Why Republicans refuse to trade immediate tax hikes for long term spending cuts

[Doppel]

The answer is right before your eyes ProfJohn but you refuse to open them to see it.

Obama's spending won't go down because those that got him elected don't want it to go down. It's in the same vane that Bush I & II's spending never, ever went down and it's the reason that spending never decreased when the Republicans held both houses of Congress.

Both parties are there to serve the very rich and very powerful because that is the only way that they, the politicians, can ultimately become part of that very elite group of the top .01% of the wealthiest Americans.

There is no other explanation for Democratic voters voting in lying and dishonest Democratic politicians who never fulfill any of their campaign promises even when they own a commanding majority and it is the same in reverse with Republican voters putting people into office that blatantly enact policies that go against their own self interests.

Quit your bitching about Obama and the Democrats because every single item you can bring up about them is being done by the Republicans in spades. The fact that you are too stupidly blinded by the manipulation of an "us against them" charade makes you and everyone else (Craig...you're deep in this camp also) look idiotic.

Bolded for win.

Looks at user name

You're so partisan you don't realize he means right vs wrong, not "the right" vs "the left".

 

[Engineer]

If America's wealthiest are no longer willing to deliver on their end of the social contract in terms of jobs, then they need to be made to deliver in terms of taxes instead, so that govt can deliver the jobs & benefits that people need to participate in the economy. The wealthy will still receive the lion's share of growth, just at a lower level, like the rest of the first world...

I think that I read that PJ was willing to take a tax hike on the rich if there was an offsetting tax cut on the middle class. That would do exactly what you describe....and put "trickle up" in full force.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that I read that PJ was willing to take a tax hike on the rich if there was an offsetting tax cut on the middle class. That would do exactly what you describe....and put "trickle up" in full force.

That fails to address the simple fact that the federal govt needs to increase revenue substantially even if relatively sane spending cuts are implemented.

We've also gone past the point where the slight increase created in demand will create the necessary jobs. Bush era taxcuts show that all too clearly. For that, the govt needs to spend on labor intensive projects and services.

Repubs simply refuse to agree to top tier tax increases. They'll increase taxes on the middle class first & cut services for the people at the bottom long before they'll agree to that. We've already seen them hold the economy & the unemployed hostage to that proposition, and they haven't changed a bit. It's who they are and who they truly represent- America's wealthiest.

Krugman explains-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/phony-deficit-hawks/

Not to mention the simple fact that the transparent flimflam of the Ryan budget reveals their true intentions. All trickledown, all the time. If trickledown can't deliver to the vast majority of the country *with* enormous deficits, WTF would make anybody really believe it will *without* those deficits?

 

[piasabird]

Lets end all subsidies to women. Especially when they have 5 kids and each kid has a different father! How can we justify legislating the breakup of the family?

Then we can end all exemptions and federal aid to unions.

We can also end all exemptions for business. No more business exemptions of any kind.

Then end all exemptions for farmers as well.

Quit subsidising alternative energy also.

 

[piasabird]

I will settle on a $1.00 tax on every stock transaction.

10% coffee tax on all coffe sold for over $1.00.

5% tax on all imported automobiles.

 

[piasabird]

Yaught parking tax!

Mexico Vacation Tax.

 

[ProfJohn]

You're so partisan you don't realize he means right vs wrong, not "the right" vs "the left".

No, his user name literally means The right (politically) is wrong.

He is an adamantly left wing poster and if you had been here long enough you would realize that.

 

[ProfJohn]

That fails to address the simple fact that the federal govt needs to increase revenue substantially even if relatively sane spending cuts are implemented.

We've also gone past the point where the slight increase created in demand will create the necessary jobs. Bush era taxcuts show that all too clearly. For that, the govt needs to spend on labor intensive projects and services.

You don't seem to be able to get it through your head.

The rise and fall of tax revenue is almost completely related to the state of the economy.

In 1991 the top tax rate went up and yet revenue fell that year and for the following three years and didn't reach their 1990 level until 1996, FIVE years after the tax rate increased.

You want to increase Federal revenue then fix the economy!

 

[BoomerD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5DZBFbMdjI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w

 

[Munky]

I love how the sock puppets scream about a default being catastrophic to the global economy. The ones who suffer most from a default would be over-leveraged banks with $0 to back up their phony "assets", and they deserve it.

 

[senseamp]

I am still waiting for Republicans to explain why hedge fund managers shouldn't pay income taxes on their income.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am still waiting for Republicans to explain why hedge fund managers shouldn't pay income taxes on their income.

Because the Democrats didn't change the law when they had total control of congress.

 

[BoomerD]

Because the Democrats didn't change the law when they had total control of congress.

Yet, when the Repubs had a majority in the House, Senate, AND the presidency...they didn't seem to "fix" anything either. Illegal immigration continued to get worse, the economy tanked, the wars expanded, spending was rampant, and in numbers NEVER seen before...but it's all Obama's fault.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yet, when the Repubs had a majority in the House, Senate, AND the presidency...they didn't seem to "fix" anything either. Illegal immigration continued to get worse, the economy tanked, the wars expanded, spending was rampant, and in numbers NEVER seen before...but it's all Obama's fault.

You mean never seen before Obama took over?

 

[dca221]

You mean never seen before Obama took over?

Since you are too lazy to read responses to your posts before you post more nonsense, here is post #74 pasted here for you:

****************************
Since you are too lazy to look up facts before you share your wisdom, I'll do your work for you:

Category 2008 2011Estimate --> Difference
Defense $616B $768B --> $152B
Soc Sec 617 748 --> 131
Income Sec 431 622 --> 191 (unemployment, housing, food asst)
Medicare 391 494 --> 104
Health 280 388 --> 108 (healthcare services)
Education 91 115 --> 24
Veterans Svcs 85 141 --> 57
Physical Resources 162 214 --> 53
Net Interest 253 207 --> -46
Other Functions 142 209 --> 67 (includes Int'l Affairs, Justice)
Offsetting Receipts -86 -90
TOTAL: $2,982 $3,819 --> $836B

About $150B of the increase in in defense (I thought Obama was weak on defense!!!)
Nearly $250B of the increase is in social security, and medicare (Is Obama socialist???)
Nearly $200B of the increase is in unemployment insurance, housing assistance, food assistance (I knew Obama is socialist!!! Recession be damned, cut that damn assistance shit to the poor, we need to give tax cuts to the rich)
About $100B of the increase in in Healthcare (why bother investing in the nation's health? Let the insurance companies in the private market take care of them. I am now certain Obama is a socialist!!!)

And by the way, 2.5% inflation increase over three years from $2.9T would be $225B

So Prof John, now that some sucker did your homework for you, and you see where the increase has been, can you tell us:

Where is Obama's $800B spending increase?

If George W Bush had stayed in office for four more years, how much of the $800B would he not have? Would he have cut the $150B in defense? Or $250B in SS and Medicare? Or $50B in veterans services?

Meanwhile, the total receipts in 2008 were $2,523B, in 2011Est they are $2,173B, $350B less!!! If the receipts had simply increased by 2.5% since 2008 (had there been no recession, that is), they would stand at roughly $2,725, $550B more than today! Will you blame that on Obama too?

The Republicans put this country, not in a ditch, but in an abyss. And you have the audacity to ask " where is Obama's $800B?"

Give me an effing break

PS: all the data you need is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

But I warn you, the facts may conflict with your opinions

 

[Paul98]

Because the Democrats didn't change the law when they had total control of congress.

So you're just fine with it?

 

[RightIsWrong]

No, his user name literally means The right (politically) is wrong.

He is an adamantly left wing poster and if you had been here long enough you would realize that.

Here's a couple of quotes of things that I've posted over time here:

F'n Obama is no better than Bush in his regard to hand unlimited surveillance power to the government for all citizens that are not serving in a political role.

In your haste to demonize the right and to plan your pity part for the left....you forgot that some of the richest in the country are lefties and the richest in government are also on that side of the aisle.

Eight of the ten richest Congresspeople are Ds (including 5 of the top 7) and 12 of the top 20 are D's. I guess the left has no chance then....right?

The whiners and apologists of the left claim that a progressive tax structure is the only fair way to make sure that the rich are paying their share while the whiners and apologists of the right claim that a flat tax structure is the only fair way to make sure that the rich are aren't paying their share and for everyone else.

I am well aware of the pitfalls that any proposal would face due to the inherent corruption and incompetence attributed to both parties and openly acknowledge such.

Kudos to the local Fox station for making this about the crime and not the normal partisan politics. I didn't see that the guy was a Dem until the very end of the story. Good, solid reporting.

Do you want to try again PJ? My name is as others have described it.

So, when are you going to open your eyes and stop making this into a left/right debate during every single thread and start realizing that it is a right/wrong debate?

We've been getting our asses stretched out so much by the constant raping that we are receiving by the left and right so much that most don't even realize that they are being fucked anymore and have developed Stockholm Syndrome for their abusers.

 

[senseamp]

Because the Democrats didn't change the law when they had total control of congress.

But why did Republicans make it off limits now?

 

[bfdd]

Don't, and cause the US to pay a huge price wiping out massive amounts of our wealth for nothing. Sounds just like the tea party. These right-wing radicals are the US's biggest threat.

You want to hold on to something broken, something dying and you think more of the same will keep it alive. You want to feed someone dying with exactly what is killing them. I'd rather see everything we've built up come crashing down now while we can still get out from under it and rebuild, than build shit upon shit until it crashes and we're all drowning in shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't seem to be able to get it through your head.

The rise and fall of tax revenue is almost completely related to the state of the economy.

In 1991 the top tax rate went up and yet revenue fell that year and for the following three years and didn't reach their 1990 level until 1996, FIVE years after the tax rate increased.

You want to increase Federal revenue then fix the economy!

And your Republican heroes want to cut federal spending, lay off more people, to fix unemployment and cut the deficit. They'll try to work any flimflam imaginable, including the ones you mention, to avoid raising top tier taxes to a level that will actually support the govt.

I want to use federal revenue to create employment, fix the economy, reduce borrowing, something that the private sector seems unwilling to address. Why should they? Corporate profits are near record highs & America's wealthiest citizens are fairly swimming in cash at partial economic capacity. They like it the way it is- they made it this way on purpose, and so long as they have enough useful idiots as apologists & hangers on, they'll just keep on keepin' on...

 

[bfdd]

Jhhnn, laying off government employees would be a net boon to dollars in pockets. Government employees only get paid when the economy is doing well and tax revenue is collected. Without that, they don't get paid. The more government employees we hire, the more private sector employees we need to hire times 10. So if cutting back on government employees will help streamline the budget, then I guess we need to work out the inefficiencies and cut all the jobs. They weren't creating wealth anyways, just taking it away from the private sector.

 

[Jhhnn]

Jhhnn, laying off government employees would be a net boon to dollars in pockets. Government employees only get paid when the economy is doing well and tax revenue is collected. Without that, they don't get paid. The more government employees we hire, the more private sector employees we need to hire times 10. So if cutting back on government employees will help streamline the budget, then I guess we need to work out the inefficiencies and cut all the jobs. They weren't creating wealth anyways, just taking it away from the private sector.

Govt employees perform lots of useful functions, but Righties, of course, can't figure that out. They also spend money, too, unlike corporate fatcats who are just socking it away atm, which, you know, actually maintains the economy, keeps money flowing.

Roads, bridges, dams, waterways, levees, transit, courts, prisons, safe food, medicines & drinking water obviously aren't part of our shared wealth at all, huh? Nor is the FAA, FBI, SEC and a bunch of other state & federal agencies, I suppose...

The market, The Sacred Free Market! will take care of all that stuff, I'm sure, just like it did 120 years ago, huh? The Hell it will.

Wingnuts are astoundingly stupid in defense of their idols screwing them and everybody else over, time and time again...

 

[Craig234]

Because the Democrats didn't change the law when they had total control of congress.

Darn Democrats blocking the Republicans' demand to increase taxes for hedge funds.

How dare they have 1 or 2 or 3 people in the party who let the Republicans filibuster?

Want to know who supports increasing the hedge fund taxes?

The progressive caucus. So, if you want to pretend you support it, praise progressives.

Otherwise, your answering the question why the tax hasn't been raised not with any answer but just saying 'Democrats didn't pass it', is not answering his question - and misleading.

 

[Darwin333]

"The new captain of this ship sucks. All he has done is not go anywhere having everyone do 'emergency water bailing' to keep the ship from sinking after the last captain drag raced into an iceberg. How can you even COMPARE the new captain to the last one, when he's done so crappy? I say, get the old captain back!"

I would like to point you to your previous post sir, that is all.

 

[ProfJohn]

Where is Obama's $800B spending increase?

If George W Bush had stayed in office for four more years, how much of the $800B would he not have? Would he have cut the $150B in defense? Or $250B in SS and Medicare? Or $50B in veterans services?

Meanwhile, the total receipts in 2008 were $2,523B, in 2011Est they are $2,173B, $350B less!!! If the receipts had simply increased by 2.5% since 2008 (had there been no recession, that is), they would stand at roughly $2,725, $550B more than today! Will you blame that on Obama too?

The Republicans put this country, not in a ditch, but in an abyss. And you have the audacity to ask " where is Obama's $800B?"

Give me an effing break

PS: all the data you need is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

But I warn you, the facts may conflict with your opinions

Here is the big question.

If all this extra spending is related to the recession then how come it doesn't go away when the recession goes away?

According to Obama's forecast used to create that link the deficit should be completely over by the end of this year. Which means all that extra spending should be going away too, right?

And explain to me how we went the past decade with spending below 20% of GPD, but now that Obama is in office spending has to be over 22% of GDP?

Under Clinton spending went from 22% of GDP down to 18% of GDP. Why can't we do that again?