Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Aug '11 15:00
    I think that, though the Tea Party no doubt wanted greater spending cuts, this "compromise" is a clear win for the GOP.

    http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/125671/president-obamas-epic-debt-fail/

    Now, I don't blame Obama for this loss. I actually admire him for putting the good of the country ahead of politics for the moment.

    His problem, of course, was that doing nothing meant disaster. However, in December, when the Bush tax cuts were on the table, doing nothing largely meant that he would get his way. And he capitulated anyway.

    In essence, the President has shown that he will capitulate when he has the cards and capitulate when he doesn't.

    Once this deal is inked, he should have Dirty Harry announce that as soon as the Senate gets back in session after their late summer recess, he will propose a bill to repeal the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000 and add a proposal that has the payroll tax pick up again at $250k. That way, he can have a month of public debate and eventually, most people will see that it is fundamentally a good idea. It will never pass the house, obviously. But it will put him in good position in 2012 when the Bush tax cuts becomes an issue in the campaign.

    Between the Boehner spending cuts and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, we'll finally have this budget under control. The rest of the budget deficit can be picked off at leisure when the economy recovers.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Aug '11 15:39
    Originally posted by sh76
    I think that, though the Tea Party no doubt wanted greater spending cuts, this "compromise" is a clear win for the GOP.

    http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/125671/president-obamas-epic-debt-fail/

    Now, I don't blame Obama for this loss. I actually admire him for putting the good of the country ahead of politics for the moment.

    His problem, of course, was th ...[text shortened]... rol. The rest of the budget deficit can be picked off at leisure when the economy recovers.
    I doubt the Bush tax cuts will ever be repealed. And the day when the economy recovers will be in the more distant future because of the gutting of State and Federal spending in a time of slack aggregate demand (see 1937-38).
  3. 01 Aug '11 15:53
    What's up with that $250,000 figure anyway? Raise taxes for those making over $75,000 to bring the deficit back to 3% of GDP and cut defense spending to bridge the rest. Problem solved.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Aug '11 15:59
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's up with that $250,000 figure anyway? Raise taxes for those making over $75,000 to bring the deficit back to 3% of GDP and cut defense spending to bridge the rest. Problem solved.
    The entire Bush tax cut was supposed to be a TEMPORARY measure because the US was supposed to run gigantic surpluses and that, of course, would be "stealing" by the government. Instead it has become a permanent fixture while we are running gigantic deficits. It was a bad policy to begin with made insane policy by continuing it in circumstances where it is clearly inappropriate.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Aug '11 16:06
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's up with that $250,000 figure anyway? Raise taxes for those making over $75,000 to bring the deficit back to 3% of GDP and cut defense spending to bridge the rest. Problem solved.
    Do people make less money in Europe?

    A family with children making $75,000 in or near a major city is anything but rich. That is a very middle class salary for a family.
  6. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    01 Aug '11 16:10
    Originally posted by sh76
    Do people make less money in Europe?

    A family with children making $75,000 in or near a major city is anything but rich. That is a very middle class salary for a family.
    Your figure was about households or personal income? Kazet was talking about personal income, I believe, and almost 90% of Americans make less than that.
  7. 01 Aug '11 16:10
    Originally posted by sh76
    I think that, though the Tea Party no doubt wanted greater spending cuts, this "compromise" is a clear win for the GOP.

    http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/125671/president-obamas-epic-debt-fail/

    Now, I don't blame Obama for this loss. I actually admire him for putting the good of the country ahead of politics for the moment.

    His problem, of course, was th ...[text shortened]... rol. The rest of the budget deficit can be picked off at leisure when the economy recovers.
    Oh, it's an absolute win for the GOP. Hands down. Of course, it's because they are run by people psychotic enough to cause years of pain to get what they want. Unfortunately, King Solomon isn't around to declare the sane wing a winner.
  8. 01 Aug '11 16:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Do people make less money in Europe?

    A family with children making $75,000 in or near a major city is anything but rich. That is a very middle class salary for a family.
    Depends on where you are looking. $75,000 is still above average and more than enough to buy all the luxury goods one might need.

    Edit: but like Palynka is saying, I'm talking about personal income, not necessarily families.
  9. 01 Aug '11 16:10
    Originally posted by sh76
    Do people make less money in Europe?

    A family with children making $75,000 in or near a major city is anything but rich. That is a very middle class salary for a family.
    In the old days maybe.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Aug '11 16:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Your figure was about households or personal income? Kazet was talking about personal income, I believe, and almost 90% of Americans make less than that.
    Income taxes are based on the household. But okay, if you want to double that for a married couple, it makes more sense.

    It also is much less distant from the $250k being discussed.
  11. 01 Aug '11 16:13
    But will the Republicans sink their own victory?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001656/-Will-House-Republicans-vote-against-their-own-debt-limit-victory?detail=hide&via=blog_1

    And Romney still opposes it, because it doesn't bring us back to this place in six months, and because it may cut defense spending - the last acceptable source of earmarks.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/romney-breaks-debt-ceiing-silence-cannot-support-this-deal.php?ref=fpblg
  12. 01 Aug '11 16:14
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Depends on where you are looking. $75,000 is still above average and more than enough to buy all the luxury goods one might need.

    Edit: but like Palynka is saying, I'm talking about personal income, not necessarily families.
    "$75,000 is still above average and more than enough to buy all the luxury goods one might need."

    Not where I live (Massachusetts). If you've got just 1 or 2 sons or daughters planning on going to university $75,000 a year isn't going to cut it. Not even close.
  13. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    01 Aug '11 16:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Income taxes are based on the household.
    Edit - Saw your edit.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    01 Aug '11 16:16
    Originally posted by Ullr
    "$75,000 is still above average and more than enough to buy all the luxury goods one might need."

    Not where I live (Massachusetts). If you've got just 1 or 2 sons or daughters planning on going to university $75,000 a year isn't going to cut it. Not even close.
    Some of us have to pay our own way through school.
  15. 01 Aug '11 16:16
    Originally posted by sh76
    Income taxes are based on the household. But okay, if you want to double that for a married couple, it makes more sense.

    It also is much less distant from the $250k being discussed.
    I favour tax credits based on the number of children in a family. If the US ever chooses to eradicate poverty birth rates will drop significantly and the population may start to shrink - you need to encourage the population to maintain a stable population.