, 2011
11:53 am
The left in this country has this blind allegiance to a false belief that the panacea to our economic problem is to continue extracting more money from wealthy Americans. What they can’t comprehend is that the wealthy are saying “no mas” while sheltering their financial assets and not investing in expansion. This class warfare mantra is just shear ignorance of reality. Time for these idiots in the White House and in Congress to understand that until we begin once again creating a friendly environment for business expansion we’ll continue going in the wrong direction. Cut government spending and remove the regulation impediments that discourage business investment.
The Leg Lamp is a “major award”….
July 19th, 2011
11:53 am
And just what budget proposal did obama offer in a timely manner?
willie lynch
July 19th, 2011
11:53 am
The GOP has become the saddest clown. When you listen to these guy’s all you can do is laugh to keep from crying. Herman Cain “muslims are trying to impose Sharia law in America”. Bachmann believes the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and slavery was better for Black families. Rick Santorum, where do we start?
Someone in that party needs some courage.
Jefferson
July 19th, 2011
11:53 am
Anyone with half a brain knows if you have a couple of hundred grand left to spend after taxes anually, you ain’t hurting for meals and living.
RedEye
July 19th, 2011
11:55 am
There is no rational reasoning behind raising taxes at this moment. It will not solve our shortfall revenue situation, nor will it pay for our 24% of GDP federal spending.
Midori
July 19th, 2011
11:55 am
for Willie Lynch
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/ZygliA/2011/ZygliA20110719_low.jpg
kayaker 71
July 19th, 2011
11:56 am
Bozo is waging a class warfare struggle to get votes. He is plotting the “evil” rich Americans against those of lower incomes to cover up his inability to fix our economy. It seems that when new unemployment numbers stay at 9.2% reported, it’s time to give a speech about corporate jets. Or when the foreclosure rate goes up nationwide despite promises to the contrary, it’s time go demonize the right with yet another excuse. It ain’t working libs. I sometimes wonder if Bozo even wants the economy to improve.
Libertarian
July 19th, 2011
11:56 am
You people who think a 4% rate increase on the “rich” is going to solve all of our problems are sadly mistaken.
md
July 19th, 2011
11:56 am
“Neither is inherited money — however you cite that as earned, hence my question to you.”
Yes Deb, somewhere down the line, that money was “earned” by someone…….old grandaddy Hilton put his butt on the line for all those after him to squander his fortune…..but that was rightfully his choice to make. Others have left their fortunes to trusts to do philanthropic activities……again, their choice…….why should you get a choice in what they do???
Midori
July 19th, 2011
11:57 am
someone just attacked Rupert Murdoch at the hearing before Parliament.
Jefferson
July 19th, 2011
11:58 am
Midori
July 19th, 2011
11:55 am
for Willie Lynch
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/ZygliA/2011/ZygliA20110719_low.jpg
What’s a party without a clown ?
Midori
July 19th, 2011
11:58 am
1656: Rupert Murdoch’s wife Wendi stood up and appeared to strike somebody in defence of her husband.
1655: Rupert Murdoch appears to have been attacked by somebody in the public gallery.
1654: The sitting is suspended for 10 minutes – after some kind of disturbance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14193124
Joe Mama
July 19th, 2011
11:59 am
md — “All money was earned at some point……..who are we to decide how the family decides to spend it.”
If the argument is going to be that wealthy people earned all their money, then I’m going to keep trotting this guy out as evidence that wealthy people DO NOT EARN all their money. My wife’s friend received his significant wealth as a direct result of having popped out of the right birth canal. This guy earned his money in about the same way that a lottery winner does, except that the lottery winner actually had to expend the effort to go over to the Gas-n-Go to *buy* the lottery ticket in the first place.
“You would also need to include kids currently enjoying the fruits of their parents labor………how far do you want to take that argument?”
Irrelevant to the claim that was made, and to which I responded. Wealth does not always result from hard work, and hard work does not inevitably lead to wealth.
willie lynch
July 19th, 2011
12:00 pm
Midori
July 19th, 2011
11:55 am
Thanks, that is funny!
md
July 19th, 2011
12:00 pm
“Anyone with half a brain knows if you have a couple of hundred grand left to spend after taxes anually, you ain’t hurting for meals and living.”
And??
Is this the “because they have it so I have no morals” argument?
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
12:00 pm
“Anyone with half a brain knows if you have a couple of hundred grand left to spend after taxes anually, you ain’t hurting for meals and living”
This kind of comment shows the disconnect many people have with reality. It’s not about having enough money for meals and living. First off, if someone is making that kind of money they are doing something very well and must be near the best at their profession. If I hear someone say that making that kind of money isn’t difficult I immediately know they have no clue. So, if someone is great and what they do and willing to put in the time, deal with the stress, go the extra mile to make more money they deserve the finer things in life. I have no issue with with that and once you take it away, once the incentive to strive for greater things is taken away, the entire American way of life can collapse. I hate when I hear someone tell somebody how much is enough for them to make, who the hell is anyone to tell another person what is good enough…
Paul
July 19th, 2011
12:00 pm
kayaker 71
I ask questions about your posts and cite specific numbers in response to your questions.
It seems you, and several other posters, roll right past that and keep responding with bumper sticker generalities.
It does seem the real intent is not to understand or to propose solutions, but to complain and whine about Obama and lefties and such.
RedEye
July 19th, 2011
12:00 pm
the mentioning of steve wynn saying that people and businesses are in fear of the administration makes me think of something Thomas Jefferson once said:
When people fear the government there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people there is liberty.
Fred
July 19th, 2011
12:00 pm
Midori? Did they wash their hands afterwards?
Libertarian
July 19th, 2011
12:00 pm
Jefferson
July 19th, 2011
11:53 am
So why should anyone work at all? Why go to college? Why start a business? Perhaps the government should just assign us a job after high school and, in turn, give us our basic needs (food, shelter, etc.) Then everyone is equal. Does that sound good to you?
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
12:00 pm
Hey libs:
Headline: “Some federal workers more likely to die than lose jobs”
“Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-18-fderal-job-security_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip
As a former federal employee I must sadly admit this is true. It’s almost impossible to fire an employee especially for poor job performance.
Heck, you can’t even get rid of them during their probation period.
For example, we once had a “minority” female employee who was up for her one year probationary evaluation. We supervisors met and one of our minority supervisors said right off the bat that she needed to go before she got herself or someone else killed.
We all agreed and took it to the boss. He agreed fully and told us …… that’s what you get paid for.
He notified headquarters who told him, “don’t even go down that road”.
She stayed.
She got herself killed.
I call ‘em like I see ‘em.
Soothsayer
July 19th, 2011
12:01 pm
“Because if you are talking about putting tax rates on the rich back to what they were under Bill Clinton for instance, the facts very clearly show that this would do very little to reduce the deficit.”
To answer your question, the dark brown area of the chart shows how much of the deficit is attributable to the Bush tax cuts.
Here we are a country that spends nearly 50% (if not more) of all its tax revenues on the military. Yet, with a very few exceptions, you never hear anyone on the Right mention the first thing about reducing military spending. No, there’s always some bogeyman that needs to pay up: poor people, the elderly, you name it.
Jay
July 19th, 2011
12:01 pm
I know Steve Wynn personally, from my years in Vegas. He often acted like a spoiled brat, and apparently the years haven’t changed him.
Left wing management
July 19th, 2011
12:01 pm
Libertarian: “You people who think a 4% rate increase on the “rich” is going to solve all of our problems are sadly mistaken.”
I think we should return to tax rates of the Nixon era. In other words, much more of an increase than 4%.
Message from Matti
July 19th, 2011
12:01 pm
md @ 11:48,
Yes, and no. The corporate tax rate is fixed for the corporation as a percentage of their profits. Sure, they may well pass that expense on to their customers, but their customers do not necessarily equal “all of us.” I don’t buy boats or boating accessories. If a company is making a nice healthy bottom line selling boats and boating accessories, then I feel they should pay their fair share of taxes on that. (I’m paying my share on what *I* bring home, to be sure!!!) That affects the boat/accessory buying portion of the population, but not “all of us.” People who have money to buy boats and boating accessories are obviously not starving or failing to pay their light bills, or they wouldn’t be buying boats. I’m okay with their costs going up on boats. Sometimes I’m in the mood for expensive Scotch. Those who profit from importing it should pay taxes on that profit. I do my part when I buy the product, but not when I don’t. If you don’t drink Scotch, then it’s not your tax.
This is, IMO, much closer to a “fair” tax that the “fair tax” arguments I’ve heard. Corporations can restructure themselves — most already have — to maximize profits by squeezing labor so that fewer people do more with less. Since they’re clearly NOT using that money to hire more people, then they should contribute to the mother of their success (the opportunity afforded them by the grace of being American) with some of that profit. Wanna keep the tax break? HIRE, already!!! Fair’s fair.