weak Obama proposal

[spence]

It's interesting how the GOP mantra is for lower taxes, lower taxes and more lower taxes like it's some magical fix. Historically taxes under Clinton weren't that terrible and since Bush and Obama have been at historic lows...yet, there doesn't seem to be any discernible relation to the low tax rates and economic performance.

The reality is that dramatic cuts in government spending are going to hammer the poor and middle class. While a longer-term objective of less reliance on Federal assistance might be a good thing, to do so in haste would likely cause economic instability...not to mention the ethical implications.

To do so simply so the wealthy don't suffer doesn't seem like a prudent move, unless you can show that Reaganomics do indeed work in the real world and not in a college debate.

I think there's a reason why the bi-partisan debt commission and many economists argue that both tax increases on the wealthy along with deep cuts are the best approach.

It's called common sense.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

It's interesting how the GOP mantra is for lower taxes, lower taxes and more lower taxes like it's some magical fix. Historically taxes under Clinton weren't that terrible and since Bush and Obama have been at historic lows...yet, there doesn't seem to be any discernible relation to the low tax rates and economic performance.

Because RIJ wasn't making 250K/yr under Clinton, Bush I and Reagan

Originally Posted by spence

I think there's a reason why the bi-partisan debt commission and many economists argue that both tax increases on the wealthy along with deep cuts are the best approach.

It's called common sense.
-spence

No, no, no, common sense cannot prevail.
wait, whats post #2 on this thread?
http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...ommission.html

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

It's interesting how the GOP mantra is for lower taxes, lower taxes and more lower taxes like it's some magical fix. Historically taxes under Clinton weren't that terrible and since Bush and Obama have been at historic lows...yet, there doesn't seem to be any discernible relation to the low tax rates and economic performance.

The reality is that dramatic cuts in government spending are going to hammer the poor and middle class. While a longer-term objective of less reliance on Federal assistance might be a good thing, to do so in haste would likely cause economic instability...not to mention the ethical implications.

To do so simply so the wealthy don't suffer doesn't seem like a prudent move, unless you can show that Reaganomics do indeed work in the real world and not in a college debate.

I think there's a reason why the bi-partisan debt commission and many economists argue that both tax increases on the wealthy along with deep cuts are the best approach.

It's called common sense.

-spence

Define wealthy.............................

a familiy with young kids making $250K a year isn't wealthy..........they may not be hurting, but they are not wealthy. Toss in the alternative minimum tax scam and they can't write anything off.

Ethical implications?? It's not ethical to make the few pay for the many.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Define wealthy.............................

a familiy with young kids making $250K a year isn't wealthy..........they may not be hurting, but they are not wealthy. Toss in the alternative minimum tax scam and they can't write anything off.

Ethical implications?? It's not ethical to make the few pay for the many.

The earlier Obama plan didn't really kick the hurt until your income was 500K or above. Unless you live a pretty excellent life this would be considered wealthy by most people.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I think there's a reason why the bi-partisan debt commission and many economists argue that both tax increases on the wealthy along with deep cuts are the best approach.

It's called common sense.

-spence

get your facts straight. the bi-partisan commission called for LOWER tax brackets across the board AND removing the major deductions FOR ALL. So revenues would increase overall. But it wasnt just the top earners bearing the ENTIRE burden

Obama IS NOT proposing that! He is RAISING THE tax on people over 250k and considering only eliminating the deductions for people over 250K. That part is not set in stone, but he acknowledged he is considering it.
That doubly screws people and as piscator said, screws familys and does nothing to address AMT, although I guess AMT wouldnt matter since there are no deductions. To put it simply - people making over 250k pay a flat tax, while the rest of the country gets to deduct. Insane.
Want to talk about common sense? Try and wordsmith your way around this Spence but facts are facts

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

get your facts straight. the bi-partisan commission called for LOWER tax brackets across the board AND removing the major deductions FOR ALL. So revenues would increase overall. But it wasnt just the top earners bearing the ENTIRE burden

You should really read the plan. From Section II of

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/site...h12_1_2010.pdf

Maintain or increase progressivity of the tax code. Though reducing the deficit will require shared sacrifice, those of us who are best off will need to contribute the most. Tax reform must continue to protect those who are most vulnerable, and eliminate tax loopholes favoring those who need help least.

-spence