let them prove it then, taxes are VOLUNTARY... or at least that's what the IRS says anyway, soooooo........ they are free to PAY ALL THE HIGHER TAXES THEY WANT TO!!!
Posted on 07/15/2011 10:23:00 AM PDT by quesney
President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.
"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."
Throughout the press conference, Obama blasted Republicans for ignoring what he said is the will of the American people by rejecting tax increases that would balance out spending cuts in a debt package.
"This is not an issue of salesmanship to the American people," Obama said. "I hope [Republicans are] not just listening to lobbyists and special interests ... I hope they're listening to the American people as well," Obama said, citing "poll after poll" showing Republican voters, as well as Democrats, believe in taking "a balanced approach" — including both increased revenues and spending cuts in a plan to cut the deficit.
Obama repeated his warning that the country is "running out of time" to avert a financial “Armageddon.”
"We should not even be this close on a deadline," Obama said. "This is something we should have accomplished earlier."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
It was not meant as a challenge and I dont think my words indicated that. I always welcome MORE information being posted for me and others to discuss and learn from, especially helpful if it comes with a source link. I learn alot from Freepers reading my comments and correcting me (as long as they are serious and civil) even if I disagree.
On tax revenue/increases, there is a cult like belief that is spread on talk radio that implies that 'any' tax increase decreases revenue and vice versa. This is like Democrats claiming the stimulus would fix the deficit by increasing revenue. It's Snata Claus stuff. House Republicans have been going on TV saying that they want NO net tax increases (loop hole stuff) because Democrats would just spend the 'increased revenue' .
What was Obama smoking when he quoted a poll? No such poll.
I believe the same thing, except it's not just Dems. With Dems or irresponsible Republicans in charge, they spend more than they take in.
let them prove it then, taxes are VOLUNTARY... or at least that's what the IRS says anyway, soooooo........ they are free to PAY ALL THE HIGHER TAXES THEY WANT TO!!!
A little hard to spend if all tax increases always decrease revenue. You see the problem? This made up hoax has bothered me for a while and I used to argue about it alot. One told me when he gets a tax cut like FICA he spends it ( right !) and it stimulates the economy. That's looks like Keynesian stimulus to me.
On tax revenue/increases, there is a cult like belief that is spread on talk radio that implies that 'any' tax increase decreases revenue and vice versa.
I believe this balance is necessary. There are too many economic illiterates who're unaware of the Laffer curve, or even basic mathematics. They scoff publicly at the idea that turning up the rate does not automatically turn up the revenue. In fact, it does not. Revenue is by no means a monotonically increasing function of tax rate. The notion that it is needs to be demolished.
House Republicans have been going on TV saying that they want NO net tax increases (loop hole stuff) because Democrats would just spend the 'increased revenue' .
Apparently you believe they're mistaken in this claim. Since you're interested in MORE information being posted for discussion and edification, it might interest you to know this: there were seven major tax increases during the twentieth century. Every single one of them resulted in more money being spent by Congress than the revenue actually raised. On average, during those seven increases, spending increased $1.41 for each $1.00 in new taxes. This from the Heritage Foundation, which is quite careful about these things; not Talk Radio.
History is very much on the side of those who claim that giving more money to government is the worst way to close the deficit.
Yes. Yes.
Yes. ;-)
Thank you. Freeper bcsco made it for me today.
Ann is a smart woman and she realizes that Republicans are losing the message war with Obama and that getting blamed for the checks not going out etc would destroy the Republican party. Not everyone understands how this works.
This surrender plan may be better for the them than a worst case (debt related) scenario but it would still be a complete disaster for them if they were forced to do it.
Obama is playing this out perfectly for his 2012 re-election campaign. He was on TV again today talking about how he STILL wants a big deficit reduction deal, even though he knows there is NO chance of it happening. He is talking to voters. Yes, he has created a visual-narrative where he and Pelosi have put $4T of spending cuts (all a made up bluff) on the table for deficit reduction and Republicans are rejecting it to protect a few billion in ‘tax loopholes to the rich ’ that would go away in the Ryan plan anyway. And Republicans plan 'B' is to walk away with no cuts and Obama gets all the money he wants as long as he ‘ proposes ‘ spending cuts, with no enforcement mechanism.
So today he is on TV lecturing against those that put politics and ideology ahead of America as he plays the best political game, And now every single liberal Democrat that would NEVER really support the proposed ‘bluff’ spending cuts, is out there on TV claiming they are for them.
Thanks again, friend.
I did mention that Valhalla does not await him!
Is that why he pushed through a reduction in the SS payroll tax. So that Americans could pay more of the taxes that they love to pay. Sounds backwards to me.
Actually, bcsco did it, and a good job it is.
Hi Arrowhead. That post is simple and elegant. I love the stark fractal black and white. It makes a nice change from some of my riots of colors. :-)
I usually credit the person who pinged me since I can’t post if I don’t get pinged. The troll hunter should get a H/T as well though. Will look a little more carefully.
Actually it is more like spending goes up no matter what. Bush cut taxes and held the line on tax increases and that hardly restrained his government spending, in fact spending went nuts historically.
A real problem is once you got citizens paying zero income taxes not only does that not pay for itself, but to them the government looks free and they see little reason not to want it to do more.
I agree with the Laffer curve theory as it is obvious that zero or 100% tax rates must kill the revenue. But there is also the liberal and conservative Santa Clause theories of spending and taxes, one that we saw under Bush.
Wait, what? Naw ya done good! It’s all good :o)
Always steal from the best ;-)
Right. I’ve been hearing that all around town today; “Why can’t our government raise our taxes already.” LOL.
Nope, not true. The deficit increased when Clinton had a Democratic Congress -- and during that time he raised taxes. "His" balanced budgets resulted from an economic boom and a [Republican] Congress which did not increase spending at near the historic rate.
Bush cut taxes and held the line on tax increases and that hardly restrained his government spending,
True.
in fact spending went nuts historically.
Not true. As a function of GDP Bush's spending was not historic. High yes; nuts, no.
A real problem is once you got citizens paying zero income taxes not only does that not pay for itself, but to them the government looks free and they see little reason not to want it to do more.
Yes. That is correct. The solution to spending on discretionary items is to tax those who are not being taxed. At present, they (>half the country) are contributing NOTHING. The solution to entitlement spending is to either make people actually pay what the programs are projected to cost, or adjust benefits to actuarial realities. There really is no alternative. But what we are actually going to do is monetize the debt. That will be a tax on everyone. But the poor will think they're getting away with something because "the rich" will continue to pay [visible] taxes.
But there is also the liberal and conservative Santa Clause theories of spending and taxes, one that we saw under Bush.
Like Nixon, Bush was not a conservative. But like Nixon, Bush was correct on the Great Issue of his time, so conservatives toed the line. Because of his anticommunism, conservatives carried Nixon's water despite his egregious liberalism. Bush had more conservative instincts than Nixon: he certainly didn't create OSHA, the EPA, or do revenue sharing or wage and price controls. But he also didn't use his veto pen, and he needed to. Often. And, as I said, he was not a conservative.
Conservatives have no "Santa Clause" theories of spending and taxes: we believe the problem is spending.
It is.
Ah, then I realized you were being sarcastic, without the tag.
If our country was not so dumbed down and the Resident Phaoroh did not have a cult like following, in a sane world you would not need a sarcasm tag for a post like that. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.