Tax cuts for the wealthy on the never-never, under GWB.

2 wars on the U.S. credit card under GWB.

None of it was paid for.

Going forward - the top 2% on the Clinton rates will put our economy back on track, for starters.

Romney was bought solely by the big Adelson donors who wanted his giant tax cut, as well as a promise of more Bush tax cuts. But Newsflash - they've had their Big day in the Long sunshine - at our expense.

"...the White House is offering in the negotiations including $1.6 trillion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to entitlements. Republicans have rejected the proposal, but negotiations continue."

I reject the Republicans because they don't work for me, they either work for themselves or some corporation that has been skipping out on paying taxes for the past 50 years.

Go ahead Republicans, keep the American People upset during the Holidays, I guess that's exactly what the GOP wants, even lower approval ratings and lower consumer confidence.

Sickening!

Do you want to get real serious about tax reform and spending reform, lets go back to the rates and spending from 1965 (the first full year of Medicare), we can even index both for inflation. THAT would result in some real spending cuts and real tax adjustments.

Or heck, even 1973, when the EPA started.

Anytime before 1981, when President Reagan installed his voodoo, trickle down economics.

Of course, the Koch brothers and Adelsons (and others) would go absolutely bonkers.

When I see repubs signing a new pledge saying they disavow their Norquist pledge and their pledges they took to vote against America to make president Obama a one term president, I still won't believe they have the best interests of America for their plan. There is TOO MUCH GREED in their hearts and their actions will prove it once more. They have to be replaced with real Americans who place country over $$$$$$$.

The top tax rates need to be raised. The alternative minimum tax reduced the value of most deductions for higher earners anyway. What really needs to be done is to do away with the abusive tax shelters, such as the one Romney uses. Those are a sham and shield really, really wealthy people from paying taxes even though they effectively control the money and can spend the money.

Going forward - the top 2% on the Clinton rates will put our economy back on track, for starters

Uninformed drivel at best. If enacted, it would take 514 years to pay off the debt if spending didn't increase. Obama is calling for increased spending.

All it will do is exactly what the sane people are saying (NOT the Obama crowd), discourage investment further crippling the economy and, along with Obamacare, slide us into a recession and possibly a depression.

YAY! Democrats. The Party of Modern Day Plantation Masters are closing in on their goal of collapsing our economy.

I would like to know what the Republicans are thinking. The rich have had lower tax rates for over 6 years, but the jobs disappeared and haven't returned. So, they think if we continue to not tax them that they will sponaneously invest money that will create jobs? They have been investing to make their stock prices go up, period. The rich have been getting richer in these rough economic times. That's a fact. They keep their money in banks where it does nobody any good. TAX the hell out of them. They will spend the money on tax deductible items to try to keep from paying taxes. What will that do? STIMULATE THE ECOMOMY!!!

Congress shouldn't take a month-long holiday break if they don't prevent the fiscal cliff. Please sign and pass on:

NOHOLIDAYFORCONGRESS.COM

Backhouse

The tax rate increase on the 2% will do nothing of the sort. It raises tax revenues by $84 Billion and we have an annual deficit of over $1.3 Trillion (average for the past 4 years)

Also, the idea that this is another tax cut for anyone is nonsense. It is keeping the current tax rates at their current levels.

Simple Theory.....

You are correct, and the current Obama plan calls for the tax rates to go up, but he has also proposed additional spending. His plan does call for cuts, but these dont come in play until sometime down the road.

We need to incorporate serious cuts along with any proposed expiration of tax rates (tax increases) immediately. The quickest way to get to the middle (or a deficit neutral budget) is to burn the candle at both ends.

My biggest issue is that the government cannot control itself and cant stop spending money, or should I say wasting money. If we had a thriving economy, these tax rates would be a very small issue as most of the tax revenues that have been ungenerated in the past 4 years, are mainly due to a weak economy, and a jobless recovery.

NO!

Does Obama? NO! This is his plan:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/study-american-households-hit-43-year-low-in-net-worth/

Simple Theory ... Grow up and Shut up.

Why Raise my taxes???

Didn't I earn that????

WCA:

Sure, but you are also a citizen of a nation state and citizenship implies responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to ensure, to the extent of your ability, that the nation state functions properly. Taxation is how that responsibility manifests itself for a private citizen.

When you balk at taxation, you are essentially balking at the notion of being a responsible citizen of the nation.

If over the last 10 years the income of the top 5% has increased by 60% due to the tax code, while the income of the other 95% has remained the same, and there have been no tax increases while we have entered into two wars, doesn't it seem reasonable that those who have received 60% more money should now pay 3% more taxes, and lose the loopholes that have allowed them to accumulate the lion's share of the country's increase in wealth? Or does it seem more fair to you that those who have not benefitted from the country's increase in wealth should now pay to cover the debt created by the lack of increase in taxes on the ones who received all the money? It seems pretty simple to me, and all the whining that the 5% do about having to give something back to the country that has been so generous to them, just seems like more whining to me.

I agree with your post. The Bush tax cuts while starting a war are the biggest reason we are in debt. There should be a law that requires Congress to fund a war when it is declared.

Did I miss something in the 90's? Did the top 5% need fundraisers or benefit telethons to make it through this time? Was it that awful for them?

Michigander,

Did you miss reading the CBO #'s on the O bama spending or the Obamacare projections of cost?

Oh, it's just the GOP at fault for everything. Right.

Sure, but you are also a citizen of a nation state and citizenship implies responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to ensure, to the extent of your ability, that the nation state functions properly. Taxation is how that responsibility manifests itself for a private citizen

This statement is what is wrong in our nation today. Our govt is responsible to us. Every cent confiscated from us represents our labor during a finite life time upon this planet. Every cent spent by our govt should be scrutinized and, if not specifically authorized by our Constitution, that program should not exist on the Federal level. The problem our nation faces today is too many temporary politicians from both the left and the right have strayed from the principles upon which our nation was founded in order to get re-elected. We do not need a scalpel to trim the fat, we need a chainsaw to remove entire limbs of our bloated bureaucratic monstrosity.

I agree with your post. The Bush tax cuts while starting a war are the biggest reason we are in debt. There should be a law that requires Congress to fund a war when it is declared

Congress did vote numerous times to fund the wars and there are laws. More has been added to the debt under Obama than Bush. Are you contacting your Congressperson to cut spending?

Simple,

Don't forget to include the Obama spending into your analysis. Then look at the projections on the ObamaCare stuff as well as the deficit numbers.

Who has driven up the expenses more? Now go back to the Johnson years on spending too.

Of course, with #2, I mean a freeze in the same sense that it was applied before. A freeze in the normal rate of growth of all Federal spending that is considered to be discretionary.

9.) Disallow all lobby groups from having any say for X years, and disallow them from writing any part of any new legislation.

Michael--I especially like raising the SS earnings cap. Makes no sense that someone making millions in salary would pay a lower effective rate than a secretary.

bcwc: sorry, can't take away free speech, the right to assemble, or the right to petition the government. I wouldn't want that anyway. I prefer to have somewhat intelligent people writing legislation. We don't want to leave it in the hands of Congress.

TO: blackcatwhitecat who wrote:

"9.) Disallow all lobby groups from having any say for X years, and disallow them from writing any part of any new legislation."

Republicans will never touch the lobbyists.

Do you realize that some Republicans are putting their children through college on the money they took from the Health Insurance Lobby alone?

Of course Republicans lost that one when President Obama got re-elected, and no one showed it more than Speaker Boehner. He looked like he lost his best friend when he realized, out loud, that Obamacare is now the law of the land, and no amount of Health Care Lobbyist money can change that now.

Michael, I like your ideas.

If you don't mind I want to cut and past them into a communication I plan to send to my reps. in Washington.

Every aspect of government must be gone over with a fine tooth comb and where we can cut (Pentagon) should be cut. The so called entitlements are supposed to be like insurance policies where one pays into them and then when the time comes they receive money out.

There are different ways to raise revenue. Taxation of one's income isn't the only way. While income tax increases for the extremely rich should, indeed, be part of the equation there should be other things like tariffs on goods made in China or Viet Nam or India, for example. If people have good paying jobs they pay more income tax than those on welfare or unemployment or people with low, barely get by incomes do. By increasing infrastructure spending we can create jobs. As places flood during hurricanes or even lesser storms we should be able to pump that excess water to places which are dry and parched. The Mid-West is suffering from a drought while the East Coast swims in excess water. A national pipeline sending water where it is needed could be built by local civilian contractors under the general direction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The contiguous 48 states would have flood control and jobs too. It would take many years to complete. After all if we can build a pipeline across Alaska (huge) we certainly should be able to build a water pipeline across and up and down the Continental US.

dirp, so you are comfortable with industry writing parts of legislation? Why not let the church in on that game.

Make sure you correct #3 if you do so. Obviously, ARRA won't have much of an effect on health care prices long term. I meant the ACA.

In some cases, yes. There are many industries which have specialized requirements. Industry and labor representatives often write, or assist, in writing many of the laws and regulations currently in place.

Do I think that we would be better off NOT being allowed to talk to our Representatives ? No.

Do I think lobbyists (or should I say, their MONEY) have too much influence, absolutely. Unless we change the law about how campaigns are financed, that will never change. Vote my way or I'll use my Superpac to make sure you are defeated.

I also say there should be some kind of term limits in place for both houses of Congress. While you MIGHT be able to defeat a person, the reality is that 20+ years is too long. There should be some kind of limit, say 18 years + up to 1/2 of any term you took over for a dead congressman.

THAT would also limit the ability of lobbyists to influence through money.

The one major thing that I am leery about when people talk about term limiting is that most people are completely ignorant about how the congress functions. When the turnover is generally low, that is not a huge issue because there are enough of the old guard around to teach the newcomers how it works. If the chambers start turning over constantly, the inexperience and ignorance of the process will theoretically begin to affect their productivity in short order.

Of course, with them as gridlocked as they are, that won't be the case, but you see what I am saying.

Length of congressional service is not an issue with me. Length of quality service is. Take Paul Ryan, for example. He has been in the congress for 14 years and in that time, he has renamed a library and changed the way arrows are taxed.

To me, that is essentially 14 wasted years. But that is on the voters in his district.

#10) Make no laws pertaining to the people that are also not exempting the politicians!

SteelerFan The wages subject to SS tax are capped for a reason. There is a cap on benefits and benefits were designed to be roughly proportional to contributions!!! Already the high income earners get less in benefits in relation to contributions than lower wagwe earners. So let me get this straight. It is fair to have a self employed person making $300,000/yr pay $37,200/yr in SS taxes??!! SS was designed to provide a SUPPLEMENT to retirement income, not a replacement. What you want is just another welfare program. Sorry buddy to break the news to you! Your idea is a wealth redistributers wet dream!

Ladies and Gents:

Every now and then someone really has an outstanding blog. Ms. TES has really outdone herself on this one.

Ms. TES’s post above represents the best of the time tested traits of a) the bait and switch, b) the seemingly credible information but with intent to mislead and c) divide and conquer the masses.

While baiting you with “seemingly credible information” she switched the subject to “wealth redistribution” to divide and conquer all of us.

Let’s break down the lies but don’t blame her… acknowledge her real purpose – to maintain the “status quo” of her wealth redistribution tactic – Charge exorbitant prices for services provided by her underpaid employees; services her own employees can’t afford. Isn’t that “wealth redistribution” in of itself? Ah but I digressed. Let’s look at what she spouted (probably regurgitated from Fox or her Tea Party friends).

First, even if that $300,000 self-employed person is stupid enough to have a Schedule SE on their 1040, they don’t pay $37,200 in social security taxes. The Social Security Tax is capped at $11,450 for the self-employed NOT $37,200. Go look up Schedule SE on the irs.gov website and run the math.

And just to be clear, the additional “Medicare” tax on $300,000 is $8,034 – for a FICA total of $19,484. That’s not even close to the dumbass comment of $37,200. Again, refer to Schedule SE via irs.gov’s website.

Second, and, once again, even if that $300,000 self-employed person is stupid enough to have a Schedule SE on their 1040, that SE person would have received a “phantom” $2,419 deduction before even determining the tax. Read the form…. The starting number of net income is multiplied by .9235 (100% – 7.65%) BEFORE applying the tax rate. Supposedly to “allow” for what a “standard” employer would have been able to deduct; however, an 1120/1120-S filer would have only been able to deduct the “actual” employer amount “paid” of $8,423 ($6,826 ss and $1,596 medicare) not the additional “phantom” deduction of $2,419 ($10,842 - $8,423). Just another little “benefit” Bush Junior threw in for the 1%ers that most people don’t know about.

Third, and this is where the major difference is between “employed” individuals and “self-employed” individuals come in. They usually are deducting all sorts of “questionable” deductions that the average W2 earner only dreams about. Most of us W2 earners, even IF we could deduct for a home office, we’re limited to 2% of AGI for that home office. So that “self-employed” individual, who can afford the $85,000 annual home mortgage interest, probably is deducting 5-10% of the home expenses against that $300,000 further reducing social security taxes paid. Please note - home mortgage interest is limited on the Schedule A (not on the Schedule C) and, therefore, because the interest is less the remaining interest is not subject to limitations just by simply shifting the “supposed” business interest to the Schedule C.

Fourth, and this is probably more likely having advised clients for the past 30 years, that same “self-employed” individual probably formed his business under an LLC (with the election to be treated as an S-Corp invoked) or Sub-S business where they’re probably only drawing $30-50k in salary (the only portion subject to FICA taxes) from the business for the majority of the years and then “planning” for the 5 years prior to retirement by maximizing their “W2” earnings to maximize the social security benefits upon retirement.

All the while adding insult to injury in knowing that this, now retired, “job creator” probably had outstanding health care coverage so they’ll live much longer drawing they’re already inflated monthly supplemental retirement benefits of $2,513 ($30,156 annually) to their monthly family limited partnership draws of $ 10,000 – 25,000.

Talk about wealth redistribution…. From all of us workin’ slobs paying in all that social security at our true earned income while we’ll die early because the sorry son of bitch wouldn’t provide better than @!$%# for health insurance benefits or @!$%# for pay so we couldn’t afford to buy better health insurance privately, let alone enough to live in a decent place for our families to Ms. TES’s retirement from the government and sheltered estate for her children.

Don’t let TES fool you. She already knows this, just like FOX and her Tea Party friends. They are incredibly frightened that you’ll learn this and then act on it by demanding more in pay, benefits and more taxes on them in order to reestablish a level playing field for everyone.

Trust me… why do you think Warren Buffet wants increased income taxes on the wealthy? Maybe because it relates to the following quote from Abraham Lincoln?

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.”

Go do your homework and learn. I trust once ALL the facts and circumstances are known, that united we stand AGAINST Ms. TES’s greed for the benefit of us all, not only just her and her own.

DfromSpencer

They are entitlements in that people that never paid into the system do benefit from it, and others just outright abuse it.