http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/…
Boehner apparently needs to get the ok from a fat drug addicted moron before sharing the GOP's plan with the Rs in the House.
Have we hit rock bottom?
Trending Content
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
April 30, 2024
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
Kinda like the Dems claiming $1T based on the ending of the wars..haha what a joke. Both are just kicking the can down the road...
Its a bit childish to use that kind of language we all know you are a bleeding heart liberal. It is just stupid to spew crap like this when this is no different then what Obama does when he goes on CNN or MSNBC. He is going on media outlets that perdominately have similar viewpoints to what he has. Boehner just wanted to get his idea out and see how other conservative icons fell about it.
...are you retarded?
+1, terrible analogy. That would be like Obama calling Rachel Maddow for advice or permission. Rednecks would choke on their dipspit.
Wow, what a hilarious post. Keep supporting your boy who thinks increasing taxes during a recession/slow recovery is a good idea. Glad to know you support robbing people just because you think you know better than they do.
You do not.
I second that
I wouldn't call Rush Limbaugh a conservative. Like Glenn Beck, he is basically a glorified morning-zoo entertainer who plays a conservative on the radio. Anybody who pimped for unconstitutional, illegal executive wars, in my book, is not a conservative.
Sad that Boehner has to kowtow to that ilk but the guy's got 20 million listeners.
Boehner completely dominated tonight. Obama does nothing but try and portray life as if the government is Robin Hood, protecting the helpless citizens from the evil rich and business men.
When Boehner said "not going to happen" I started cheering in the gym.
Republicans FINALLY have a ball sack and are willing to play hardball. Bravo.
Obama tried to play the populist card in and out of the negotiations but with the majority of the american people opposed to raising the debt ceiling, the GOP is in the catbird seat on this one. Frankly, Joe Sixpack does not give a shit about CAPM or the US treasurys complex so all this bullshit about supposed financial chaos from a default means nothing to him. He was fed the same line of bullshit during the 2008 plunder of the public treasury to cover the bets of BB prop desks. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
I think it's more of a feeler type thing. If he called Rush and then immediately canceled it, that's different. But it may just be gauging the reaction to it. Hell, I would call people I respect if I was gonna present something that affected everyone. Washington DC is so liberal you probably can't get a good feel as to what the American people think.
Also, all Obama has to do is go outside and ask a random person in DC- they are all liberal. The people in the mainstream media are...ALL LIBERAL. When you're in a bubble of liberal-ness it's hard to see outside and se what America wants.
heister is not retarded. Retarded are the people like you and me who still read this and try to share the other viewpoints besides the obvious fascism that dominates this site. It's the equivalent of teaching algebra to a dog. No matter how you approach it, all he'll do is bark.
Fascism ahahhahahahaha
50% of the people pay nothings and receive benefits because the other 50% pay. Democrats are not happy with this and want to milk the people more. That sounds like fascism to me.
Sorry, cut spending. 1/3rd someones hard earned money is good enough. Lay off government workers, shut down government agencies, do more with less.
I wanted to puke listening to Obama. All he ever does is try and play the poor against the rich card. The poor pay nothing and get a lot. They might not be driving range rovers, but the richest nation has the richest poor. The economy is in a tough spot and we finally need to tackle the deficit. You do this by cutting spending. Once the economy comes back tax receipts will increase. This is not the time to milk the hard working Americans for additional taxes.
Beohner was short, sweet and to the point. Obama yammered on and on, same old political bullshit.
Let's not pretend for one second that cutting government expenditures is somehow going to make our economy take off. It's just as recessionary as raising taxes, the cutting of which is the main reason we are at this point in the first place.
Quite frankly it's embarassing that you have politicians deferring to guys like Rush. Dude dropped out of Southeast Missouri State. He may control much of our country's public opinion, but anyone who takes him seriously should be ashamed of themselves. Same goes for Hannity (NYU dropout) or Beck (didn't go to college). It's not about being a prestige whore, it's about demanding that guys who are going to pontificate on everything under the sun have at least a modicum of academic credentials. Hannity ranting about Obama's "class warfare" as he targets the top 2% of the country is laughable.
1) Beohner was not deferring to anyone. Rush is a well followed, conservative talk show host and Beohner was getting the message out. Nothing more, nothing less.
2) Who gives a shit if he dropped out? What does college education have to do with anything. Attitudes like that are why Democrats think they can control other people. Why they think they know better.
A college education gives you a narrow intelligence. You are not magically smart. People really need to pull their head out of their ass. It is comical how elitist some people think they are because they have a piece of paper on the wall.
And to think the Dems are tying to reach the middle class.
Democrats are the party of the rich who like to control and the poor who will live on their knees vs being free citizens.
Cutting government employees and spending will release a drag on this country. Every dollar I send to Washington to be wasted is a dollar I cannot invest or spend. If you think the government does anything but suck the life out of things you are horrible mistaken.
It literally blows my mind that people don't think 30% of your income is enough.
God asks for 10% tithing., Uncle Sam wants 3x that. Kiss my ass.
30% is still utter robbery. I think the top tax bracket should decrease to 25%.
Dude, my father pays 50% in London. Beat that..
Ever occur to you that you are getting ass fucked by the government. What ANT is trying to say is why should anyone have to pay 30% of their money when they only recieve about 7% of their wages in direct services, if you include indirect services such as national defense and security its like 11%. Where does the rest of the money go? The Constution clearly states that the governments sole responsibilities are to provide national infastructure and national defense. No where does it even hint at providing a nice living for poor people, health care for old people, retirement for old people, services for disabled people, ect ect. Im not saying that these are terrible things to provide, I am saying that these are a growth of government. Also the tax rates need to be cut to 0% and then the government needs to go broke so it can be changed. Washington has never had a revenue problem, if washington get $1 they have more then enough. To even suggest that this deficit is a revenue problem is a joke, if they didnt spend more then they took in it wouldnt be a problem now would it?
It would be one things if these guys were college dropouts and were smart. But they're not. They're career media personalities who couldn't hack it in school. It has nothing to do with me being elitist and all to do with me seeing dudes make up the most inane, idiotic and manipulative stuff I have ever heard.
ANT, you're so woefully beholden to your ideology, it's mesmerizing. The Republicans are as much to blame as the Democrats for this whole mess. I was worried about the deficit back in 2003 when we went into a massive war after cutting taxes and I bet a lot of the guys on this board magically became austerians after Obama's election. It's unreal how many pseudo-deficit hawks popped out of the woodwork in the last few years.
The Republican party hasn't been the party of the free in a long, long time. Most of today's House Republicans are as vile and corrupt as the people who nominated Barry Goldwater. The Democrats are spineless, pandering and just as useless as the guys across the aisle.
Washington is a joke. Corporations bought it long ago and they managed to trick nearly half the people into believing that they somehow shared their interests with a horribly deformed version of classical economics and pseudo-libertarianism.
Washington is a joke, I will agree with you there, but only one party is making this a class war and trying to increase taxes.
I still do not understand how companies own Washington anymore than individuals. Obama spoke at La Raza the other day and was obviously pandering to them when it comes to immigration. NRA represents my opinions and beliefs and do a good job. I really don't see how companies dominate anything.
I love how La Raza ate his shit up even though he hasn't done jack on immigration like he said he would.
I don't know why the president is even talking to La Raza. The US has no issue with Mexicans legally immigrating, just like everyone other country. The problem is La Raza is not an American organization, but an organization that supports allowing illegal immigration.
If a boat load of Italians illegally washed on shore I would be the first kicking them back home. But that is because I am an American and love my home nation. Unfortunately certain immigrant groups don't want to assimilate and luckily they have a President who is more than happy to keep allowing people to ILLEGALLY enter this country.
The mice will play when the cats away.
Opps.
Anyone that supports legal immigration for everyone and is against illegally entering a country is a fascist pig.
Sorry. I support fairness and legality. I am horrible
:(
wow since when does the tea party hang out on WSO? you guys fucking disgust me
Since when were vaginas allowed on WSO?
looks like we've got a badass here
Wow, being against illegal immigration is wrong? I didn't realize that the USA was the only nation not allowed to have a border.
I suppose it is fair that everyone else in the world has to go through a formal process to immigrate, but because someone lives within close proximity that excludes them from what everyone else does.
Man, I didn't realize Mexico was superior to all other nations in the fact that they don't have to obey the rules that others follow.
Sorry pal, this is adult time, no 5 year old logic allowed.
Asking 2% of Americans to pay more taxes is not "class warfare." We're one standard deviation away from the mean top tax rate since 1913, and the top 2% did just fine before the Bush tax cuts. I don't even care to have the tax rate raised. But there are plenty of loopholes to close, whether it be carried interest or the myriad ways corporations avoid paying taxes. I'm very much in favor or raising revenue without increasing rates. That many people find that unacceptable is a testament to the sway corporations hold on Washington and much of public opinion.
+1 to supporting legal immigration and being against illegal immigration though. There are demographic benefits to be reaped from immigration, all the more so if these people are to pay taxes and contribute to social security.
Both parties suck. A party system only promotes apathy and laziness amongst the voting public with no due diligence done towards the party representative.
Any increase on the top 2% will only nominally encroach upon the pattern of deficit spending over the next 10 years as it is scheduled to increase over current levels by approx. $7.8T even with the proposed $2.7T in cuts. (Mind you these are not cuts to the current annual budget spending levels but reductions to proposed spending increases over the same period.) Impacting the income of the top 2% is fools folly and pandering to political class warfare, nothing more. Absolutely agree on the closing of loopholes. Should be a flat tax system, but can't have it all.
+1 on illegal immigration reform as it serves a defined need. However if you know 50% of the pop. does not pay taxes, do you honestly believe there is a tax revenue benefit to this demographic given the current tax structure? They can't avoid Social Security taxes but I doubt the vast majority pay anything net in federal income taxes.
So because someone isn't going to miss it, 2% is cool?
If someone has 5 TV's is taking 1 ok?
Sorry, robbing someone because they wont miss the money doesn't fly in my world. The poor don't pay taxes. The poor get plenty of services. The rich and all the rest of us pay plenty. Enough is enough.
We have the highest corporate tax rate. I have 3 10-q's on my floor with companies paying 27-35% taxes.
We need to stop spending. The bleeding heart is killing us.
Glad you see my point on immigration. Too many people go insane when anyone questions peoples "right" to come to the US.
Their counter is always that illegals do the work Americans don't want to, cheaper than American's want.
1) Migrants do the work and they are documented workers which is fine
2) Saying that illegal immigration is good because we can use them as slave labor is disgusting ethics.
That's where we differ. The Tea Party and the American Revolution were about "No Taxation Without Representation," not the "No Taxation" cry we hear today. I have no beef with everyone paying taxes, but let's not pretend that higher rates for the top 2% won't do vastly more to reduce our deficit than higher rates for the bottom 20%. Spending cuts will disproportionately affect lower incomes, one could accuse the Republicans of engaging in just as much "class warfare" as the Democrats. The main reason we have such a large deficit is decreased tax revenues. Not attempting to raise these for ideological reasons is foolish.
As far the the corporate tax rates, loopholes need to be closes and the rate lowered to encourage corporations to pay it. The current system is basically asking corporations to avoid paying taxes.
Its both a revenue and expenditure problem. The incredible spending done by Obama over the past few years was astounding, however, we were in the middle of the biggest recession in 90 years, it was entirely justified and Republicans would have done the exact same thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
The hysterical thing about the Tea Party is that the original Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxes levied on the colonies to subsidise the trading of the East India Company. In other words, they were protesting against tax subsidies for big business. When was the last time you saw an anti-corporate subsidy/tax breaks sign at a Tea Party rally? Pretty funny if you think about it....
Hold on. The tea Party isn't advocating no taxation. If anything a 30% tax bracket is definitely taxation. Everyone quotes "after 1913 this is within one standard deviation of the top tax bracket". But what was it before then? Yea...0%.
We have taxation and it is around 30%.
2% more might be small, but it is still wrong. We have decreased revenue because we are coming out of a recession/slow growth economy. Raising taxes for the top 2% will not do anything to fix the deficit. It will make people cheer as if the rich are doing something wrong.
Spending should be cut, flat out. It can scale back up when the deficit is reduce and/or tax revenue increases when the economy comes around. Being poor sucks, but the government is not a parent.
Increasing taxes on the rich simply because they have extra money is wrong. Why not just take all of their money or limit people to only $1MM. The government could just "tax" away their wealth and fix the deficit.
Same logic, just amplified for effect. Wrong is wrong, small or large.
Before we do anything, we should really restructure the tax brackets.
^^
fucking bracket creep is what pisses me off the most. i'm making north of 6 figures but where i live that doesn't make me rich. far from it. though i'm being taxed at a higher rate than what the rockefellers were paying.
as one of the founders said, republics are finished when the government realizes it can bribe the public with its own money.
i don't give a shit whether it is the military industrial complex or the welfare complex looting my cash. i'd like to see them both shut down, but let's face it:
NEITHER PARTY ACTUALLY WANTS TO SHRINK GOVERNMENT, THEY JUST WANT TO REARRANGE IT TO ENABLE DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS OF THIEVES TO LOOT IT
I haven't seen an ANT rant in a while. I've missed them. WSO is too quiet without ANT stirring the pot once in a while.
This crisis has nothing to do with ideology. I think everyone can agree that Washington is broken.
Here is an excerpt from an article from The Atlantic, from former GOP congressman Mickey Edwards, regarding the division in Washington.
This is in essence the problem with Washington today.
It is not concerned with governing.
It is not concerned with nation building.
It is not concerned with fighting wars.
It is not concerned with promoting good economic policy.
It is not concerned with passing laws with the public's best interest in mind.
It is not concerned with listening to the constituents.
It is not concerned with any particular ideology.
Washington is concerned with one and only one thing, and that is party advantage and power. That is it. Each party is concerned only with consolidating its own power, and cares not a wit about anything else. I'd bet that both parties could swap positions over night, and their GOALS would remain the same: elect more of their own. Not to push for a particular ideology or to protect American's best interests, but to bow to their party bosses wishes to continue to consolidate power.
It really is a shame too. These guys are playing a game of chicken with our credit rating. Perhaps its for the best though...
For the record for those unaware the 50% is levied on those earning £150k or more. Scandalous and certainly has affected the incoming foreign investment within the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8604215.stm
For those ignorant (as I'm not aware of the tax situation in the US), is it simply one tax bracket that everyone falls under or is the system similar to the UK, where tax brackets are applied dependant on yearly earnings?
The rates rise as income goes up, however since those who pay in close to 17% and under get more back then what they pay in it essentially starts at those paying 22% and up being the actuall tax payers.
50% is mind boggling. I am all for paying taxes. I like the idea of government and collective money for the greater good. I just think anything more than 1/3 what you earn is horrible. I earned the money. I worked for it. I know how to spend it.
People are all for raising taxes on people under guise that they won't miss the money. That fails my ethical test. It also ignores the charity that most wealthy people partake in. The evil billionaires like Ted Turner, Bill Gates, etc who are giving their money away.
I also think a third is grossly under estimating how much we truly do pay in taxes. Everything is taxed. When you add it up normal earners probably pay closer to 40%.
Saying "it's worse" in x country doesn't justify it in another. Hell, Robert Mugabe at one point hyper inflated the currency and became a dictator. That doesn't mean that QE10000 and a military state in America is just.
Ant, how I've missed your rants my friend.
So, people are actually defending calling Limbaugh first? It doesn't matter what side you're on, it's pathetic.
If Obama called Lawrence "I'm an Owl" O'Donnell before sharing his plan on the air last night, he'd be torn to shreds as a left wing media puppet.
How blind to ideology must one be to defend this sort of stupid shit? It has literally nothing to do with your position!
Only one blind is you. Beohner didn't ask for Rush's advice, he called him so Rush would let the message out to 20MM people who are conservative supporters. It is like Obama calling Huffpo and giving them the heads up on something.
A congressmen contacted a newsource, wow.
I'm preeeeety sure Rush would get the word out to his listeners if he heard it second-hand after Boehner shared it with his conference. Don't know that Rush needed to hear it first in order for this to happen.
This isn't Boehner calling up Rush to say "hey, I'm going to endorse Romney and I wanted you to be the first to know so you can be ahead of the news," this is him sharing a plan to avert default with Rush before his own party. Absolutely no reason for him to have done this.
And shit, he could have absolutely shared it with Rush before ANY OTHER news source. The key issue is that he did it BEFORE sharing it with fellow members of Congress.
Again, you can defend the shit out of the far right stance on the debt ceiling, but defending this kind of shit is troubling.
I want to preface this by saying I am not a Democrat or a Republican - I am a moderate pragmatic person, who values fairness as well compassion.
I want to pretend for a second that we did exactly what the Republicans would like and cut taxes and spending (in a big way) on medicare, medicaid, and poverty relief programs - ill tell you exactly what would happen, the poor in this country would suffer, terribly. Many people would be homeless and starving, there would be a huge rise in crime, in all likelihood there would be riots and the very wealthy would be in danger for their lives.
Rather than have that quite ugly scenario I believe some social programs are a necessity if not for compassion, then to prevent social unrest. I think 30% taxes are a small price to pay to protect your well-being and keep law and order - just look at Greece and some other states in Europe. We are lucky in this country that there is a heritage of small government (unlike European countries), but we should realize social programs serve a very important purpose besides what bleeding heart liberals believe, which is that they pacify the masses.
In conclusion, I don't think closing loopholes in the tax code that protect the wealthiest citizens should even be a debate, forcing the poorest citizens to bear a bigger burden, pushes the country closer and closer to a situation like Greece, where people are rioting.
Not sure where to start...
Greece is in this because tax evasion is a national sport and the unions have the government by the balls to the point where they literally cannot pass an auterity package. The US is no where near this point and will never get there so don't kid yourself. Greece was always the white elephant in the room in Europe, they got admitted to the eurozone because Goldman Sachs used swaps to hide their true budget deficit (seriously, look it up, it was brilliant financial ingenuity). They have always had a poor fiscal position.
Lol this reminds me of what the liberals said Clinton's welfare reform would do. You know what happened? The amount of people living below the poverty line DECREASED. Hmmm...imagine that. Once off the government teat the people uplifted themselves.
That had more to do with the economy...
And Germany is in the situation they are in, and much of Scandinavia, BECAUSE of entitlements and big government!... oh wait...
You guys need to accept the fact that there is no "right or wrong" in acceptable level of taxation. Unless you are advocating for absolutely zero taxation (which is impossible for obvious reasons), it's all based upon your subjective values.
ANT here, who is probably one of the most ardent zealots against taxation, says that 25% is the acceptable level of taxation and anything above that is theft. On the other hand, a bleeding lib might think that 50% is the acceptable level. Well ANT, what logical reasons are there that makes 25% "right" other than that it's the level that feels fair to you?
I definitely see your point. I think what is acceptable is up to one's own political leanings.
I'll bite. I'm not sure what your definition of theft is, but mine is when you are taxed at a rate that is more than 30% and that money is then given to entitlement funding...that is clearly theft by rational thinking. The reason that equates to theft, in my opinion, is because of the inefficiencies in the government we have. If taxes were to be raised by say 5%, I'd be ok with that if it went 100% to debt/deficits. Otherwise you're throwing good money at bad money.
I choose to live in the USA because it is not socialist. If I wanted to be socialist, I'd move to Europe. Socialism is a failed way that has been proven as such time and time again.
Its not theft if when you are old you use Medicare and collect social security. Actual welfare is a small part of the problem, you seem to think that you won't use Medicare or SS one day.
I love (actually hate) how so many people are incensed that 50% of Americans didn't pay taxes but don't mention companies like GE that don't pay a dime in corporate profits. It's like individuals not paying taxes is the mark of scum but corporations avoiding taxes is a source of pride.
The bottom 50% of Americans own 2.5% of the wealth, and .5% of all stocks and bonds. But yeah, lets tax them more.
You can thank Democrats for that. These people vote for a living while I work.
Not more. Taxed at all.
According to your statistics, you'd advocate penalizing savers or those with the ability to save and reward spendthrifts or those who chose not to or are unable to save. Good job. 10 to 1 odds your opinion will change as you make more.
I love (actually hate)... see what I did there... when casual observers take a limited example/political rhetoric and post it on websites as their own original demagoguery. Your assessment is both narrow minded and absent of a mininal understanding on any conceptual basis. No one identified the 50% as scum. It was an indictment on the lack of equality within the tax code not those favorably affected by not having to pay in to it.
GE has in the past paid federal taxes as well as, as the tax code allows, utilized sustained losses in previous tax years as credits carried over in an effort to reduce thier tax liability. Accompanied other tax incentives and tax neutral projects they have in certain years avoided an annual tax liability on pretax income, but not avoided in any way taxes on employee payroll, social security, property taxes, etc. As previously stated I disagree with the tax loopholes that are in effect and would love to see them eliminated, but this relative to 50% of citizenry not paying into the coffer is completely different and apples to proverbial oranges.
Additionally, as it has been well debated, corporations as opposed to individuals simply pass tax liabilities along to consumers in one way or another. Any tax levied on a revenue generating entity will be met with an offset in price increases to the consumer so long as the market will bare. Otherwise cost containment measures will be taken to replace the new tax liability with savings in operational expenses often at the sacrifice of personnel, impediment to R&D and/or the eventual revenue of a third party.
I've been saying this over and over on this site. SB for you.
The issue that people have is that GE employs an army of tax accountants and lawyers that effectively allow them to pay nothing in tax. Is it legal, sure, it is ethical, maybe, do people have a right to be pissed about it, yeah. It really does not come across all that well when most families are struggling and the biggest american companies are effectively buying themselves a 0% tax bill.
Wow, nothing like picking one company out and applying to to all corporations. The US has the highest corporate tax rate.
FYI, this is a finance site. Maybe if you cracked open a 10K you would actually see how much taxes US companies pay.
Also, you can thank environmental credits, hire American incentives as well as a host of other government promoted activities which helped make this "zero" tax balance.
GE contributes immensely to the US. Their taxes are the smallest benefit they provide to this country.
Wealth is nothing more than savings. The poor might not be able to save, but the middle class cashed out their homes to live beyond their means which ate up their wealth.
So sick of hearing all these excuses. People have been saving since the dawn of time, but all of a sudden having a negative savings are is kosher. Yeah right.
Also, to your "lowered tax rate". The reason the so demonized "loopholes" exist is to provide incentives for corporations to do certain things. Invest in clean tech, provide 401ks, provide HC. A key lynchpin of liberal tactics is to force people to do something. Hell, if the corporate tax rate is lowered enough (approaching 0) by all means get rid of the loopholes. Bt how would you be able to force companies to do what the government wants?
Companies will move and then people will complain that they are leaving. Action and reaction.
God forbid the government became more agile, more efficient. We expect everything else in life to be efficient, yet the government pissed money away and we want to give it more.
The corporate income tax rate is just a number posted to placate the average joes to make it look like companies pay taxes. The reality is that companies pay little to no taxes for the most part. I am an advocate of a 0% corporate tax rates, that will never happen because people would revolt even though the reality is not much different then 0%. The loop hole are created to get companies to do things and also lower their taxes to make the US more competitive. What people fail to realize is that companies pay huge amounts of taxes related to things out side of their profits, so its not like they are just not paying any taxes at all.
Bravo Ragner.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/07/26/ge_moving_x_ray_busi…
Yeah, companies are gonna move en masse if you raise the tax rate to unsustainable levels. You know why people don't say cose loopholes, because they benefit the plans that Washington is purporting. If you can't see that you are blind.
How is GE paying nothing an issue? Families struggling to get by are paying no taxes also. GE EMPLOYEES an army of people. They need to to navigate the complicated tax system we have. GE also takes advantage off all the incentives the government has added. They build wind turbines, they hired people during this past recession, etc.
GE is one company. Kaiser Aluminum has an effective tax rate of 50%. PNC Financial has a tax rate of 27%.
What taxes do is take money from people and use it in a way that buys votes. People would donate that money, invest it, spend it, but all in ways that are not controlled by the government.
Those that say the poor aren't bearing any burden in this economy are out of touch with reality. We are at 9.2% unemployment, food costs are rising, and real wages haven't increased in years. To top it off, interest rates are so low that savers are punished. And if you don't have access to the stock and bond markets, then sucks for you. I'm pretty sure the poor are bearing the biggest real burden of all.
"but...but, the family making $15k a year isnt paying enough taxes!"
I wish this level of passion and vigor for fiscal conservatism existed when we were bailing out the banks. We might have actually done that the right way instead of simply handing over trillions to the banks with no strings attached. I fail to see how someone can argue with a straight face that we need to end programs that "incentivize poor people to be poor" while they stand behind the bailouts, which explicitly told the banks that helped crater the global economy that they could enjoy capitalism when they made profits, and socialism when they made losses. I've been on this site and argued this shit long enough to know that this is true for several of the pro-boehner posters in this thread, and I think it's a disgrace.
The answer is within your prose. GE must employe an army to realize a reduction in taxes on profits. So what is the cost to GE, more importanatly what profits are sacrificed to aleviate its tax obligation? I'll put it to you this way. Would you rather pay your accountant $2k and owe nothing, or pay $3k to the IRS?
The flaw in you statement is you assume those you've addressed were in favor of bank bailouts. Most weren't. Most are staunch free marketers who know without a doubt the failing of one institution brought on by poor operating practices is the next buying opportunity for a sound institution waiting in the wings. The government cheated well run institutions from realizing buying opportunities. Not to mention the positions and practices brought on by government regulations that prompted the bailouts in the first place.
But I digress, what I most taken by within your response is your lack of apparent understanding by the standard of living amongst those defined as poor in our country. You do realize that the poverty level in our nation for a family of four is defined as those earning below $22k. Mind you that you do not need to dip to that income level to be eligible for government assistant programs, you must only identify the need and apply appropriately.
I am looking for the report but cannot find it so I'll do my best from memory and post it later on, but in 2008 a family of four making under $36,000 had the same level of disposable income after government assistance programs (i.e., WiC, Food Stamps, Medical Card, Medicare, Child tax credits, AMT, and subsidized housing) as a single individual (renting, employer paid insurance and a 5% pretax contribution with match into a 401k) making $65k after taxes. Income discrepancies of 30k with 3 more people to care for and nearly equal amounts of disposable income... something is wrong there.
The poor in this country are not poor by most countries standards, but there will always be poor regardless of philanthropy or good will. My contention is it is better left to each of us, charitable organizations, and religious outfits for care for the disadvantaged than to through lazy practice of sending in money through taxes, trust it is used appropriately and not suspect to manipulation/construct of a dependent voting base.
I'll ask you because you seem so apt to point it out to the rest, but when is the last time you did something for someone disadvantaged, unemployed, or poor? I'm not referring to spare change given to a peddler. Its not the governments job to care for your fellow man, and they can never be as efficient as one good deed by any one person in a random act of kindness.
Who is saying the poor should pay taxes? If you think 50% of this country is poor you have no clue about how distributions work.
I think what everyone who agrees with me is saying is that the poor pay nothing and really shouldn't be complaining about the rich getting a slight tax cut. When you get something for free you don't complain about what the person buying it for you buys themselves.
Poverty level in the US is a relative measurement, that's true enough (roughly 60% less than the median household income). So you rank order everyone, pick the person in the middles income and 40% of that or below is impoverished. The US has historically been in the 12-18% range by this definition. This only tells the story about income inequality from the middle to the bottom. The mean income in the US is about 40% higher than the median and if you used that as your starting point and set the bar at 40% of the mean, you'd have a much higher poverty rate that would much more accurately align with what all the academic class models say which is that low+working class in this country is between 45% and 55% depending on which definition you use. So if you use the poverty line definition it's in the teens and you are looking at households making ~21 grand a year but imagine being in a household of 4 people on 30 or 35 grand a year total. Sounds pretty poor to me and meets my bar of having very low economic security and barely able to meet basic needs. If you bar is living in a mud hut eating termites to ward off starvation then that isn't poor.
Seeing as I don't post much on WSO anymore and I have street cred to maintain around here maybe YOU don't understand distributions but maybe you'll get to that in your second semester of your Nth tier MBA program (get it, since your school is so bad it doesn't even get a tier). In all seriousness Ant you might want to get this screed of yours to start making you money. With your retail banker background plus your rhetoric you could do dynamite business as a loan officer or financial adviser to Tea Party supporters.
It is like me buying you tissues for all the crying you do and when I buy myself puffs with lotion you complain about the free ones I just bought.
@ragnar:
I've had the debate about the bailouts so many times on this site with users such as ANT defending them as necessary and arguing that he didn't care if the bankers who made the losses had no strings attached. I single him out only because he's the most colorful and memorable character in the debates on this topic that I've had.
My point wasn't even just about users on this forum by any stretch of the imagination. It's about leaders in Congress who stood by and signed blank checks and absurd bailouts into law. Where was their outrage and righteous indignation then?
I misunderstood your intent. My apologies.
Companies pay corporate taxes for the right to do business in the United States and for protection by the United States military and legal system. Companies located in the US enjoy quick access to the biggest consumer market in the world, a non-corrupt legal system, and protection of their assets by the most powerful military in the world. If they are unwilling to pay corporate taxes for that, then they are free to move elsewhere. You are suggesting the corp tax rate should be 0%, but why should corporations not have to pay for the same military that protects their assets as protects mine, or the same roads that they need to drive on to deliver goods?
B/c without the corporations there would be no tax base. Companies are comprised of tax paying citizens. No companies, no tax paying citizens. You are going down a very dangerous road with that line of reasoning that inevitably ends in fascism. All at the will of the government.
I can assure you, were the governments lack of infrastructure to become an impediment to a businesses ability to conduct business, that business will invest accordingly. Be it railroads, private air fields or roadways with tolls for non corporate usage. You forget that the interstate system as we know it did not always exist, not until Eisenhower. Before then, railways moved the vast majority of freight and infrastructure was owed privately and land was leased. The interstate system was developed to improve interstate commerce, not create it. By the by, it killed the rail industry which some will continue to argue as a much more efficient means of transport.
Costs are passes through to consumers. What about that is hard to understand. GE isn't a monolithic giant that is trying to avoid taxes to build a castle. It is a collection of shareholders looking to maximize their value. If GE all of a sudden decides to pay taxes it could otherwise not pay, investors would sell their shares and invest in companies that maximize value.
How hard is this to understand.
On a micro level, would you loan money to someone who told you they were going to double it and then just donate it to charity?
How did bankers not get hurt? Whole banks failed and large amounts were laid off. You make it sound like only the banks were at fault when in reality the blame was with everyone. Sorry if I dont give the janitor who looked the other way and bought a mansion a free pass. It was a circle of fault.
Dudes sweating my junk all the time.
Ive been very transparent about myself pal, maybe you should be transparent mr bigshot.
And what street cred on this site are you talking about hahaha
1.) Limbaugh's drug issues happened 10 years ago. Maybe it is time to move on from that issue, just like Republicans got over Monica Lewinski. 2.) It is interesting how far the political pendulum has swung to the conservative side. There's now a consensus that all we need are spending cuts.
3.) The Democrats have compromised a whole lot more than the Republicans and the Tea Party for that matter. The Tea Party hasn't budged for the most part. 4.) I've seen establishment Republican plans and establishment Democrat plans. What I haven't seen is Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul try to sit down and hammer out a bill. We need to encourage them to do this.
Establishment Republicans need to put a bill up for a vote in the House and Senate. Same with Establishment Democrats. Finally, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich need to be given the opportunity to put up their own bill. Obama needs to cut off social security and medicare payments and stop paying bills to congressional districts that don't vote for a certain number of bills.
If you voted these uncompromising idiots into office, you should take the hit when the government can't pay its bills.
As a matter of principle, I don't think the Dems should keep caving until the Tea Party gets what it's been asking for all along. There needs to be some progress towards compromise from the Tea Party side. They got 1 house of congress- just barely. The American public supports a political compromise and Dems get it that a government shutdown would be bad. It doesn't seem like the Tea Party gets it.
I don't think one person thinks a government shutdown wouldn't be bad. The controversy lies on that magical August 2nd date...
I am at least glad that the hot iron has been pushed up the governments ass. I wish the rating agencies would crank up the pressure.
Cut Cut Cut the budget. Just think of how much waste and overlap there is. Cut it to the bone. When things are pushed to the extreme you get real change. Glad to see the Republicans stepping up. The Tea Party has brought about a much needed change. Bravo.
The only people who think the Tea Party are doing a noble thing are people in the Tea Party.
Even the WSJ editiorial section thinks the Tea Party is insane.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240531119035911045764700619868374…
I think they are great. Sorry, but people have cried for a third party forever and now you actually have a viable third party and people piss and moan.
The Tea Party is pretty anti wallstreet so I consider the WSJ shitting on them to be an honor.
You know what is insane? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Democrats are all about spending and taxing and the Republicans have lost their way. The Tea Party has brought them back in line and put the fear of God in them .
God bless.
A viable third party would be a party in the mold of Hamilton, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike and Nelson Rockefeller, moderate Republicans so to speak. Instead we've got a few clowns somewhere to the right of the Republicans. The Tea Party brought the debt to the forefront our political debate but their contempt for the party they joined to get elected is shameful. Seeing things like the Gang of Six plan get scuttled by those clowns should infuriate every American with half a brain.
I thought I'd mention an interesting take on how we can avoid getting downgraded. There is a lot of material here and what I've read has been excellent: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/theres-only-one-way-to-avoid-dow…
[quote=GoodBread]A viable third party would be a party in the mold of Hamilton, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike and Nelson Rockefeller, moderate Republicans so to speak. Instead we've got a few clowns somewhere to the right of the Republicans. The Tea Party brought the debt to the forefront our political debate but their contempt for the party they joined to get elected is shameful. Seeing things like the Gang of Six plan get scuttled by those clowns should infuriate every American with half a brain.
I thought I'd mention an interesting take on how we can avoid getting downgraded. There is a lot of material here and what I've read has been excellent: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/theres-only-one-way-to-avoid-dow…]
This is stupid. Every third party in the last few decades has been to the right of the Republicans. Remember Ross Perot? This movement is almost identical. You don't like it because the Democrats are scared this time. The media assassinates any viable candidate/ party that is not akin to their liberal ideas. If every Republican that was fiscally conservative was as stupid and as racist and as much of a Christian zealot as the media painted them they would die like turkeys- drowning with their mouths open looking at the sky.
The Tea Party is the only party/group that has a viable way to save this country fiscally. They are not advocating God in school, teaching ID/creationism. They are advocating a balanced budget and sound fiscal behavior. People are being influenced by the media on here and in the country. Even with there headwinds more and more people are waking up to the fact that the way we are going is a path to a US armageddon. The Tea Party says don't raise the debt ceiling? Will we default...? No. It's an immediate balanced budget.
But the Democrats are scared of that. Not because they are against America or fiscal soundness, but because it means they will have lost. They will go back to their liberal constituents with their tails between their legs and be voted out. If this was 4 years ago I think that it would be resolved since the Tea Party would hold the Republicans and the Democrats would love to F over Bush. What's gonna happen is that the Democrats are gonna cave. Plain and simple. Because not raising the debt ceiling is what the Tea Party wants. The Republicans are willing to raise the debt limit and have the massive cuts the Tea Party wants, but the Dems don't like that. They would rater essentially give the Tea Party what they want but try to shift the blame of the aftermath on the Republicans.
We are getting downgraded. Period. If they cooperate, the blame will be mitigated across all. If they don't the Democrats can claim a small victory- but will get none of the rewards when the plan works. Either the Dems cave or the ceiling isn't raised. We will pay the debt no matter what. Geithner is prioritized by the GAO (in an old ruling) to pay off debt before paying SS, Medicare, Medicaid. The Democrats are gonna screw their constituents but try to take none of the blame. Rather than a 10 year reduction there will be a 10 day reduction. Protests. Yea. Mayhem? Probably not. We get like $150bn in revenue in August, but only $29bn in interest. Let's say $50bn after the downgrade. Everything funded by the government would have to be cut in half. Probably coming mostly out of non-core things first like the DMV, delaying payments, etc. The Democrats are trying to simply play a game of chicken they can't win.
I don't think you have been following the debt talks in recent days. Even the conservative press is saying now that the Tea Party is insane.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240531119035911045764700619868374…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mccain-erupts-conser…
The Republicans are screwed after getting into bed with the Tea Party. The Dems have made concession after concession, the far right on the Republican party are what is holding up these talks now and the public understands that. Poll after poll says the public wants a mix of spending cuts and moderate tax increases (via whatever means). They are blinded by ideology and don't understand real practical solutions at this point in time.
[quote=GoodBread]A viable third party would be a party in the mold of Hamilton, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike and Nelson Rockefeller, moderate Republicans so to speak. Instead we've got a few clowns somewhere to the right of the Republicans. The Tea Party brought the debt to the forefront our political debate but their contempt for the party they joined to get elected is shameful. Seeing things like the Gang of Six plan get scuttled by those clowns should infuriate every American with half a brain.
I thought I'd mention an interesting take on how we can avoid getting downgraded. There is a lot of material here and what I've read has been excellent: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/theres-only-one-way-to-avoid-dow…]
Your first paragraph is total shit. Republicans have lost their way over the last decade because of their move to the center. True conservative Republicans grew tired of it and started their own movement...the Tea Party.
Republicans used to be about smaller government and lower taxes. During Bush they moved away from this. The Tea Party is simply a result of this. You now see the Republicans moving back to where they always should have been.
This debt ceiling crap is poker at it's finest. You have a Dem senate and a Dem president who was previously fine with shoving legislation down the throat of republicans. Now the tables have turned. A compromise will be made, but you need to be aggressive with this.
Try buying a car or a house. You always low ball, never accept the first offer, walk out of the show room. This is a tactical battle going on.
I said 'viable' third party. Being to the right of the Republicans is why none of the previous third parties ever met much success.
You guys need to hit the history books when it comes to the Republican party. The conservative ideology you guys are so fond of rose to the forefront in the 60s thanks to William Buckley and Barry Goldwater. As aware as the Republican party has always been of the need to curb deficits, guys like Reagan knew that you have to hit the gas when it's needed. Bush Jr. decided you should hit the gas all the time but that's another story. It's a joke to consider that the Tea Party is a return of the Republican party to it's roots. They're far to the right of anything the Republican party has ever stood for. The most telling part is that hardly any of the Tea Partiers were concerned about deficits back when George W. Bush was in power.
Saying that the Democrats aren't open to compromise is a joke. Their support of the bipartisan Gang of Six plan is well-document and so is the fact that Tea Partiers scuttled it. They're even considering passing a plan without revenue increases now, despite the fact that decreases in revenue are the main cause of our indebtedness.
If anyone's not opened to compromise it's the Tea Party. The reason that's a bad thing? Perhaps you guys don't read the financial press much, but austerity is crushing the UK's economy, and austerity has made default inevitable in Greece. The world isn't going to keep the US from rolling over it's debt. But cutting spending hard and fast is going to pound our economy. If we don't have a debt deal before the Aug. 2 deadline, you can start shaving off points our Q3 GDP forecasts as fast as you can. I'm all for a balanced budget in normal business conditions and that will take closing tax loopholes, cutting spending and reforming entitlement programs. But in the midst of a recovery from the worst credit crisis in 80 years? It's foolish. Herbert Hoover stood on the wrong side of history for all his noble intentions and the Tea Partiers aren't half as smart.
It's unfortunate that the most vocal groups are the ones so beholden to ideology. You've got people who foam at the mouth about not having a balanced budget and Modern Monetary Theorists who can't seem to realize that a crisis in confidence is possible and that the U.S. isn't immune to the law of the market. Whatever happened to pragmatism and logic?
Remind me, what plan has the senate passed?
Also, the plan Reid is boasting is a fucking joke. 1 trillion from ending the wars?
Decrease in revenue is our main cause of indebtedness? That statement just showed your true colors...
Why would the Senate pass a plan? The House initates revenue-raising bills and it's obvious to Republican senators that some of House Republicans won't ratify anything.
Who said I liked the Reid plan?
No, that actually shows your true colors. That me stating an obvious fact leads you to painting me as an ideologue shows the intellectual paucity of your position.
This.
Would it be that our expenditures are so high the current level of revenue can't sustain them? Spending is the problem...
Logic on WSO:
Anyone who doesn't support far far far right wing policy = Liberal
Yeah, that makes sense.
Continuing to do the same thing over and over = insanity
ya, that makes sense. I am very curious how basic home finance became far right?
On a side note, I think the Tea Partiers should go along with Boehner's plan only only if there is something attached to it where when they have to revote next year there must be a certain amount of cuts. (assume them to be large)
@txjustin:
This isn't a binary decision. No one is suggesting it's the tea party plan or no plan...except for the tea partiers. The world isn't black and white, it's ok to have nuanced views. Oh wait, I guess that makes me a liberal.
The Tea Party isn't doing anything that other groups are not doing. They have their stance and they are sticking to it. A compromise will be had, but only after every last concession is milked out of the democrats.
Frankly, the sticking point is taxes and the Democrats are only increasing taxes on the rich for political purposes. It has nothing to do with real revenue generation because if that was the goal you would increase taxes across the spectrum. It is a ploy and one that should be fought.
People are always cavalier with other peoples money.
How is raising taxes on the rich a political purpose? And what ploy would they be fulfilling? You could say the same about austerity measures that the Republicans want to enforce. Raising taxes on the top 1% of Americans who bring in about 40% of America's household income in my mind is not a bad thing and not being cavalier with their money. To put in my mind simply, if you are in the top 1%, you are earning usually more than you can spend. Giving them tax breaks or not taxing them more does not do them any harm and does not do society any good. If you make that much, odds are you are not spending it, but saving or investing it which does not really create more economic growth on the basic levels such as infrastructure, teaching, etc. The government can use this money to stimulate these sections which in turn will give more money to spend to the lower/middle class and blue collar Americans.
You must have smoked some major skunk ass weed saying this shit. Show me where the governent has ever done anything efficiently. Whose to say how much the rich can or can't spend? You couldn't be more obviously socialist in what you just typed. Who the fuck are you, Robin Hood?
If it wasn't for the Tea Party a bill would have been passed by now. What are you talking about? Both sides have compromised in one way or another, the fringe right lunatics who are obsessed with an ideology and are blind to the consequences of their actions are holding the country hostage. Even the Republicans know this. Wake up.
I asked you earlier and I'll ask again: How many bills has the house passed and how many has the Senate passed?
Hold on, austerity is making Greece default? I think that Greece's social programs did that. How would reducing deficit and less spending make them less able to pay off their debt with more cash on hand?
I have to quote this because it's what I was thinking. When I read that in Goodbread's reply I was like, "What the Fuck?!".
Actually Greece has always had a shitty fiscal position. They lied their way into the eurozone by using structured swaps provided by goldman sachs to hide their true budget situation, i'll bet you didn't know that. Also, tax evasion is a national sport over there and the unions have the country by the balls. Welfare is not their problem.
I did actually. But the main point of my reply is that it is false to say austerity was the problem. I didn't specify unions but you can tell that I have contempt for public sector unions and tax evasion. Greece has a lot of problems, but austerity was never one of them. lol
Welfare was/is not the problem? Wow...don't know how to respond to that nonsense.
Haha, just seems to me to be common math. 1% of people earning 40% of income equals more than anyone should spend. I will admit, perhaps I am socialistic. Just seems to me a more decent thing to do to take into account the well being of society (the one which probably made you so rich in the first place) instead of how much money you spent on your 5th condo in Dubai. But maybe thats just me. And I think alot of "socialist" governments are doing things quite well with that system. Examples: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland... all top standards of living in the world and some of the highest tax rates, the U.S. is one of the lowest standards among developed nations. Worst health, education, etc and we are continually falling behind. So please don't say that the "socialist" system doesn't work. There is a major difference between socialism and communism which most right-wings seem to very closely associate.
Raising the top tax bracket by up to 4% means that every dollar over $379,150 that an individual brings in in regular income will be taxed at 39% (at most) vs. 35%. It does not mean that ALL $380K get taxed at that rate. Just the incremental dollars over $380K.
The impact of these taxes on someone earning this level of income is far less significant than the impact increasing tax rates on those earning incomes that fall into the lower / middle tax brackets. Raising taxes on a guy making $40K will have a greater impact on his life vs. raising taxes on the incremental dollars over $380K being made by another guy.
This is not a pro / anti tax argument. I am simply pointing out that it isn't a "class war-fare" or "politically driven" move. During the worst downturn since the great depression with 9+ percent unemployment, tax increases on the lower / middle class brackets would have a more negative effect than tax increases on the top bracket.
Every decision a political makes is a politically driven move. I doubt any politician wants or really, and I mean REALLY stokes class warfare. Why? Because they all make a ton of money and there are a lot of millionaires in Congress. Mostly Democrats too. They just have different constituencies. Democrats tend to cater to the poor and super wealthy (those who need government suport and those too rich to care about taxes). To cut the deficit without alienating the former, it = tax increases. It's simple. There also tends to be the ignorance of things like the Laffer curve, the WE, etc. within the uneducated masses. But more taxes = more money in their minds so they (and a lot of America) doesn't understand that increasing taxes has a lessening marginal return. Democrats don't hate the rich, but they see it wrong in my book.
"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.'" -Ronald Reagan
Quoting Raygun in this environment is funny because he'd be a RINO by the tea party's standards:
--He raised the debt ceiling time and again --He sold weapons to Islamic extremists --He raised taxes (more than once)
Side note: Glenn Beck apparently called John McCain a progressive on the radio today because of what he said on the floor of the Senate about the tea party's refusal to compromise on anything.
McCain is one of the biggest RINO's out there, always has been.
I just want to mention, while we are pissing in the wind placing blame on who is unwilling to do what, the quote unquote expert rating agency restated the austerity measures necessary to retain the US credit rating referred to $4T as a "good start". That being said, all of you who are so wanton to embrace a compromise simply to raise the limit as a good sign does nothing to prevent what fallout you sight as your motivation for a compromise.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/28/us-usa-ratings-sp-idUSTRE76R5…
Yeah, thank God for the Tea Party. If it wasn't for them a half assed compromise would of been had. They refuse to get screwed and are forcing the Dems to make even more cuts.
If you asked a used car guy to take a hundred bucks off the price of a car you would be done real fast. Doesn't mean you are getting a good deal.
Anyone even comparing the US to Europe is nuts. We do not want to become like that arthritic nation.
All these arguments that jacking the rate on the rich will dent the deficit are silly. Broad based tax increases are needed. Unfortunately Obama wants to make this a class war. And that is one of the many reasons why he is a piss poor president.
Continent
When the crisis in confidence over Greek debt erupted a couple year's ago, due to tax evasion and wasteful spending, default was likely but not inevitable. After bailing them out with more debt and crippling their economy through austerity measures, debt-to-GDP skyrocketed and likely haircuts became much larger.
The root problem was of course Greek profligacy and their inability to tax their citizens. But austerity has done nothing to improve the situation, except satisfy the conditions for bailouts.
As for insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, the Tea Party is a prime example.
To all those who blame the Tea Party: The House has already passed a bill. Who rejected it? The SENATE!! The House will likely pass another bill tonight. Who has vowed to reject it? The SENATE!
/thread
/thread?
The bill passed last week was an uncompromising piece of crap. Balanced budget amendment? Come on. You'd be the first one crying when whatever shop you're at shut down because it couldn't get bailed out.
I don't work for an American firm so I think I'm good to go. Point is the House is at least doing something. The Senate (Dems in particular) haven't done anything.
Why would anyone here support raising the debt limit and/or increasing taxes?
Both parties since Nixon have proved to be completely ineffectual in managing the nation's finances, with the current cast of characters being utterly pathetic. The Tea Party, like Reagan, is there in rhetoric but lacking in action.
We are engaged militarily in six countries, maintaining 700+ military bases, sending billions in foreign aid to dictators, bailing out banks, supporting failed massive bureaucracies (DoE, DoA, DoED, DoHHS, etc), etc.. We got this way through both parties compromising.
The criminals in Washington are siphoning resources from the tax payer and the credit markets (at the expense of the nation's prosperity & future generations) to enrich themselves and their cronies.
The current tax levels and income tax are inconsistent with American tradition.
There are plenty of places to CUT before we start the emotionally manipulative argument of people not getting their SS checks. Whole departments need to be eliminated. Many federal workers should be laid off.
With respect to the Aug 2nd deadline, the only measure that makes any sense is to cut proportionally from every part of the budget.
I like it when people agree with me. The chance of us cutting entitlements before furloughs/subsidies, etc is low. Pluss the Fed has $400bn in gold. +1 man
Why would anyone stand for an increase in taxes...
The current tax levels and income tax are inconsistent with American tradition...
Something does not add up here, taxes are at all time LOWS so I am not sure of the point you are trying to make? The American tradition would see the top income bracket be something closer to 70%-80%. I am not advocating this, but that is just historically the truth.
-
What's the best way to make sure socialists win in 2012 and force everyone to get single-payer healthcare?
Push the US into default.
Sure, but let's cut $1- $2 Trillion rather than risk triggering the 2nd Great Depression over a US default trying to get $6 Trillion in cuts.The words "all time LOWS" is a little fallacious since the income tax has only existed in the last 100 years of the U.S. and it used to be like 10%. Maybe the lowest since WWII, but other than that you are wrong.
I was referring to WWII.
I expect a downgrade from AAA to AA+ on Thursday
Euro will rise up to $1,44 or higher and reports or warnings by Moody´s, S&P and Fitch to downgrade Spain or Portugal will not stop the Euro rally.
You're probably right although a sharp reversal is always possible if a large deal is suddenly passed (highly unlikely). The flight to safety effect with Treasuries is likely to limit the euro's upside unless nothing whatsoever is passed.
Fun fact:
Bush's nickname for Boehner was "Boner."
Yeah because making fun of someones name a strong attack on their proposal and position.
ANT:
I wasn't making fun of his name. I actually find it hilarious and have always thought that kind of shit humanizes politicians. Shit, I'd call him boner too. It's funny as fuck.
Simply trying to lighten up the discourse on here.
I mean I make fun of Boehner for his name and looking like an orange. I think it only diminishes it if a politician makes a direct reference to it in discourse. Not if Obama says it at the Correspondant's dinner. Thank god for people like Ron Paul. Boehner almost pulled the wol over our eveys again. His plan was like the budget deal 2.0. The cut weren't even real! Just decreases in future spending increases. lol What a joke.
Nihil eaque quisquam expedita autem et magni. Esse consequatur laudantium optio hic est officia. Cupiditate officiis voluptas fugiat molestiae. Id id quidem in voluptas dolor reiciendis.
Praesentium quam nobis doloribus eos ullam ut ipsam adipisci. Sapiente nihil facilis quia ducimus ipsam corporis. Tempore sunt maiores tempore doloribus omnis. Laborum et nihil asperiores.
Facilis cupiditate sunt magnam dolores esse quidem atque vel. Est dolores placeat earum in.
Ratione in laudantium sunt eos ducimus deleniti. Libero culpa sequi possimus corporis ut. Et eum et consequatur qui deleniti. Ipsam incidunt sed repellendus natus. Nesciunt id molestiae explicabo cupiditate autem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quasi qui atque voluptas omnis aspernatur. Ab aperiam magni error quae sapiente. Non qui perspiciatis ut et cupiditate excepturi magnam consectetur. Ex magnam sit suscipit ut aut mollitia enim.
Ex rerum debitis corrupti rerum nobis placeat. Doloremque temporibus quasi modi molestias doloremque. Iusto praesentium odit adipisci ut blanditiis recusandae.
Nihil vero id tempore tempore eos sunt a. Quasi est voluptas commodi et nobis fugit nihil. Omnis non in in ut eos quas. Reiciendis odit non ea id rem veritatis. Qui quos harum aut. Nam esse est rerum voluptatum dolor laboriosam.
Accusantium est rerum et iure aliquam temporibus. Qui quibusdam voluptates molestias. Labore et doloremque velit qui ea ea maiores dolore.
Est ipsam fugit repellat iste et. Illum iure fugiat nihil harum voluptatum quis. Error excepturi quo consequatur maiores expedita.
Inventore veniam laborum esse. Eum dolores minima unde error debitis molestias. Quo voluptatem porro assumenda cum. Voluptatum non ullam porro quam aut. Ducimus nesciunt voluptas enim. Maiores praesentium vero omnis aut enim.
Excepturi amet blanditiis dolore necessitatibus occaecati fugit. Iusto necessitatibus qui amet nobis omnis ab. Dolores explicabo deserunt voluptas rem eos perspiciatis. Dolor vel a doloremque. Hic repellat et eveniet tenetur beatae.
Non deserunt repellendus sint numquam est et nostrum. Explicabo temporibus voluptate voluptatem nihil voluptatem ipsam rem. Esse qui sit vel ad non ex.
Eius ea rem laudantium ullam et dolor inventore expedita. Et occaecati magni eos harum. Dolorem voluptas sit et recusandae dolor tempore possimus.
Consequatur odit nisi cupiditate dolores unde ut voluptas minus. Fuga aspernatur at nesciunt vel accusantium. Cumque harum ut fuga et ratione quam. Dolorum nostrum repellendus quaerat aut aspernatur. Commodi non mollitia vitae ad eaque nihil velit.
Deleniti deserunt voluptatem beatae aperiam. Sunt sit aliquid nemo distinctio. Maiores et nisi deserunt molestiae.
Quibusdam id ut qui consequuntur. Incidunt ut dignissimos nisi nulla velit possimus. Saepe eius corrupti similique vero. Distinctio dolor iusto aliquid reiciendis culpa soluta consequatur.
Voluptatibus consequatur dolorum voluptatum pariatur quia officiis enim. Officiis laboriosam est et cumque maxime iste. Sint ratione praesentium id et alias. Laborum suscipit reprehenderit sunt. Fugiat quos eaque non in ipsam corporis. Et voluptates et aut. Aperiam ea quam fugiat ut incidunt veniam enim accusamus.
Ipsum sed accusantium eos ad voluptate tempore. Impedit nesciunt rerum ut esse rerum qui reiciendis. Accusantium ut qui iusto et. Aut cum et facilis cumque sed facere.
Culpa animi deserunt doloribus. Labore vel provident illo eos. Est non vel rem laborum eaque voluptas esse.
Voluptatem et dolores quaerat sit. Exercitationem nihil deserunt provident odit numquam quasi nihil. Modi dicta molestiae eos qui voluptates incidunt. Pariatur aperiam deserunt nemo iusto omnis quia libero.
Excepturi dolores consequatur sapiente vel nihil aliquid. Ipsa quia in est et debitis aperiam. Placeat et eos illum. Aut quo qui dolor accusamus.
Ipsum labore ipsum incidunt. Reprehenderit officiis animi omnis molestiae.
Ea sit quis nobis fuga. Sit deserunt quae ipsam sit velit commodi temporibus nulla. Dignissimos et ratione dolor animi. Velit ducimus qui sint eos ea aut est. Quos harum et ipsam voluptatibus corrupti. Beatae velit eos dolore fuga animi hic laudantium.