The Budget Battle and the "Which Side Does More Demagoguing"? Thread

[Goatnapper'96]

Sure. Everything has to on the table. Including defense spending.

Even if all the tax rates were at the same level pre Bush tax cuts, the deficit would still be huge.

I believe that taxes will need to be raised to deal with this problem, but I hope that Republicans dig in about it until the budgeted spending has the US projected to live within its means. Then raise taxes with a clear sunset of the increased tax rates and use the extra revenue to simply reduce the national debt. When the sunset hits drop tax rates and party like a rock star!

[Goatnapper'96]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

The reality is that our spending problem is significantly worse than our revenue problem. We cannot afford all the entitlements, discretionary spending and defense spending. I can see defense taking a haircut of 100-200 billion if we can get out of our Middle East quagmires, but that is not really a big dent in where we need to get to.

In the end the Republicans will have the strategic highground. I noticed that the Liberals were praising Obama for finally turning left with his speech last night. Many of them like combatitive rhetoric, especially now because they feel like they lost so badly with the recent budget agreement and the lame duck extension of Bush tax rates, more than details but the independents and collective national perspective is that spending is out of control. I don't think Democrats can take back the hill with scare tactics about children with disabilities or grandmas being held against their will in the dungeons of private insurance companies. Spending needs to be cut and cut a lot. I believe that Republicans will only agree to sunseted tax increases, above budgetary revenues needed, to pay down on the national debt. I think the public will be on their side. In my short history of watching Obama when the liberals start praising him his numbers seem to plummet.

I hope I am right.

[Borderline Divine]

Why are the rich bad guys? btw... all this circumventing the income tax goes away with the the fair tax. Everyone pays there fair share.

Golly, who could oppose such a reasonable plan? The rich, of course.

[snowcat]

The reality is that our spending problem is significantly worse than our revenue problem. We cannot afford all the entitlements, discretionary spending and defense spending.

This is the reality. Talking tax hikes is pissing on a bonfire.

[byu71]

This is the reality. Talking tax hikes is pissing on a bonfire.

Yea, but the rhetoric sounds good. Don't you think millionaires and billionaires should be taxed at a higher rate. It sounds good.

The dirty little secret is the money they are after comes from those who make between $250 and 999K. The revenue will far exceed what they get from those rich bastards that make over a million dollars.

I feel for the guy who is young and makes $250,000 to $500,00 and is trying to become a millionaire. Obama wants to stunt his growth.

Why the press doesn't figure this out and present it I will never know.

[Uncle Ted]

I feel for the guy who is young and makes $250,000 to $500,00 and is trying to become a millionaire. Obama wants to stunt his growth.

Why the press doesn't figure this out and present it I will never know.

When the upper tax rate was 90% it collected very little tax from the rich. The rich stopped earning money that would result in very little in their pockets and put a lot of their money in tax free investments, etc. Anyone that thinks all the country's financial problems can be solved simply raising taxes significantly on the rich is a fool. Actually lowering taxes can increase the tax revenue.(see #1 below) To buy our way out of this debt it will require taxing the hell out of the middle class as well. Raising the middle class tax rate to 40% might put a pretty good dent in it, however. Of course, most of the middle class might be members of the Tea Party if that happened. The solution is to either grow the economy (2-5% per year is not going to cut it) or cut the expenses. Raising taxes on the rich would most likely do more harm in growing the economy. Unless you work for the government or something then keep in mind where your paycheck comes from. Actually, even if you work for the government you should keep in mind where the tax revenue comes from. As for expenses cutting $78.5B is not even a good start and should be laughed at. Now pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would be a good start consider what it is costing us in money, not to mention lives and VA benefits we are now going to have to pay to those who were wounded in some way or another.

#1. Note that in the 1920's when taxes were slashed by 70% the result was 61% increase in tax revenue. Again, in the 1960's when Kennedy reduced the upper tax rate from 90% to 70% the tax revenue increased by 62% by 1968. Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ower-tax-rates

[Jacob]

Most people call them tax cuts, but Pres. O. calls them "spending reductions in the tax code:"



Pretty Orwellian. Of course, tax cuts are spending reductions only if you believe, as the president does, that the money isn't really yours, but belongs to the government.

Isn't he referring to tax raises as "spending reductions in the tax code". The rest of the point stands.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Especially the corp of engineers.

You will be happy to know that their budget was cut $579M last week. That's a start.