Skip to main content

Thinkprogress reports that Boehner says that there is "No ‘Difference’ If Revenue Comes From Middle Class Or Super Rich" on Chris Wallace's show.

CHIRS WALLACE (HOST): You talked about the fact that the President won and you came out with a concession the day after the election and they point out that the president campaigned on raising tax rates, you know, and it was the big issue, between him and Romney, and, they say, just as he had to cave, after your victory, in the 2010 midterms, now, it is your turn to cave on tax rates.

BOEHNER: Listen, what is this difference where the money comes from? We put $800 billion worth of revenue, which is what he is asking for, out of eliminating the top two tax rates. But, here’s the problem, Chris, when you go and increase tax rates, you make it more difficult for our economy to grow, after that income, the small business income, it is going to get taxed at a higher rate and as a result we’re gonna see slower economic growth, we can’t cut our way out of this problem, nor can we grow our way out of the problem, we have to have a balanced approach and what the President wants to do will slow or economy at a time when he says he wants the economy to grow and create jobs.

To be honest, it's not quite clear to me that's what he meant. He could be talking about the difference between increasing tax rates and increasing revenue through ending loop holes. But I have faith in ThinkProgress's ability to interpret comments. If he's saying that it doesn't matter whether we have revenue from the rich or spending cuts from the rest, this is pretty devastating. It shows how out of touch they are with the middle class, and if I was Obama, I would hammer that every day.

And there must be serious push back against Boehner's claim that increasing tax rates makes it difficult for the economy to grow- he makes this claim over and over, as does every Republican.  

When I tried to argue this point against conservatives, they try to obfuscate the issue, arguing that the reason Clinton had the economic boom wasn't because he raised taxes but because he was lucky to have a "dot com" boom and blah blah blah. But Im NOT arguing WHY he had the boom and for the purposes of this argument I DON'T CARE. Republicans don't realize that. Im simply saying that if raising taxes was sufficient to harm the economy then Clinton would have harmed the economy. Since that didn't happen, the Republican claim is false at its face. I don't care what bull shit rationale you have for why we shouldn't ever make a rich guy slightly unhappy: "they'll pass on the cost to the middle class, blah blah blah". The point is, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, so stop saying it will.

When I've argued this simple point with conservatives, it left most in silence. They simply never thought about it that way.

A corollary to the argument is the reminder that cutting spending ALSO harms the economy. So if you really want to decrease the deficits, we need to make, what Boehner calls, "sacrifices", including taxing the rich. We also need to have, as Boehner put it, "courage" in order to face up to bull shit threats made by some CEOs. Except it takes little courage to harm the weak and elderly, and a lot of courage to stand up to the rich and powerful.

 Boehner shouldn't be allowed to repeat this silly claim. He might as well start claiming that "God kills kittens when you raise taxes on the rich". Just as believable.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (321+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TarantinoDork, Aureas2, kestrel9000, One Pissed Off Liberal, MartyM, Melanie in IA, basquebob, IndieGuy, Temmoku, Patate, kerflooey, pittie70, S F Hippie, IB JOHN, ask, Vatexia, dotsright, randallt, chira2, Deejay Lyn, Chi, TheKF1, Timothy J, dwahzon, ferg, Sembtex, Fury, ZappoDave, Mol, Smoh, Gustogirl, rogerdaddy, PhilW, Overseas, cskendrick, m00finsan, ItsSimpleSimon, notrouble, Fireshadow, winsock, global citizen, sb, nailbender, DownstateDemocrat, hubcap, howabout, zukesgirl64, gulfgal98, lineatus, eXtina, SteelerGrrl, tapestry, deep, pat bunny, Gowrie Gal, annrose, California06, mbh1023, friendly person, NJpeach, mod2lib, defluxion10, Floande, this just in, nupstateny, BobBlueMass, Cronesense, prettygirlxoxoxo, hotdamn, emal, betsyross, Matt Z, RUNDOWN, phonegery, Susipsych, Habitat Vic, GeorgeXVIII, sea note, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, tiggers thotful spot, tb92, stevenwag, 1BQ, bnasley, maskling11, markdd, Joieau, stormicats, Mistral Wind, petesmom, WinSmith, maybeeso in michigan, spooks51, blueoasis, SuWho, yawnimawke, glendaw271, DontTaseMeBro, sostos, Grandma Susie, GreyHawk, caliberal2001, Bob Friend, LeftArmed, mofembot, Hohenzollern, MarkInSanFran, Ekaterin, Philpm, pademocrat, twigg, dougymi, VTCC73, radical simplicity, leonard145b, Isara, greycat, zerelda, countwebb, missLotus, niteskolar, walkshills, yoduuuh do or do not, OldDragon, karmsy, subtropolis, BachFan, jan4insight, Annalize5, shypuffadder, Robynhood too, bloomer 101, RJDixon74135, maxcat06, regis, Glen The Plumber, oldpotsmuggler, anodnhajo, jacey, eru, pamelabrown, begone, Themistoclea, Prospect Park, DBunn, ardyess, jedennis, Mimikatz, royce, splashy, NoMoreLies, psnyder, ladybug53, davelf2, pickandshovel, dotdash2u, USHomeopath, boomerchick, Linda1961, sebastianguy99, figbash, Chaddiwicker, Brahman Colorado, fiercefilms, DixieDishrag, carver, hazzcon, fou, pgm 01, StrayCat, AllDemsOnBoard, kathny, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Pragmatus, Cat Whisperer, La Gitane, DeadHead, NWTerriD, samoashark, Alumbrados, arizonablue, ban nock, cpresley, glorificus, gfv6800, hannah, Dewstino, alnep, mirandasright, james321, thomask, where4art, CocoaLove, Bule Betawi, DvCM, peterj911, Calfacon, slowbutsure, fumie, DRo, Yosef 52, This old man, HappyinNM, bythesea, exNYinTX, Dreaming of Better Days, afisher, dmhlt 66, pioneer111, IndyinDelaware, Terminus, Eikyu Saha, TRPChicago, Bridge Master, WheninRome, cosette, Lefty Coaster, BarackStarObama, Ed in Montana, Pistoche, shaggies2009, Recovering Southern Baptist, skyounkin, MA Liberal, dewtx, molunkusmol, Thousandwatts, opinionated, markthshark, Gemina13, emmasnacker, steamed rice, sidnora, Dobber, Snarky McAngus, Ptown boy in NC, 57andFemale, ATFILLINOIS, democracy inaction, murasaki, Empower Ink, Mentatmark, filkertom, UFOH1, BasharH, zhimbo, mapamp, shortgirl, TexDem, RonV, TomP, LookingUp, Arahahex, TheDuckManCometh, elwior, elginblt, JanetT in MD, cyncynical, Its a New Day, War on Error, sboucher, SherwoodB, trumpeter, revsue, Suzanne 3, tegrat, xaxnar, kevinpdx, Ckntfld, jasan, TX Freethinker, zenox, citizen dan, LSmith, hooktool, satrap, buckstop, Judge Moonbox, peteri2, nomandates, Eyesbright, Odysseus, millwood, Mathazar, Wino, science nerd, PeterHug, Camp, HarpboyAK, JamieG from Md, flycaster, Calamity Jean, PeteZerria, Oliver Tiger, Aaa T Tudeattack, davekro, SaintC, congenitalefty, 207wickedgood, lostinamerica, bunsk, Terri, sawgrass727, joynow, Loudoun County Dem, riverlover, SherriG, DirkFunk, 417els, Jeff Y, eyeswideopen, chickeeee, SueM1121, coppercelt, radarlady, uciguy30, followyourbliss, MichaelNY, burana, Robobagpiper, leeleedee
  •  i like that last line. thanks so much. (109+ / 0-)

    'if raising taxes was sufficient to harm the economy then Clinton would have harmed the economy. Since that didn't happen, the Republican claim is false.'

    sometimes I spend more time reading the comments than the diaries. no offense to diarists: thanks for the launch pad.

    by dunnjen on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:04:11 AM PST

    •  Careful ... (12+ / 0-)

      We all would prefer lower taxes -- we need to point out that these tax increases are necessary because (a) the infrastructure is crumbling (b) the economy needs a stimulus (c) the rich need to pay their fair share and (d) the deficit needs to be brought down in the long run.

      Tax increases are bad for the economy if the sole purpose is to take private wealth to spend on corrupt elites.

      •  Isn't that the diarist's whole point? (23+ / 0-)

        All that line says is that raising the top rates to Clinton's level does not ipso facto mean the economy slows.

        Certainly at no point does the diarist say or even imply that tax increases are meant to take private wealth to spread to "elites."

        The opposite actually, taxes on the elites must be raised (ever so slightly) so that the poor and old do not suffer cuts in social programs.

        Not trying to be an ass, your comment seems to misread the diarist's whole point.  Peace.

        Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

        by 4CasandChlo on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:59:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (51+ / 0-)

          There is ZERO evidence the Clinton/Democrats tax bill that raised rates in 1993 (and got NO republican votes), had any negative impact on the economy.

          1. Tax rates raised in 1993
          2.  Economy growing by 1994
          3.  Largest economic boom in history 1994-2000 (much larger than the 1998-2000 dot-com bubble)
          4.  Balanced budget by 1999

          Or:

          1.  Bush tax cuts
          2.  Surpluses immediately turn into deficits
          3.  Deficits grow exponentially
          4.  Economy crashes seven years later

          Basic logic.  Personal income tax rates have no impact on the broader economy.  Still impossible for wingnuts to see.

          •  The entire pissing contest (12+ / 0-)

            is based around the fossilized economic philosophy of “trickle down economics”.  It's BS and the economic history of the US backs that up.  When the marginal rate is high all elements of society prosper, conversely, when the rate is low the economy suffers stagnation, recession or depression – that's, take it to the bank, history.  
            In 1922, a series of rate cuts on the marginal tax began. During and after WWI the highest marginal tax rate was 73 percent; by 1925 it was reduced to 24 percent.
            In 1924, Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon (who was the richest man in America at the time)  wrote,

            It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates." ..
            ...he pushed for the reduction of the marginal tax from 73% to an eventual 24%.
            Four years later came the crash of 1929 and the economy did not recover until after the onset of WWII – 12+ years later.
             Even Herbert Hoover realized the disastrous effect  the reduction had on the economy and late in his administration raised the rate to 64%.

            "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Isaac Asimov (8.25 / -5.64}

            by carver on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 01:28:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The way I see it, there is no causal effect (6+ / 0-)

              regarding tax rates. Both the crashes of 1929 and 2008 were caused by market manipulation, caused by lack of regulation. Presently we need more revenue because that money can be used to stimulate the economy, and pay for social programs so that the poor don't drown. The diarist's point that Clinton's tax hike didn't hurt the economy merely negates the stupid Repuke argument that it will. It's a great comeback. We, as a society have to determine what we want for our country, and collect sufficient taxes to allow for that. That's the only reason we should be concerned about rates.

            •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

              the entire pissing contest is based on the fact that the true power/money brokers don't give a shit about anyone who even has to debate this issue.

              At the end of the day, what comes down will be to the benefit of those who truly pull the strings (because if it isn't they will simply relocate their money / selves / corporations / hidden money during the inevitable phase-in period or whatever it will be called.

              There's a stubborn refusal by most people to accept that it simply is not going to make a real difference to those who already have more money than 10 generations could fritter way. All of this pretend horse-trading is about which non high-tens-of-millionaires exactly shoulder how much.

              The road to repair (if it even exists) will be littered with sacrificial lambs of the unfortunates - who will include "entitlements", those wealthy but not enough to affect the way the tax code is actually written.

              The only thing that can make the repair work is the burden ending up (remaining) on the shoulders of those without the power/influence/money to escape shouldering however much falls on them. Norquist, Koch, Romney, Dimon, Blankfein and their ilk will not pay one cent more. They'll see to it, and y'all may as well accept it.

              Increased tax rates will, to these people, merely be inconveniences they'll instruct "Dewey, Cheatham and Howe LLC" lawyers to avoid.

              The regular person in the street should prepare for the massive tax-truck that's a coming down the road.

          •  Isn't McConnell, right now, trying to squelch a (6+ / 0-)

            report that states that cutting taxes on the very rich has no impact on job creation?

            Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

            by Sirenus on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:08:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The GOP hasn't had an original (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            opinionated, WinSmith

            thought on taxes/spending/deficits in AT LEAST 20 years, going back to the 1993 Clinton Tax bill. That bill passed with NO GOP votes in the House and resulted in a 50-50 tie in the Senate that was broken by VP Gore.
                 We all know what happened: economy boomed, tax revenues rose, 22 million net new jobs created AND in 1999 we began running surpluses in the budget and paying down the national debt. (Indeed I recall learned articles estimating the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT would be paid off by about 2013 and that the Treasury needed to begin drawing up plans for financing America w/o bonds.)
                  And THIS link will give you all sorts of quotes from 1993 from the GOP: Gingrich, Kasich, Armey, Bunning, Pryce, Dornan predicting "job killing" policies, deficits, recession, more gay rights, fluoridated water, and dogs and cats living together in sin (OK, I made up a couple of those). SAME warnings/threats, often in the same words!

            (Bonus quotes when you scroll down: Republicans warning against the takeover of medicine and creeping socialism from 1965 with the enactment of Medicare;
            AND the end of America with the passage of Social Security in 1935. Ah....to be SO WRONG for SO LONG!!!)

            Shalom.

            "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

            by WineRev on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 06:01:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Raising taxes on the rich (36+ / 0-)

          will not slow the economy, it will stimulate it. That is what they don't seem to get.

          When you raise taxes on the rich to gather more revenue, you are gathering it from sources that do little or nothing to promote economic activity.

          If you then spend that money by increasing spending at the lower end of the income scale, every dollar stimulates the economy many times over.

          The converse is true .... cutting welfare programs in a recession is quite likely to worsen the economy.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          by twigg on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:43:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "That is what they don't seem to get" (27+ / 0-)

            is, unfortunately, false. They get it, they get it, they get it.

            A failing economy raises unemployment - increasing pressure on employees not employers. You get the "they should be happy for a minimum wage job".

            You get pressure to reduce public services, pressure to "privatize" the military - in gneral, you force the lowest overhead provider of services (governments) out of the markt, opening the market to profit seeking firms.

            Never, ever say they don't get it - they do. They just can't say they do.

            There is no environmental, social, economic or resource problem that wouldn't be helped by 3 billion fwer people on the planet.

            by tjlord on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:39:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  An additional benefit that is not discussed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trueblueliberal, elwior

            much here at DKOS is the supply of dollars will grow rapidly  because the government demand to fund deficits will decrease and competition for new borrowers will intensify . Supply and demand will allow banks and lenders to have beaucoup bucks to lend to home buyers, small business and consumers and they'll respond by loosening qualifying and allow commercial borrowing to foresee-ably explode . The demand for loans is great right now, the supply is limited because of government deficits and debt; reduce deficits and debt and whoosh the real estate market, entrepreneurs, credit lines and cash flow will expand dramatically as it did in 1995 under the same scenario.

            After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

            by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:25:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  raising income taxes on rich helps economy (0+ / 0-)

            because those rich who actually have some business enterprise then can save on tax bill by investing in their enterprises thus lowering their taxable income.

            this investment in their enterprises helps them also in that it makes their enterprise more valuable (presuming they actually have a viable business operation).

            conversely, lowering their personal tax rate reduces the incentive for investing in productive business.

            perhaps eliminating all income taxes for,say, first $25,000 salaried income would help those who are frugal and enterprising to accumulate some capital to use in business.

            a transaction tax on stock trades could generate considerable income with very little pain or problem.  in this fashion, the increased productivity of computerization, etc., could be shared with more and further increase growth of the economy.  by the way, i do small stock trades and this would not make any appreciable difference in my income.

            there seems to be many easy and useful options to maintain and strengthen the entire society.  at  present, seems anything that does not enhance wealth of the wealthy is filtered out of most people's thought.

            regards,

        •  If low taxes created jobs we wouldn't have LOST (14+ / 0-)

          millions of jobs under GW Bush. That is the classic refutation of their argument.

          P.us, anyone who extracts over $250,000 from a business isn't owner of a small business.  Most of these are self-employed drpoctors and lawyers who make millions, not Mom-and-Pop grocery stores or a little catering business.

          The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

          by Mimikatz on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:56:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "small business", "job creators" (5+ / 0-)

            these are emotional taglines, they are not descriptors in the classic sense of...making sense.
            That is not what they are being used for.
            Small business, in the classic sense, is also not the "largest segment of job creation in the economy".
             My local general store is exactly that type of business. They have five employees, including the two owners. We would need hundreds of these types of businesses in my small town to employ the population, and that wouldn't happen because there is no demand for hundresds of these small businesses in a small town.

            The whole thing is ludicrous on its face. The expansive (read: fictional) definition of 'small business' that makes it barely possible to make the above claims nullifies the image of them as small, locally controlled enterprises. It's a brazen lie, but a very effective and destructive one.

            Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything - Malcolm X via Skindred

            by kamarvt on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:47:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You mean like (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hillbilly Dem, Sirenus, skyounkin, elwior

        me paying higher taxes so we can give subsidies to oil and gas companies and factory farms?

        O'Reilly just may be right this time. Democrats do want free stuff...Their Rights.

        by regis on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:25:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't need lower taxes (6+ / 0-)

        The higher tax rates I paid in the 1980s and 90s were just fine, as long as we get better schools, clean national parks and less wars.

        "I come close to despair because so many of the pieces of the country are broken, and when you see that, you have two choices: You can give up, or you can do something about it." Elizabeth Warren

        by Ed in Montana on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:28:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  why does no one.... (4+ / 0-)

        ...say how well the rich have done in the midst of this recession?  why is this not the frame?!

        in 2011, in the midst of this Wall Street created recession, there were 25% More millionaires.  It was infinitely easier to become millionaires because of the Bush tax cuts and the elimination of estate taxes.  they crated NO jobs, just personal wealth!

        NEVER was this part of the meme, and it should be conventional wisdom by now.

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        if revenue from tax increases is spent, it really doesn't matter what it is spent on, any spending will stimulate the economy. Now, some expenditures, such as unemployment payments, food stamps and welfare have a greater economic multiplier than other types of expenditures, such as new weapons systems or sports arenas. But they all are good for the economy, because the money goes into circulation.

        Even if the revenue is spent on corrupt elites (not entirely sure what kind of spending falls under this rubric) it will be good for the economy as long as the money is spent in the brick and mortar world of products and services rather than spent on ownership paperwork or set aside in financial accounts.

        "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

        by Orinoco on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 04:22:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, Clinton also lowered spending to (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SuWho, dougfir30, VClib, nextstep

      around 19% of GDP (to go with revenue also around 19% of GDP) at the same time.  Today's spending is around 24% of GDP, with revenue around 15% - 16% of GDP.  

      So, if you want to say, with credibility, that the Clinton model resulted in growth, you have to talk about all aspects of the Clinton model, not just the parts you like.

      •  bS (35+ / 0-)

        You keep pushing these lines about "spending cuts". you do know that President Obama is the first president in 50+ years to run the leanest government with the lowest levels of deficit spending right?

        And No. Clinton's increased taxes is what got the debt & deficit low through economic growth which brought in increased revenue,

        Bush got us in this mess precisely because he atrophied revenue through his irresponsible tax cuts, and borrowed to up the spending on his wars which resulted in the huge debt & deficit..

        So when you have an economy that is so warped and the ratio of revenue to debt & deficit is so out of what, do you starve spending to grow the economy or do you spend to stabilize it out of the near-depression into some state of health. This is what president Obama has been doing. We cannot cut our way out of a deep recession. it is not tenable

        So now that there are signs of health, we need to correct the unsustainable dismal tax revenue receipts by clawing back the lopsidedly paltry rates that upper income and corporations pay

        "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

        by zizi on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:57:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sigh. Facts are facts. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, nextstep, MrSpock

          See here and here (page 27).  

          1999:  Receipts 19.8% of GDP; Outlays 18.5% of GDP.

          2011 (last year with hard data) Receipts 15.8% of GDP: Outlays 24.1% of GDP.  The only other time spending was that high as a % of GDP was during FY 1943 - 1946 (i.e., World War II), and then when the war ended, we dropped dramatically for FY 1947 to 14.8% of GDP.

          Those are White House numbers.    I'm using the last year with hard data, because estimates are meaningless unless you know what assumptions (what growth in GDP, what spending) are included in those estimates.  If, for example, you assume that GDP will grow 5% in 2013 and spending will increase less than that same 5% of GDP, that would drop spending as a % of GDP.  

          All the talk about "cuts" and "tax increases" and "reducing deficits" are completely meaningless unless you are specific about what baseline you are using and unless you specify how you are measuring.  And -- as the White House document demonstrates -- when you want to compare government receipts and outlays, that is generally not measured in absolute numbers but instead as a percentage of GDP.   Our receipts are too low, and our outlays are too high.  That's what that chart tells you.  

          Look at the White House document outlining those numbers and then let's talk.  

          •  Those are in a relatively prosperous times (18+ / 0-)

            Outlays should and must be higher in times of recession.  The fact is higher taxes did not harm the Clinton economy, and more importantly, low taxes did not leave Bush with a great economy.

            These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

            by Nailbanger on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:35:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton didn't lower spending. The left hand (7+ / 0-)

            out lay column on pg. 27 increased year after year to 1.7 trillion (on into 2012 i might add). The 19%  balance was achieved by an exploding GDP and the ratio of continuous increasing expenditures fell not government outlays.

            You have completely distorted the record.

            Besides we are talking of increasing revenue like in 1994 when tax increases stimulated the economy and brought us to your 1999 conclusions.

            BTW thanks for the links. I bookmarked them.

            After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

            by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:49:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Clinton and the Republicans kept spending (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, MrSpock

              in line with receipts.  That is the point.  No one in government requires actual decrease in dollars spent to constitute a "cut."  In government speak, a slowing in the projected growth of spending is a "cut."  

              And yes, part of the "balance" was the growth in GDP.  But the fact that spending was kept at below 20% of GDP also played a part.  Clinton and the Republican Congress did not increase spending to keep pace with, or exceed, that growth in GDP.  

              My point was that the Clinton record was not just increasing revenues as a part of GDP, it was keeping spending in line with that 18% or so of GDP.  The low spending as a % of GDP also played a role in the Clinton economic record.  

              What the President is proposing -- increasing revenues as a percent of GDP but keeping spending some 5 - 6 percentage points greater than revenues (depending on the growth projections) -- is not the Clinton model.  And neither is what the Republicans are proposing, by the way.  

              My point is that it is overly simplistic and misleading to say, "Clinton increased taxes and growth was fine" as if  there was a unilateral cause and effect there.  There were a whole lot of things at play, including the dot.com boom and the fact that outlays were low as a percent of GDP.  It would as if the Republicans were to say, "Clinton kept spending below 20% of GDP and  we had a lot of growth, so let's cut spending to 20% of GDP."  That would be equally misleading.    

              •  Clinton .... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bluezen, Odysseus, MrSpock, lostinamerica
                kept spending in line with receipts.
                ...during GOOD times with near-full employment.   Like a good Keynesian.  In case you hadn't noticed we are a long way from full employment now...keeping spending in line with receipts right now would be not only stupid but actually counterproductive in terms of deficit reduction (see: most of Europe).

                Oh, and you can cut that "Clinton & the Republicans" bullshit.  Most of us are old enough to remember how Clinton had to drag Newt & Dole kicking and screaming every step of the way....

                •  I don't think we should have a surplus (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MrSpock, VClib

                  as they did at the end of the Clinton term.  I understand that times are different.  My point was only that the statement "Clinton raised taxes, and growth didn't slow" was overly simplistic and misleading in and of itself.  A lot of things happened during those years, and the combination of those things -- including raising taxes, limiting spending, and the dot.com boom -- lead to the growth of that period.  

                  And I say "Clinton and the Republican Congress" because a President doesn't authorize spending.  It takes a combination of a President and Congress. And, during the years of surplus,Clinton was President and  the Congress was controlled by Republicans.  

                  My personal view is that tax revenue needs to go back up to about 18% of GDP, and spending needs to come down to about 21% of GDP, so that the annual deficits are once again on a sustainable level.  

                  •  The most important factor rarely discussed (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MrSpock

                    is that the supply of dollars will grow rapidly  because the government demand to fund deficits will decrease and competition for new borrowers will intensify . Supply and demand will allow banks and lenders to have beaucoup bucks to lend to home buyers, small business and consumers and they'll respond by loosening qualifying and allow commercial borrowing to foresee-ably explode . The demand for loans is great right now, the supply is limited because of government deficits and debt; reduce deficits and debt and whoosh the real estate market, entrepreneurs, credit lines and cash flow will expand dramatically as it did in 1995 under the same scenario.

                    So there is a cause and effect. A dramatic one. If the economy expands to 3-4-5-6 % because of expanded cash supplies, then the outlays to GDP will drop below any arbitrary magical number of 18-19-21% of GDP. The projections through 2014 already project us at 22% from our current 24%. Any surge in the economy (which I predict ala Warren Buffet) will render equal 20% ratios or lower and Obama will be master of the universe just in time for Hillary to step in.

                    After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

                    by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 06:34:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed, facts are facts. All of them, not just (7+ / 0-)

        the parts that you like.

        From downthread:

        have to pay back the free money they've been enjoying since 2000/2001. Meanwhile, we've been paying into SS at our Baby Boomer premium with every paycheck all along (diminished by a bit less than a third for the last two years). That is one of the stimulus tax cuts scheduled to end on January 1 - and it should end. For median income that's about $20 a week, easily made up for in a new Obama tax cut package for the 98% and an increase on the 2%. Which is coming no matter how many tears Boehner sheds.

        Only difference is in the dedication of the incoming tax revenue. What properly belongs to Social Security should be on the books for Social Security. Because that's a debt to we the people by the U.S. Treasury and it's backed by the very same "full faith and credit" of the U.S. of A. as any other debt we owe to anybody else in the world.

        The Republicans, knowing that the SS T-Bills were borrowed by the government for the general fund in order to offset their tax cuts and tax evasion schemes, simply want the Treasury to default on that debt now that it's coming due. That is a much, much bigger threat to the nation than raising taxes on the insanely wealthy.

        The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

        by ozsea1 on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:45:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's more proved (3+ / 0-)

      by pointing to FDR.

      •  The rate went from the low 80's to 91% when we (0+ / 0-)

        ...started becoming the wealthiest nation ever in the 50's. Under Truman in 1946 we had a national debt of 121%, millions of ex GI's needed jobs, the economy was entering a recession. Our strongest import / export markets where in rubble along with any chance of them floating loads of credit as we do with China today. By the 50's under Eisenhower, a Republican (though Keynesian) president it remained at 91% top tax rate throughout the decade. As we grew into the world's first modern superpower. As we spent hugely and paid down the lions's share of the debt, rebuilt Europe with the Marshall plan, started the GI bill and built ourselves an interstate highway system. If high taxes kill jobs why did those (largely unionized) wages get to being higher into the 60's than you get paid today doing the same job after counting for inflation? Even when Kennedy got them down to a 73% top rate (the rate Paul Ryan mentioned in his debate but dare not name) wages and economic expansion incresed with the wealthiest on the hook for well over half their pay. That's a tax rate about 25% higher than what's being proposed now.

        Screw the Clinton tax hikes. Make the Neocons explain how we prospered at a greater rate than we ever have, then or now, despite astronomically high tax rates under far graver economic conditions than we are in now. Put this stupid, self serving BS about long term economic damage in the trash in of history where it belongs and embarrass a neocon over their ignorance of how macroeconomics works in the real world.

        •  Because US rebuilt Europe (0+ / 0-)

          I've used the same argument that you are using in the past but got stumped when someone pointed out that the US economy got supercharged after WWII since we we the only country to have a fully functional large scale manufacturing capability. That is no longer the case. If those rates were applied today, business would now have the ability to move operations or investment overseas.

          I'd love to hear a good counter argument to that if anyone knows one.

          •  We don't need a 90% rate. Either way though, (0+ / 0-)

            I... if we have smart spending to go along with even current plans to raise high taxes . We'll still recover sooner. And an America firing on all 8 cylinders provides an economic environment they won't find elsewhere. Where is it cheaper to live tax-wise with an infrastructure like ours? Our rates are generally lower other than the corporate rate, which we only collect a small portion of.

            Our situation only needs a child's dose of the medicine needed in 1946. My point is to make neocons admit that America's golden age of growth which they revere was built under a tax that only allowed top earners 10% of their earnings (before loopholes and tax shelters) and 1 in 3 jobs may have been unionized with better wages for workers then. And we prospered in a way not seen since, economically and an overall improvment in living standards and freedoms.

            Indeed part of the solution then was building better markets in Europe and Japan. Half the world would prosper from being part of those markets they can't participate in now.

            Yes we need to shrink everyone's overall energy adn resource blueprint. But if we and the EU, Japan and others build them carefully in self sustaining ways there is room for more economic growth and the spread of peace.

    •  If raising taxes was harmful to the economy (4+ / 0-)

      Reagan should have ushered in a second Great Depression.

      "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

      by glorificus on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 01:16:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or, if cutting tax rates on the rich was truly the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheDuckManCometh, elwior, elginblt

      way to create jobs, we should, right now, be awash in jobs.

      Since tax rates on the rich and coporations are the lowest they've been in decades.

      But even someone sitting on a mountain of cash is not going to hire an employee to stand around doing nothing.

      Demand for goods and services is what creates jobs. But that doesn't get more money in the pockets of the 2% who make their money from vulture capitalism or outsourcing or putting everyone on a part-time basis. So the GOP pushes this absurd "job creator " theory.

      Tell Boehner to take the damn deal. I just did.
      www.speaker.gov/contact

      Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

      by Sirenus on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:06:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He has no feet left! (8+ / 0-)

    Nor a leg to stand on.

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:04:42 AM PST

  •  Repubs are pushing cuts to Medicare & Soc. Sec. (29+ / 0-)

    and pretending both programs are turning us into Greece.
    But they're just a bunch of cowards - refusing to propose specific cuts.

    "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

    by MartyM on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:09:43 AM PST

    •  and that is exactly what Boehner did (21+ / 0-)

      when Wallace asked for specifics. Boehner looked lost, unable to provide anything other than more talking points.

      Some people have short memories

      by lenzy1000 on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:28:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But notice, they are not actually proposing cuts (25+ / 0-)

      Just saying "we need entitlement reform." If they want cuts, let's see them propose them.

    •  Social Security adds zip (11+ / 0-)

      to the deficit, it's a social insurance program and retirement stipend working people pay into their entire working lives. It must of off the table.

      Medicare/Medicaid do have real revenue vs. payout problems due to the ridiculous inflation in health care costs, which APA is not going to meaningfully address - it's just going to hold the line to lesser increases. Seems like nobody's asking serious questions about why we pay two or three times the cost of health care as anybody else in the world, and for some 'unexplained' reason receive third world lousy outcomes that get even worse the more money we pay.

      Creation of a workable universal health care system - cradle to grave for everybody on basic and necessary care - is the ONLY way to address our problems on the health care end. Such a system would also eliminate the need for both Medicare and Medicaid. Poof! Problem solved.

      But we all know Republicans don't want to solve any actual problems in this country.

      •  Social security has a direct effect on (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, NoMoreLies, bobinson

        tax cuts for billionaires.  What do you think has been financing them for the last 12 years, the excess payments from SSI
        As the flow starts to reverse, the budget cant sustain the tax cuts. That is why all of these politicians are so worried about a problem that is really 25 years away...when was the last time you heard a republican worry about a problem that far into the future?

        These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

        by Nailbanger on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:42:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They just don't want to (8+ / 0-)

          have to pay back the free money they've been enjoying since 2000/2001. Meanwhile, we've been paying into SS at our Baby Boomer premium with every paycheck all along (diminished by a bit less than a third for the last two years). That is one of the stimulus tax cuts scheduled to end on January 1 - and it should end. For median income that's about $20 a week, easily made up for in a new Obama tax cut package for the 98% and an increase on the 2%. Which is coming no matter how many tears Boehner sheds.

          Only difference is in the dedication of the incoming tax revenue. What properly belongs to Social Security should be on the books for Social Security. Because that's a debt to we the people by the U.S. Treasury and it's backed by the very same "full faith and credit" of the U.S. of A. as any other debt we owe to anybody else in the world.

          The Republicans, knowing that the SS T-Bills were borrowed by the government for the general fund in order to offset their tax cuts and tax evasion schemes, simply want the Treasury to default on that debt now that it's coming due. That is a much, much bigger threat to the nation than raising taxes on the insanely wealthy.

      •  SS cuts add zero. SS benefit cuts would hurt (0+ / 0-)

        The people who depend on Social Security payments don't sequester it in offshore bank accounts. They spend it. It goes right back into the economy. Cutting entitlements is the worst thing you can do to stimulate the economy.

        What is the best thing you can do to stimulate the economy? Extend unemployment benefits. They get spent immediately.


        i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

        by bobinson on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 05:09:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  True. (26+ / 0-)

    In 1993, when Clinton was trying to pass his economic plan, Republicans came up with the same arguments - That tax increases would put the economy back into recession. His program passed Congress without a single Republican vote.
       Guess, what: No recession.
        This was before the dot.com boom. In fact, there were only about 30 sites on the whole web in those days. So the later computing explosion was not a factor in avoiding a 1993-94 recession.

    •  We were still in a recession in 1993 (5+ / 0-)

      It's the reason Clinton won in 1992.   But we climbed out of that recession, notwithstanding the Clinton tax hike.

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:00:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because of the tax hike. (4+ / 0-)

        Low taxes encourage speculation over growth, outsourcing over expansion, and cost cutting over hiring.
        If it is cheap to take money out of a company (low taxes), that is exactly what you encourage.  A higher tax rate encourages companies to reinvest and expand.

        These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

        by Nailbanger on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:44:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nailbanger - not because of the tax hike (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk

          Because the dot com boom caused explosive economic growth and windfall taxes from realized capital gains. In all the data I have seen regarding government revenues and tax rates during the Clinton years none of them make the point that higher tax rates were a reason for the growth in GDP. They were certainly an important part of higher government revenues.

          I have performed every analysis regarding expansion and investment from being a junior analyst to a public company CFO and have never seen a case where higher tax rates made it more favorable to invest and expand. It's actually just the opposite. Investments are driven by expected after tax returns, so the higher the taxes the lower the returns, the fewer investments that are made. There are numerous software packages that help companies making expansion or investment decisions. In everyone of them tax rates are a variable and higher rates always are factored in as a negative.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:55:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  vclib - have you ever contemplated end of year tax (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bluezen

            management in your own business?

            i have operated small (very small by some standards) for perhaps 50 years, and have always looked at more investments in the business at end of year, especially when had good income year, to hold tax rates at the same as well as at the same time, improved the value/efficiency or other aspects of my enterprise.  perhaps i have been an ignoramus  unaware of some your esoteric accounting/analyst big business.

            regards

            •  yes, but vclib's posted over 22K comments. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lostinamerica

              aren't you impressed by that?

              me neither.

            •  OzBill - I have never been an officer, (0+ / 0-)

              director, or significant owner of a Sub S or LLC corporation. All my experience with making investment or expansion decisions within a corporation have come in C corporations, some large, some small.

              I can understand how as a Sub S owner facing a personal tax payment based on corporate net income you might have a different view, particularly if you could purchase something in December that could lower your tax liability. For C corporations a December purchase would not typically impact your tax liability unless there were unusual items that had special tax credits or tax write-offs associated with them.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 07:14:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  But This Analysis... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, Nailbanger
            Investments are driven by expected after tax returns,
            ...is done at the micro-level (it's individual companies using those software packages, after all, not the US economy doing it) and doesn't capture the macro effects. The simple fact is that shifting the tax burden up the income ladder in this economy will increase overall demand in the economy and THAT will increase after-tax returns.  

            I'd also add that you are making the rather odd assumption that a lack of investment funds is a problem.  Seems to me that the popularity of near-0% treasuries and the couple trillion in corporate cash on the sidelines NOW are telling us that that we have a SURPLUS of investment funds right now...what's missing is the DEMAND to drive OPPORTUNITIES for investment.  

          •  It is not seen becuase no one wants to see it. (0+ / 0-)

            No business group is going to say give me more taxes, not industry funded think tank is going to say give more taxes, no consultant working in the fortune 1000 is going to suggest it, no business school looking for endowments is going to study it.
              I just cant believe low tax rates, making it cheaper to remove capital, encourages growth.  It encourages profit taking and cutting costs and speculation, not growth.

            These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

            by Nailbanger on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:46:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  A Repub Held Up a Sign in Congress "Clinton Reces- (10+ / 0-)

      sion." Of course a boom immediately followed.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:08:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You can't look at only part of the Clinton model (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ahumbleopinion, Joieau, VClib

      Clinton and the Republican Congress essentially balanced the budget, bringing receipts and spending both to about 19% of GDP.  

      Today, receipts are very low as a percent of GDP (15% - 16%?) and spending is very high as a percent of GDP (24%?).  If you want to talk about the Clinton model, you have to talk about BOTH increasing revenue as a % of GDP, and cutting spending as a % of GDP.

      •  Okay. (12+ / 0-)
        If you want to talk about the Clinton model, you have to talk about BOTH increasing revenue as a % of GDP, and cutting spending as a % of GDP.
        For example: Clinton didn't start two wars and and then lower taxes.
        Obama would like to return to the Clinton model of no wars and higher taxes. Seems to work better than the Bush model.

        -4.38, -7.64 Voyager 1: proof that what goes up never comes down.

        by pat bunny on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:56:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those are pretty meaningless statements (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ozsea1, VClib

          The President's budget assumes that we are winding down and ending the wars.  (In fact, I agree that it includes the budget gimmick -- which it definitely is -- of counting no wars as "cuts to spending" for the next 10 years).  

          And higher taxes than what? And how high?  

          The Clinton model was not "no wars and higher taxes."  It was bringing revenue up to about 19% of GDP and bringing spending -- all spending, including war spending -- down to about 19% of GDP.  It was bringing the budget into relative balance when you look at revenue and spending as a percent of GDP.  

          Now, I don't think we need to bring the into actual balance as Clinton did.  But I do think we need to bring revenues up to about 18% of GDP and spending down to around 21% of GDP.  And -- if you look at real numbers --  neither the President nor the Republicans have any proposal for anything close to that.  

          •  I'm not sure how you define "gimmick" (6+ / 0-)

            If we aren't fighting useless wars, then we are really spending less, right?  So why is that a gimmick?

            The real "gimmick" was when You Know Who fought all these wars and didn't count the spending as actual spending, and instead of having a budget said "we'll spend whatever it takes -- no cost is too great", and when Cheney said "deficits don't matter".  And when afterwards Republicans called Obama the great spender.

            •  Not fighting a war is not a "gimmick." (0+ / 0-)

              However, calling the fact that we are no longer occupying Iraq a "cut" in spending for the next ten years, when nobody intended on doing that in the first place, is a "gimmick."

              It's like saying, "I could have spent $100,000 that I don't have on a sports car, but since I'm not going to, I've cut spending by $100,000."  That's a gimmick.  It makes the phrase "cut spending" meaningless. For the President to say that not maintaining the force we used to have in Iraq is a "cut in spending" for FY 2013 - 2023 (when we never were going to be in Iraq from 2013 - 2013) is an accounting gimmick.  

              Really, we could be spending money invading Iran.  The fact that we are not is not a "cut in spending" for the next 10 years.    

              •  why don't we just forego the rw bullshit tp's & (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lostinamerica, pat bunny

                cut to the chase . . .

                you & the r's want taxes for 250K & up to go down (to zero) & those below 250K to go up -- i believe republicans call that (ahem) "broadening the tax base.

                 then everything will be right as rain!

                just like it always is with trickle down!!

                b/c nothing's supposed to trickle down -- & that's the joke.

                •  Of course, I said nothing of the sort. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  I said I think  taxes need to increase so that they are back up to Clinton levels, somewhere around 18% of GDP.  And I think that spending needs to come down, not to Clinton levels, but to maybe 21% of GDP.  

                  I'd prefer that revenues be increased through an overall overhaul of the tax code so that people at the same income level pay roughly the same in taxes, measured in effective tax rates, rather than some of the rich paying an effective tax rate of 26% (through the AMT, for example) and some just pay an effective rate of 15% (if they get all income through capital gains).  Something like the Simpson Bowles Tax Plan, but perhaps the top rate a point or two higher so that you get receipts where they need to be as a percent of GDP.  The present tax code is a mess, and I think it needs a huge overhaul.  

                  I don't know how you get "want the rates on those above $250,000 to go down to zero" out of that.  

                  •  oh, gee, i guess i got that idea from a comment (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lostinamerica

                    you posted a few weeks ago when you were whining about the d's wanting to raise tax rates on the 250K+ crowd & you said there was no reason for the d's to be so insistent about that b/c the prez could have the revenue he wanted if he just accepted the r's proposal -- which was the same fucking plan mitt romney ran on: closing loopholes & eliminating deductions.

                    it's called subtext, btw.

                    the tax code is a mess b/c lobbyists have deliberately written it to be that way . . . & that's why it will never be overhauled, either.

                    but of course, you already knew that.  you're just playing games with heads around here.  8-I

              •  Your analogy doesn't make sense (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pat bunny

                We seem to be using differentials when defining "tax cuts" or tax increases.  That is, if the tax rate is lower than it was last year, it's a tax cut.  So why isn't the same definition used for spending cuts?

                You say:

                It's like saying, "I could have spent $100,000 that I don't have on a sports car, but since I'm not going to, I've cut spending by $100,000."

                No. Not the same. Because I haven't been spending $100,000 a year on sports cars in the past.  But we have been spending money on wars in the past.  So if spending on useless wars next year is less than it was this year, I don't see why that's not called a spending cut.

                Accounting "gimmicks" are things like pretending money I've spent/earned this year was really spent/earned in a different year or averaged out over a ten year period or whatever.  Or that gifts my children have received from me aren't really income.  Or that things aren't really income if they're passed through a certain kind of trust. Or lots of the other things the tax code provides to let rich people not pay taxes on things that they do that the rest of us would normally pay taxes on.  In short, legal fictions.

                If we were spending a trillion dollars on a useless war and now we're not, that's a cut.

                •  It's a matter of what baseline you start from (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  to say whether you are "cutting."

                  For FY 2013 - 2023, it makes no sense to say that the "baseline" includes spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, because current policy is that we will not be in Iraq and Afghanistan during those years.  That's the problem.  What is the baseline -- what will happen if all the policies that are in place now continue?  That baseline does not include Iraq and Afghanistan.  In order to say you are cutting spending based on Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to assume that the baseline would be continuing that war spending in FY 2013 - 2023.  

                  For example, what is the baseline on revenues for next year?  If you assume that under existing law, all Bush tax cuts expire, then a plan that continues them for households under $250,000 is a cut in tax revenues.  But if you assume that the baseline is what we have today -- all those tax cuts in place -- then the very same legislation, extending the Bush Tax cuts on Households under $250,000  -- is an increase in  tax revenues.

                  For political reasons, people tend to pick the baseline that supports their preferred narrative.  When people in Washington play with numbers, they fool around with the baseline more than anything else.  It's what allows two groups to look at the same thing and one say they "cut spending" and one say they "increased spending."   They both are telling the truth because they are starting from different baselines.  

                  •  The baseline is what we were doing before (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lostinamerica, pat bunny

                    That's what is meant when you're not trying to redefine "cut" in some bizarre way.

                    If I "lost" weight, it means that I weigh less than I did last year.  Not that I weigh less than some "baseline" based on some "policy".  That's how my investment people define my gains and losses in stocks or mutual funds.

                    I'm a math nerd, and that's how you define what a change is.  DeltaY where y = f(x) means f(x+deltaX) - f(x).  If x is this year, and if deltaX is a year, then it's f(nextYear) - f(thisYear).  None of this "policy" and "baseline" stuff.

                    •  That works when you are comparing one year (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VClib

                      to the year before.  It doesn't work when you are talking about projecting cuts in spending for the next 10 years, which is how our government does budgeting.  In order to do that, you have to have a "baseline" for the next 10 years -- what spending would have been.  Then reductions from what spending would have been are your cuts.  

                      •  That's what it is everywhere else. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lostinamerica

                        When they talk about NASA budget cuts, they mean it's cut with respect to last year, not with respect to a 10-year NASA baseline that was projected.

                        That's how it is everywhere else in business, too.  When I got a salary increase of 3%, it was called a salary increase of 3%, not a salary cut of 1% even if some policy forecast said that over 10 years I should be getting an average 4% increase per year.  Calling it an increase wasn't a "gimmick"; it was the normal way of describing the event.

                        •  I wish the terms everyone used were the (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          coffeetalk

                          same for government spending and executive compensation. It would be nice if the word "cut" was reserved only for actual, real dollar reductions where Year B spending was actually lower than Year A. The problem with the word "cut" as it relates to federal budget issues is that no one knows what it actually refers to. In addition, "budget cuts" for any year past the next two are complete fiction. The current Congress can't dictate anything past the 113th session.  

                          "let's talk about that"

                          by VClib on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:15:49 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  I believe the CBO's budget numbers have already (0+ / 0-)

                    baked in the Iraq war ending and a reduced presence in Afghanistan. The CBOs budget also has ALL the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of the 2012.

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:19:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  You Keep Mistating This (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pat bunny

            It was NOT

            and bringing spending -- all spending, including war spending -- down to about 19% of GDP
            ...it was growing the economy faster than growing spending so that the ratio decreased while spending still increased.  And you can't do that right now by cutting spending.  See: Britain, Spain, Italy, Greece, et al.
      •  We pay more for military/intelligence (10+ / 0-)

        than the next ten nations combined. And that spending has more than doubled since 2001, NOT counting either of the Shrubbery's wars (which were "off the books").

        Roll back spending on the MIC to pre-2001 levels tomorrow and we don't have much of an economic problem anymore. Jobs lost to that downsizing could stand investments in retraining and development of other industries (like renewable energy), maybe a serious government jobs program for infrastructure. Over a decade the whole thing would start returning a surplus to pay down the excess debt incurred by changing the workforce over to the 21st century, and we could all live happily ever after.

        Yeah. In my dreams.

    •  "dot.com boom" is shorthand for the "digital boom" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus

      that started with the sale of personal computers in the 1980's... Apple, Microsoft, IBM, AOL, Compuserve and and a lot of Silicon Valley software entrepreneurs were employing people and making investors rich while the internet still consisted of Eudora and Usenet.

      We really should be referring to the Clinton-era "Dot.com Bubble", fueled by the profits made off the "Microprocessor Boom".

      Government deserves much credit for funding the development of the microprocessor, constructing the original internet backbone and educating a generation of software engineers in public universities.

      But something else put disposable income into the pockets of tech-savvy consumers... I think it was Reagan's deficit-fueled military spending. A lot of the early PC buyers I knew were civilian guys with good-paying "mil-spec" aerospace jobs.

      That's what creates jobs: Consumers with disposable income.

      Have you noticed?
      Politicians who promise LESS government
      only deliver BAD government.

      by jjohnjj on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 05:40:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  When arguing against conservatives (36+ / 0-)

    you can ask them: So where are all the jobs from the Bush tax cuts? The biggest fallacies of their arguments on many levels is that raising taxes on the top two percent will slow or affect the growth of the economy. 1) raising taxes on the lower income people will slow the economy more than anything else. After all, these are the people that literally spend every cent they get to survive and spending money is what creates economic activity. Hoarding money does very little for the economy, wealth accumulation is not an economic stimulant. 2) The wealthy, generally speaking, don't spend proportionally more, economic stimuli, the more they make. What they do is hoard more and seek better rents, in other words they are the rentier class. Ask your acquaintances if they know what Adam Smith had to say about the rentier class. They probably have not a clue.

    "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -John F. Kennedy

    by basquebob on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:31:01 AM PST

    •  Why? (5+ / 0-)

      Why ask them anything? You are never going to change their minds, or win an argument. They want to say (or truly believe) that taxing people on incomes over 200K is going to harm the economy, that is their right. Their not only is no data to support them, there really is no theory to support them. Say I own a "small" business that makes me 400K a year in pre-tax income (that's obviously not such a small business; it would be in the top 2% of all businesses). Now that meany Obama is going to take an additional 5% of my incremental income over 200K, or $10,000 a year. Okay, so a little less gets added to my brokerage account, or my savings. If my business is capital-starved, and growing (which again would be a rarity amongst even successful businesses) I would have 10 grand less in new capital to feed it.

      So some tiny number of businesses is going to have a tiny bit less of incremental capital. But mostly, a bunch of wealthy people will just not have quite as much fuck-you money. The whole thing is a ridiculous argument, and IMO it is not worth the aggravation of discussing it with Republicans as if there is some there there.

      •  I disagree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pamelabrown, phonegery, stormicats, sfinx

        Ive changed atleast a handful of people's minds. And you can make them a lot less enthusiastic about their positions, even if you don't change their minds outright. And changing one's mind takes time. We might not witness it while talking to them. But theyll go home and think it over a cup of coffee, and they might end up changing their minds after all.

        •  Sorry, but no. (0+ / 0-)

          It's never happened. The people who want lower taxes on the rich, the Joe the Plumbers of the world, do not even listen to reason. If they did they wouldn't have adopted the positions they have. Nobody has ever convinced a fundie of the error of their ways. Maybe you were talking to a true moderate, or maybe it was a conservative who told you you changed their mind just to make you feel better. I don't believe that you talked a Tea Partier into understanding why the rich should pay more so that we can have more of a safety net for the poor (otherwise known as "socialism").

          And if you did, it was a miracle and a unique occurrence. Perhaps the person had a brain aneurism, something like that.

          •  or maybe they changed their mind (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pat bunny

            it's a possibility. It happens. Im not saying it happens all the time. But it has happened.

          •  the trick is to have them sacrifice something with (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            phonegery, chipoliwog, Calamity Jean

            their position. It's easy to have a position when you have nothing to lose. You can go as crazy as you want. But when you have something to lose... its harder

            A classic example is evolution. Its easy for a crazy conservative to deny evolution. But I remind them that all universities teach evolution. All medical universities as well. All medical text books teach it as well. So why would you trust a doctor who was taught by proven liars? NEVER go to a doctor, and pray to God instead. Jesus says he will ALWAYS answer the requests of his true believers. So if you really believe in God, you have no reason to trust docs who are proven liars, all you have to do is pray to God.

            It's a very effective argument because I gave them something to lose

          •  Just because you say it's impossible (5+ / 0-)

            doesn't change reality.  Not every Republican is a Tea Party racist.  Confronting the lies is uncomfortable, you may not get an instant recant from the loud ones, I've had people who were listening in tell me later I made them rethink what they took as gospel.  

            The most obvious argument is "Where are the jobs?  Tell me how many jobs the wealthy created in the last 10 years." the other thing I point out is that the people they should be angry with are the people who have been lying to them, not the people who want a better economy for all.

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:06:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  if you keep it simple (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfinx

        and use words that stick out in their minds, it can happen.

      •  Nope. (8+ / 0-)

        The biggest lie told by the repubs is that taxes reduce the amount of business income that is available for investment.

        If my business is capital-starved, and growing (which again would be a rarity amongst even successful businesses) I would have 10 grand less in new capital to feed it
        If you invested that money in the business, it is 100% tax deductible as a business expense. High marginal tax rates reward reinvestment over profit taking. What would you rather do: put the money into the business, or take it as profit and let the taxman have it?

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:00:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, but you are wrong. (0+ / 0-)

          A capital investment is not tax deductible. Only actual expenses are deductible.

          Example
          Mary starts a business. She contributes 100,000 to the business, in cash. She uses 50,000 to buy inventory, and sells it for 60,000.

          The 50k spent on inventory is deductible against the 60k in revenue. The other 50k, from the capital contribution, is not.

          •  Capital expenses are depreciated (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NoMoreLies, happy camper

            so they are deductible over time, there is the Section 179 depreciation that is 139000 for year 2012, that is a ton of capital for a small company, and many items qualify for accelerated depreciation.

            These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

            by Nailbanger on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:48:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Capital improvements are NOT (0+ / 0-)

              the same thing as capital contributions.

              •  I am confused on why even talk about (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                happy camper

                capital contributions.

                Higher tax rates will encourage owners to keep the money earned by the company (not existing equity) in the company or be taxed.
                If you loan the company 100k and the company pays you back 100k, there is no tax liability.  
                But the relevant situation is this:  if your company earns 100k and you take it all out, it is taxable.  If you hire, that payroll is 100 percent deductible. If you lease a new building, deductible.   If you do capital improvements, it is still deductible in that year or as depreciation over a few years.
                If it is a low tax rate you are much more likely to remove the earned capital.  Higher tax rates therefore encourage hiring and expansion.

                These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

                by Nailbanger on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:56:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent point, "Where are all the jobs from (10+ / 0-)

      the Bush tax cuts?"

      I lie to myself because I'm the only one who continues to believe me. - Vermin

      by 84thProblem on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:53:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is basic Econ 101 (10+ / 0-)

      Most of us were required to take in college.  I remember the chart, income going up the side, spending on the bottom.  Those at the bottom end of the income scale actually spend more than they earn - they have to go into and incur more and more debt just to pay the rent and grocery bill, so any additional money paid to them will certainly be spent.  As you go up the chart, there is a point where income and spending intersect, and then as you continue to go up the chart and increase income, spending becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the person's income.

      The lesson from John Maynard Keynes - payments to the poor will be spent and will increase the nation's economic wealth, while payments to the wealthy will likely be saved, and nowadays that likely means in some bank in the Grand Caymans or similar locale, and do nothing to enhance national wealth.

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:07:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not all economists agree with Keynes, of course (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep

        Hayek and Friedman do not, and are among the economists  cited by conservatives.  

        If everybody agreed with Keynes, there would be no problem.  But Keynes is just an example of the divide in thinking.  

        •  Don't forget conservatives have "their ownreality" (6+ / 0-)

          which has nothing to do with the reality that the rest of us have to live in.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:02:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Friedman should at this point be throuroughly (5+ / 0-)

          discredited by the many examples of failure in the economies that followed his advice, and to be frank, has way too much blood on his hands to be even mentioned without spitting.

          These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

          by Nailbanger on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:51:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Friedman did have one good idea (5+ / 0-)

               He proposed the negative income tax, implemented during the Reagan years as the EITC. He seemed to understand, at least at some level, that capitalism had its limitations, one of them being that many of the jobs produced by the system didn't yield enough income for basic sustenance.

               That Mitt Romney and his ilk condemned the EITC (in the infamous "47%" comments) shows just how off-the-rails radical the Republicans have become.

            "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

            by Buzzer on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 01:03:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  "should be" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            Hayek and Friedman would be "discredited" if all economists adhered to Keynesian views.  

            That, of course, is not the case.  

            Economics is always going to be the subject of dispute because economic theory can't always be scientifically proven because you can't control for variables.  So, you are always going to have competing theories about which of those many variables was most significant in producing certain economic outcomes.  

      •  I would think a good bit of the Bush tax cuts for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Navy Vet Terp

        the rich were invested in China and other developing economies and neither the investments nor the profits from those investments are helping the US economy.

        “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

        by ahumbleopinion on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:51:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  tax hikes on middle class may hurt (8+ / 0-)

    Tax hikes on the rich will not, even if taxes go up on middle class we will adapt. Same with capitol gains , the rich are not going to stop investing.
    If they can't make a 85% profit they will be happy to take a 70-75% profit over 0 income in their money. . Obama can't deviate from his demand of taxes going up on the rich. It will have no effect on the economy.

  •  Well raising taxes would slow economic growth (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    democrattotheend, winsock, phonegery

    Or at least it would at first glance.  If you raise taxes on the rich they'll have less capital to invest in businesses which would result in slower growth for those businesses.

    In the current situation it likely wouldn't have much of an impact because the main cause of our stagnation is lack of demand coupled with a large trade deficit rather than lack of capital.  But even so, ideally to maximize economic growth we wouldn't raise any new taxes and we'd increase government spending and say to hell with the deficit.

    Since there is so much insistence on reducing the deficit though the least painful way would be to raise taxes on the rich since there really isn't a shortage of capital.

    What we need to do now to encourage economic growth are improve and repair our infrastructure, both for the short term job creation and long term benefit of better infrastructure and to subsidize domestic industries like agriculture, wind and solar energy and electric cars.

    For longer term solutions we also need to increase spending in research and education in general.  We also need to rework our trade policies to encourage more domestic manufacturing.

    "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

    by Quanta on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:45:36 AM PST

  •  Boinger (5+ / 0-)

    strikes me as one of the R's that really doesn't believe a quarter of what he's saying at any moment. He's just out there reciting and reading off prepared index cards with merlot spilled on them.

  •  going back to pro-growth pro-surplus Clinton rates (10+ / 0-)

    Republicans a problem with that, because having an economy AND a government that works makes Democrats look good.

  •  Boehner - still supplying Repub talking points (9+ / 0-)

    instead of leadership for the nation.

    What a waste of space that guy is.

    The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

    by helfenburg on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:06:09 AM PST

  •  YES!! THis is the THE POINT to make... (5+ / 0-)

    " Im simply saying that if raising taxes was sufficient to harm the economy then Clinton would have harmed the economy. Since that didn't happen, the Republican claim is false at its face."

    And raising taxes DOES NOT mean the wealthy have less capital to invest in businesses.... it just means they have less capital.

    Businesses are not started because the have capital, they are started because there is a DEMAND for something. PERIOD.

    Goodbye American Dream.... http://youtu.be/ZkTIEeGX6q0

    by Fireshadow on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:07:23 AM PST

  •  The economy doesn't care who spends the money (9+ / 0-)

    Only that money changes hands. Taxation doesn't hurt the economy because the money is spent either way. What does slow the economy is excess hoarding of wealth. That takes money out of the economy.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:09:43 AM PST

  •  What Small Businesses Pay Individual Taxes? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brahman Colorado

    Only sole proprietors isn't it? Is there any business person taking home a quarter million after expenses, that hasn't incorporated his business somehow to avoid being a sole proprietor?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:10:22 AM PST

    •  It is a little more complex than that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ahumbleopinion, stormicats, ferg, Odysseus

      An S-chapter corporation passes its income to its shareholders and it is taxed on their individual returns. So you can be incorporated and still get business income onto your 1040.

      But besides that, the Republican arguments continually conflate gross and net income. What is taxed on a 1040 is net income paid to the owner(s) after deductions and expenses. Expenses include parts and materials if you are a manufacturer, rent, employee payroll, etc. And businesses to take of their net income a lot of other stuff including healthcare premiums and money paid into a pension plan. So if a small business owner is getting $250K a year in net income then his/her business is typically pulling in a lot more than that in revenue, and maybe isn't so small after all.

      •  Small businesses to Republicans are more like (3+ / 0-)

        stockbrokers and hedge fund manages, not the corner grocery or restaurant.

        “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

        by ahumbleopinion on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:57:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is exactly right (0+ / 0-)

          I've heard it mentioned in the past things like "with fewer than 10 employees".  (they're never specific on purpose, of course).

          But anyway, that would qualify rich people's little splinter businesses to manage their wealth.  So, the Bill Gates Foundation, for example, is a small business to a Republican bullshit artist, because it only has a few employees.  (but zillions of dollars).

          Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

          by yet another liberal on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:02:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, OK, Above My Pay Grade. Thanks nt (0+ / 0-)

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:44:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh Yes and Business Expenses deducted Same as Me (0+ / 0-)

          Yep then gross income is a bigger jump from take home than it would be for a typical wage earner.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:46:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  LLC's and S-Corps flow through to (0+ / 0-)

      personal taxation of profits or losses... Schedule C sole proprietors pay off their personal to start with.

      C-Corps protect from personal liability, but can create a double taxation effect if profits are substantial.

      After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

      by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 01:15:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You're damn right there's a difference! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon

    Let's spend the next two years hanging the "No Difference" anvil around Speaker Boehner's neck!

    Committed to making sure that Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson are shown the door in 2016!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:15:17 AM PST

  •  The problem with Republican reasoning is that it (3+ / 0-)

    is based on their ideology.
    They make a conclusion and then try to use selective facts to support it.  That is exactly what this 'argument' is based on.

    When I tried to argue this point against conservatives, they try to obfuscate the issue, arguing that the reason Clinton had the economic boom wasn't because he raised taxes but because he was lucky to have a "dot com" boom and blah blah blah. But Im NOT arguing WHY he had the boom and for the purposes of this argument I DON'T CARE. Republicans don't realize that. Im simply saying that if raising taxes was sufficient to harm the economy then Clinton would have harmed the economy. Since that didn't happen, the Republican claim is false at its face.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:15:34 AM PST

  •  Republican "reasoning" is a lie, period (8+ / 0-)

    They say lining their own pockets creates jobs, for 2 reasons.

    1) It lines their pockets
    2) Morons believe them

    So, arguing with them on face value is pointless.  What they say is a lie to accomplish something they won't say (because then they won't get away with it).

    It's perfectly logical.  They're fucking crooks and the masses are mindless idiots.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:25:31 AM PST

  •  I think your interpretation is wrong and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, nextstep

    this is what he was really saying:

    He could be talking about the difference between increasing tax rates and increasing revenue through ending loop holes
    I saw that interview.  (I generally watch all the Sunday shows.)  The idea that he was talking about "no difference" between increasing tax rates on households above $250,000 and increasing tax rates on the "super rich" (say, households over $1 million) was never discussed.  Instead, Boehner was clear all the way through that he was talking about raising tax revenue through closing deductions and loopholes for "the rich" rather than increasing tax rates on "the rich," and that if you get $800 billion in increased revenue, it doesn't matter (for deficit reduction) whether that $800 billion comes from closing deductions/loopholes for the rich or increasing tax rates on the rich.  

    I think that the most likely outcome of all of this is that the Republicans agree to raise rates on the super-rich (annual AGI over $1 million), and perhaps close deductions/exemptions on households $250,000 to $1 million.  And I don't think he did anything to hurt that possibility.  Republicans could say they raised rates on millionaires and billionaires (giving the President the rate increases he demanded) while protecting "small business" from rate increases but getting some additional revenue from them.  It seems to me a compromise that gives both sides something on the revenue side, which is how a compromise has to work.

    What I didn't see is an outline for a compromise on the spending cuts.  

    •  yeah I think you might be correct (0+ / 0-)

      but I was presenting ThinkProgress's interpretation not mine. They are generally good at this stuff. But I am wary of it this time.

    •  The difference (6+ / 0-)

      "... he was talking about raising tax revenue through closing deductions and loopholes for "the rich" rather than increasing tax rates on "the rich," ..."

      The difference is that in the raising revenues scenario, the upper middle classes or the "less rich" people get shafted while the really rich (i.e. super rich) folks get away.  

      In the raising rates scenario, ALL the 250K+ or 500K+ or however it is defined, will have to pay higher top tax rates.

      There is a difference between a 400K person paying 20K more in taxes and a 5M person paying 20K (or even 40K or 60K) more.  In the former case, it amounts to a tax hike of 5%.  In the latter case, it is 0.4% (and even if it's 60K, the increase is just 1.2%)

      So basically, the Republicans are offering the less rich as sacrificial lambs in order to protect the obscenely rich.  I find the irony to be rich (pun intended).  It was the less rich folks that have been carrying the water for the super rich all these years.  And now they get shafted!   Who said God has no sense of humor?!  ;-)

      (-7.75,-5.64) Headline: "Man who told half the nation to go screw themselves somehow loses a national election".

      by Whirlaway on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:01:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What is a small business? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat bunny, Brahman Colorado

    Is it one with gross revenues under $250,000?  If that is so then that business owner probably pays very little in taxes as they don't make much at all. There are numerous right offs that they can take.  A business that has net revenues of over $150,000 is doing real well!  So what is a small business?  Jeez I said $150k.  That is almost 3 times my pay.  That guy would be doing fantastic!  So what is a small business?

    •  A business with less than 500 employees (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clues

      Regarding small business, the top job provider is those with fewer than 10 employees, and those with 10 or more but fewer than 20 employees comes in as the second, and those with 20 or more but fewer than 100 employees comes in as the third. There are 22 million small businesses (less than 500 employees including 17 million sole proprietor) in the US and approximately 14,000 big businesses. (over 500 employees.)

      According to a June 2010 survey by Payscale.com, in businesses where the average sales price is below $50, the annual income ranges from $34,517 to $89,779 each year. The next jump in annual earnings lies with small business owners whose average sales price per customer is more than $3,000. Those workers report earning between $30,000 and $99,208 a year.

      After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

      by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 01:38:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Rich Got Their Tax Breaks In 200l, 2003 & 2010 (8+ / 0-)

    What did that get the rest of us?  A big ball of nothing.  No jobs, no investment in the infrastructure, no public work jobs providing employment for millions.

    Instead they invested in the Caymans, Swiss banks & other offshore accounts.  They kept their tax breaks.

    They had their shot, now we have the opportunity to turn that around.  It's time for Obama to tax them.  It's the patriotic thing for them to do.  Their private sector profits have never been higher.

    Share & share alike.....whether they like it or not.  

  •  When he makes statements like that at (2+ / 0-)

    Fox republican headquarters, he can get away with it.  It's called propaganda, the people watching him all agree with him.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:37:33 AM PST

  •  Lying sumbitch (7+ / 0-)
    But, here’s the problem, Chris, when you go and increase tax rates, you make it more difficult for our economy to grow
    Except for all the times in history where the top rates were increased and then the economy grew like gangbusters, that would be accurate.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/...

    The lefthand chart shows that there is no correlation between GDP growth and the top marginal tax rates. The righthand chart shows that there might be a very modest tendency toward faster economic growth with higher capital gains rates.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/...
  •  I would really, really like to hear a definition (0+ / 0-)

    ..of what constitutes a "small business" to Boehner and his crowing cocks on the Sunday gabfests.

    Because saving Hedge Fund "managers" a few bucks because some guy named "Grover" insists on it - is probably not very high on Average Joe's political agenda.

    The dire straits facing America are not due poor people having too much money

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:46:26 AM PST

  •  The "One Percent" will get the money anyway (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    venger

    More money to "the rest of us" ends up in their vaults in the end either way, the wealthiest will not "lose" anything except for the short term.

    But higher taxes on the wealthiest draws money out of Wall Street (since most of that "wealth" is in the form of stocks) - and sends it back to Main Street - "The Right Direction" (to coin a Romneyism) ...

    All roads is these discussions lead to Wall Street - always have, the Social Security debate, social program "reforms" (cuts) etc ...

    Higher taxes, social investments, regulations - "hurt" Wall Street, the guys driving this whole discussion.

    The Republicans believe more money to Wall Street will "save" our economy - they've blown that argument time and time again.

    If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

    by RUNDOWN on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:53:27 AM PST

  •  raising taxes on entrepeneurs stimulates the (0+ / 0-)

    economy.

    raise their taxes 15%, and now they find their kid's private schools and their ski vacations harder to pay for. so how do they react?

    they expand their operations to pull in more revenue. that way they can get back to their previous income and comfort levels.

    when they expand their operations, this creates jobs and investment.

    well-to-do entrepeneurs can afford to do this, but the average joe cannot. raise joe sixpack's taxes. what does joe do? well he can work more overtime if it is available, or do side-jobs if he is in an appropriate trade, but joe sixer really does not have alot of options at his disposal.

    Mr. Big, joe's boss, who owns a restaurant, or two or three and some other businesses has expansion options. He has credit and capital. one job of the tax code is to give Mr. Big incentive to try those options. tax him!

    Any man can stand some adversity. If you really want to know a man's character, give him power. Abe Lincoln.

    by maskling11 on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:08:01 AM PST

  •  We could have a green energy boom (2+ / 0-)
    When I tried to argue this point against conservatives, they try to obfuscate the issue, arguing that the reason Clinton had the economic boom wasn't because he raised taxes but because he was lucky to have a "dot com" boom and blah blah blah.
    Only the Repubs are holding us back by not allowing green energy to be what the dot com boom was
  •  Assuming Boehner is right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    venger, Calamity Jean

    and the economy won't grow if we tax the top two % he isn't king and this isn't a dictatorship. The govt has to do what a majority of the people vote for, even if the people were wrong.

    It's not easy being a Floridian: PS I'm a lawYER now; no longer a lawSTUDENT.

    by lawstudent922 on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:24:16 AM PST

  •  No matter what, it's a tax increase (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat bunny, Calamity Jean

    If you lower someone's deductions, they will pay more in taxes.  

    If Obama were the one suggesting to lower deductions, the Republicans would be calling it a tax increase.  

    They are dogmatically opposed to tax increases, but they are more than happy to increase your taxes by lowering your deductions!  

    I think this should be a new field of language study- Rhetorical dogmatism.

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:24:38 AM PST

  •  Don't always have faith in T.P. parsing... (0+ / 0-)

    they are well-meaning and they are intelligent, but they strive for a headline and for a story-within-a-story more often than they should (in my opinion), especially since -- in better than 90% of those cases -- the "story" itself would be enough...it would just take some explaining.

    Despite all its strengths, invaluable talent and obvious integrity, T.P. too-often sounds like cheerleader when the bullhorn would do the job better on its own.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:36:27 AM PST

  •  Of Course, It doesn't Matter (0+ / 0-)

    where the money comes from if you IGNORE what
    happens to the PEOPLE that get Screwed.

    As Always, Bone-Head acts like a Fucking JERK to Protect
    the Wealthy that Don't Need Protection.

    On Giving Advice: Smart People Don't Need It and Stupid People Don't Listen

    by Brian76239 on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:05:09 AM PST

  •  Let the tax cuts expire for ALL... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    venger

    and then let Obama propose a new round of tax cuts for the middle class. Case closed.

    "The press just doesn’t know how to handle flat-out untruths," ~Paul Krugman

    by Nimbus on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:53:25 AM PST

  •  Thirty inches higher (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    and he would have blown his brains out.

    The power of the Occupy movement is that it ....realizes a fundamental truth about American politics… there is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs.

    by orson on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:55:41 AM PST

  •  The government doesn't hoard money. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    venger, Tonedevil

    Ask any Republican what government will do with money they take from you as taxes, and they'll correctly say 'spend it'.  And that spending stimulates the economy just as if Joe on the street were spending it.  So raising taxes on poor and most middle class folks won't help the economy, because they're already spending pretty much every bit of money they get.  Raising taxes on the money hoarders, however, takes money off the sidelines and puts it right back into economic activity, because the government spends it when they won't.  And Boehnet et al know that, but because they're among the money hoarders, they don't dare admit it, because it would impact their hoarding.

  •  The truth is that Congress is in charge of issuing (0+ / 0-)

    our currency.  So, if more money is needed, they should just dole it out. Money is worthless.  It's more worthless than the oil in your crankcase, which, if you drain it out, will cease up the engine and bring it to a halt. But, money is like that oil in that without it, the economy ceases up and stops running.

    So, the question is why would Congress want the economy to do that. And the answer is it makes them feel important to mess everyone up. Besides that, the American people deserve to be punished for electing the Kenyan not once, but twice.
    When will they learn who's the boss, if not now?
    The Capitol Hill Gang is in charge and you'd better not forget it. The Uncle Cons are dead serious and, if you don't believe it, you're going to be dead before you know it. Remember those death panels? You can bet the Uncle Cons do.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 01:16:20 PM PST

  •  My take on what the Great Pumpkin Head said (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice, Calamity Jean

    is that raising taxes on the rich and raising taxes or fees on the poor and middle class makes not difference.  Money is money.
    Each approach would have the same effect on the economy.

    That, of course is nonsense.  The poor and lower middle class refertilizes the economy almost immediately with nearly 100% of their income.

    That is not even close to true of the rich.

    He is quoted as saying "we can’t cut our way out of this problem."  And yet the Repocons are proposing almost nothing but cuts, and cuts specifically that hurt the poor and working class and retirees.

    Remember that quote, let's haunt him with it.

    •  No, It's Laffer (aka Laughter) curve. Boner is... (0+ / 0-)

      pushing the BS that revenue will increase from reducing tax
      rates.

      Recent manure by President Reagan, clawbacked somewhat by President Clinton, and institued in it's present iteration by he whose name cannot be said. Worst President Evah, May his name be stricken from the whole of records.

      It's going to be stunning when President Obama follows through with raising the tax rate for the minor nobility.

      Laffer curve wiki:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      This assertion is supported by studies that show the income of the top 1% nearly doubling during the Reagan years, while income for other income levels increased only marginally; income actually decreased for the bottom quintile
  •  No not the kittens, good points all around and.. (0+ / 0-)

    Boehner is Boned!! ha hah orange one!!

    America, We blow stuff up!!

    by IndyinDelaware on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:03:29 PM PST

  •  I just heard an audio clip of Boehner (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice

    in my car.  He was outraged!  OUTRAGED, I tell you!!  

    My first thought was, "This guy is in panic."

    Love it.

  •  You mean........ (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sidnora, Notreadytobenice

    God doesn't kill kittens when you raise taxes on the rich???

    Whew, I'm so glad. that's what I've been hearing as well.

    Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. Frank Zappa

    by Da Rock on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:55:11 PM PST

  •  You'll never stop (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ctsteve

    Boehner or anyone from saying that raising taxes will harm the economy but it's pretty simple, I think, to blunt their argument.  We just need to dig into the archives and find video coverage of Republicans in the leadership reacting to Bill Clinton's tax increase in 1993 before the vote and what they said would happen if it passes in order to discourage support for it and it's the same banal arguments they're making today about Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy.  Juxtapose what they said would happen in 1993 with what did happen from 1994 to 2000 (booming economy, 22 million new jobs, low unemployment and a surplus).  Then juxtapose that with what they're saying today about Obama's plan (there are likely some nearly verbatim talking points).  That would make a great commercial to run in Boenher's district or other more vulnerable Republicans' districts, wouldn't it?

    Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

    by democracy inaction on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 03:46:16 PM PST

  •  Boehner is no leader. A leader would fall on his (0+ / 0-)

    own sword to do the right thing.

  •  NOOOOOOO!! NOt ThE KiTTenz!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    I'm only half joking. The way these peoples minds work, making a joke about taxing the rich leading to kittens being killed will somehow be taken as either a promise or a threat.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 05:07:52 PM PST

  •  Did he live? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane

    I mean, seeing where his foot usually is, the bullet would be in close proximity to his brain (assuming he one).

  •  He probably really believes it, too (0+ / 0-)

    Unlike McConnell, who while a total scumbag is not stupid, Boehner really is as stupid as he sounds, and probably believes that raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy and make puppies cry and kittens jump off of bridges.

    He may actually be dumber than Bush. (Either one, I was never impressed with Poppy's intelligence.)

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:09:36 PM PST

  •  It doesn't need to be this complicated (0+ / 0-)

    and there's no reason to have to dissect what happened during the Clinton administration and argue over all the factors that played into that economy.

    If Boehner is claiming that there is no difference between closing loopholes and eliminating tax dodges, and raising the tax rate, then he should have no problem with raising the tax rate.  If some rich guy is going to pay 100k more through either method, then why has he got his shorts in such a knot over the method?    (We should actually do both these things to ensure that not only is the tax rate fair, but that is actually gets paid.)

    He has spent the past few years trying to make the claim that the rich shouldn't pay more because they create jobs, and claiming that his plan would have them paying an identical increase to the Dem plan of letting the tax cuts expire.  So which is it?  If the result is identical, how does his plan protect "job creators"?

    Second -  if he wants to provide incentives for job creation, let's provide incentives for job creation.  But let's not continue to do this stupidly, throwing buckets of money at Richie Rich and hoping he bestows jobs.  Surely we have the technology to measure actual job creation, don't we?  And we want good jobs, that pay a living wage and provide benefits.

    (And to all those job creators complaining about Obamacare, we should issue a great big helping of STFU, unless and until they yell equally as loud about starting up single-payer so that employees don't just get dumped on their ass with no healthcare at all.  But that's a whole nother topic.)

Thumb, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, Mimikatz, Alfred E Newman, Chi, filkertom, Odysseus, ferg, mwm341, Trendar, tiggers thotful spot, PeterHug, tommurphy, Shockwave, Wintermute, hyperstation, Bryce in Seattle, Bob Friend, Matilda, MarkInSanFran, hubcap, davelf2, dweb8231, eyeswideopen, maskling11, opinionated, missLotus, cskendrick, wonkydonkey, annrose, ask, CoolOnion, jalbert, splashy, sidnora, revsue, psnyder, TexDem, figbash, pat bunny, Eyesbright, MA Liberal, Noodles, cosette, Bulldawg, wdrath, BMarshall, dwahzon, defluxion10, samoashark, rlharry, Timbuk3, riverlover, walkshills, peterj911, ybruti, Sembtex, randallt, tomjones, Wife of Bath, xyz, Emmy, sebastianguy99, Armand451, Gowrie Gal, sb, nailbender, Recovering Southern Baptist, maybeeso in michigan, bloomer 101, radarlady, IamtheReason, Ckntfld, JanetT in MD, subtropolis, SherwoodB, democracy inaction, ccasas, caliberal2001, ZappoDave, basquebob, dewtx, YucatanMan, Dobber, Unforgiven, eru, Beetwasher, GreyHawk, Overseas, peteri2, markdd, Savvy813, bunsk, Ekaterin, kathny, fhcec, xaxnar, begone, Reality Bites Back, Philpm, martini, BachFan, tarheelblue, Buzzybill, 417els, Themistoclea, tonyahky, kestrel9000, fou, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, SherriG, global citizen, StrayCat, twigg, AllDemsOnBoard, Pilgrim X, llbear, CA Nana, zhimbo, Timothy J, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Dreaming of Better Days, PhilW, Eikyu Saha, Temmoku, sea note, markthshark, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, cpresley, One Pissed Off Liberal, phonegery, pgm 01, Cronesense, Habitat Vic, Cat Whisperer, Loudoun County Dem, Wino, DvCM, bnasley, mbh1023, jedennis, cyncynical, Fireshadow, millwood, Bridge Master, pioneer111, uciguy30, GeorgeXVIII, leonard145b, Brahman Colorado, TomP, Empower Ink, rogerdaddy, TX Freethinker, HappyinNM, ScottyUrb, Sixty Something, Aureas2, bythesea, elwior, Akonitum, Calamity Jean, rssrai, royce, pamelabrown, davekro, pademocrat, pickandshovel, carver, Jeff Y, alnep, Gemina13, glendaw271, Notreadytobenice, DixieDishrag, Karl Rover, HarpboyAK, JamieG from Md, dzog, scrambler, statsone, maxcat06, 207wickedgood, clent, prettygirlxoxoxo, Bule Betawi, Ran3dy, McGahee220, DontTaseMeBro, ARS, lostinamerica, bobatkinson, Gorilla in the room, War on Error, Canadian Green Card Alien, followyourbliss, Calfacon, NWTerriD, Alise, stevenwag, sfarkash, 57andFemale, Tortmaster, astral66, LookingUp, smileycreek, coppercelt, Laurilei, flitedocnm, NJpeach, eXtina, brunoboy, 2questions, ATFILLINOIS, gulfgal98, nirbama, ericlewis0, DirkFunk, petesmom, fiercefilms, Mister Met, kerflooey, I love OCD, sboucher, spooks51, slowbutsure, afisher, sostos, hooktool, La Gitane, ardyess, California06, deeproots, satrap, molunkusmol, Haf2Read, PorridgeGun, Hohenzollern, sethtriggs, thomask, BarackStarObama, KVoimakas, chickeeee, SueM1121, LSmith, Grandma Susie, IB JOHN, chira2, poliwrangler, VTCC73, Vatexia, BendixG15, zenox, DRo, googie, Mentatmark, MichaelNY, allergywoman, SuWho, jacey, KansasNancy, stormicats, Prairie D, OldDragon, anodnhajo, DeadHead, Citizenpower, IndieGuy, ahumbleopinion, tb92, S F Hippie, a2nite, congenitalefty, This old man, mapamp, jan4insight, hotheadCA, radical simplicity, Arahahex, MartyM, pittie70, doroma, lartwielder, cassandracarolina, james321, oldpotsmuggler, arizonablue, Glen The Plumber, dotdash2u, databob, mumtaznepal, this just in, Robynhood too, sfn61, Greenfinches, Prospect Park, Chaddiwicker, MishaBrewer, DamselleFly, countwebb, TarantinoDork, Linda1961, glorificus, DownstateDemocrat, LeftArmed, aresea, GwenM, leeleedee, howabout, Icicle68, Smoh, ET3117, RUNDOWN, Pistoche, CA wildwoman

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site