Will Republicans vote to increase the debt ceiling?

[Craig234]

400 highest earners? 😀 What,s that like one one millionth of a percent 😀😀 Make it the top 100,000 and we might make a dent


Your standard "WAT, us rich people ain't got nothin" BS claim is funny,

It really reinforces our point about the concentration of wealth and power that while raising the tax on the top 2% of the country - that's the top millions of people - raises $70 billion a year, just the top 400 raises $22 billion, showing that even within the top 1%, wealth and power are extremely concentrated.

It's not just the problems of concentrating wealth - but of political power. You get to a point Republicans are just hired hands as con men who need to sell the people bad policy.

I can almost imagine a training camp - 'use the flag! Attack anyone who exposes you!'

In fact, I barely have to - they had 'training' on how to spin Paul Ryan's budget recently.

 

[Doppel]

Uh, yeah they did. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/54/

Isn't that fvcking pathetic. It's pathetic how partisan they are and pathetic they continue to find supporters, e.g. those in this thread. Don't you guys realize how blind you are? Don't answer that.

This whole debt ceiling is just a distraction. For God's sake, the republicans never, ever had any intention of actually denying it. How haven't you figured this out?

 

[ProfJohn]

It really reinforces our point about the concentration of wealth and power that while raising the tax on the top 2% of the country - that's the top millions of people - raises $70 billion a year, just the top 400 raises $22 billion, showing that even within the top 1%, wealth and power are extremely concentrated.

Where do you get that number??

BTW according to the tax relief act passed last December the cost of keeping Bush tax rates on the rich is $20 billion this year and $30 billion next. Not much money in the big scheme of things.

 

[Pens1566]

I doubt projo is rich.

Only if he gets paid per post.

 

[disappoint]

What are male cattle?

 

[umbrella39]

obvious counter argument v3.0: don't increase spending from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP and then proclaim that we have a revenue problem.

Don't throw arbitrary numbers out there now, too late to complain, you had your chance. V2.0 already killed us years ago.

 

[Craig234]

Where do you get that number??

BTW according to the tax relief act passed last December the cost of keeping Bush tax rates on the rich is $20 billion this year and $30 billion next. Not much money in the big scheme of things.

Are you kidding? That figure was probably posted a thousand times here since the discussion about repealing the Bush tax cuts as an accepted government estimate.

$700 billion over the next decade, working out to $70 billion per year average.

You can easily find it many places in a search.

But it's a good excuse to link Bernie Sanders' excellent as always commentary that lists it, in an article he published two days ago on this issue.

http://www.thenation.com/article/16...ill-not-balance-budget-backs-working-families

He makes a good case how to balance the budget - and it's not 'on the backs of workers'.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

obvious counter argument: in a terrible recession, drastic spending cuts exacerbate the economic issues.

HOw so!?

 

[Craig234]

HOw so!?

The economy has three legs: consumer spending, business spending, and government spending.

In a recession, a downturn, consumer and business spending is down. The only thing that prevents a larger crash is government spending helping to replace it until it recovers.

Cutting that government spending as well fuels a cycle of businesses closing etc.

 

[D-Man]

The spin stops here cause we are looking for you.

Here are a few names to remember on MSNBC Keith Olbermann Ed Schultz David Schuster

 

[manimal]

The spin stops here cause we are looking for you.

Here are a few names to remember on MSNBC Keith Olbermann Ed Schultz David Schuster

wut?

 

[D-Man]

Trust Rachel for a no spin opinion. I think I would look at the men canned from that channel and ask should I trust this network

 

[her209]

obvious counter argument: can't raise taxes in a terrible recession. Cut spending to align with income instead.

When is a good time to raise taxes?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The economy has three legs: consumer spending, business spending, and government spending.

In a recession, a downturn, consumer and business spending is down. The only thing that prevents a larger crash is government spending helping to replace it until it recovers.

Cutting that government spending as well fuels a cycle of businesses closing etc.

isn't that just cooking the books? Look our economy is doing great! Look at all these people back to work...for the government.

 

[Craig234]

isn't that just cooking the books? Look our economy is doing great! Look at all these people back to work...for the government.

No. Government spending can go a number of places, not just government workers, and for both government workers and many other places, it is then spent by those people as consumers, going to businesses which they then spend - it props up the other legs of the economy while it recovers. The debate is political though, how much, who gets it?

 

[her209]

No. Government spending can go a number of places, not just government workers, and for both government workers and many other places, it is then spent by those people as consumers, going to businesses which they then spend - it props up the other legs of the economy while it recovers. The debate is political though, how much, who gets it?

Also, building and renovating infrastructure during the recession is better than during the boom because government can borrow money at low rates.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

When is a good time to raise taxes?

well my answer would be not anytime soon. Big government be damned.

 

[her209]

well my answer would be not anytime soon. Big government be damned.

So never?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So never?

Well the tax code needs to be re-written before we do anything to add more to it.

At the same time the govt. needs to be leaned out severely. "right sizing" is the corporate word for it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Are you kidding? That figure was probably posted a thousand times here since the discussion about repealing the Bush tax cuts as an accepted government estimate.

$700 billion over the next decade, working out to $70 billion per year average.

Craig you need to get your facts straight.

Your claim

It really reinforces our point about the concentration of wealth and power that while raising the tax on the top 2% of the country - that's the top millions of people - raises $70 billion a year,

You claimed raising taxes on just the richest 2% nets $70 billion a year which is completely false.

The TOTAL cost of the Bush tax cuts in $61 billion per year and that total includes rate cuts for everyone plus all kinds of other goodies.

Returning just the top rates to Clinton levels only gets us $20-30 billion a year.
http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3715

It is amazing how far off you guys are when it comes to the numbers.
The top 1% of earners (making $380,000 or more) paid $392 billion in taxes in 2008. If we doubled their tax rate to 46% of income that would get us another $392 billion a year which would not even get us half way to a balanced budget. And of course you will never be able to double their tax rate.

How about the top 5%? They paid $600 billion in taxes. We could increase their rate by 50% and that would bring us in another $300 billion, but again we would be a LONG ways from a balanced budget.

So despite what you guys think the fact is that you can't balance the budget or even come close just by taxing the rich.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

[her209]

Well the tax code needs to be re-written before we do anything to add more to it.

At the same time the govt. needs to be leaned out severely. "right sizing" is the corporate word for it.

That's a round about way of saying "No, never."

😀

 

[theeedude]

The country is still waiting for the Republicans to send Obama a balanced bill that raises the debt ceiling and removes this uncertainty hanging over the economy. What the hell are they wasting time for?

 

[Craig234]

Craig you need to get your facts straight.

I'm going to start billing you.

Your claim

You claimed raising taxes on just the richest 2% nets $70 billion a year which is completely false.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.

$250K income is the 2% cutoff point.

The TOTAL cost of the Bush tax cuts in $61 billion per year and that total includes rate cuts for everyone plus all kinds of other goodies.

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9

The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years

Let's see, $1.8 trillion divided by 8 is a bit over $200 billion per year. And that's the past - the amounts go up the next 10 years. To $700 billion for the top 2% over 10 years.

And just for fun:

In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated.

One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent...

It is amazing how far off you guys are when it comes to the numbers.

You don't get an irony of the week award, because just being clueless isn't enough.

The top 1% of earners (making $380,000 or more) paid $392 billion in taxes in 2008. If we doubled their tax rate to 46% of income that would get us another $392 billion a year which would not even get us half way to a balanced budget. And of course you will never be able to double their tax rate.

How about the top 5%? They paid $600 billion in taxes. We could increase their rate by 50% and that would bring us in another $300 billion, but again we would be a LONG ways from a balanced budget.

So despite what you guys think the fact is that you can't balance the budget or even come close just by taxing the rich.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

You finally got a number right on the top 1% in 2008 - albeit a cherry picked year when income taxes were way down, by $84 billion.

You keep repeating the same straw man, misrepresenting the liberal position.

You keep saying the liberals think they can balance the budget with only tax increases.

No one is saying that. Every time you say it, it's corrected.

At some point you get accused of lying by repeating it again.

It's an important part of balancing the budget. You don't balance it with spending cuts or tax increases alone, you do it with both.

You wasted our time with nonsense again.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, from your OWN link
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

$81.5 billion over two years is $40 billion a year, which I think is less than the $70 billion a year you claimed.

And here is a guess on the Bush tax cuts from the Washington Post, a little better site than your link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html

Over the 10-year period, the overall size of the tax cut dropped about 5 percent, or $65 billion, to $1.285 trillion.

So the entire 10 year cost of the tax cut was less than Obama's first or second deficit.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, from your OWN link
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

$81.5 billion over two years is $40 billion a year, which I think is less than the $70 billion a year you claimed.

And here is a guess on the Bush tax cuts from the Washington Post, a little better site than your link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html

So the entire 10 year cost of the tax cut was less than Obama's first or second deficit.

This is where you're just dishonest, PJ. You just ignore the numbers you are so wrong on.

You only discuss one of the numbers, where you think you can attack. Forget the rest.

But even on that one, you forget to mention that over $40 billion a year is a lot more than what you said, '$20-30 billion'.

As for the one number you could be bothered to respond on thinking you can attack, to repeated, I said the $70 billion is based on an average for the next ten years.

Naturally, between growth, inflation, and recovery, the first couple years of that ten year period will be well below the later part, the total being $700 billion.

So you got that wrong.

You waste my time again. Try to be just a bit honest and reply to the other numbers you are wrong on, for a change.