We don’t have a revenue problem Mr. President….we have a spending problem. Get it through your head.
President Barack Obama will lay out his plan for reducing the nation’s deficit Wednesday, belatedly entering a fight over the nation’s long-term financial future. But in addition to suggesting cuts—the current focus of debate—the White House looks set to aim its firepower on a more divisive topic: taxes.
In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.
“Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at here,” David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said Sunday in one of multiple television appearances. “Revenues are going to have to be part of this,” he said, referring to tax increases.
That tax increase, while the economy is still in shambles will hurt those who need tax CUTS the most. Small business owners. The ones who will employ those currently out of work. If you hurt them, then they go out of business and take the jobs with them. Plain and simple math here folks.
Eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the highest earners, however, will only put a small dent in the projected deficit.
Republicans contend that raising top rates would hurt small businesses and cut into cash that might otherwise turn into consumer spending. Mr. Ryan said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday that “If you go down the tax increase path you’re sacrificing the economy.”
Exactamondo.
But with the Socialist minds we have in the White House they become fixated on class warfare for no other reason other than to get votes from the gullible.
Any attempt to increase the revenue on the backs of those who employ millions is counterproductive and will cripple this economy even further. We have a spending problem….cut spending. The liberals can whine and cry about the “rich fat cats” all they want but in the end those in the top 25% pay the majority of income taxes in this country while employing millions.
Paul Ryan’s solution is brilliant….reduce the size of government. The entitlement culture needs to end. And reduce the tax burden. Look at the 2010 Census. The 10 states with the lowest tax burden saw a 17% growth in personal income compared to the 10 states with the highest. The nine states with NO tax averaged job growth of 18.2%. Compare that with the nine highest taxed states which had a growth of 8.4% in 10 years.
(PDF here)
The lesson is that high taxes and strong public employee unions tend to stifle growth and produce a two-tier society like coastal California’s.
The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent.
The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent.
The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent.
Now some people say that low population growth is desirable. The argument goes that it reduces environmental damage and prevents the visual blight of sprawl.
But states and nations with slow growth end up with aging populations and not enough people of working age to generate an economy capable of supporting them in the style to which they’ve grown accustomed.
Slow growth is nice if you’ve got a good-sized trust fund and some nice acreage in a place like Aspen. But it reduces opportunity for those who don’t start off with such advantages to move upward on the economic ladder.
It’s common sense. Let everyone keep more of their money, so they can spend more, and employ more, while reducing the size of government. Paul Ryan’s plan does that, as David Brooks points out:
The best thing about the long-term budget proposal from Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, is that it forces Americans to confront the implications of their choices. If voters want taxes that amount to roughly 18 percent of G.D.P., then they are going to have to accept a government that looks roughly like what Ryan is describing.
The Democrats are on defense because they are unwilling to ask voters to confront the implications of their choices. Democrats seem to believe that most Americans want to preserve the 20th-century welfare state programs. But they are unwilling to ask voters to pay for them, and they are unwilling to describe the tax increases that would be required to cover their exploding future costs.
Raising taxes on the rich will not do it. There aren’t enough rich people to generate the tens of trillions of dollars required to pay for Medicare, let alone all the other programs. Democrats, thus, face a fundamental choice. They can either reverse President Obama’s no-new-middle-class-taxes pledge, or they can learn to live with Paul Ryan’s version of government.
Of course Brooks colleague only wants to talk about the Bush tax cuts:
Among other things, the latest budget deal more than wipes out any positive economic effects of the big prize Mr. Obama supposedly won from last December’s deal, a temporary extension of his 2009 tax cuts for working Americans. And the price of that deal, let’s remember, was a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, at an immediate cost of $363 billion, and a potential cost that’s much larger — because it’s now looking increasingly likely that those irresponsible tax cuts will be made permanent.
And Ace, in an especially good rant, is sick of it:
Let me risk embarrassment by taking a Krugman Number as the real number. That is a mistake right out of the box; he lies. But for the sake of convenience, let me pretend I think Krugman Numbers are real numbers and not imaginary ones like the square root of negative one.
$363 billion is about $181.5 billion per year, Krugman. Our deficit, per year, is $1.65 trillion, and that, I repeat, is just the deficit. (Actual government spending is about $3.7 trillion per year.)
Let’s go along with your proposal and just end those “Bush tax cuts.” (Notice, by the way, that I think he means the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, whereas the Bush tax cuts actually reduced taxes on the middle and lower classes too — but he calls that aspect of the tax cuts “his [Obama’s] 2009 tax cuts for working Americans.”)
Okay, so, hypothetically, the “Bush Tax Cuts” are now ended. Poof. That brings the yearly deficit from $1.65 trillion all the way down to… $1.468.5 trillion per year.
And what next, Krugman? You violently oppose any reduction in spending so you must have in mind either:
1) The simple collapse of government and the economy, or
2) Generating more revenue from somewhere else
Where else, Mr. Krugman? Where are you imagining you can get ten times the $181.5 billion per year you just heroically “saved” us?
And what next?
Maybe you’re thinking we should not just revert to Clinton levels of taxation on the rich, but increase them. Let’s say we jack up taxes on the rich even more, such that we bring in another $363 billion per hear.
Still over $1 trillion in hock per year, every year, year in, year out. Like the clockwork of a cheap alarm clock serving as the timer for a shrapnel-loaded terrorist bomb.
And what next?
Where are you going to get that $1 trillion+ per year? Please, you’re a smart man. Surely you must have some idea of where to get that money.
Surely you’re not just sitting there telling us that we cannot cut a dime from spending, but also cannot raise taxes any further, and therefore are simply arguing in favor of debt destroying the country in 10-15 years.
Surely you have some opinion on where another $1 trillion, per year, can be had from.
I understand what your Step One is. Obviously I understand Step One — it’s all you ever want to talk about.
What I’m really curious about is — what is Step Two, and what is Step Three? Oddly enough you suddenly get very quiet about those later steps.
Everyone knows what Step One. Stop f**king writing endlessly about Step One.
As Brooks wrote, it’s time to come to grips with reality. Cut spending…..period.
See author page
What little and anemic a ”recovery” we are having is only because Obama relented and kept in place the Bush tax cuts.
He really knows how to ruin an economy.
Even if a couple are both working modest jobs, say, teacher and paramedic, they can easily pull down $250,000/year.
Obama is NUTS to raise their taxes!
Maybe Obama is not nuts, maybe he is simply a socialist who meant every word he said to Joe the Plumber.
Yes, Mr President, please tax the rich. And then wave good-bye to American prosperity. Oh wait, that’s what he wants.
@Nan G:
I don’t believe he is crazy. His ideology is crazy, and makes no sense when one looks at it objectively. The very idea of progressive taxation, while a good intention in theory, is nothing more than punishment for success in practice. And the idea that somehow raising the higher income families’ taxes more, because they can afford it, shows nothing but the idea of punishing those who are more successful.
We aren’t talking about wealth, here. We are discussing income, which for most people, involves some kind of labor, and for some, both that and reward for ideas, or intellectual property. Still others gain income from the wealth they have acquired over time, and have put to use by companies in the form of capital, and thereby have gained, or lost, on the venture. Either way, the income is theirs. They earned it. The very idea that someone can tell another, that they must give up more of their income, or property, simply because they earned more and can afford it, is asinine. Ludicrous, really.
What right does anyone else have to another’s property? We conservatives allow that, in order to live where we live, we must give up portions of our income, so that we maintain emergency services and infrastructure, and that the federal government can pay for the defense of our property, and others’, by maintaining a standing military, and that certain essential functions of a government can continue to function. What we object to is the claim made by some people, to others’ property. We conservatives aren’t the ones advocating thievery, yet we get called evil. We aren’t the ones with the envy and jealousy, yet we get called corrupt. We aren’t the ones enslaving others to the machine of government, yet we are considered the scourge of humanity.
Actually, while I”m generally opposed to raising taxes, we’ve seen that it is better than taking on more and more debt.
If the liberals, and that includes Republicans, were forced to actually pay for their programs, we’d see every last liberal kicked out of Government.
Ivan, to point #2: Congress members do not “actually pay for their programs”. They delegate that honor to we peons, the US taxpayer…. and generally with a failing grade in basic Economics 101 and simple math.
To point #1: you call yourself a conservative? For shame.
And they wonder why we call them the “tax and spend” crowd. That seems to be all they really know how to do, concerning economics, and if they can take away a few freedoms and liberties while they are at it, all the better for them.
I’m surprised! some people get so exited about paying taxes, that they actually vote for these guys; are they on drugs?.. Must be. If a guy came to me and said “vote for me and ill raise your taxes!” I would be mad.
So strange..
@MataHarley:
I find his claims of being a Conservative to be very suspect. I recall another thread where he gave the dems a pass on spending and other things and ranted about the GOP. This was in spite of you showing how the dems had done far more of what he ranted about than the Republicans.
According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry.
The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite. They’re going to have to go after the non-rich……….
From Eat the Rich by Walter E. Williams.
One County Assessor in Tulsa has balked at a request from the U.S. Census Bureau for, get this, eight pieces of information, including the gross assessed value, owner’s name and annual tax bill for all parcels on Tulsa County’s 2009 assessment roles!
Go over to any on-line ObamaCare site and search for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provision to impose a 3.8% tax on real estate transactions.
Granted it only allows that 3.8% tax on real estate transactions IF the buyer is an individual earning more than $200,000 per year or a couple earning $250,000 per year,* but, since there is a stay on all of ObamaCare, why is the U.S. Census Bureau beginning to collect the data yet?
Oh, and what does the U.S. Census Bureau say about all of this?
U.S. Census Bureau spokesperson Tom Edwards claims that he was unaware of the letter in question.
In an email, Edwards said “there would be no way to ever attach that figure to any individual.”
REALLY????
The request asked for “the gross assessed value, owner’s name and annual tax bill.”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20110411_16_A11_CUTLIN441961
See also:
*http://www.factcheck.org/
Less time and effort needs to be spent on talks of whether or not to raise taxes. Instead, the government needs to talk with banks about reducing the ridiculous standards that are being placed upon those wishing to secure loans to buy new houses. As the real estate market recovers (by the banks allowing qualified homeowners with slight blemishes on their record to secure loans), the local governments will receive those taxes to help stimulate local economies, which adds jobs. I feel they are all (Republicans and Democrats) are going about stimulating the economy the wrong way.
This bunch in the WH reminds me of how insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
@John Evan Miller:
I agree with that. Raising taxes does nothing positive for the economy. For the economy, looking at ways to increase GDP is the answer, and the banking issue you raise is just one part of it.
Mata said:
Semantics. You know the House appropriates is.
How is it ethical, or “conservative” to spend money that:
A. You don’t have.
B. You fully expect future generations to pay for?
It’s not, Mata. It is plain evil to “borrow” money and then pass the buck to the next generation. Evil.
Conservatives should have railed against deficit spending as much as we’ve railed against higher taxes. Both are evil.
But hear me out on this point: If the libs actually had to raise taxes to pay for their programs, the true tax rate would be upwards of 95%. They would all be thrown out and we could then have a truly limited , small government.
You disagree or are you an advocate of deficit spending?
That did not happen to FDR, who was on his 4th term when he was replaced by yet another big spending Dem POTUS, Truman, for two more terms. Additionally, with the single exception of the 80th Congress, the Dems held both chamber majorities during both FDR and HST terms.
So what you envision seems to be more wishful thinking.
I know it’s wishful thinking. 75% of what is posted here is “wishful thinking”.
America is addicted to debt-both personally and politically. It will be-and is-the death of them.
Now, are you opposed to deficit spending like you are to tax increases?
Ivan, I don’t function on wishes, lollipops and pumpkin carriages. Like Rummy, I prefer to go to war with the army we have and whip them into shape (or replace them at the next opportunity), and not dwell on the army I wish we had. I would also not expect the fledgling brigade, on their first deployment, to win the entire war in their first single battle. But I would keep the whip cracking close, handy and often. If they didn’t get on board with the agenda and improve, I’d be demanding replacements.
I don’t know why you keep asking dumb questions. You’re not new here. You are well aware that I am opposed to Congress spending more than they anticipate taking in. I am also opposed to “balanced budget” amendments. That’s a trick law for them to spend, then use a Constitutional mandate to increase taxes. What I am in favor of is a budget limit being imposed, with that limit controlled by anticipated tax revenues projected, based on the economic trends.
Hard Right says: 8
Yes, I hold the Republicans/Conservatives to a higher standard than I do the liberals. Yes, when a liberal does something stupid I just roll my eyes and think nothing of it due to my low expectations of them. When a Republican does something stupid, like they did with this “budget cut”, I feel like losing my mind because it reminds me how far we’ve come from the days of Reagan.
I don’t expect you to understand because you spend half, in not more, of your waking life here on FA apologizing and rationalizing the Republican betrayal of their beliefs.
Have a good night, HR.
MataHarley says: 18
Oh really? You could fool me by some of your comments-like your Pollyanna/fantasy comments about Fukushima.
Hmmm…starting to sound like an excuse is coming up….
Survey says….NEGATIVE/WRONG.
Who the phuck do you think you’re talking to? Boehner, aka “cry baby” has been in congress TWENTY YEARS. “Fledgling” brigade. What a hoot! If, after TWENTY YEARS, you’re troops don’t know how to walk and chew gum at the same time you can pretty much call it quits.
Considering you have already stated you’d always vote Republican no matter what, they have no reason to preform any differently than they have.
People like you, and especially “Harright” are enablers.