I just dont get it

[Jim in CT]

It's also been amazing to me, how much energy Obama puts into his notion of increasing the taxes on those making more than $250,000. Obama is obsessed with this. Yet, the CBO says the revenue from those tax hikes will pay for - wait for it - NINE DAYS of federal spending. Nine days. Problem solved??

The GOP should just let him do it, and when absolutely nothing improves as a result, we can say "I told you so. Now let's talk about what will actually address our problems."

Republicans say raising tax rates alone will hardly put dent in budget, deficit | Fox News

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's also been amazing to me, how much energy Obama puts into his notion of increasing the taxes on those making more than $250,000. Obama is obsessed with this. Yet, the CBO says the revenue from those tax hikes will pay for - wait for it - NINE DAYS of federal spending. Nine days. Problem solved??

The GOP should just let him do it, and when absolutely nothing improves as a result, we can say "I told you so. Now let's talk about what will actually address our problems."

Republicans say raising tax rates alone will hardly put dent in budget, deficit | Fox News

Has Pres. Obama's said that he only will agree to raising taxes and not cutting spending?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Has Pres. Obama's said that he only will agree to raising taxes and not cutting spending?

He will have to make 12$ in cuts for every dollar confiscated from people and couples making 250k or better just to not increase the deficit
When has giving the government more money ever improved anything ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

He will have to make 12$ in cuts for every dollar confiscated from people and couples making 250k or better just to not increase the deficit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Correct. These tax hikes will account for about 1/12th of this year's deficit. They will not provide for one cent to pay down th eexisting debt. If these tax hikes were 12 times higher that what he is proposing, it would still go towards reducing next year's deficit, not one cent would be left over to pay down the existing debt.

It's meaningless. It sounds great, because Obama can tell his base that he's taxing those who can afford it. But it has no meaningful impact. None whatsoever.

[FishermanTim]

Kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have run away and the barn has burned to the ground!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Has Pres. Obama's said that he only will agree to raising taxes and not cutting spending?

A fair and important question...

Obama is spending an incredible amount of time talking about these tax hikes for "rich people". The tax hikes are meaningless, they will have no impact, and Obama knows this. Not nearly enough impact to justify the amount of energy we dedicate to discussing them. And Obama does demonize those who oppose those tax hikes. And that's dishonest. My opposition to those tax hikes doesn't stem from the fact that I hate poor people, it stems from the fact that we need tens of trillions of dollars in relief, not $80 billion.

Second, Obama hasn't proposed any significant, specific, spending cuts - his most specific idea, as we all know, is the tax hikes. OK, so what will Obama cut? We don't know. But yet again, that doesn't stop Obama (and many liberals) from attacking guys like Paul Ryan who have the integrity to propose significant, specific cuts.

Paul, the math clearly shows that we cannot begin to get out of this mess with tax hikes - do you agree or disagree with that? I answered your question, perhaps you could shoe me the same courtesy.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, the math clearly shows that we cannot begin to get out of this mess with tax hikes - do you agree or disagree with that? I answered your question, perhaps you could show me the same courtesy.

I totally agree w/your statement and have stated so before. I thought when they had the "great compromise" months ago, the Dems. agreed to $10 of cuts for every $1 increase in revenue. Buckmans says $12 - either # shows that Pres. Obama doesn't believe tax increases alone will solve anything.

It is going to take many, many changes to our current budget, policies, etc. to get to where we have to be. Tax hikes are a small part. However, you don't not do something b/c it won't get you all the way to where you have to end up.

PS - I changed a typo when I quoted your question so as to not make people on the site call you out for a simple typo.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I However, you don't not do something b/c it won't get you all the way to where you have to end up.

.

it can wind up hurting the economy more.
If I make 300K, pay a mortgage, save for kids college, pay all my bills and my taxes go up 3K per year, will I

1- save less for my kids college
2 - pay less for my mortgage
3 - spend less money on non-essentials?

Obviously its item 3. That hurts the Starbucks on the corner, the car wash place, the corner deli, the dvd rental place and every other non essential place "rich" people spend their cash. Mimimum wage people get laid off, business close, tax revenues go down, government dependance goes up. Our economy is based on consumers, why screw the consumers who spend the most money?
Tell me how this helps our economy?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I totally agree w/your statement and have stated so before. I thought when they had the "great compromise" months ago, the Dems. agreed to $10 of cuts for every $1 increase in revenue. Buckmans says $12 - either # shows that Pres. Obama doesn't believe tax increases alone will solve anything.

It is going to take many, many changes to our current budget, policies, etc. to get to where we have to be. Tax hikes are a small part. However, you don't not do something b/c it won't get you all the way to where you have to end up.

PS - I changed a typo when I quoted your question so as to not make people on the site call you out for a simple typo.

Paul, you agree tax hikes will play a much smaler part than spending cuts. That's a huge thing we agree on.

So why, then, is Obama so fixated on the tax hikes? Everyone who voted in this election knows that Obama wants to hike taxes on those making at least $250k. That was a cornerstone of Obama's message. If you have a bullet wound to the head and also smoke cigarettes, don't you deal with the head wound before you quit smoking?

So, where are the details on the spending cuts? Maybe I'm missing something, but when I hear Obama talking about cuts, it's usually to attack the conservative who is proposing cuts.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So why, then, is Obama so fixated on the tax hikes?

B/C right now both sides are politicing and haven't gotten down to the negotiations (unless something is happening we don't know about???). He prob. wants to make sure that when the Rs come to the table that they are willing to put hikes/deduc. changes on the table. He has already agreed to either $10 or $12 of cuts to every $1 of tax hikes. The Ds must have some idea what they are willing to agree to and prob. don't want to show their hand yet. Just as some of the Rs have started recently coming out saying they agree to tax hikes (or getting rid of deductions). We don't know what those are either at this point (is the mortgage deduct. going to be taken away??).

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by PaulS

B/C right now both sides are politicing and haven't gotten down to the negotiations (unless something is happening we don't know about???). He prob. wants to make sure that when the Rs come to the table that they are willing to put hikes/deduc. changes on the table. He has already agreed to either $10 or $12 of cuts to every $1 of tax hikes. The Ds must have some idea what they are willing to agree to and prob. don't want to show their hand yet. Just as some of the Rs have started recently coming out saying they agree to tax hikes (or getting rid of deductions). We don't know what those are either at this point (is the mortgage deduct. going to be taken away??).

According to Obama this was going to be one of the most transparent administrations. I haven't seen much but I have seen through them, perhaps that is what he meant. Lets keep playing politics while the country goes down the drain. I wonder when repairations will start.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

B/C right now both sides are politicing and haven't gotten down to the negotiations (unless something is happening we don't know about???). He prob. wants to make sure that when the Rs come to the table that they are willing to put hikes/deduc. changes on the table. He has already agreed to either $10 or $12 of cuts to every $1 of tax hikes. The Ds must have some idea what they are willing to agree to and prob. don't want to show their hand yet. Just as some of the Rs have started recently coming out saying they agree to tax hikes (or getting rid of deductions). We don't know what those are either at this point (is the mortgage deduct. going to be taken away??).

When Paul Ryan makes a proposalto cut Medicare (which we all know is necessary), and Obama demonized Ryan by saying that "he wants to end Medicare as we know it", I'd say that Ryan is trying to solve the problem, and Obama is politicking.

I hope the mortgage deduction isn't taken away, as that's something that a lot of middle class folks benefit from. If that goes away, it sure won't help home prices.

Has Obama personally agreed to $12 in cuts for every $1 in tax hikes?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

g.

It is going to take many, many changes to our current budget, policies, etc. to get to where we have to be.

So I believe you agree with me that "where we have to be" is a leaner, more efficient place than where we are now.

Is Obama moving us towards that? Seems to me we're a lot further away from that "place where we have to be", than we were 4 years ago.

Where would my observation be wrong?