A new Political party

[carlfense]

Great....You link to a current web site for the White House. I have specifically asked for quotes from the campaign where he was promising to not raise taxes on anyone under $250,000 (with stipulations about the fiscal cliff) since you didn't, I'm assuming you can't.

Here you go, July 9, 2012:

“Let’s agree to do what we agree on, right?” Obama said in a statement from the White House East Room, urging lawmakers to act on a partial extension of the tax cuts.

 

“That’s what compromise is all about,” he said. “Let’s not hold the vast majority of Americans and our entire economy hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for the wealthy.”

 

Obama wants to extend current, lower rates for 98 percent of Americans — individuals earning $200,000 a year or less and families making $250,000 or less — something on which Republicans and Democrats generally agree.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...-cut-extension/

 

Your assumption is apparently as faulty as your memory. Still no link from you. I can't help but wonder why that is . . .

[BigRedBuster]

[carlfense]

". . . under my plan . . . "

 

Awesome.

[Undone]

So let's just talk about what Obama's proposal entails, mmkay?

 

We're going over the cliff either way. The prez wants to increase taxes (albeit on those with a household income greater than $250,000) and give birth to more unmarked stimulus spending. That's not a resolution - that's nonsense.

 

Let's go over the cliff, and NOW.

[BigRedBuster]

". . . under my plan . . . "

 

Awesome.

 

 

A plan that some believe won't even pass the Democratically controlled Senate. Obama isn't trying to fix the problem. If he would, he wouldn't be making the idiotic demands that he is.

[carlfense]

So let's just talk about what Obama's proposal entails, mmkay?

 

We're going over the cliff either way. The prez wants to increase taxes (albeit on those with a household income greater than $250,000) and give birth to more unmarked stimulus spending. That's not a resolution - that's nonsense.

 

Let's go over the cliff, and NOW.

FWIW, I'm fine with going over the cliff. That would increase revenue and cut spending. The economy might take a hit from it . . . but at least we'd have started the recovery from W's deficit.

[carlfense]

A plan that some believe won't even pass the Democratically controlled Senate. Obama isn't trying to fix the problem. If he would, he wouldn't be making the idiotic demands that he is.

At least you now seem to realize that you were wrong about taxes going up as a result of going over the fiscal cliff. You provided a video disproving your own assertion.

 

No one is making demands. This is negotiation. The Republicans have (so far) refused to make a counteroffer. If there is no agreement the president will get his tax increase and the GOP will get their spending cuts. Then we can cut taxes for most Americans without Republicans having to deal with their pledge to Norquist.

 

What specific spending cuts do the Republicans want? They need to figure out what they want and ask for it ASAP.

[Undone]

FWIW, I'm fine with going over the cliff. That would increase revenue and cut spending. The economy might take a hit from it . . . but at least we'd have started the recovery from W's deficit.

 

I appreciate that response.

 

So next step then. And take with it the knowledge that I think Bush was terrible economically and have no aim of defending him.

 

Rolling back ALL of the Bush tax cuts increases taxes for you, me, AND those making over $250,000. And I'm certainly taking into consideration the fact that the president wants to negotiate that with his opponents to extend the tax cuts to us 98%-ers.

 

When we talk about the perceived good of "increasing revenue while cutting spending," the figures tell us that the work done by the super committee tasked with reducing the deficit isn't taking enough of a chunk out of it to prevent our debt explosion. So where do we go from there?

 

And also on a tangent train of thought, why can't we tax the consumer when he consumes, instead of taxing him when he earns?

[carlfense]

Rolling back ALL of the Bush tax cuts increases taxes for you, me, AND those making over $250,000. And I'm certainly taking into consideration the fact that the president wants to negotiate that with his opponents to extend the tax cuts to us 98%-ers.

It does.

 

When we talk about the perceived good of "increasing revenue while cutting spending," the figures tell us that the work done by the super committee tasked with reducing the deficit isn't taking enough of a chunk out of it to prevent our debt explosion. So where do we go from there?

Eh?

 

And also on a tangent train of thought, why can't we tax the consumer when he consumes, instead of taxing him when he earns?

I'd be interested in looking at that. Intuitively it seems like a pure consumption tax would be rather regressive. What do you have in mind?

[carlfense]

The blue line is the projected debt if we go over the fiscal cliff. The orange line is the projected debt if we do not. People concerned about the deficit should be contacting their representatives and urging them to jump.

 

[Undone]

When we talk about the perceived good of "increasing revenue while cutting spending," the figures tell us that the work done by the super committee tasked with reducing the deficit isn't taking enough of a chunk out of it to prevent our debt explosion. So where do we go from there?

Eh?

 

Referring to the August, 2011 Debt Ceiling Agreement highlighting a "plan" to reduce the deficit by a total of $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years...even though that figure is not close enough to actually stemming the debt tide. It's a move in the right direction, but it's not nearly enough.

 

 

And also on a tangent train of thought, why can't we tax the consumer when he consumes, instead of taxing him when he earns?

I'd be interested in looking at that. Intuitively it seems like a pure consumption tax would be rather regressive. What do you have in mind?

 

The really fun kicker, though: We Americans apparently have an indisputable predisposition for consuming, quite literally, as much as we possibly can. In fact, we consume even more than we technically should be able to. We love our debt.

 

And on yet another tangent...When we can't quite afford the stuff we want (like houses we really can't afford, for example), the fed steps in and manipulates things like interest rates and also picks up (at least a portion of) the public debt. More recession, more escalation. Rinse. Repeat.

[carlfense]

Referring to the August, 2011 Debt Ceiling Agreement highlighting a "plan" to reduce the deficit by a total of $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years...even though that figure is not close enough to actually stemming the debt tide. It's a move in the right direction, but it's not nearly enough.

That plan didn't include any increased revenue, did it? Cuts alone won't fix the problem . . . just like taxes alone won't fix the problem.

 

The really fun kicker, though: We Americans apparently have an indisputable predisposition for consuming, quite literally, as much as we possibly can. In fact, we consume even more than we technically should be able to. We love our debt.

No arguments there. Many, many people . . . in almost all income ranges . . . live beyond their means.

 

And on yet another tangent...When we can't quite afford the stuff we want (like houses we really can't afford, for example), the fed steps in and manipulates things like interest rates and also picks up the public debt. More recession, more escalation. Rinse. Repeat.

What do you see as the solution? Abolishing the Fed? I'd fear a completely unregulated financial market far more than the manipulation of interest rates.

[BigRedBuster]

A plan that some believe won't even pass the Democratically controlled Senate. Obama isn't trying to fix the problem. If he would, he wouldn't be making the idiotic demands that he is.

At least you now seem to realize that you were wrong about taxes going up as a result of going over the fiscal cliff. You provided a video disproving your own assertion.

 

No one is making demands. This is negotiation. The Republicans have (so far) refused to make a counteroffer. If there is no agreement the president will get his tax increase and the GOP will get their spending cuts. Then we can cut taxes for most Americans without Republicans having to deal with their pledge to Norquist.

 

What specific spending cuts do the Republicans want? They need to figure out what they want and ask for it ASAP.

 

I did no such thing. He claims his "plan" is to not raise taxes on anyone under $250,000. This only works if his plan fixes the fiscal cliff. Problem is, he hasn't shown anything that does that.

 

So, if he doesn't fix the cliff (even with his plan) the taxes go up on everyone.

 

Just a side note. He wants to take the power of debt ceiling away from congress. Hmmm...doesn't sound like someone who is serious about lowering the debt.

[carlfense]

I did no such thing. He claims his "plan" is to not raise taxes on anyone under $250,000. This only works if his plan fixes the fiscal cliff. Problem is, he hasn't shown anything that does that.

 

So, if he doesn't fix the cliff (even with his plan) the taxes go up on everyone.

Fix the fiscal cliff? We go over or we don't. There is no "fixing." You're talking yourself in circles. Best to admit your error regarding the president's statement and move on.

 

If you need a reminder you were claiming this:

 

Btw....i don't remember obama putting the "fiscal cliff"stipulation on his promise.

 

You now seem to understand the "fiscal cliff" stipulation. This is progress.

 

Just a side note. He wants to take the power of debt ceiling away from congress. Hmmm...doesn't sound like someone who is serious about lowering the debt.

What specific spending cuts is the GOP proposing? They have proposed real spending cuts . . . right? I mean . . . there's no way that this is just bluster sold to a willfully ignorant base, right?

 

(Edit: as of a few minutes ago reports that GOP has proposed "structural reform of Medicare including increasing eligibility age." No specifics that I'm aware of other than eligibility age.)

[Undone]

What do you see as the solution? Abolishing the Fed? I'd fear a completely unregulated financial market far more than the manipulation of interest rates.

 

 

I believe that congress should hold the fed accountable. I know you didn't say this, but holding it accountable is nowhere close to saying that we'd have an "unregulated financial market."

 

Indirectly, I'd answer your question with another question: When a (monstrously huge) bank makes a practice of lending to people they shouldn't have lent to, who should pay the price? You and I?

 

Directly, I'd shove the 10th amendment in my congressman's face and let him know that a power not specifically granted to the federal government is unconstitutional. So constantly printing money and devaluing our dollar is something they shouldn't be doing anyway. But I understand that this is a viewpoint that, in the 21st century, is considered radical and stupid.