Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

I think you're miscalculating my age, income, and family situation there Fishy. There is something fundamental which it appears that you just don't get. Few, if any, people actually believe that continued upper income tax cuts does anything for the economy. That is a 30 year old, failed economic theory that I would kindly suggest you let go of. The people you speak of, under 50 with families, are Obama supporters. Its the older , whiny, late 50's to early 70's generation who can't seem to come to grips with the fact that they can no longer steal everything that's not nailed down as they aren't the driving force electorally that they once were.

taxing upper income certainly doesn't do anything positive for the economy, but hey, maybe if we tax the top more, all our troubles will go away.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

I guess you haven't looked at state maps very carefully. Even in the states carried by <strike>[redacted]</strike> Obama, you see small dots of blue inside a sea of red. The concentrated populations in urban centers are enough for him to carry the state, while at the same time the more widespread suburban and exurban districts continue to return strong Republican majorities to the House.

I can just envision you in 15 years when you own some real property and have children; I have no doubt whatsoever you will be singing a very different tune than you do now when you have nothing tangible at risk of confiscation and you care about no one but yourself. Wait until someone comes along demanding you give them money you can't afford and depriving your kids of a better future. Believe me, I will take no satisfaction in that whatsoever.

I'll go a step further than Rover and just ask....What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Rover]

taxing upper income certainly doesn't do anything positive for the economy, but hey, maybe if we tax the top more, all our troubles will go away.

Taxes aren't there to do something positive for the economy Brainless Guy. That's not the point. The point is any gubmint needs tax revenue to function. Sitting around and whining about that fact is stupid. That's how it works. If you can invent a system where national defense, healthcare and schooling don't cost anything, throw out a proposal for us. Otherwise, get with the times and start being realistic.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Nice to see Jeff Flake win the Senate seat in Arizona pretty comfortably. At least I can be proud that my Senator is a good fiscal conservative. Admittedly in a sea of fiscal irresponsibility that he probably can't stem.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

We didn't stop raising taxes till Bush II. Reagan raised them. Bush I raised them. Clinton raised them. The economy went into the toilet when we threw out a balanced approach to budgeting. Balance is the key. And I totally agree we need a cap on Fed Spending based on GDP. But, that would be a percentage right? Why is it ok to use a percentage there but not a percentage to compare my tax rate with Mitt Romney??????????

Nice to see Jeff Flake win the Senate seat in Arizona pretty comfortably. At least I can be proud that my Senator is a good fiscal conservative. Admittedly in a sea of fiscal irresponsibility that he probably can't stem.

Fiscal Conservatives don't sign Grover's pledge.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

taxing upper income certainly doesn't do anything positive for the economy, but hey, maybe if we tax the top more, all our troubles will go away.

It's clear that many see the top as a limitless source of revenue. Probably the biggest single financial fallacy in the entire campaign.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

We didn't stop raising taxes till Bush II. Reagan raised them. Bush I raised them. Clinton raised them. The economy went into the toilet when we threw out a balanced approach to budgeting. Balance is the key. And I totally agree we need a cap on Fed Spending based on GDP. But, that would be a percentage right? Why is it ok to use a percentage there but not a percentage to compare my tax rate with Mitt Romney??????????

Fiscal Conservatives don't sign Grover's pledge.

Some of us judge people on their record, others apparently not.

 

[Rover]

It's clear that many see the top as a limitless source of revenue. Probably the biggest single financial fallacy in the entire campaign.

I hope you didn't pay a lot for this strawman, Bob!

Not sure why going back to Clinton era top level tax rates will cause such a problem (which, for the record, is what's actually being proposed).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

It's clear that many see the top as a limitless source of revenue. Probably the biggest single financial fallacy in the entire campaign.

That's why the rich here have some of the lowest taxes on the entire planet.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

I hope you didn't pay a lot for this strawman, Bob!

Not sure why going back to Clinton era top level tax rates will cause such a problem (which, for the record, is what's actually being proposed).

You miss my point. Certain folks have made hugely outsized claims as to how much revenue can come from that slice of the population. Nowhere even close.

 

[Rover]

You miss my point. Certain folks have made hugely outsized claims as to how much revenue can come from that slice of the population. Nowhere even close.

Can't speak for the world, but IMHO ALL tax rates need to go back to Clinton era levels. I'm fine with a phase in approach to minimize the shock and give time for the economy to keep improving, but again I fail to see why going back to the tax rates we had the last time the budget was balanced is such a travesty?

 

[joecct]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

I hope you didn't pay a lot for this strawman, Bob!

Not sure why going back to Clinton era top level tax rates will cause such a problem (which, for the record, is what's actually being proposed).

If they go back to Clinton spending levels, then OK. But the size of the federal government has way outstripped the tax base.

But cutting means goring somebody's sacred ox. In that respect, the Congre$$ (and the people) are all Hindu.

 

[Rover]

If they go back to Clinton spending levels, then OK. But the size of the federal government has way outstripped the tax base.

But cutting means goring somebody's sacred ox. In that respect, the Congre$$ (and the people) are all Hindu.

The govt would have to operate under the revenues those Clinton era tax rates produce. If that could be accomplished then, there's no excuses for not doing it now especially since the wars are over or ending.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

The govt would have to operate under the revenues those Clinton era tax rates produce. If that could be accomplished then, there's no excuses for not doing it now especially since the wars are over or ending.

IMO, the rhetoric (and you're far from the only one doing it) of speaking of raising taxes as an "accomplishment" to shoot for above all else is a problem. We might also want to consider the value of the programs that revenue is being funneled into. Just an idea.

 

[joecct]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

The govt would have to operate under the revenues those Clinton era tax rates produce. If that could be accomplished then, there's no excuses for not doing it now especially since the wars are over or ending.

To ask the Congre$$ to pass appropriation bills that match revenue is like asking somebody to hold back the tide.

 

[Rover]

IMO, the rhetoric (and you're far from the only one doing it) of speaking of raising taxes as an "accomplishment" to shoot for above all else is a problem. We might also want to consider the value of the programs that revenue is being funneled into. Just an idea.

Simply put, there's historical precedence to start with the tax rates then do what you're asking. IF the budget was balanced before using these rates, that is your benchmark for spending. Now, that's going to demand the efficiencies you're looking for.

To ask the Congre$$ to pass appropriation bills that match revenue is like asking somebody to hold back the tide.

Similar to my response to geezer, it was done only a dozen years ago.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Finally got around yesterday to listening to all of Monday's robocalls from the answering machine. One was from Matt Damon -- "yes, THE Matt Damon" -- asking me to support the Working Families Party.

WFP? W T F??

 

[mookie1995]

Ha, you people funny. ****ing pathetic, but funny.

Bb, you'll be happy to hear the free spending is coming to an end. My new senator elect said that in addition to new revenue she will in fact consider spending cuts. When asked for an example she relied "agriculture subsidies" : D

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Finally got around yesterday to listening to all of Monday's robocalls from the answering machine. One was from Matt Damon -- "yes, THE Matt Damon" -- asking me to support the Working Families Party.

WFP? W T F??

Our most unexpected robocall was from Pat Boone.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

That's why the rich here have some of the lowest taxes on the entire planet.

That's irrelevant to the fact that the math doesn't nearly add up, regardless of what tax increase you put on the wealthiest.