Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[Maui]

I'm incredulous about the GOP walking out of the debt ceiling negotiations because the refuse to consider rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Please tell me there's someone on the right that agrees on this issue?

The Bush tax cuts have never covered our spending. But even under the most draconian proposal from the GOP, they are still far from balancing the budget in the long term. We're talking about returning to a tax rate that is lower than when Reagan was in office. How could that possibly be bad? If the Bush tax cuts had not been passed in the first place, would the GOP honestly be pushing for them now?

It seems that all sides have agreed in concept that everyone is going to have to make hard concessions to solve the debt problem and that any true solution is sure to make most everyone unhappy in some way. If the GOP won't even discuss rolling back the tax cuts we couldn't afford or cutting military spending, exactly what concessions are they willing to discuss? Honestly GOP'ers, what would you say if the Dems walked out because they refused to discuss the possibility of any spending cuts (regardless of how many recent spending increases there has been)?

I'm willing to accept we need painful spending cuts. But until the GOP would at least put forward a plan that would balance the budget, how on earth do you defend walking out of the negotiations over this?

What a load of crap.

[TDPerk]

I'm incredulous about the GOP walking out of the debt ceiling negotiations because the refuse to consider rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Please tell me there's someone on the right that agrees on this issue?

It is never a just end of government to transfer monies between economic classes of people. The Bush "cuts" move closer to a flat tax rate. I applaud their continuance.

The Bush tax cuts have never covered our spending.

The deficit was trending towards surplus as government accounting is usually done, before the Democrat inspired lending policies popped the real estate bubble.

But even under the most draconian proposal from the GOP, they are still far from balancing the budget in the long term.

Not yet, but the NewDeal idiocies that created the "entitlements" mess will be functionally undone in the process of fixing this mess.

We're talking about returning to a tax rate that is lower than when Reagan was in office. How could that possibly be bad? If the Bush tax cuts had not been passed in the first place, would the GOP honestly be pushing for them now?

Maybe, maybe not. It isn't a lack of reasonable tax income which caused the gravity of this crisis, it was drastically large and unintelligent borrowing for the purpose of mindless, Q < 1 spending. I'd say in the long run anything national government can't do with 10% or less of the GDP doesn't need to be done.

It seems that all sides have agreed in concept that everyone is going to have to make hard concessions to solve the debt problem and that any true solution is sure to make most everyone unhappy in some way.

No. The Democratic Party will eat most of the concessions, because that party's success is the cause of the structural problems.

If the GOP won't even discuss rolling back the tax cuts we couldn't afford or cutting military spending, exactly what concessions are they willing to discuss?

Why should we discuss any? Obama unintelligently rammed Obamacare down the US people's throats over their expressed large majority objections, the the Dems are going to get creamed over it. They deserve the creative destruction.

Honestly GOP'ers, what would you say if the Dems walked out because they refused to discuss the possibility of any spending cuts (regardless of how many recent spending increases there has been)?

Speaking for this GOP'er, I'd have said, "See you in 2012", and not interrupted my opponents while they doubled down on a Pickett's Charge scale mistake.

I'm willing to accept we need painful spending cuts.

Not just cuts--which I doubt you are really willing to accept--structural changes. Entirely privatizing the "entitlements" plans for all young people, pro-rating the privatization as age increases, letting people opt out of one program and stay in the other, means-testing the payments, and otherwise making clear to people the truth of what these always were--welfare payments, and sometime not small ones, to people who were getting way more out of the system than they put in. Laying the ground for the end of the programs altogether.

But until the GOP would at least put forward a plan that would balance the budget, how on earth do you defend walking out of the negotiations over this?

What a load of crap.

Yes, the Democrats have nothing to offer the American people but a load of crap. The Republicans rolling in it with them won't help anything.

The Republicans are sensibly not trying to change everything all at once, that scale of change is more destructive than creative.

[Maui]

It is never a just end of government to transfer monies between economic classes of people. The Bush "cuts" move closer to a flat tax rate. I applaud their continuance.

I strongly believe a flat tax is a bad idea, but aside from that Bush's tax cuts did nothing of the sort. In fact, they actually added a new tax bracket... sounds more like moving away from a flat tax rate, if you ask me.

But even under the most draconian proposal from the GOP, they are still far from balancing the budget in the long term.

Not yet, but the NewDeal idiocies that created the "entitlements" mess will be functionally undone in the process of fixing this mess.

But my point is, until the GOP actually puts forward such a plan, they have no business walking out on budget negotiations over a proposal that would help reduce the debt.

I'd say in the long run anything national government can't do with 10% or less of the GDP doesn't need to be done.

I commend you for setting a goal that is tied to GDP. And you are certainly welcome to your opinion to how large the federal budget should be. But the GOP haven't proposed a budget that matches tax revenue, much less 10% of GDP. Again, until they do they have no right to be walking out of negotiations over this.

Why should we discuss any? Obama unintelligently rammed Obamacare down the US people's throats over their expressed large majority objections, the the Dems are going to get creamed over it. They deserve the creative destruction.

I disagree with Obama's approach in passing Obamacare. Yet, he made plenty of concessions, including the biggest GOP talking point of them all: government run plans. What concessions are the GOP offering in these negotiations?

The biggest reason I disagreed with Obama's approach is that the political cost of doing something that so vehemently pisses off the other side is that you lose power. (Bush & Iraq was the same thing). There may be some issues worth losing power over, but this wasn't one of them...

The Republicans are sensibly not trying to change everything all at once, that scale of change is more destructive than creative.

A plan doesn't have to change things all at once. Fine if they don't want to have some pieces come into place for decades. But if you can't propose out loud what plan you have to get us to break-even *eventually* you have no business walking out over a proposal that will at least get us closer.

[Maui]

I'd say in the long run anything national government can't do with 10% or less of the GDP doesn't need to be done.

Question about this: The last time we were below 10% GDP was in 1940. In that year, we spent 2.13% of GDP on the military. Last year we spent 5.78%. In addition to killing entitilements, to get back below 10% total I think its fair to say we'd need to return to an isolationist foreign policy. Are you on board with that?

[TDPerk]

"In fact, they actually added a new tax bracket... sounds more like moving away from a flat tax rate, if you ask me. "

They moved the top rate towards lower rates--if you even vaguely understood the concept of a flat rate, you'd know that was closer to a flat rate.

"But my point...reduce the debt. "

Sure they should walk out. The country isn't getting anything out of their being there, neither are they. Why should they waste their time?

"But the GOP...negotiations over this."

But they are planning on substantially improving matters. Any compromise with the Dems just makes things worse.

"I disagree with...in these negotiations? "

Dumbshit, the public was saying "don't do anything this in this direction at all." You don't get bonus points for frick on purpose up half as bad as you could have.

"Bush & Iraq was the same thing). "

Bush was re-elected and the "surge" worked, Bush, "Betrayus"m and the boots get the credit for that. If we "lose" Iraq, it's Obama's bad. Go cry in your beer over it.

"A plan doesn't have to change things all at once."

And the Republican plan reasonably doesn't change everything all at once, so what's your problem with it again?

[TDPerk]

Question about this... board with that?

Not even slightly. Since the DoD is about the only thing the fed spends any big money on that is even slightly constitutional, defense spending can stay at 7% of GDP by me.

And while you're at it, we can re-re-name it the Department of War.

[Maui]

They moved the top rate towards lower rates--if you even vaguely understood the concept of a flat rate, you'd know that was closer to a flat rate.

15% -> 10%
39.5% -> 35%.

Isn't this like saying the race car that is moving 100mph is moving toward the one that is moving 110 mph?

But they are planning on substantially improving matters. Any compromise with the Dems just makes things worse.

I see. Obama compromises on healthcare yet is still evil for "ramming it down our throats". But the GOP shouldn't ever have to compromise on anything. How objective of you.

Dumbshit, the public was saying "don't do anything this in this direction at all." You don't get bonus points for frick on purpose up half as bad as you could have.

This is sorta the same point. How can you be upset about Obama "ramming Obamacare down the US people's throats" despite the fact that he made significant compromises, yet you see no issue with the GOP refusing to make any compromises. Please separate tactics from issues. If you are going to argue strictly on issues fine. But you attacked Obama's tactics. The ramming tactic the GOP is employing here is more severe that Obama's.

Bush was re-elected and the "surge" worked.

Wait. You said Obamacare shouldn't have been passed because only a majority opposed it. Yet the opposition to invading Iraq without the blessing of the U.N. was even greater (By a 2 to 1 margin). Whether or not the surge worked has no bearing on whether it was right or best to invade in the first place. But if you are going with the "the ends justifies the means" argument, doesn't that obligate you to wait to see if Obamacare works before objecting to it?

And the Republican plan reasonably doesn't change everything all at once, so what's your problem with it again?

I'm saying that the plan doesn't need to plan for a balanced budget next year. But if the best GOP plan can't show a balanced budget at any point in the future (which it doesn't), they shouldn't be walking out due to a proposal that will help close the gap.

[Maui]

Question about this... board with that?

Not even slightly. Since the DoD is about the only thing the fed spends any big money on that is even slightly constitutional, defense spending can stay at 7% of GDP by me.

And while you're at it, we can re-re-name it the Department of War.

Nice. 3% for all non-defense. That should cover it.

So we should spend all we want as long as its for an issue you support (killing). But if the spending is for educating kids or any nonsense like that, out with it!

Got it.

[palladin9479]

*Munch's popcorn*

These discussions are always fun to watch. Depending entirely which adjectives you chose to use, mixed with which facts you decide to accept, one can paint either party as demonically evil or as saintly angels.

Both sides will go at it, lambasting the other side, twisting words and playing semantics. And the whole they they've each rationalized their own groups dark deeds and played hypocrite.

BOTH parties are currently bad, both desire to accumulate more power, more wealth and more control. We would fare no better under Republican's then under Democrats. And while the Democrats publicly make themselves look like greedy idiots, the Republicans would just classify it and privately make themselves look like greedy idiots. Both parties spread FUD and the objective of each is to hold onto power.

The objective of the current Republican party isn't to make the USA better nor is to save money or balance the budget. Their objective is to win the 2012 Presidential election, and failing that they desire to weaken the Democratic party. If doing these things requires them to hurt the average American citizen, then so be it, its acceptable loses. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

The objective of the Democratic party isn't to make the USA a better place nor is it to save money or balance the budget. Their objective is to win the 2012 Presidential election, and failing that they desire to weaken the Republican party. If doing these things requires them to hurt the average American citizen, then so be it, its acceptable loses. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

Everything else after this is just talking points based on what their power base and donations come from. The GoP is usually MIC, Healthcare, Financial services and Religious institutes as their power base. They will cater to these groups and vigorously nod their head to whatever makes those groups give more money. The Dems are educational institutes, law firms, social groups, media groups, environmental groups and various "equality" groups. They will cater to these groups and vigorously nod their heads to whatever makes those groups give more money.

About the only difference between these two parties is that the Dems tend to be well intentioned but horribly misguided and thus easily controlled by special interests. The GoP is after power and they don't even pretend to not be and thus their easily manipulated by special interests.

That about sums things up.

[ladajo]

The objective of the current Republican party isn't to make the USA better nor is to save money or balance the budget. Their objective is to win the 2012 Presidential election, and failing that they desire to weaken the Democratic party. If doing these things requires them to hurt the average American citizen, then so be it, its acceptable loses. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

The objective of the Democratic party isn't to make the USA a better place nor is it to save money or balance the budget. Their objective is to win the 2012 Presidential election, and failing that they desire to weaken the Republican party. If doing these things requires them to hurt the average American citizen, then so be it, its acceptable loses. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

Yup. Now where is that "like" button...<munches popcorn>...

[Skipjack]

My take on this is: A country of poor people does not spend a lot of money on consumer goods. If no money is spent, businesses go bankrupt.
I am for lower taxes, but in all fairness there needs to be a chance for those that are poor to earn a living and to get rich. If you tax the poor to high, then they have no chance of ever making it anywhere. If you dont tax anyone, then your government has no money to spend on the important stuff.
I do not like the social insurance in the US. I think it is expensive and does to little for what it costs. But this is not financed via the income tax, which is what the discussion is about, if I understand this correctly.
So, there is no real shifting of money going on. It just means a smaller tax burden for those that have less to begin with. So that they can invest and get rich too one day.
Here in Austria, we have to high a tax burden on everyone, but definitely on the middle income which ideally would make the largest part of the population. Property is taxed to low, income is taxed to high. That way nobody can ever get out of debt, or make investments. It is a stupid system.

[Diogenes]

I'm incredulous about the GOP walking out of the debt ceiling negotiations because the refuse to consider rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Please tell me there's someone on the right that agrees on this issue?

From my perspective, it is a waste of time to even discuss taxes or spending with Democrats. Their only solution is always to thieve more money from the productive, and use it to supplement the power of government bureaucrats and other patronage parasites.

One only need look at the States that have been under long term Democrat control to see the idiocy of their polices. Despite gaining control of some of the Wealthiest and most productive states in the nation, they have spent those states into bankruptcy. California, New York, Michigan,Illinois et al have all been the beneficiaries of Democrat governance, and they are all financial basket cases. Democrats are unable to solve even the simplest problem.

Here is an article for you to read. Pigeons Rats and Democrats.

I'm willing to accept we need painful spending cuts. But until the GOP would at least put forward a plan that would balance the budget, how on earth do you defend walking out of the negotiations over this?

What a load of crap.

They wouldn't be painful if we had not allowed people to become accustomed to the addictive drug of unearned Federal government money. Here is another article for you to read.
Economics of Poor Neighborhoods funded by the government.


The Democrats spent an extra trillion dollars since B.O. took over. They have no moral authority to even talk about taxes.

[Diogenes]

I'm incredulous about the GOP walking out of the debt ceiling negotiations because the refuse to consider rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Please tell me there's someone on the right that agrees on this issue?

It is never a just end of government to transfer monies between economic classes of people. The Bush "cuts" move closer to a flat tax rate. I applaud their continuance.

The Bush tax cuts have never covered our spending.

The deficit was trending towards surplus as government accounting is usually done, before the Democrat inspired lending policies popped the real estate bubble.

But even under the most draconian proposal from the GOP, they are still far from balancing the budget in the long term.

Not yet, but the NewDeal idiocies that created the "entitlements" mess will be functionally undone in the process of fixing this mess.

This is a point of which too many people are simply unaware. The ROOT causes of the vast bulk of the financial mess in this nation are the result of Ignorant Stupid Democrat Socialistic Policies that were NEVER viable from the very beginning. Social Security is broke. Even if all the money it had collected hadn't been spent by Democrats for the last 40 years and replaced with I.O.U.s , it still never would have managed to balance it's outlays with it's incomes. It was a faulty idea upon conception.

We're talking about returning to a tax rate that is lower than when Reagan was in office. How could that possibly be bad? If the Bush tax cuts had not been passed in the first place, would the GOP honestly be pushing for them now?

Maybe, maybe not. It isn't a lack of reasonable tax income which caused the gravity of this crisis, it was drastically large and unintelligent borrowing for the purpose of mindless, Q < 1 spending. I'd say in the long run anything national government can't do with 10% or less of the GDP doesn't need to be done.

Amen! Too much money routes through the thieves in government. As Jefferson said:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. ..."

[KitemanSA]

It is never a just end of government to transfer monies between economic classes of people. The Bush "cuts" move closer to a flat tax rate. I applaud their continuance.

I strongly believe a flat tax is a bad idea, but aside from that Bush's tax cuts did nothing of the sort. In fact, they actually added a new tax bracket... sounds more like moving away from a flat tax rate, if you ask me.

Number of rates has nothing to do with flatness. 2 rates, 0% and 100% are minimalist, but NOT flat. 100 rates, 10.991% to 11% has many more rates but is effectively flat.

[KitemanSA]

I'd say in the long run anything national government can't do with 10% or less of the GDP doesn't need to be done.

Question about this: The last time we were below 10% GDP was in 1940. In that year, we spent 2.13% of GDP on the military. Last year we spent 5.78%. In addition to killing entitilements, to get back below 10% total I think its fair to say we'd need to return to an isolationist foreign policy. Are you on board with that?

Why is it that many democrat's only alternative to the current INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy is "isolationist".