GOP caves, Speaker Boehner says taxes will be raised on the rich

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

Your reply is what I love about ATS. No matter what time or thought I put into a position or reply, someone will come along to cause me to rethink the whole thing, just to be sure if nothing else.

In your reply, you really raise a paradox of thinking, whether you meant to or not. We have two entirely different sets of national priorities here and the paradox comes in where they cannot be pursued at the same time, with the same resources. There isn't enough to go around right now....and hell.. who am I kidding? We've been spending 1 triilion past the bankruptcy line for 4 years now with no sign that it won't increase dramatically now. It was a half trillion or there abouts for years before that.

So.. By your point made here..I see two tracks. Which to take? ..if they care to make things work at all in Washington. First, the short term where bickering over the B.S. and taxes/cuts/ideas all mean something and we aren't just bitching about deck chairs on the Titanic. Second track is your point. RADICAL reform and realignment of our entire national economy and structure (Which IS needed).

The problem is, as I'd see it...since we can't do both and actually, they work at cross purposes anyway..... Doing the long term will crash the short term. Do you see another way? Then again.. NOT doing it means not just a crash in the mid-long term but a total nuclear explosion of a collapse eventually.

No win....There just is no real winning this. It's lose small or lose big. Which will they choose?

More of my tax dollars stolen to give to the criminal rich elite cronies that exist between wall street and the government

The rich have been getting free money, if they are 'forced' to pay more in taxes.....their teams of lawyers they employ will always find loopholes allowing them to keep their free money.

My cousins a tax attorney for one such company that gets free money....he's rewarded with TWO free trips to Europe or wherever he wants to go on Earth every single year.....along with his GROSS mega salary.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by Deetermined

I heard that the UN Treaty also included the ability for a disabled child to be taken out of it's home and away from it's parents if someone didn't like the methods that the parents had chosen to treat their child.

I heard the UN Treaty gave all children free Ice Cream. But I don't have any FACTS to back up that accusation either.

Not that it matters, since the only reason to bring the treaty to a vote was to allow the U.S. to serve on another committee at the U.N.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the U.N. committee recommendations would be nonbinding, prompting Lee to ask, “If this does nothing, then why would we ratify it?”

Kerry countered that the treaty would allow the United States to serve on the committee to advocate for the rights of U.S. veterans and citizens living or traveling abroad.

thehill.com...

Originally posted by bknapple32


It is happening. I don't know if this has been posted yet. Opinions? I know this will be a heated debate. Im not in favor of socialism, and I dont think Obama is either, But to go back to Clinton rates, will bring the economy back. I fully believe that. The bush tax cuts had their time, and their ramifications, ie the recession of 08. Now its time to try something different. Who knows, it just might work!!!

&action_type_map=[%224576257638669%22%3A%22og.likes%22]&action_ ref_map=[]]www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The Bush tax cuts did not cause the recession, the housing/credit bubble bursting caused it. If I had to blame one person it would be Clinton, for forcing low income home ownership on the system.

That being said, we should be raising the taxes on the top 1%, they haven't been paying even close to their share.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by Deetermined

I heard that the UN Treaty also included the ability for a disabled child to be taken out of it's home and away from it's parents if someone didn't like the methods that the parents had chosen to treat their child.

I heard the UN Treaty gave all children free Ice Cream. But I don't have any FACTS to back up that accusation either.

Not that it matters, since the only reason to bring the treaty to a vote was to allow the U.S. to serve on another committee at the U.N.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the U.N. committee recommendations would be nonbinding, prompting Lee to ask, “If this does nothing, then why would we ratify it?”

Kerry countered that the treaty would allow the United States to serve on the committee to advocate for the rights of U.S. veterans and citizens living or traveling abroad.

thehill.com...

So, nothing to back up your former claim then?

The original accusation above and the non-evidence reply, dear ATSers, is the reason Boehner wants to discuss the 'Fiscal Cliff' privately.

Boehner is a Politician who is trying to save his party from the Tea Party Taliban. He knows that open discussions would cause the TPT to cry foul if he even looked at Obama as if he was a human being.

This is also why Demint has resigned. He knows his Radical views have had their day on the Hill so now he is off the milk the Koch's. Does he still keep his socialist healthcare and his Pension for serving half a term?

An interesting article for you.
McConnell filibusters McConnell, McCain blasts Paul, Demint criticizes Boehner, most Senate Republicans insult Bob Dole

Originally posted by bknapple32


It is happening. I don't know if this has been posted yet. Opinions? I know this will be a heated debate. Im not in favor of socialism, and I dont think Obama is either, But to go back to Clinton rates, will bring the economy back. I fully believe that. The bush tax cuts had their time, and their ramifications, ie the recession of 08. Now its time to try something different. Who knows, it just might work!!!

&action_type_map=[%224576257638669%22%3A%22og.likes%22]&action_ ref_map=[]]www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think we should go back to the Clinton rates AS WELL as simply seize 100% of the assets of the Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, and Rothschild families.

Budget problem SOLVED.

Republican's caving in? The majority of the U.S. population was against giving the rich a tax break! I'll bet there's a lot of hard working and middle class people that won't be losing any sleep over this "cave in."

reply to post by Wrabbit2000



missunderstood

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

So then id assume you are completely against the idea of just not having a debt ceiling.... Even though we raise it every time? Not saying I am but I'd like to know your thoughts.

Your comment is right... a debt limit is nothing if each time it's addressed, it's raised... And usually substantially. Then what's the good of having a budget? Just go through the motions and write bigger and bigger checks.... and deeper we go....

reply to post by bknapple32


The rich could be taxed at 100% and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket. This fiscal cliff thing is nothing more than a designed distraction. The real threat is all of the trillions of dollars that are floating around overseas unused. That currency will come back home by the end of 2013 and then bread will cost $7.00. No amount of taxing in the world will fix this.

Originally posted by bknapple32


It is happening. I don't know if this has been posted yet. Opinions? I know this will be a heated debate. Im not in favor of socialism, and I dont think Obama is either, But to go back to Clinton rates, will bring the economy back. I fully believe that. The bush tax cuts had their time, and their ramifications, ie the recession of 08. Now its time to try something different. Who knows, it just might work!!!

&action_type_map=[%224576257638669%22%3A%22og.likes%22]&action_ ref_map=[]]www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think this is wishful thinking at best. Since the very dawn of the Karl Marx inspired graduated income tax there has been a provable negative correlation with increasing marginal tax rates and government revenue. ie paradoxically if you increase rates you decrease revenue.
www.forbes.com...

This has been especially apparent with the capital gains tax, which is a double tax, since you are taxing invested income that had already been taxed. In fact when Obama was confronted with this truth he frankly didn't give a crap about increasing government revenues, all he cared about was that the rich paid their 'fair share'
www.youtube.com...

If you really cared about the poor and viewed government as a wealth redistribution engine (ie legalized theft). Then you would want to grow government revenue so that you could fund your ill planned welfare state.

So is our tax system fair? The rich pay a larger percentage of our tax burden than ever before. Lib.s like to cite the 97% highest tax rate during the Eisenhowever administration. That rate kicked in on income that would be over $10 million dollars a year in todays dollars. No fool would pay this tax if they could earn that much and less than 200 did according to IRS data.

People who have funded bridge projects in the past have noted that often lower tolls increase bridge revenues because more people are willing to pay it. If the cost of crossing a bridge is $100, it will never be used and there will be no revenue. If it's $1, that bridge will see plenty of use and hence plenty of revenue.

If the tax rates on capital gains are 15% I won't even think twice about paying it. When it jumps to 40% as planned by Obama as he marches us over the fiscal cliff, I'm going to leave the country and renounce my citizenship. I will not pay 50-60% of my total income to a corrupt government. There are many people like me. That's why government can never gain revenue at those high rates. People will stop working as I did last year to avoid draconian tax increases.

You can thank me for the basic economics lesson later.

All I know is that the billionares and trillionares are laughing all the way to the bank as they finalise crushing the lower middle, middle and upper middle classes. The really rich pay nothing because all the loopholes are in their favor.

If you can't get what you want, simply move to another country with annonymous lax or no taxation. Start trust funds, and then launder all you want with shell companies. Drug and weapon dealers have done this for decades. Intelligence agencies are said to have done this for decades. The rich then move to some carribean or pacific island paradise and give the middle finger to america and europe.

Globalisation was a horrible idea from the beginning based totally on false hope. Time to raise tariffs gradually and force business back. Time to stop the tax raises on the middle class and find out ways to tax and prosecute the billionares and trillionares.

Anything short of a miracle will see america and europe bankrupt within the next ten years and this a conservative estimate. You can only raise the debt ceiling so many times before your credit rating goes to D status and you need IMF funds. When the IMF shows up it becomes draconian austerity and assets are liquidated to cover the bonds outstanding. Argentina and greece know too well!

And Obama didn't "cave" when he agreed to cuts in Medicare? That's certainly opposed by his base. It's called compromise, statesmanship....something these whining Black Helicopter Republicans who want it their way or no way don't understand.

Go ahead then. Take away all the money from the rich. Tax republicans at 100% and see what you get. If you want a model for this look at Argentina. What was their outcome? They went from one of the richest countries in the world with a thriving middle class to one of the poorest. They become a pathetic third world country with no standing overnight.

You see for most of the rich it's not the money they already have. That's paltry and confiscating all of it wouldn't even touch the deficit. It's rather their ability to earn money, and create new wealth that's important. All you lib.s simply ignored the hard facts that increasing taxes so that the wealthy pay even more of a burden (already the highest in US history) will REDUCE government revenue.

That's right folks get into your head past your Marxist indocrination. REDUCE REDUCE LESS LESS LESS LESS LESS LESS! Your God, the government will have LESS LESS LESS LESS LESS LESS LESS LESS money. Is that OK with you? Are you like Obama and so morally sick with greed and envy that all you want to do is punish the successful, caring not one whit for the poor?

I'm afraid you psycho-lib.s are going to have to face the simple fact. In order to fund your welfare state you are going to have to let the wealthy keep their money. Otherwise you lose their fantastic capacity to generate wealth. They may be the sickest most obnoxious people in the world, I make no judgment about that. But that my friends are the cold hard facts of economics. If it weren't true the Soviet Union, with a 100% taxation rate, would have won the cold war.

boehner has no credibility

he is a slave to his masters

he will send us over the cliff, guaranteed

see the rich don't care about us consumers, which is dumb, but they don't

see you on the other side

hope we still can afford the internet

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner said Friday there has been no progress in negotiations to avert a "fiscal cliff" combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts in January and called on President Barack Obama to produce a new offer.

reply to post by SevenThunders


Accumulation of wealth into few hands and their lack of anything resembling efficient taxation, along with lack of protectist measures, is exactly what caused this mess. It might help to define what rich is so we are all on the same page. I do NOT consider someone making 250k rich; that is an abnoxious misconception.

Money was never intended to be hoarded. It is like playing a game of monopoly and one player accumulating all the monopoly money. How will the rest go about playing? And we are doing with real money here folks not monopoly money. Money that pays mortgages, pays for education, pays for medical expenses, transportation whether private or public.

Money should never be hoarded. Monopoly is a game, but it is also being played for real. The reason we have such a huge welfare state is precisely because of profit driven greed and the need to relly on investors to buy bonds(which equates directly to public debt). Another reason and perhaps more visible is that business does not pay fair compensation to its employees. The employer is keeping too much for himself in some cases eventhough the goods are made in third world countries and the employer could afford to pay higher wages/salaries in america/europe.

I am not advocating for more taxes for the middle class. And you won't even define what rich is, so I guess we have a stalemate of sorts.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Maybe you are a libertarian and don't even know it? I heard gary johnson speak his ideas and had to stop the video because it was too disgusting. Abolish the irs and replace it a federal consumption tax, zero rate corporate tax, zero income tax, cut medicare/medicaid by 50%, eventually end social security, etc.

His great ideas are close all or most foreign military bases around the world and bring the troops back. Cut down on the miliatary substantially and use it to protect america.

So 50% of his ideas are great and 50% are horrible. IMO there are better third parties to vote for than libertarian. Constitution party is much better. Green party is also much better.

You are wasting your time with the republicans, just like I used to waste my time with the democrats. Both parties are pro-war, pro big business, pro globalisation!!!!!!

Originally posted by bknapple32


It is happening. I don't know if this has been posted yet. Opinions? I know this will be a heated debate. Im not in favor of socialism, and I dont think Obama is either, But to go back to Clinton rates, will bring the economy back. I fully believe that. The bush tax cuts had their time, and their ramifications, ie the recession of 08. Now its time to try something different. Who knows, it just might work!!!

I agree. And, they really aren't "raising" taxes on the rich. The rich will be paying the taxes they should've been paying all along. If anything, they really should be paying more because it won't affect their lifestyles. I mean, c'mon, just how many homes, cars, yachts, boats, airplanes, country club memberships, etc. do they really need? When people are homeless and hungry, wealthy people need to step up. I am not against the rich. But in all reality, they can afford to help less fortunate people, and not through charity. I plan on being wealthy one day, and I will gladly step up and pay my due taxes to help the unfortunates of our country.

Anyone who is wealthy and of good means and has a luxurious life style who complains about being asked/told to pay their fair share of taxes is selfish, greedy and probably narcissistic. I usually don't do blanket statements, but in this case, I stand by it. If you are wealthy and live a luxurious life style, and you complain about paying your fair share, you are selfish, greedy and probably narcissistic.

I think many American's eyes were opened when it was revealed to them that the rich pay much lower tax rates than anyone else in our country. Most people just assumed that the wealthy pay their fair share. Not so. And now they are being forced to because of public pressure and a President who told it to them like it was, that the rich had it easier, tax rates-wise, than anyone else. Anyway, enough about that.

Happy Holidays everyone.

*sigh*

Some people just don't understand - this raising the taxes on the rich won't even come close to eliminating the deficits that states is accumulating every year. At best, the tax hikes will create about 400 billion in revenue - you will still be short over a trillion dollars each and every year (well, unless you want to tax them at about 90%). Not to mention who is considered wealthy - you can bet that criteria will be changed when they don't get as much money as they want. Also, you will be seeing more money flow out of the states (as it happened in France as they decided to tax the rich)

Also, would like people to notice that Boehner and Obama are in talks behind closed doors.


But forget about what I just said and go back to your 1% / 99% rhetoric while the government robs everyone.