#My2K bug: How Obama proved conservatives right on taxes
I’d like to thank President Obama for taking the time last week to explain why conservatives have been right about taxes all along.
Last Wednesday, Obama took his perpetual campaign to Twitter, encouraging supporters to send messages about how a middle-class tax increase would affect them. Never mind that no one is proposing a middle-class tax increase; the difference between Democrats and Republicans concerns raising taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 per year.
Even that difference concerns not whether they should go up, but by how much and which means: GOP leaders have offered to raise taxes on high earners by $800 billion over 10 years by limiting how many deductions tax filers can take. Obama wants to raise $1.6 trillion over 10 years by limiting deductions and raising tax rates.
Along the way, however, Obama conceded three of the main points the right long has made about raising taxes. And it only took him five of the 140 characters allowed for a tweet to do it.
How did he do that? Saying the average middle-class family would see its taxes rise by $2,200 if all tax rates were to revert to Clinton-era levels, Obama asked his tweeps to list the things they wouldn’t be able to buy without that money. Which he called, including the hashtag symbol frequently used on Twitter, #My2K.
“My” $2,000? Was the president really acknowledging that what we earn is our money?
More to the point, was he acknowledging — as conservatives always say — that taxpayers may have better uses for their money than the government does? Otherwise, shouldn’t he have no objection to the government taking #My2K?
If the answer to all three questions is “yes,” why should it be any different for higher-income earners?
The implication of #My2K, made explicitly by Obama at other times during the present tax debate, is that raising taxes is bad for the economy. That’s traditional conservative point about tax hikes No. 2. But, again, he only gets this one half-right.
Obama seems to believe consumption alone matters to the economy — and that consumption, or at least economically meaningful consumption, stops at $250,000 per family per year. After that point, if I’m following his logic correctly, consumption must not really matter.
What explains this? Is it some notion that dollars become less valuable to the economy as they accumulate with one person? If so, maybe we could call it the Theory of Obamativity.
Does he believe rich people just swim around in the money they earn that exceeds $250,000, Scrooge McDuck-style?
Or does he believe that when they invest, rather than spend, that has no positive impact on the economy? He sure does speak glowingly of government’s “investments.”
Strangely enough, his comment two years ago when extending all tax rates was that it was “the right thing to do for the economy.” At the time he said that, the economy had grown at an average of 2.8 percent over the previous four quarters. Today, the average for the past four quarters is down to 2.5 percent.
Finally, with #My2K, Obama seems to acknowledge the middle-class tax rates Washington is talking about extending came about as the “Bush tax cuts” — not the “Bush tax cutsfortherich,” as Obama and other Democrats are accustomed to calling them.
In fact, if Obama believes the larger economic impact of the cuts lies with the rates for the middle class, doesn’t that confirm, as conservatives have long pointed out, that the vast majority of the money stays with the middle class? (That’s “stays with,” not “goes to.” Don’t forget the “my” in #My2K.)
Now that the president agrees with us about these basic tax principles, perhaps it isn’t asking too much for him to acknowledge one thing more.
The only way federal tax revenues are going to return to their long-term historical average — as they did in the years before the 2008 financial crisis — and begin to pay for all the spending Obama wants is for the economy to get back to growing rapidly. And you won’t find many economists who believe tax increases alone will do that.
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
199 comments Add your comment
Dallas
December 6th, 2012
5:47 am
Blah blah blah. Way to say the same thing the same way.
When the top needed a bailout nobody saw a problem with that…years later we’re still without and you think we give a crap about your tax rates for the next 4-8 years.
lawl
I’ll go write a cheesy article somewhere to go with this whiney one
mike callahan
December 6th, 2012
5:50 am
Facts about our US Government:
(1) Government is only a paid administrative body; the termed elected administrators do not own government assets, revenues or property. All government assets and revenues are owned and controlled by American citizens who pay into the Federal income tax depository. Example of public assets: Federal interstate freeways. US capital, White House, military hardware, US aircraft carriers, and nuclear powered submarines.
(2) Government does not manufacture or design, American business invent, create and manufacture goods and services including these examples: Federal interstate freeways. US capital, White House, military hardware, US aircraft carriers, and nuclear powered submarines.
(3) Federal Funds used to support research and development are individual taxpayer funds, used by American researches, and produced by American manufactures. These funds are not patented, owned or controlled by paid elected administrators who work for the Federal government.
(4) The Continental US consist of 50 states in total land mass, 50 governors control those districts along with State representative, and 50 state supreme courts. There is only one elected administrative federal branch of government, housed mostly in a small area around the District of Columbia, consisting of a small group of elected, paid administrators who represent each state by district.
(5) All representative administrative bodies are bound by Constituted law including the federal branch. The Constitution is a compact between all States, the federal government is not a party, but the result of that compact and lacks the authority as a separate entity to define the extent of the powers delegated to it by the States. Only the individual States, as the exclusive parties to the compact between themselves, possess that power. The judiciary does not have the power to interpret Constitutional law; it has the power to scrutinize the statute being challenged to make sure it falls within the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government. Only by amendments voted by 2/3 majority, allowed by state governors, can Constitutional change or further interpret amended law. (c)
(6) The general “Federal” government cannot unite by a compact between Unions, corporations, special interest organizations, religious or political indoctrinating entities. The Federal government is the States’ government, representative only to the electorate who mandate elective provisions only.
(7) The elected and staffed Federal government cannot administer morals, rights or adjudication against the populous dominion.
Disbelief
December 6th, 2012
5:55 am
There is a problem with how the President’s brain works. He wants the gov’t to play more and more of a role in the people’s lives (socialism), yet, he wants more people to pay MORE into “the system”. He can’t do that with almost 9% unemployment. He’s created a “Welfare nation”. He is forcing the drastic change in our healthcare system, yet, no way to pay for it because of the drastic high unemployment.
He needs to get people back to work. He also needs to be realistic with those on Social Security. They PAID into the “system” that he is calling an “ENTITLEMENT”. While the COST of LIVING has dramatically increased, the “Cost of Living Allowance” of Social Security is only going up 1.7%. He is also changing how the COLA is calculated. Meaning the more things cost, the less those on Social Security will be able to “afford”. I guess it’s bread… no more water… just bread. He will kill off those on Social Security one way or another. Oh yippee.
Larry
December 6th, 2012
5:56 am
Kyle.. First of all his name is President Obama is talking about working class families who need help. The stalled economy is putting strain on working class families. Obviously people making over 250k a year have more discretionary income so paying a higher tax rate is not going to affect spending habits. Lets get real!
Moron
December 6th, 2012
5:57 am
Wingfield is an idiot. Obama this and Obama that and all blame Obama. Try putting some blame on Congress, the lobbyists, and the money driven political system. And yes folk earning more than 250k per yr can afford to be taxed more.
Road Scholar
December 6th, 2012
6:19 am
So money spent on infrastructure by the government, the same infrastructure work done by private companies, does not create jobs and assets for the American people?. Infrastructure work does not include suppliers? Laborers? Equipment providers? Those people do not eat and purchase other products?? Get real! That money can lead to more economic activity…and here it is…with a legacy of bridges and roads and.. hopefully you get the point. Remember bombs only destroy infrastructure and kill people.
Thomas Heyward Jr
December 6th, 2012
6:25 am
In reality……..that 2k will not even cover the increases in medical care thanks to Obama-care.
Not to mention the booze, tobacco, and gasoline taxes that will be part of the “compromise”.
And don’t forget about inflation.
That EBT card is worth less and less.
.
suckers.
Thomas Heyward Jr
December 6th, 2012
6:29 am
So money spent on infrastructure by the government, the same infrastructure work done by private companies, does not create jobs and assets for the American people?. Infrastructure work does not include suppliers? Laborers? Equipment providers? Those people do not eat and purchase other products?? Get real! That money can lead to more economic activity…and here it is…with a legacy of bridges and roads and.. hopefully you get the point. Remember bombs only destroy infrastructure and kill people.
.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
.
If the government ever gets into the shoe business……there are government-school educated people out there who would think that………if not for government………we would all walk around bare-footed and that absolutely no shoes can be made without government-stolen money.
.
weird.
Stephenson Billings
December 6th, 2012
6:30 am
“Obviously people making over 250k a year have more discretionary income so paying a higher tax rate is not going to affect spending habits.”
Says someone who obviously never made close to that amount of money…..
JMH
December 6th, 2012
6:30 am
Moron, your name is quite accurate. Why not just raise taxes on everyone if that solves the deficit problem we have? Do you not think you should pay a little more for the betterment of the greater good? Or do you like all the govt handouts but are just not willing to pay for them personally? If you like big govt than you should be willing to pay for it and not try to pawn it off on someone else. I personally hope everyone’s taxes get raised so everyone can feel the pain. Its just to easy to say yeah let’s talk more of what someone else has to fund this ever growing govt. Kind of sad what this president has done to pit Americans against each other based on income levels…..very sad individual he is!
Banderson
December 6th, 2012
6:31 am
You’re surprised that “strangely enough” Obama actually meant what he said about raising taxes? You’ve been hanging around the GOP too long. Obama said all along that raising taxes would hurt the economy. The questions are, a)which hurts the ecomony more – the deficit or raising taxes, and b) which hurts the economy more in the short term, raising taxes on people who will spend the money or raising taxes on those who will invest? Taking money out of the hands of the spenders has an immediate effect, whereas taking money from investments MAY hurt down the road; but, since there seems to be plenty of money in circulation (interest rates are at historic lows), there clearly is no problem with the cost of money for investments at present.
Now, I’ll be surprised if the GOP admits that cutting “entitlements” and other government spending will have an immediate damping effect on the economy. Think what will happen to companies renting apartments, selling gas, medicine, food, utilities, clothing, etc. when you cut back on those child tax credits and food stamps. For the GOP to admit that it’s going to be as painful for the economy as it is for the people getting the benefits, well, that would be progress.
Aynie Sue
December 6th, 2012
6:31 am
Way too labored an argument, Kyle! The Republicans are posturing political parasites who refuse to specify the limits on tax deductions that will bring in additional revenue; they dare not because limits are unpopular to voters and to campaign contributors.
The “my money” notion is nonsense. Money is meant to circulate. What was my money today is somebody else’s money when I spend it or pay taxes.
Nobody believes that consumption alone drives the economy; only a fool would believe that investment alone drives the economy. Consumption drives consumer demand, which in turn provides opportunities for profitable investment of capital.
A balance between consumption and investment is needed. Excessive consumption causes inflation. Inadequate consumption (due to lack of good-paying jobs) causes capital to be moved out of the country or parked in speculative financial instruments rather than invested in job-creating American industry and commerce.
Rely on basic economics and simple arithmetic. Ignore Republican political slogans and abstruse “philosophies”.
Independent voter
December 6th, 2012
6:33 am
there is a lead time effect on gov’t policy….. Anti business, pro labor union, raise taxes, bigger gov’t programs are just starting to effect employment…. the economy is just now starting to contract… GDP will go down, companies will not invest….. rich folks are doing just fine…. its those of us in the middleclass getting killed…. nobody in this administration understands small business and economics….. socialism does not work !!!!!
Independent voter
December 6th, 2012
6:42 am
no problems, lets just go on a 3 week vacation to Hawaii
JMH
December 6th, 2012
6:47 am
Anyie, wouldn’t you agree that the latter point in your argument is what is happening in this country? A lack of good paying jobs? Our economy is barely growing in this country because not enough people are working, paying taxes, and consuming goods. Taking money from me, giving it to someone else thru a transfer payment and having it spent on whatever is the same dollar that I would have spent originally. Someone made a very accurate statement last night…we don’t need higher taxes, we simply need more taxpayers. Why is that so hard to understand? We can’t keep taking more and more from a small group to pay for everyone else’s needs; how is that working so far? 16T in debt and counting and no amount of raising taxes on the rich is gonna solve that problem.
DeborahinAthens
December 6th, 2012
6:47 am
On December 4th, Jay ran a chart that shows the breathtaking disparity between corporate profits and workers’ salaries. This disparity has come about for many reasons. Technology has enabled companies to automate jobs that previously had to be done by humans–in factories, in offices, in warehouses. Companies have sent many manufacturing jobs to countries where they only have to pay workers pennies a day instead of a living wage. Corporations have slashed necessary workers to the bone, requiring the remaining workers to try to keep up with double loads. These workers, knowing the job market isn’t great, shoulder the burden and keep their mouths shut. Walmart, one of the most profitable companies around, plays the game fantastically well. I was reading that one reason they supported Obamacare is that they are going to drop most of their full time workers to part time, so the workers will qualify for the insurance offered through the exchanges. There will be government assistance for those people living below the poverty line. So, by making their workers live below the poverty line, Walmart will be able to foist off on the government taxpayers what should be part of their compensation to their workers. Yet, the corporations are trying to make the American public feel sorry for them or, worse, blackmail them into lowering the corporate tax rates. It is implied that, if we don’t lower taxes, they will leave our shores. Companies cannot exist and do business without public infrastructure paid for by taxes. Most corporations pay an effective tax rate-due to the many loopholes-
that is much lower than the 36% they screech about. Republicans repeated mantra, obviously not true, is that if we lower taxes on the upper 2%, these taxpayers will create jobs. We have seen, since 2003 when the Bush Tax Cuts became effective that this is patently not true. Job creation from 2003 to 2009 dropped like a stone. It IS a fact that if people have a livable wage and there is stability in their job situation, they will spend money. That, more than the taxes has a huge impact on the vibrancy of an economy. President Obama very correctly states that he does NOT want taxes on the lower and middle classes to go up, which will happen if our do-nothing, gutless, spineless Congress does nothing before December 31st. Boehner has offered no counter offer to President Obama’s tax proposal other than vague “we’ll close tax loopholes” . What loopholes? Boehner says he wants the President to offer cuts in entitlements. Where at the House’s recommended cuts? There has been no formal offer of cuts from Congress. Cut what? Cut where? They do not have the guts to tell the American people what is necessary to solve our problems.
nathan's political arsonist
December 6th, 2012
7:05 am
pitiful kyle, just pitiful. you are a young man with time left to do some good
nathan's political arsonist
December 6th, 2012
7:07 am
you are really grasping for any argument supporting the gop, its not working
Lynnie Gal
December 6th, 2012
7:07 am
There’s a great deal of difference between giving a person making $50K an extra $2K and a person making $800K an extra $50K. The difference is, the person making $50K will SPEND that money and create jobs with it. The person who has everything he needs–the $800K guy, will SAVE or INVEST that money, and not necessarily in this country, but maybe in the Cayman Islands like Romney does with his extra money. That is not good for the American economy and it does not create jobs. A person making $50K may actually need that $2K for housing, food, tuition, and other life expenses. I do believe a person making over $250K a year can afford food and housing for themselves. Those “job creators” who have enjoyed the lion’s share of tax cuts over the past 12 years haven’t really created those jobs, have they?
Cherokee
December 6th, 2012
7:09 am
“Never mind that no one is proposing a middle-class tax increase;”
Nonsense, Kyle. If that were true, the House would pass the bill the Senate has already passed, extending tax cuts for the middle class.
JMH
December 6th, 2012
7:11 am
Deb- Just over a year ago Obama said the same exact thing about cutting loopholes and limiting deductions in lieu of raising rates. Now his story has changed; what’s that all about? If we raise revenue in some form or fashion why does it matter? Didn’t matter to him last year!
We have two problems in this country and solving one will solve the other. Jobs, the lack of and spending too much of what we don’t have. If we had more jobs then people rely on govt less and pay more taxes; seems pretty simple to me.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
7:12 am
Increasing taxes on small business and high earners isn’t about fixing Obozo’s deficit–it would barely make a dent in it.
No, raising taxes on a few is simply “getting even” with those who do the hard work, make the personal sacrifices, and take the risks that Obozo’s loser base won’t. Their greed for other people’s property is disgusting an un-American.
JMH
December 6th, 2012
7:17 am
So lynnie who has created jobs over the last 12 years? The poor people?
Also, someone making 250K a year is much different than someone making 800K a year and several million a year. Who decided that 250K was the right amount? Obama? Does he make the final decision on what is fair? Wow you people really are like sheep if you believe everything this guys says.
This is sad to say but I hope some of you Obama voters work for one of these “rich” small business owners who has his taxes raised (and it’s not just income taxes going up) and has to lay off workers. Who do you think will be first to go?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
7:18 am
Republicans refuse to specify the limits on tax deductions that will bring in additional revenue
———
False. Republicans are proposing a dollar limit on deductions, not eliminating particular deductions.
Time for some new talking points, Annie Sue.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
7:24 am
[W]ho has created jobs over the last 12 years?
—————-
Whoever it was, they created enough in the first eight of those twelve years to keep unemployment around 5%.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 6th, 2012
7:27 am
Today federal revenue is $2.67 trillion (slightly less than “the Clinton equivalent”) and spending is $3.76 trillion, so we are spending $987 billion more than we would be if we had just increased Bill Clinton’s last budget for inflation and population growth.
Your taxes have gone up since obama took office, much more than some measly Bush tax cut rescission would bring about. Do a little research on the effects that liberal energy policy boondoggles has had on gas and food prices, a tax that hits everyone all across the economy.
Uncle Billy
December 6th, 2012
7:31 am
A very large conclusion based on a hashtag. To imply that you can discern the President’s whole line of thought by a hashtag is breathtaking even for a journalist like Kyle.–The President is proposing that the marginal rate of 33% be raised to 36% for those couples with taxable income of more than $250,000 and the 35% revert to 39.6% of those with taxable incomes of more than $388,000. The taxes on income below those amounts would remain as they are now. Also, the payroll tax rates would remain where they are now.
The problem with capping total deductions is that it would hit charitable donations very hard and the 501(c)3’s would be very distressed.
CC
December 6th, 2012
7:31 am
If you’re intelligent, you NEVER listen to what Obama says, you watch what he does. Obama has a very specific goal, and that goal is NOT in the best interests of America or Americans.
massachusetts refugee
December 6th, 2012
7:34 am
there is no one at either end of pensylvania avenue with the b@lls to make the really hard choices required to get us out of this mess. somehow congress and the ‘president’ will find a way to kick this down the road for the next congress to deal with.
DougW
December 6th, 2012
7:40 am
What a load of BS. Republicans aren’t ‘right’ on taxes, and the President never ‘agreed’ with their policies on taxes. Both of these assertions are lies. Republicans believe that lowering taxes ALWAYS is the right thing to do. They claim this is to ‘help the economy’, which is a lie both in that they know it isn’t true, and becasue it isn’t actually the reason they want lower taxes. They want lower taxes becasue less money for infrastructure and education makes it that much harder for a person born to average or below-average wealth to ever be in position to raise themselves to a higher economic standing. Republican policy overall can be summarized in the statement ‘Let the wealthy do whatever they want, and you may get a (minimum wage) job out of the deal!’ In their minds it doesn’t matter if the wealthy want to destroy the environment getting more wealth, or if they want to create illegal monopolies to gather even more power, or if they want to simply use fraud to sell worthless goods and services to the public. The magical ‘free market’ will fix all of thise problems. We don’t need to police the wealthy, only the poor. There must not be any ‘free market’ that will magically take care of mugging or robbery like there is for all white collar crimes.
GDRLA
December 6th, 2012
7:43 am
Why were tremendous deficits OK during the Bush/Cheney Circus act but not now? If the reversion to the Clinton era tax rates results in the same economic responses I say go back ASAP & let’s move on – my portfolio returned stellar results during that 6-7 years & not so much over the past 12 years now. Why after the Republicats lost the White House did deficits all of a sudden matter?
CC
December 6th, 2012
7:50 am
DougW@7:40:
Your words aptly describe your post, “What a load of BS.”
Think Again
December 6th, 2012
7:56 am
Tax the wall-street parasites. That’s the voice of America today.
CC
December 6th, 2012
7:59 am
“Most corporations pay an effective tax rate-due to the many loopholes-that is much lower than the 36% they screech about.”
Only liberals believe that companies and corporations pay ANY taxes. Taxes are projected, figured into the prices of the goods or services the companies or corporations sell and passed along to the consumer. If the taxes are too high, the company or corporation is not competitive. YOU PAY THE TAXES, DeborahinAthens .
JDW
December 6th, 2012
8:12 am
@Kyle…”Never mind that no one is proposing a middle-class tax increase”
Can’t even get past this line…is there a difference between proposing one and holding it hostage? End result is the same.
JDW
December 6th, 2012
8:16 am
@Kyle…”If the answer to all three questions is “yes,” why should it be any different for higher-income earners?”
It is because of an interesting little concept called disposable income…you see our government is underfunded. It only makes sense to ask those that can afford to do so to pay more. It is not a hard concept.
commoncents
December 6th, 2012
8:18 am
JDW
Wouldn’t also make sense to ask our government to spend less? It’s not a hard concept…
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 6th, 2012
8:19 am
all the spending Obama wants
and what would this entail?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 6th, 2012
8:20 am
We need a transaction tax on Wall Street transactions.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
8:20 am
If Obozo were spending at the same level as Our President Bush, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the deficit would be a measly $400 billion.
It’s the spending, stupid.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 6th, 2012
8:21 am
Increasing taxes on small business
When did Obama propose this?
commoncents
December 6th, 2012
8:23 am
Finn: “Increasing taxes on small business
When did Obama propose this?”
When he suggested taxing those who make $250K more to subsidize others…
curious
December 6th, 2012
8:24 am
“So lynnie who has created jobs over the last 12 years? The poor people?”
Jobs are created by people spending money. Poor people spend all their money, usually in the community where they live.
The wealthy don’t spend their money, they invest somewhere and often off shore in order to avoid paying tax.
The real job creators are the consumers. Eliminate the consumer and any company Romney has turned around will go belly up.
JMH
December 6th, 2012
8:24 am
Doug W…I beg your pardon but Obama actually said that he would agree to limit deductions in lieu of raising rates just last year. Read this-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-12/carried-interest-to-help-pay-for-jobs-bill.html
John
December 6th, 2012
8:26 am
If you don’t believe Wingfield, believe a 2006 article in the New York Times.
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
More money, more spending. Bush was not a fiscal conservative.
carlosgvv
December 6th, 2012
8:27 am
Most Republicans in Congress are hinting they might just let us go over the fiscal cliff. If this happens, middle-class taxes will rise about $2200.00 dollars.
Kyle, you might want to re-think that “no one is proposing a middle-class tax increase”.
JMH
December 6th, 2012
8:27 am
The wealthy don’t spend their money? Are you crazy?
I’m barely in that “rich” category and you have obviously never met my wife!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
8:27 am
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
Increasing taxes on small business
When did Obama propose this?
———-
Several times per day for the last two years.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
8:29 am
carlosgvv: Most Republicans in Congress are hinting they might just let us go over the fiscal cliff.
——–
So did the Obozo administration, just yesterday. Now you know who to blame.
DownInAlbany
December 6th, 2012
8:30 am
DougW
December 6th, 2012
7:40 am
What a load of BS. Republicans aren’t ‘right’ on taxes, and the President never ‘agreed’ with their policies on taxes.
I think you need to do a little research. Back in July 2011 (?), Obama indicated that closing loopholes and adjusting deductions could accomplish the needed tax increase without adjusting the rates. He has now flip flopped on that issue.
John
December 6th, 2012
8:31 am
From the same 2006 piece in the New York Times.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.
Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.
curious
December 6th, 2012
8:33 am
“The wealthy don’t spend their money? Are you crazy?”
Sorry. Intended to say the rich don’t spend all their money like the poor and many in the middle class.
A reason the unemployment rate was so low was the amount of consumer spending resulting from the money generated by the housing bubble. Now we are either underwater or barely even. Banks aren’t lending.
Bob Loblaw
December 6th, 2012
8:35 am
This is the worst-written column to appear on this site. Ever. Mind-numbingly bad.
John
December 6th, 2012
8:38 am
And from Thomas Sowell:
The bottom line is that Barack Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.
So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.
Obama intentionally lies to his hogs.
John
December 6th, 2012
8:40 am
Forgot the link.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/05/creators_oped/page/full/
JohnnyReb
December 6th, 2012
8:41 am
Regretably, most citizens don’t understand tax rates, revenue, GDP, etc. They do believe legacy media and pop culture lies. And, Obama suspends truth almost everytime he speaks regardless of the subject. How do you know he is lying? His lips are moving.
Bush’s tax cuts resulted in a very low debt to GDP ratio until the housing bubble burst, but you won’t hear the Left speak of that.
There is mounds of evidence that tax cuts increase revenues and that raising taxes does the opposite, but the Left like a rabid dog wants the rich to hurt so they must have the tax increase. Never mind that could result in fewer jobs. They don’t have to worry. They can always get unemployment forever, then go on disability, get food stamps, rent assistance, and a free cell phone. Why work?
willie lynch
December 6th, 2012
8:41 am
What’s wrong with those making over 250K paying a higher tax rate on the earnings above that? If tax rates are at the lowest they’ve ever been and we managed to make it through the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s with higher tax rates on high income earners what’s the problem with this current batch of high earners paying at a higher rate?
If we can ask people to sacrifice their lives and lose limbs for this country why can’t those who have prospered the most sacrifice mere money? It’s the American way.
carlosgvv
December 6th, 2012
8:43 am
Barry
You’re right. I blame them ALL.
UIC
December 6th, 2012
8:51 am
Kyle…. First, and it is a small point, your comment “Before the 2008 financial crisis,” it was actually in December 2007. I’m sure you researched the date, but then decided, “if I use 2008, maybe the readers will think, gosh, President Obama was elected in 2008 (forget that his term begins on January 20 of the year following election) so this must be his fault. I’d hope your college professors would be disappointed. Also, if the statistics show it started in December 2007, you need to go back several years to see the beginning of the fall. In a $13T economy, bad decisions today do not manifest themselves tomorrow.
Where to begin on the rest of the article….. “taxpayers may have better uses for their money than the government does?” No one will disagree, but maybe we need a plan to pay for the debt we already have. You may remember the ill-fated debacle in Iraq that cost $1T; that amount is and will continue to increase throughout our lifetime. Why? Well, in addition to the 4,000+ service members that were killed, 36,000+ came home with varying degrees of injury. Some will be on gov’t assistance programs for the remainder of their lives. I’m sure as a good “conservative” (whatever that means), you have no issue with that expenditure. We also have the Wall Street meltdown that led to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. If you’re looking for a date as to when this happened, here’s a clue, Mr. Capitalism (champion of survival of the fittest) used gov’t money to bailout the backbone of the capitalist system, (how quickly Mr. Capitalist found his inner socialist.)
Why would President Obama advocate just increasing the tax rates on the top two tax brackets? Here’s a clue…90% of all income growth over the last decade has been concentrated over a very small segment of the population. Yes, I know, they’ve earned it. If you believe that, you haven’t spent much time investigating corporate America.
What else, “…. to pay for all the spending Obama wants is for the economy to get back to growing rapidly. And you won’t find many economists who believe tax increases alone will do that.” You also won’t find too many economists who believe the income divide trajectory we’ve been on for the last decade is a sustainable path.
mike
December 6th, 2012
8:51 am
“A mall in Maine has sacked Santa Claus after children and parents complained he was rude, grumpy and wouldn’t even let one child sit on his lap.
Officials at the Maine Mall in South Portland say they’re looking for a jollier Santa and hope to have him in place Thursday.”
http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/strange/maine-mall-sacks-santa-after-rudeness-complaints/nTN8f/
Now that’s my kind of Santa!
Elections Have Consequences
December 6th, 2012
8:58 am
To those making the case for higher taxes, try this analogy: Your 14 tear old comes to you and says, “I need $20”. You have already given him $20 last week, the week before that, the week before that – etc. Do you:
A) Smile and fork over the money
B) Ask “What do you need it for?”
I would choose B.
There’s been no explanation as to why higher taxes are actually needed, just supplying the campaign weary the rhetoric of “those who aren’t paying their fair share”. If the money went to something concrete, reducing the debt or addressing the deficit, fine. It won’t. Obama’s proposal includes 200B in stimulus in the form of additional tax cuts and spending, without addressing either of these issues.
And the President admitted that the tax increases aren’t even needed-as much as he understands fiscal policy:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/12/05/obama_in_2011_we_can_achieve_12_trillion_in_revenues_without_raising_tax_rates
This is political, plain and simple. It’s not about truly addressing the fiscal problems in this country.
willie lynch
December 6th, 2012
9:02 am
Why were the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars never included in Bush’s budget numbers?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
9:02 am
What’s wrong with those making over 250K paying a higher tax rate on the earnings above that?
——–
They already do.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
9:04 am
What’s wrong with asking the federal Government to make do with 20% of GDP like they did in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s?
Independent voter
December 6th, 2012
9:06 am
what would have happened if Jimmy Carter ( 2nd term ) had beaten Ronald Reagan in 1970 ???? we are about to find out…. our economy became the world leader under capitalism… socialism does not work !!!!!
Independent voter
December 6th, 2012
9:08 am
yes we have to limit SPENDING.. if you send it up to D.C. they will spend all of it and ask for more next year.. just like your Kid and his allowance
willie lynch
December 6th, 2012
9:12 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout – OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
9:02 am
Tax rate. Stick with us now.
Cutty
December 6th, 2012
9:13 am
Since Kyle cares so much about reducing taxes, maybe he can start here at home w the ad valorem tax. It’s my birthday, and the last thing I want is to drop $350 on a car tag less than two weeks before Christmas.
Maybe of Obama used fee instead of tax, Kyle may agree w him along w the rest of the GOP. They seem to be ok w increased fees here at home.
JamVet
December 6th, 2012
9:13 am
Why do you neocons hate evil Middle Class working families so much?
Butch
December 6th, 2012
9:15 am
Lynnie Gal – “There’s a great deal of difference between giving a person making $50K an extra $2K and a person making $800K an extra $50K.”
Giving? I assume you really meant “letting them keep what they earned”…….
John
December 6th, 2012
9:15 am
if you send it up to D.C. they will spend all of it and ask for more next year
Word!
Debasing the value of money by creating more of it is nothing new or esoteric. Irresponsible governments have done this, not just for centuries, but for thousands of years.
It is a way to take people’s wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. Inflation is the most universal tax of all.
All the pretty talk about how tax rates will be raised only on “the rich” hides the ugly fact that the poorest people in the country will see the value of their money decline, just like everybody else, and at the same rate as everybody else, when the government creates more money and spends it.–Thomas Sowell
willie lynch
December 6th, 2012
9:15 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout – OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
9:04 am
They will get back to it. So let’s get those high income earner tax rates up to the levels of the years you noted.
independent thinker
December 6th, 2012
9:16 am
More Obama bashing and right wing talking points from General Norquist to the troops via Kyle to satisfy Norquist’s wealthy patrons who have gotten fatter and richer in the last twelve years than ever before.
Kyle try dealing with some reality about taxes and entitlements and quit stirring up the passions of the looney right wing kooks who use this column to spew anti-Obama venom and their delusions everyday. Three examples from this month’s AARP newsletter would make an intellectual discussion of what Obama has already passed possible now that all the lies of the GOP to get those two wannabees ected have failed miserably:
1. Tax deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses goes up from 7.5% of AGI to 10% effective Jan.1 This means more revenue from most taxpayers and grerater individual out of pocket payments if the tax payer has no insurance or limited insurance- Is this good or bad according to You and Grover?
2. Medicare tax goes up from 1.75 to 2.43% for income earners over $200,000 a year undr Obamacare. Is this good or bad according to you and Grover? Is this entitlement reform according to the GOP and Mr. Boenerhead?
3. Bush’s Medicare reelection give away to the elderly- free and unfunded Part D drugs (which your hero Paul Ryan voted for)had no big pharma concessions. Obama care now requires as of January 1 that gemeric drugs be discounted by big pharma 52% and generics 21%. If that results in part of the $716 billion dollars along with cuts in Bush’s Medicare Advantage program (privately run) is that money a Medicare savings and entitlement reform or will the talking heads at the GOP and Mr. Ryan still claim Obama is stealing $716 billion dollars from the elederly including Paul Ryan’s Momma???
See it all just talking points until you get to the real numbers and facts. I thought what newspapers were for.
2.
Richard Judy
December 6th, 2012
9:16 am
Where Obama comes up short as a politician is his inability to fathom a desire from voters to see a Reagan/Clinton propensity to compromise in ways that benefit the country. That is why we constantly hear nostalgia for both of those ex-presidents. Obama has admitted in the past that he is aware that raising tax rates on high income people will likely result in lower revenues. He still wants to raise the rates to create “fairness,” a godawful lame view. We should tax wealthy people in such a way as to create more wealthy people who will — in the aggregate — contribute to higher overall revenues. Mitt Romney is now enjoying a career as a Marriott Corporation board member, because he was unable to communicate all this to a majority of the voters.
willie lynch
December 6th, 2012
9:17 am
Independent voter
December 6th, 2012
9:06 am
When Jimmy Carter left office we were the worlds leading creditor. When Reagan left we were the worlds leading debtor. Great job Ronnie!
JamVet
December 6th, 2012
9:20 am
Given that we just endured the (W)orst Ever and his eight year Reign of Error, I still find it truly bizarre that the Republican fools who voted for him and Dick (twice!) have Carter Derangement Syndrome.
Talk about clueless with a capital C…
jconservative
December 6th, 2012
9:23 am
Fact. Taxes are going up on 100% of taxpayers January 1,2013. This was decided in a bill passed by Congress in December 2010. In the House 138 Republicans and 139 Democrats voted for the bill. Bi-partisanship!
The discussion now is about the wisdom of cutting some or all of that tax increase. The discussion is on tax cuts not tax increases. The tax increase has already been decided. The question on the table is who is going to vote for tax cuts?
And it has become a political decision, not an economic decision. It became a political decision when Republicans decided to wait until after Obama lost his re-election bid to address the issue.
Now Republicans are in a political world they did not anticipate. They have already caved in on taxing the “rich”. Part 2 will be if they can find a way to get revenge in the 113th Congress.
As of this morning both sides agree that the “rich” will pay more. The Democrats want a tax rate increase and the Republicans want a to reduce the deductions of the “rich”. But both sides are going to soak the “rich”.
DownInAlbany
December 6th, 2012
9:24 am
independent thinker
December 6th, 2012
9:16 am
More Obama bashing and right wing talking points from General Norquist to the troops via Kyle to satisfy Norquist’s wealthy patrons who have gotten fatter and richer in the last twelve years than ever before.
Kyle try dealing with some reality about taxes and entitlements and quit stirring up the passions of the looney right wing kooks who use this column to spew anti-Obama venom and their delusions everyday. Three examples from this month’s AARP newsletter would make an intellectual discussion of what Obama has already passed possible now that all the lies of the GOP to get those two wannabees ected have failed miserably:
That you get your talking points from AARP is quite comical in itself!
JohnnyReb
December 6th, 2012
9:27 am
JamVet – your blubbering about Republicans hating the middle class is just that, blubbering. How about listing some concrete eveidence? Or have you forgotten the Bush tax cuts included everyone?
And, I suppose you buy into Obama’s lies that if Republicans don’t agree to increasing tax rates on the rich, then middle class rates go up.
That would of course be the case if Obama does not compromise, but the rates would go up for everyone. Where’s that in your truth?
real john
December 6th, 2012
9:31 am
Bravo Kyle, bravo.
You really have the libs fired up on here today. Rather than try to refute what you are saying, the resort to name calling. Since you are 100% accurate in your article I guess they really don’t have anything to say.
The way the libs and Obama talk out of both sides of their mouths is funny. They have no plan except to ‘tax the rich.” Of course, after they tax the rich, and we are still running trillion dollar a year defecits, I can’t wait to see what they have on tap next
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
9:35 am
Bush cut taxes during a time of war ( A war he never budgeted or figured out how to pay for ) which was unprecendented in US history.
Ronald Reagan cut taxes dramatically and quadrupled the National debt in 8 years.
Eventually the bill comes due people.
Its due now. Taxes will have to be raised.
And people like Mitt Romney who pay half the rate of the average American is a good place to start.
JamVet
December 6th, 2012
9:37 am
Reb, you trickle down rube. Quit running away from the truth.
Forty straight years of flatlined wages for nearly four out of five American working families and you Reaganbots have cheered all of it on.
The minimum wage worth less than it was in 1968. And you love it. Banksters loot pension funds freely and you love it. CEO’s making more in a single day than most of their workers make in a year and you love it.
Your idiotic self-destructive ideas about capitalism are coming to a close.
Occupy that.
CC
December 6th, 2012
9:39 am
Relax, JamVet, Bookie-man will have something up in a little while and you can take your swill there. Everything will be OK.
PS: Take your meds now, like a good boy.
Glenn
December 6th, 2012
9:39 am
LOL . Everybody’s taxes should go up & government spending should be cut . It just makes fiscal sense . Conservatives & Liberals are idiots . Take some of that . Hey at least liberals are nicer people .
jconservative
December 6th, 2012
9:41 am
Thomas Jefferson – ““It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.”
Whether intentional or not for over 200 years the US pretty much adhered to this idea. But in the early 1980’s we decided that we could stop paying for government but keep government services at 100%. We believed that “we could have our cake and eat it too”. And in the early 2000’s we actually increased government services with no thought of paying for those additional services.
The result is that today we have unfunded mandates of over $71 trillion.
One might suggest that we simply cancel the unfunded services created in the early 2000’s to make a small dent in the unfunded mandates.. But neither side has suggested such a move.
One side wants to cut government services and one side wants to increase funding for government services. The American voter has yet to decide. We wait for that day.
Butch
December 6th, 2012
9:42 am
Ok….I’ll play along….let’s raise taxes on income over $250K…..now what?
This additional revenue does very very little to begin to solve the problems…..maybe help the gov’t fund a few entitlements……
Where’s the economic growth? (here come the obstructionism posts…..)
Don't Tread
December 6th, 2012
9:43 am
Don’t worry, Our Lord And Savior 0bama will save us from the dastardly fiscal cliff! Oh wait…
independent thinker
December 6th, 2012
9:43 am
Down in Albany- You imply what the AARP is reporting on changes in tax laws and entitlements is not the law effective January 1. You have anything to refute the stated facts other than your hatred of the AARP? or would you prefer facts as they come from Grover, Rove, Beck,Limbaugh and the other GOP talking heads?
For an esxpose on how the Drug Industry has ripped off Medicare courtesy of the GOP and Tommy Thompson see:
http://boldprogressives.org/tommy-thompson-cost-taxpayers-20-billion/
Yeah we need entitlement reform – end all the GOP sweetheart deals to rob Medicare for their insurance and Big Pharma donors.
Hey Mitt-who got all the “gifts” when W was in office?
CC
December 6th, 2012
9:44 am
In terms of what their money can purchase, Obama has already cost the middle class and poor more than is believable. Inflation has done more damage than tax increases would have done. This is the reality that liberals don’t want to address because the blame has to be placed directly on Obama and his maddening spending.
carlosgvv
December 6th, 2012
9:45 am
Barry
An unpleasant possibility is suggesting itself. Both Obama and the Republicans may deliberately take stands they know the other side won’t accept. Then, as they hope, we go over the cliff. Before long the financial s*it hits the fan. At this point Obama, convinced he’ll be believed by the people, blames the Republicans and hopes to score major political points for the Democrats. Unfortunately, the Republicans, also convinced they’ll be believed by the people, blame the Democrats and look for a large number of political points. And, as this political ping-pong game is going on we, the people, suffer.
Could this be true?
jconservative
December 6th, 2012
9:49 am
Glenn at 9:39…”Everybody’s taxes should go up & government spending should be cut.”
As previously noted we are on schedule to do just that on January 1, 2013.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
9:50 am
Ok….I’ll play along….let’s raise taxes on income over $250K…..now what?
Thats a start.
Glenn
December 6th, 2012
9:52 am
Butch , it would give the R’s leverage on other issues like spending or entitlement cuts . It would stop , as Bobby Jindal is saying ,that the R’s are just looking out for the rich . Whats up with him ? I think he is eyeing 2016 .
It would help in perception which the R’s are having a major problem with currently .
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
9:55 am
This is the reality that liberals don’t want to address because the blame has to be placed directly on Obama and his maddening spending.
You do realize spending has decreased under Obama.
Federal spending has gone up slightly under Obama — much slower than under Bush in his first four years — but overall government spending has actually gone down — something that hasn’t happened in four decades.
real john
December 6th, 2012
9:57 am
Actually John Q…it has been proven, that tax cuts have lead to economic growth in many cases.
real john
December 6th, 2012
9:58 am
So John Q…you think raising taxes HELPS economic growth…do share…
JamVet
December 6th, 2012
9:59 am
cc troll, get an adult to change your diapers and quit whining.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
10:00 am
So John Q…you think raising taxes HELPS economic growth…do share…
It did when Clinton was President.
One of the first things he did was raise the top marginal rate.
Economy did just fine and we actually had a surplus until W blew that in about 14 seconds.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 6th, 2012
10:01 am
You folks really think the majority of small business owners earn more than $250k a year?
LOL. You folks need to turn off the bubble news channels and read some stats for a change.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 6th, 2012
10:05 am
Finn: “Increasing taxes on small business. When did Obama propose this?”
CommonCents: When he suggested taxing those who make $250K more to subsidize others…
Lil Barry: Several times per day for the last two years.
Both are outright lies. You two are liars. He isn’t taxing small businesses, the tax increase is only on personal income above $250,000, it’s not on the business. Besides, the majority of small business owners don’t earn anything near $250k a year.
With your lying abilities you two should have a show on Fox News.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 6th, 2012
10:07 am
raising taxes HELPS economic growth
Let’s see your company get its goods to the stores on roads that have turned back to gravel. Taxes go to keeping our infrastructure strong. And guess what state our infrastructure is in because we haven’t been raising enough taxes????
Glenn
December 6th, 2012
10:08 am
As a small business owner you would also be surprised at what you can write off . Insurance is the bugaboo though .
mbtc
December 6th, 2012
10:13 am
This is a petty, frivolous piece. Have to go with the common sense logic of the good reverend Sharpton: let those who have benefited the most from this economy, sacrifice the most in its recovery including the deficit and debt. All can sacrifice more when things get better.
MarkV
December 6th, 2012
10:13 am
There are many things to argue about in Kyle article, but let’s start with the least important economically, but most jarring when reading the piece, since Kyle has used it to title his piece and color all the rest:
Kyle: ‘“My” $2,000? Was the president really acknowledging that what we earn is our money?’
There are many comments on the blog that can be called stupid, but not so often can be something Kyle has written called stupid, but this is.
If you want to substantiate this inanity, Kyle, then quote the President when he claimed that we do NOT earn our money. Otherwise, what you wrote is equivalent to another lie.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
10:16 am
Taxes on the wealthy are at an all time low in the history of this country.
The fact that Republicans will allow taxes to be raised on the middle class.
All to protect tax rates for the wealthy
Tells you a lot about their priorities.
JohnnyReb
December 6th, 2012
10:16 am
So Liberals are nicer people you say.
Their policies are keeping poor people, mostly blacks on the government plantation. They have successfully convinced a majority of blacks their only hope is reliance not on themselves in the land of opportunity but on the federal government. And that’s nice you say.
MANGLER
December 6th, 2012
10:17 am
The wealth of lower and average income families tends to be derived primarily through hourly wages/salaries at the higher tax levels.
The wealth of higher income families includes a heavier percentage from investment and estate incomes, which are taxed lower than direct income is. The income from salaries is already taxed at the higher rates anyway.
They want to level the taxation playing field where the lower tax rates on income that statistically is enjoyed by the wealthier families is taxed at the same rate as wages and salaries. Income is income regardless of where it came from. If we’re taxing it, shouldn’t it all be taxed at the same rate?
So yes, by raising the tax rates on investment income, it is essentially “felt” more heavily on the higher end of the income spectrum. But in reality, the more well off are simply being asked to pay the same tax rate on all of their income, just like they do on the wages portion of it.
Please tell me how that it not OK? And I don’t personally care if middle class taxes go up, as long as everyone’s taxes go up – to the same rate and at the same time. That’s fair and balanced, isn’t it?
JohnnyReb
December 6th, 2012
10:19 am
It’s astonishing how rabidly dedicated Lefties who just KNOW taxes on the rich must be raised have no idea how taxes work for samll business, which BTW employs the majority of Americans.
I don’t know why I am surprised, Obama does not understand it either.
The bottom line – the Left has to hate something/someone, surely the rich are to blame. Never looking in the mirror.
JohnnyReb
December 6th, 2012
10:20 am
John Q – the sheet set is a little too warm for today’s weather.
JohnnyReb
December 6th, 2012
10:23 am
I’m looking for a new word that applies to the full spectrum of idiotic Lefties and blind Obama supporters. They come in all makes and models, so the outdated racist, bigot, etc. does not seem to adequately apply. Perhaps someone here has a suggestion?
mbtc
December 6th, 2012
10:24 am
“The bottom line – the Left has to hate something/someone, surely the rich are to blame. Never looking in the mirror.”
Sounds to me like a cry for help, JR.
Glenn
December 6th, 2012
10:24 am
@Johnyreb
People and politicians aren’t synonymous . Blacks on the government plantation ? Johnyreb indeed & thanks for proving my point .
So reb why are most poor white southern people more conservative ?
JohnnyReb
December 6th, 2012
10:25 am
Yea, mbtc, they are really good at crying for help instead of helping themselves.
DownInAlbany
December 6th, 2012
10:25 am
independent thinker
December 6th, 2012
9:43 am
Down in Albany- You imply what the AARP is reporting on changes in tax laws and entitlements is not the law effective January 1. You have anything to refute the stated facts other than your hatred of the AARP? or would you prefer facts as they come from Grover, Rove, Beck,Limbaugh and the other GOP talking heads?
No I just think it’s admirable that you think we get our marching orders from the above mentioned conservative talking heads and you get yours from AARP…the organization that gave to Dems 14 to 1 in the last election cycle! Pot, meet kettle.
JDW
December 6th, 2012
10:26 am
@commoncents…”Wouldn’t also make sense to ask our government to spend less? It’s not a hard concept…”
Our problem is not single faceted…we must decrease spending and increase revenue. Problem is while Democrats acknowledge the former Republicans stubbornly insist the the latter is not a problem..in spite of the FACT that revenues as a percent of GDP, the only measure that makes sense of such numbers, is at a historic low.
On top of that Republicans blanch at any accountablity from the military on the amount spent even while we spend more than the NEXT TEN largest spenders in the world.
MarkV
December 6th, 2012
10:27 am
The main subject of criticism of the conservatives has been the size of deficit and national debt. But then Kyle writes,
“GOP leaders have offered to raise taxes on high earners by $800 billion over 10 years by limiting how many deductions tax filers can take. Obama wants to raise $1.6 trillion over 10 years by limiting deductions and raising tax rates,”
and suddenly it makes no difference to him that $1.6 trillion is twice the $800 billion in the effort to reduce the deficit.
The position of the Republicans regarding the revenue increase is interesting, to say the least. They reject increasing the tax the upper 2% as damaging the economy. That increase would presumably, reduce their disposable income, so that they would invest less, etc. Instead, the Republicans want to cut deductions and loopholes, with the effect, they claim, falling mostly again on the wealthy, thus reducing their disposable income.
JDW
December 6th, 2012
10:30 am
@JohnnyReb…”Bush’s tax cuts resulted in a very low debt to GDP ratio ”
O’ HORSE HOOEY…Bush’s tax cuts turn a surplus into a deficit and started us down the road that led to our current problem.
Kyle Wingfield
December 6th, 2012
10:32 am
MarkV @ 10:27: You’re conflating one element of deficit reduction with the entire thing, and you’re not even doing that right. As the NYT reported about the two plans:
“In all, the Republican offer would reduce the deficit more than the president’s, which predicted about $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years.”
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
10:37 am
willie lynch: Tax rate. Stick with us now.
———
That’s what I meant. High earners already pay a higher rate than others.
Don’t fear facts.
Linda
December 6th, 2012
10:41 am
What a waste of energy!
There are 7 steps to problem solving & almost everyone on the blog today is arguing over how to solve “the” problem without defining, identifying & analyzing what the problem really is.
Raising taxes will not solve the problem. Raising taxes on the top 2 brackets will generate $85 B per year for an annual deficit that has been well over a trillion dollars per year for the last 3 years. The increase in tax revenues will last about 8 1/2 days. The problem is the other 356.6 days of each & every year.
There is also the problem with the $16.4 T debt which will be well over $20 T soon.
There is also the problem with the fact that our debt is over 100% of our GDP & that does not even include the unfunded liabilities nor the guarantees the fed. govt. is liable for.
Arguing about who should pay how much is a waste of time. Class warfare was a politically manufactured technique to divide voters & distract attention away from real solutions to our very real & mounting problems.
Going over the fiscal cliff is nothing compared to what the US will go over in the very near future.
Steve
December 6th, 2012
10:49 am
Again, it’s not rocket science. Let’s raise taxes on the incomes of those OVER 250K. This is just the amount OVER 250K, people. I make 120K and I’m doing very well, thank you. I can’t imagine my lifestyle if I made double my salary.
We do need to cut spending, but that needs to include the military if we’re going to take food away from poor kids or the elderly. Come on people, stop being so asinine.
Rafe Hollister
December 6th, 2012
10:50 am
Kyle, very cogent column, which points out the duplicity and hypocrisy in the Dem/Obama view of America’s financial future. They obviously overwhelming aim of the Mistake is simple, redistribution through taxation. Barry’s principal goal, no matter the method, is redistributive justice. He will use any means necessary to get to his goal. Many of us believe or at least hope, he has some desire to deal with the deficit and debt, but I think this is just wishful on our part, as he has provided no evidence, that he has any desires, not involving more government spending/redistribution.
They BOTH suck
December 6th, 2012
10:52 am
Kyle
Side topic: You see where Jim Demint is resigning to go head the Heritage Foundation?
Will not change much in terms of the Senate because SC will have another Republican, but he has been an influential Senator in his own “right”
Rafe Hollister
December 6th, 2012
10:54 am
Linda 10:41, well said! The class warfare is just a tool for more redistribution and has nothing whatsoever to do with any deficit or debt.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
10:56 am
That’s what I meant. High earners already pay a higher rate than others.
Don’t fear facts.
Mitt Romney sure doesn’t. In fact I pay double the rate he does.
MarkV
December 6th, 2012
10:59 am
Kyle Wingfield @10:32 am
I am not conflating anything. I have pointed out that one element of deficit reduction, which you have pointed to. Naturally, there will be a discussion of the other part of the equation, the spending cuts. But the overall outcome following negotiation on those cuts will depend on the first part of the equation, the revenue increase.
Glenn
December 6th, 2012
11:00 am
What are you doing Steve ? Using Common sense ? Trying to use logic to solve problems ? Well I won’t let you . STEVE !! You want to cut defense because you want a weak vulnerable America . Steve this thinking also shows you support terror . Steve why do you hate America ?!!
md
December 6th, 2012
11:02 am
” It only makes sense to ask those that can afford to do so to pay more. It is not a hard concept.”
Maybe, If one has a warped mind and only looks at a fraction of the equation……..
This just because they have it is silliness……and unethical at best.
I’ll go back to the question “if a student that CHOOSES to study 24/7, CHOOSES to do no partying and makes A’s have to share those A’s with a student that CHOOSES to party 24/7, CHOOSES to do little studying and makes F’s?
Tell me oh wise folks on the left, why they should? Should they have to share them just because they have them? I see no difference, I would love for someone on the left to explain it to us.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 6th, 2012
11:02 am
It looks as though pmsnbc has told the obozobots it’s time to hate on Limbaugh and Fox News again.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
11:05 am
Has the phony “War on Christmas” started yet ?
Rafe Hollister
December 6th, 2012
11:06 am
Cheesy, rate, smate, crate, Mitt Romney paid more taxes in one year than you and your spawn will pay in all your lifetimes. You should send him a thank you card, for without people like him, this country, that is already up the creek, would be without a paddle.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 6th, 2012
11:07 am
Congress’s Joint Tax Committee estimates that in 2013 about 940,000 taxpayers would have enough business income to break through the $250,000 ceiling – and, again, they’d pay additional taxes only on dollars earned above $250,000.
All told, fewer than 3 percent of small business owners would even reach the $250,000 threshold.
from Robert Reich’s blog
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=select&id=69
MarkV
December 6th, 2012
11:08 am
“I’ll go back to the question “if a student that CHOOSES to study 24/7, CHOOSES to do no partying and makes A’s have to share those A’s with a student that CHOOSES to party 24/7, CHOOSES to do little studying and makes F’s?”
Here we go again. One would think that the cons have learned something from the 47% debacle that led to Romney’s defeat, but here we have it again. Those earning less are moochers, people who only want to take, who do not work hard. Go on, it will make the defeats perpetual.
md
December 6th, 2012
11:09 am
“What’s wrong with those making over 250K paying a higher tax rate on the earnings above that? If tax rates are at the lowest they’ve ever been and we managed to make it through the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s with higher tax rates on high income earners what’s the problem with this current batch of high earners paying at a higher rate?”
Last I checked, we all got a tax cut, so what I see wrong is folks like you thinking it is ok to tell others that they have to give theirs up while you keep yours……THAT is the problem.
just sayin'
December 6th, 2012
11:09 am
It’s easy to say, “raise taxes on the rich.” What most of you don’t grasp is that those people will hardly EVER pay any more taxes. With investments, etc., they have their own “people” who will be sure that their income is sheltered so that their net tax payout will still be lower than most of the rest of us.
Do some of you just not ever think? Political talk is very cheap but will get you re-elected by the illiterate, non-thinking voters.
Steve
December 6th, 2012
11:09 am
Our military is 10X the size of 10 of our competing companies combined. We don’t need bases in Europe.
JDW
December 6th, 2012
11:10 am
WOW there is a God….another one bites the dust…and a particularly obnoxious one at that!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/06/breaking-sen-jim-demint-will-step-down-from-senate/?hpt=hp_t3
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 6th, 2012
11:10 am
john q calling other people not too bright is the most sardonic trash talk I’ve heard in all my life.
Someone should tell her that if we wanted to hear what cnn has to say, we’d turn it on.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
11:10 am
The problem won’t be solved because more than half the country doesn’t even acknowledge or care that there is a problem. The problem will be solved when our creditors stop lending us money, and then the solution will be to destroy Americans’ savings, either by confiscating it or by devaluing it via the printing press. And then, more than half the country won’t care because they’re so irresponsible as to not have any savings.
The smart money is in foreign currencies in banks outside the U.S.
just sayin'
December 6th, 2012
11:10 am
Steve,
You obviously know nothing about military strategy and “providing for the common defense,” as stated in the preamble to the Constitution..
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
11:11 am
Cheesy, rate, smate, crate, Mitt Romney paid more taxes in one year than you and your spawn will pay in all your lifetimes
At a far less rate.
41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
11:13 am
You obviously know nothing about military strategy and “providing for the common defense,” as stated in the preamble to the Constitution..
Where does it say we should have 50,000 troops in Germany in the constitution.
We spend on the military like a third world dictatorship would. Honestly it would make North Korea blush.
When you are spending more than the next 10 countries in the world COMBINED.
Something is really really wrong.
Hillbilly D
December 6th, 2012
11:14 am
The only way for a tax increase to bring in substantial bucks is for it to be on the “middle class”, for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.
My guess is that Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s hoping we “go over the cliff”. That way, he gets his tax increase, through ending of the Bush cuts, and he can blame the whole thing on the Republicans.
The problem with politicians now days is that all they know how to do is campaign. They’re all in campaign mode 24/7/365, year in and year out. Governing is of no interest to them.
Rafe Hollister
December 6th, 2012
11:18 am
Cheesy, casting is a voluntary act, confuscation not so much. Jesus was not sitting over the government treasury either or he probably would have said something about the sin of wastefulness.
md
December 6th, 2012
11:19 am
“Both are outright lies. You two are liars. He isn’t taxing small businesses, the tax increase is only on personal income above $250,000, it’s not on the business. Besides, the majority of small business owners don’t earn anything near $250k a year.”
A small business owner pays taxes on his/her own 1040 in case some are not aware.
They BOTH suck
December 6th, 2012
11:20 am
Barry
Is that why foreign investment in the US went up in 2011 and will increase in 2012?
md
December 6th, 2012
11:21 am
“Here we go again. One would think that the cons have learned something from the 47% debacle that led to Romney’s defeat, but here we have it again. Those earning less are moochers, people who only want to take, who do not work hard. Go on, it will make the defeats perpetual.”
Typical non-answer Mark, you do know the rest of us can see that you had no answer just an excuse….right?
MarkV
December 6th, 2012
11:21 am
Hillbilly D @11:14 am
“The only way for a tax increase to bring in substantial bucks is for it to be on the “middle class”, for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.”
Kyle: “GOP leaders have offered to raise taxes on high earners by $800 billion over 10 years by limiting how many deductions tax filers can take. Obama wants to raise $1.6 trillion over 10 years by limiting deductions and raising tax rates.”
It looks like 1.6 trillion over 10 years is not ”substantial bucks” for Hillbilly D.
Linda
December 6th, 2012
11:23 am
Lil@11:10, That’s already a problem. The fed. govt. has been buying it’s own debt. What is really frightening is that the debt held by the Federal Reserve is often not counted in calculating debt to GDP, as if it just doesn’t “count.”
The bottom line is that the US now owes more than we are worth.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
11:23 am
Something is really really wrong.
———
Apparently your messiah disagrees.
Kyle Wingfield
December 6th, 2012
11:26 am
MarkV @ 11:21: Given that you have to compare both of those figures to the $6.4T in deficits over the next decade that CBO estimates based on Obama’s 2013 budget, I’d say Hillbilly is right.
right to free speech.
December 6th, 2012
11:27 am
Larry
December 6th, 2012
5:56 am
Kyle.. First of all his name is President Obama is talking about working class families who need help. The stalled economy is putting strain on working class families. Obviously people making over 250k a year have more discretionary income so paying a higher tax rate is not going to affect spending habits. Lets get real!
.
Moron
December 6th, 2012
5:57 am
Wingfield is an idiot. Obama this and Obama that and all blame Obama. Try putting some blame on Congress, the lobbyists, and the money driven political system. And yes folk earning more than 250k per yr can afford to be taxed more.
I’m glad that you two rocket scientists know how much discretionary spending that people making $250K have. You don’t have the foggiest idea how it took them to get there or what the rist that they took to make it.
I think the Feds should take all our money and make everyone poor, that way we could suck the life out of everyone and live off the Govt’s teet.
People aren’t born rich most of them worked hard to make it, something that you 2 should try doing.
cranky old man
December 6th, 2012
11:30 am
“If the answer to all three questions is ‘yes,’ why should it be any different for higher-income earners?”
Well, people with incomes above $250k tend to spend a lower percentage of that income, and invest a higher percentage. Both actions are good for the economy, but spending creates demand, which motivates businesses to expand, which, in turn, creates the investment opportunities. If businesses are not expanding, the wealthy essentially park their money in the metaphorical mattresses.
It sort of reminds me of that chapter from the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe” wherein the wealthy inhabitants of a planet that specialized in making customized private planets for the wealthy put themselves in suspended animation for a few thousand years, until economic conditions improved.
right to free speech.
December 6th, 2012
11:33 am
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
10:56 am
That’s what I meant. High earners already pay a higher rate than others.
Don’t fear facts.
Mitt Romney sure doesn’t. In fact I pay double the rate he does
Cheezy, You pay the same % of taxes that Mitt pays on your investments, that’s how he makes his money, on investments. He also paid $4 million into charity, how much did you pay?
Please get a little economic education.
Linda
December 6th, 2012
11:35 am
One of the reasons the US has military bases overseas is to protect our oil supply. The US has spent trillions of dollars for the Oil Police because we are too stupid to drill for our oil own under our feet & off our shores.
Canada is drilling near Maine. Russia is drilling near Alaska. Mexico is pursuing drilling within 25 miles of US waters. Six foreign companies are exploring north of Cuba, 60 miles from Florida. The US is loaning Brazil money to drill off their shores. The US turned down a free pipeline from Canada that would have been built with American jobs.
We are the laughing stock of the world.
md
December 6th, 2012
11:39 am
Back to the math problem, you folks calling for higher taxes do understand that there is 2T in corp profits sitting offshore mainly because of taxes, right?
I’ll ask again, in a global economy why would any corp want to reduce it’s own revenue by 25% just to bring money into this country? A savy businessman will borrow the funds in this country at the super low rate to borrow and use 100% of that money offshore as collateral, and march along with the best of both worlds.
Some of you out there are just ignorant as to how the process works and what it actually takes to MAKE money.
MarkV
December 6th, 2012
11:40 am
Kyle Wingfield @ 11:26 am
I am quite willing to agree with Hillbilly that the middle class will have to pay more. Still. 1.6T/6.4T is one quarter, or 25%. I doubt that anybody calls a quarter of a sum a non-substantial part.
JohnnyReb
December 6th, 2012
11:43 am
“Some of you out there are just ignorant as to how the process works and what it actually takes to MAKE money.”
Excellent point, md, but I have to add. About 98% are ignorant or else there would not be the dreaded, ugly 2%.
They just KNOW you made that kind of money either on their backs or doing something illegal. After all, they spend their day on blogs, watching TV and/or screwing their employer. How in the world can you do the same and make that kind of money.
Peace
December 6th, 2012
11:44 am
And we need a federal transaction tax on lottery sales. That way most of the 47% who pay no federal income taxes would get a chance to help Fund President Obama’s spending. Now that’s fair.
JDW
December 6th, 2012
11:45 am
@Hillbilly…”The only way for a tax increase to bring in substantial bucks is for it to be on the “middle class”, for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.”
Willie was right, however the money resides with the top 25%…50% of it to be exact.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/203247/shares-of-household-income-of-quintiles-in-the-us/
JohnnyReb
December 6th, 2012
11:46 am
Speaking of wasting time, I”m out of here. I have to make a few bucks so little Barry can give it to the underprivileged. I just lovvvvvvvvvve giving better than 30 cents of each dollar to someone else.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
11:53 am
I just lovvvvvvvvvve giving better than 30 cents of each dollar to someone else.
Enjoy driving on those roads.
Thats where the money goes.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
11:56 am
Frankly its shocking to see how terribly misinformed our conservative friends are.
This is a product of Fox News no doubt.
for example most will tell you Obama is spending us into oblivion
But the fact is spending has gone down under Obama. Not gonna hear that on Fox.
Or that we if we just drill baby drill we wouldn’t need to buy from other countries.
But the fact is Oil production is at an all time high in this country. Not gonna hear that on Fox either.
Its truly a sad state of affairs when one side of the argument is so lost that a true dialogue cannot take place.
Alter Ego
December 6th, 2012
12:00 pm
@Finn McCool 11:07
Wrong.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Growthology/2010/0904/Just-how-many-small-business-owners-are-in-that-top-tax-bracket
Wipe Out
December 6th, 2012
12:05 pm
Cheesy
Not to mention the corporate effective rate avg is 12.5%, which is much lower than the straw man that many on the right put out when they say the US has the highest corporate tax rate, yet can’t show one company paying that rate…… In reality we are in the lowest 5 in terms of the effective rate.
Some of the lowest rates in 50 yrs and md thinks that these corporations just want to bring there money into the US.
They say this so the md’s of the world will do their bidding and it works like a charm.
md
December 6th, 2012
12:06 pm
“But the fact is Oil production is at an all time high in this country. Not gonna hear that on Fox either.”
Must have missed the part about in spite of Obama. That production is up on private property and DOWN on federal land. Just think how much more there could be had the admin not scaled back.
Linda
December 6th, 2012
12:06 pm
Kyle says “the $6.4T in deficits over the next decade that CBO estimates based on Obama’s 2013 budget…”
The CBO almost always underestimates & this estimate is based on a rosy forecast of a booming GDP.
However, if this is anywhere close, it grows the debt to $22.8 T in 10 years, which means we will have a debt ratio of 146.15% to the GDP (as of 6/3//12) ($15.6 T).
In comparison, Greece’s debt ratios were:
106.1% in ‘06
105.1% in ‘07
110.3% in ‘08
126.8% in ‘09
142% in ‘10
152.3% in ‘11 &
157.7% in ‘12.
Once huge amts. of interest are added to the debt, the debt grows at a faster pace.
The only difference between Greece & the US is that Greece had the EU & the IMF to rely on. Who will bail out the United States of America?
md
December 6th, 2012
12:08 pm
“Some of the lowest rates in 50 yrs and md thinks that these corporations just want to bring there money into the US. ”
Are you always this clueless?
It is fact that there is 2T not coming home due to tax rates, regardless of what those rates are, or are you one of those that just has no clue as to how the system works??
Kyle Wingfield
December 6th, 2012
12:27 pm
Actually, Cheesy, I find it shocking how many people, like you, refuse to scratch below the surface at all on these topics. On spending, I did that several months ago: http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2012/05/24/about-the-idea-that-obamas-spending-has-been-tame/
Linda
December 6th, 2012
12:28 pm
What a novel idea! A deep-water fish farm up to 20 miles offshore! Who in the US would object to that?
Other than:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Army Corps of Engineers,
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Food and Drug Administration, and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Regulations that would have to be complied with include:
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
Jones Act,
OSHA rules, and
who knows how many others.
Regional Fishery Management Councils and various state agencies involved in historic preservation and tourism would all have a say.
And all of this is before the courts get involved. Setting up deep-water fish farms in the U.S. would require a hefty budget for defending against lawsuits from NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) activists and competing on-shore and near-shore fish farms, as well as paying an army of lobbyists to fend off opposition from states like Alaska and Maine where fishing fleet interests have considerable political pull. The cost and uncertainties introduced by dysfunctional crony capitalism, pay-to-play politicians, and misguided environmental activists would be deadly to any entrepreneur.
Is it companies or the US govt. that are sending jobs overseas? These went to Panama, which is getting the jobs, the fish & the export revenues.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/11/26/regulatory_uncertainty_drives_fish_farmer_to_foreign_waters_100008.html
Wytavious
December 6th, 2012
12:56 pm
There is a reason why George W. Bush was too ashamed to make an in person appearance @ the GOP convention, and why there was rarely any mention of his toxic name by the Republicans during the campaign.
They know he got us into this mess, with his “WMD” Iraq war and his unfunded prescription drug entitlement program. And he provided perfect cover for BHO to continue the reckless spending once he took over.
Wipe Out
December 6th, 2012
1:04 pm
md
Are you always that gullible? I mean on this blog, because one can only hope that you are not as gullible away from the blog
md
December 6th, 2012
1:30 pm
Wipe out. You can try to disguise the fact that you have no clue but google is not your friend if you don’t use it.
I’ve done my share of research on the subject and have plenty of first hand knowledge within corps to understand that what I post is actually true, so your attempt to discredit it without any facts to back it up is a futile attempt on your part. Anyone with a computer can look it up and see that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
2:04 pm
“But the fact is spending has gone down under Obama.”
——–
Evidence that we need to redouble our efforts to improve the public schools. As if we needed more.
SGT Anonymous
December 6th, 2012
2:26 pm
Most people are missing the point of the fiscal cliff’……..The point is not how the rich people spend there money. The point is trying to make to economy better than what it is. Another recession is not needed especially for the non-wealthier people……Maybe if most people put thereselves in the situation of a non-weathier person the you will understand what President Obama is trying to do. This is from a man who didn’t respect Obama cuz he wasn’t doing for me but now I understand and have much much more respect for President Barack Obama. Understand the affect of this movement…….If it won’t affect the rich but affect the poor for the good…….Why not
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 6th, 2012
2:31 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Kyle ill take Forbes word for it over a man who voted for Newt Gingrich.
The fact is spending has gone down under Obama.
There is no mistaking it.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
2:50 pm
If Politifact and its ilk were as nonpartisan as their program cheerleaders claim, Obozo having reduced spending would have been their “Lie of the Year”.
Kyle Wingfield
December 6th, 2012
3:18 pm
Cheesy @ 2:31: The basis for that piece was the one I examined in my own piece. And it addresses none of the objections I raised.
David
December 6th, 2012
4:21 pm
There is no one that will answer my question of WHY SHOULD PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE MONEY PAY MORE TAXES? Take me for example, if I make $30,000/year as apposed to someone who makes $250,000/year. If we both are taxed 10% (and I choose that percentage because liberals don’t seem to know how to do simple math) then at the end of the year I pay $3,000 in taxes as compared to his $25,000. Did he or did he not PAY MORE TAXES THAN I DID??? You see I actually showed you what my income is. I do not have a problem paying my fair share of the taxes. I have a lot of friends that are really, really wealthy. These are hard working Americans that get up every morning before the sun rises and they work their butts off all day long to be able to ENJOY the money that they earn. SINCE WHEN IS IT A SIN TO WORK HARD AND BE SUCCESSFUL??? No one can answer that question either. Or you liberal choose not to answer that question, or CANNOT answer that question. Tell me the truth liberals, if you got up every morning and worked your butt off putting in 12 to 16 hours a day earning every bit of the money that you work for, would it not piss you off if someone says you should pay the majority of that to the government because you should share what you have with others. I don’t mind sharing and in fact I do share. Even on my low salary I find a way to be able to give to charities all the time. But that is MY CHOICE AND SHOULD STAY MY CHOICE. Since when do I need someone telling me what to do with my money??? Answer that one liberals. DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH DOES NOT WORK. It has been proven time and time again.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
5:14 pm
When Obozo opens the re-education camps, David will be camper #000001.
JDW
December 6th, 2012
5:18 pm
@Kyle…”On spending, I did that several months ago:”
And as we discussed then you were off base…
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
5:24 pm
“Lie of the Year” in the reality-based world, JDW.
JDW
December 6th, 2012
5:33 pm
@Kyle…(LBB you should read this too)
The proper number to use as the baseline, per the FactCheck analysis is $3.31 trillion.
Which rose to 3.45 in 2010 +4.26%, 3.60 in 2011 +4.24% and 3.795 in 2012 +5.34%
By comparison Duhbya grew spending at AVERAGE of 9.75% and Reagan grew it 8.5% AVERAGE. Clinton was at about 4% and Bush 1 at about 3%.
There is no runaway spending by this Adminstration…Duhbya and Reagan on the other hand…
JDW
December 6th, 2012
5:34 pm
LBB…you wouldn’t know a reality-based world if it bit you in the a$$.
Kyle Wingfield
December 6th, 2012
5:39 pm
JDW @ 5:33: Your problem is calling that a “baseline.” The $800B+ stimulus was supposed to be one-time spending, right? So why is spending higher at all than it was in 2009? That is the point.
Lil' Barry Bailout -Vote American
December 6th, 2012
6:24 pm
You could also compare Obozo’s spending total in his first four years to Our President Bush’s spending in His last four years (with an appropriate adjustment in 2009 for Obozo-caused spending, of course).
Elections Have Consequences
December 6th, 2012
7:01 pm
@JDW 5:34
You can’t seriously consider ‘Factcheck.org’ an objective source for research?
JDW
December 6th, 2012
7:04 pm
@Kyle…”Your problem is calling that a “baseline.” The $800B+ stimulus was supposed to be one-time spending, right? So why is spending higher at all than it was in 2009? That is the point.”
Because it was not all spent in 2009. In fact it is not all spent now.
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
JDW
December 6th, 2012
7:05 pm
@Elections…indeed I do…you know Pulitzer prize and all
JDW
December 6th, 2012
7:07 pm
@Kyle…further to that point…there is no addition spending planned in 2013 vs 2012. Those projections are almost exactly the same. There is your catch up
JDW
December 6th, 2012
7:08 pm
O and Kyle.. same was true for 2010 vs 2009.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
7:10 pm
Pulitzer? Almost as prestigious as the now-besmirched Nobel! Patriotic Americans need not apply.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
7:18 pm
“With actual receipts less than projected outlays, the budget passed by the Reid/Pelosi Congress and signed by President Obama produced a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion. The actual spending signed into law in the final bill was increased by over $400 billion by the Reid/Pelosi led congress.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
—————————-
Original deficit estimate in the budget passed by the Democrat congress and signed by Obozo: $400 billion.
Additional deficit spending added on top of that, passed by the Democrat congress and signed by Obozo: $400 billion.
Obozo: Guilty as charged.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 6th, 2012
7:47 pm
France has raised taxes on high income earners. Just announced: French unemployment is up to 10.1%.
The Obozo model: Failure.
Elections Have Consequences
December 6th, 2012
8:32 pm
@JDW 07:05
Ah yes-the Pulitzer. Great equalizer of all things worthy.
I’m always amazed when people countenance ‘research’ through what’s already been filtered through a political prism. Hardly objective, of course. Pity.
Sufercybe
December 7th, 2012
4:08 am
“Blah blah blah. Way to say the same thing the same way.
When the top needed a bailout nobody saw a problem with that…years later we’re still without and you think we give a crap about your tax rates for the next 4-8 years.
lawl
I’ll go write a cheesy article somewhere to go with this whiney one”
Hahaha lol.
JDW
December 7th, 2012
7:40 am
@Elections…”I’m always amazed when people countenance ‘research’ through what’s already been filtered through a political prism. Hardly objective, of course. Pity.”
You must have real news organizations confused with Faux News.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 7th, 2012
8:04 am
willie lynch: What’s wrong with those making over 250K paying a higher tax rate on the earnings above that?
———–
Didn’t your mama teach you that it’s wrong to take other people’s stuff?
That there are folks in this country who think it’s OK to take 50% of what someone earns is an embarrassment to real Americans. The men who founded this country would mourn the loss of freedom and liberty that Democrats have deliberately caused.
SGT Anonymous
December 7th, 2012
9:12 am
@David………Dude…..Chillout……once again, you are my prime example……Its life dude. The odds are simple, its either the people who make more money pay more taxes, or the people who make NO money pay more taxes……You talk as if you are up everyday with these friends and going to work with them everyday and i’m pretty sure you’re not……You are not apart of the government so all you can do is make a decision…..The WEALTHY or The POOR. but before you make your decision, think of it this way……how is the President helping the economy making POOR people pay more taxes, and its will hurt them…….RICH people always talking as if the can buy the world so let them buy it in TAXES……….Maybe if you stop trying to be so smart about the situation and think of the economy instead of what u and your rich friend going do for New Years Eve or what vacation the are going to help you go on the you will be ok…….maybe you pay you’re fare share of taxes but honestly in my opinion…..the rich don’t