THE SPEECH

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

There is a way out of this mess but your Obama hate is just getting in the way.

-spence

No hate here for the man, just disdain for his agenda and policies.

Just what is Obama's plan for the mess and where are his numbers?

The way it's shaping up looks like he wants to go the same route
as Obama Care. No one would know what's in it until it's passed.

Imho, as a leader he needs to step up, see the reality of the fact we're broke,
stop spending, put a cap on the current budget make sacrifices now,
rather then trying to look good for 2012. That's what a true leader would do
wether it's popular or not.

He needs to ask himself, ask not what his country can do for him,
but what is best for the country, and more spending is not.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

No hate here for the man, just disdain for his agenda and policies.

Was speaking to the bugger...

Just what is Obama's plan for the mess and where are his numbers?

I believe Obama has endorsed the bi-partisan debt commission recommendations. While they're attacking Carney for not outlining an "Obama Plan" I'm not sure it makes any sense the Administration to do so. Obama has already given consent to very deep spending cuts in exchange for increase revenues. The Tea Party faction of the GOP has got our economy by the balls and even the House Leader can't control the situation.

Boehner misses cuts target, delays deficit vote - politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

Imho, as a leader he needs to step up, see the reality of the fact we're broke, stop spending, put a cap on the current budget make sacrifices now, rather then trying to look good for 2012. That's what a true leader would do wether it's popular or not.

He needs to ask himself, ask not what his country can do for him,
but what is best for the country, and more spending is not.

I think this is exactly the point, and why Obama has called for spending cuts along with increases in tax revenues.

Given our situation we need to look at EVERY avenue available to get on a sustainable trajectory. House freshman who all signed "no tax" pledges to gain early party backing are in my opinion taking an position that threatens our national security. For more senior House and Senate leadership to be opposing any revenue increases as a matter of principal should go back to their own voting records which document how they've contributed to the deficits we are now facing!

Hell, even Reagan increased taxes 16 times during his presidency in an attempt to offset excessive spending. This fact seems to get lost when the Right likes to proclaim he brought about the growth of the 1990's. Note: It was probably more a product of low oil prices and the invention of the Personal Computer

We can't solve this problem through spending cuts alone, and contrary to the assertion that the Bush Tax Cuts increased revenues...well, I think there plenty of analysis that shows they didn't.

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin
Bush Administration Tax Policy: Effects on Long-Term Growth - Brookings Institution
Etc...

And tragically, we also know that the mid-decade boom from 2003-2008 was being driven not by stable growth but rather a real estate bubble about to pop.

Reality check...

Real wages continue to lag inflation for several decades now. Wealth generation appears to be more a product of speculation than productivity in the marketplace. Overall taxation in this country is at an historic low and effective tax rates allow the top earners to pay far below the top brackets while they bemoan progressive taxation (Warren Buffett excluded ). The wealth gap continues to grow. We have 15 trillion USD in Federal debt...and the topic of short-term revenue generation through taxation is OFF THE TABLE?

If I had a friend in a similar situation I'd tell them to stop going to Starbucks every morning and get a second job.

I'd love for us to spend less and tax less, I'd also like every day to be Christmas, but there's the way it ought to be and then the way it is.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

" The Tea Party faction of the GOP has got our economy by the balls and even the House Leader can't control the situation."

__________________________________________________ ___________________
__________________________________________________ ___________________

_As they well should as the American people put conservatives in 2010 by a landslide
showing they were sick of BG and it's Socialistic ways. They are doing what they were elected to do.


__________________________________________________ ___________________


"I think this is exactly the point, and why Obama has called for spending cuts along with increases in tax revenues."

"Given our situation we need to look at EVERY avenue available to get on a sustainable trajectory."

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________________

I agree we need to look at every avenue avaialable to make America lean
and mean. We don't need to raise more debt to do that.

We need to get off the fast track burger meals, slow down and eat our vegetables.
The country needs to go thru some Navy Seal training.

__________________________________________________ ___________________
__________________________________________________ ____________________
" Note: It was probably more a product of low oil prices and the invention of the Personal Computer "

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Ya, it didn't hurt.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________________


We have 15 trillion USD in Federal debt...and the topic of short-term revenue generation through taxation is OFF THE TABLE?


__________________________________________________ ___________________
__________________________________________________ ___________________

Well Obama spent three and a half TRILLON in his first 2+ yrs. in office.
Long term tax cuts and smaller govt. first: if we want to increase
jobs which put tax $ back in the till.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________________________

"I'd love for us to spend less and tax less, I'd also like every day to be Christmas, but there's the way it ought to be and then the way it is."

-spence

__________________________________________________ ___________________
The way it ought to be is a lean- mean country ridding it self of debt
and leraning to live with what we have, not what would be nice to have..

[striperman36]

He's gonna pull out the 14th amendment

Nobody is going to want to debate yet another debt ceiling during the election and peak consumer spending around christmas

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

We can't solve this problem through spending cuts alone, and contrary to the assertion that the Bush Tax Cuts increased revenues...well, I think there plenty of analysis that shows they didn't.

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Factcheck seems more of an opinioncheck in this case. The article says that McCain's claim that the Bush tax cuts increased revenues is "highly misleading." Not false, just misleading? It then says that the half dozen years after the cuts "have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers." Yet, it shows that during that time government revenues rose 35%. So the gvt. coffers got 35% fatter after the tax cuts.

The quibble is that the increased revenue is not a "net increase." That revenues would have been even higher without the tax cuts. That the bulk of growth came from corporate tax revenue--a 134% rise since 2001. Also cited was a 5% rise in individual income tax revenue as well. But the source, Viard, couldn't find "a single, clear cut reason for that." He said that "Federal revenue is lower today (2007) than it would have been without the tax cuts," but he said that "nobody can absolutely prove that." Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy." But among economists, there's no dispute." Of course, there is some dispute, but let us not clutter the simplicity of the article.

Although the article says "the impact of the tax cuts on economic growth is a matter of debate among economists", Viard says that tax cuts can be a sound economic move that spurs growth, and that economists would expect a boost to the economy if tax relief had been matched by spending cuts--which supports the Republican position in the debt ceiling debate.

Strangely, the Factcheck article refers to the JCT 2001 estimate that the tax cut would cause government revenues to be less in future years through 2006, yet they rose by 35%. WTF. I must be missing the significance of the projected loss of revenue. Did the JCT take into account the growth in revenue from an expanding economy or just base losses on the economic picture in 2001. The article also quotes the 2007 CBO budget outlook as saying "the expiration of tax provisions as scheduled . . . especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire," "almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues." Is this saying that the tax provisions reduce revenues or that the expiration of them does. In either case, this administration saw the wisdom of keeping the Bush tax cuts, depite this murky article's disputing that they raise tax revenue or that more would have been collected without them.

Bush Administration Tax Policy: Effects on Long-Term Growth - Brookings Institution
Etc...

This liberal think tank article says that "making the tax cuts permanent is likely to reduce, not increase, national income in the long term unless the reduction in revenues is matched by an equal reduction in government consumption." EXACTLY! That, again, is the Republican position--maintaining the tax cuts (not tax raises) and cut spending.

The defilcit/debt problem is fueled by SPENDING. Taxes are only necessary to pay for spending. To say more taxers are needed is to say spending should be maintained or raised. Raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes means getting deeper in debt both ways--more borrowing and more spending. If raising taxes would be used to pay off debt or to pay for current spending, the debt ceiling would not have to be raised. Raising taxes would be sufficient. But raising taxes would not be used to pay debt, and raising the ceiling as well would allow the higher taxes to be spent as usual, so the deficit would rise as well as the debt. HISTORY SHOWS THIS TO BE TRUE, and there is no evidence otherwise. The Brookings article complaint is the solution: make the tax cuts permanent and reduce government consumption. And if this could be done continuously on a gradual scale until we revert to the design of governance laid out in the Constitution, we might have another 100 years of fiscally responsible National Government.

And tragically, we also know that the mid-decade boom from 2003-2008 was being driven not by stable growth but rather a real estate bubble about to pop.

Reality check...

The Factcheck article said the boom was corporate profits--all those greedy corporations were making record profits. And personal income rose as attested by the 5% rise in income tax revenue. And wasn't the real estate bubble being inflated for a longer period than 2003-2008

Real wages continue to lag inflation for several decades now. Wealth generation appears to be more a product of speculation than productivity in the marketplace. Overall taxation in this country is at an historic low and effective tax rates allow the top earners to pay far below the top brackets while they bemoan progressive taxation (Warren Buffett excluded ). The wealth gap continues to grow. We have 15 trillion USD in Federal debt...and the topic of short-term revenue generation through taxation is OFF THE TABLE?

-spence

What has the 15 trillion in Federal debt have to do with the wealth gap? Should the money have been spent by the Government if it didn't have it? Isn't that what created the debt?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe Obama has endorsed the bi-partisan debt commission recommendations.

REALLY??.... I guess that explains the insane budget that he produced after receiving the debt commission recommendations


While they're attacking Carney for not outlining an "Obama Plan" I'm not sure it makes any sense the Administration to do so.

If Obama is so bleepin' brilliant..surely he has a plan and would like to share..

Obama has already given consent to very deep spending cuts in exchange for increase revenues.

NAME ONE "VERY DEEP CUT".............."GIVEN CONSENT"???...

The Tea Party faction of the GOP has got our economy by the balls and even the House Leader can't control the situation.

HUH??????? REALLY???

Boehner misses cuts target, delays deficit vote - politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

MSNBC


I think this is exactly the point, and why Obama has called for spending cuts along with increases in tax revenues.

OBAMA calls for a lot..and is usually lying....let's make a list starting with civility

Given our situation we need to look at EVERY avenue available to get on a sustainable trajectory. House freshman who all signed "no tax" pledges to gain early party backing are in my opinion taking an position that threatens our national security.

EWWWW...that is so pathetic...

For more senior House and Senate leadership to be opposing any revenue increases as a matter of principal should go back to their own voting records which document how they've contributed to the deficits we are now facing!

BECAUSE????....oh...then they would understand the need for massive cuts, reduced spending etc....


Hell, even Reagan increased taxes 16 times during his presidency in an attempt to offset excessive spending.

No, Reagan was promised reductions in spending by the Democrats at a 3 to 1 clip to the tax increases that they were requesting I believe and the Dems renegged on the reductions but got their higher taxes which is why cuts must come first


This fact seems to get lost when the Right likes to proclaim he brought about the growth of the 1990's. Note: It was probably more a product of low oil prices and the invention of the Personal Computer

I have trouble finding facts in anything that you produce

We can't solve this problem through spending cuts alone, and contrary to the assertion that the Bush Tax Cuts increased revenues...well, I think there plenty of analysis that shows they didn't.

great pastes...nice try

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin
Bush Administration Tax Policy: Effects on Long-Term Growth - Brookings Institution
Etc..

.got any "real" substantiation for your claims???

And tragically, we also know that the mid-decade boom from 2003-2008 was being driven not by stable growth but rather a real estate bubble about to pop.

is that what Barney Frank and the FANNIE FREDDIE bunch were warning us about during that time???

Reality check...

Real wages continue to lag inflation for several decades now. Wealth generation appears to be more a product of speculation than productivity in the marketplace. Overall taxation in this country is at an historic low and effective tax rates allow the top earners to pay far below the top brackets while they bemoan progressive taxation (Warren Buffett excluded ). The wealth gap continues to grow. We have 15 trillion USD in Federal debt...and the topic of short-term revenue generation through taxation is OFF THE TABLE?

If I had a friend in a similar situation I'd tell them to stop going to Starbucks every morning and get a second job.
I hope he'd tell you to mind your own business

I'd love for us to spend less and tax less, I'd also like every day to be Christmas, but there's the way it ought to be and then the way it is.

yeah, probably not possible to spend less and tax less

-spence

crazy stuff

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Reality check...

Overall taxation in this country is at an historic low and effective tax rates allow the top earners to pay far below the top brackets while they bemoan progressive taxation (Warren Buffett excluded ). -spence

Stephen Moore: Warren Buffett Is Wrong on Taxes - WSJ.com

During Monday night's national address, President Obama recited the Buffet line that millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Democrats in Congress routinely cite Mr. Buffett's tax confessions as irrefutable evidence that tax rates on the very rich are too low and the system is unfair. Taxes on millionaires and billionaires are already near a record high in terms of the share of all income taxes paid. And the effective tax rate on this group is much higher, not lower, than any other income category. The best way to balance the budget is for the economy to produce a lot more American success stories like Warren Buffett.


"First of all, Mr Buffet isn't "making BILLIONS". He holds assets that represent unrealized capital gains in the several tens of billions (primarily shares of Berkshire-Hathaway). If BH were to go belly up tomorrow, his holdings become worthless. His company pays him a salary of $100,000 each year, and he "earns" a few million dollars every year in interest and dividends. This income, plus his salary, is what he pays taxes on, much of which is taxed at the lower capital gains rate rather than income tax rate. Quoting his tax rate, based on CG rates compared to his secretaries, based on income tax rates (and not at his or her *effective* income tax rate, at that) is apples and oranges.

Mr Buffet takes full advantage of the tax system to minimize his taxes. He has accountants and tax lawyers. He has clearly structured his affairs to minimize his taxes, as, for example, when he established trusts for his children.

It is further worth noting that when Mr. Buffet and his friends Bill & Melinda Gates set out to figure out how to improve the world, they created the tax-exempt foundation and donated billions of dollars to the foundation, rather than simply letting the government have that money. We have to ask why? Didn't they trust to government to do the "right thing" with that money?

Finally, note that both Gates and Buffet, when they donated to the foundation, did so by giving away appreciated shares of their respective companies, thus garnering for themselves the largest tax break possible--not only did they not have to pay GC taxes on the gains (substantial they were, too), but they get to claim the *appreciated* value as a deductible charitable contribution. So, if WB had been granted one share of BH when it sold for $1000, he would owe income taxes on on the $1000. But if he held that share until BH sold for $200,000 per share, he would owe income taxes on the $1000, and CG taxes on the $199,000 difference. But by donating the share to the foundation, he still owes income taxes on the $1000, pays no CG taxes, and gets to claim $200,000 charitable donation (which can go a long way to offsetting any other income he has)."