I haven't read thru this entire thread but this is how I understand it. If tax cuts expire the end of the year, cuts actually DON'T go into effect immediately, giving the President the upper hand of letting them expire and putting the Republicans "on the spot" to DO something....LIKE compromise and letting only the cuts for the rich expire.




TIS

This was really interesting.

I just checked some boxes and have no idea who would kill me if this actually happens, but you can't make money by cutting spending by 57% and raising taxes by 43% and not have many people angry.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=031t15l4

That IS interesting and gives a general sense of all things to consider.




TIS

TIS, SS and Medicare tax increases would be immediate. Withholding increases would require Congressional action to increase them.

Frankly in a time like this, you have to be fiscally conservative about spending. That's what I liked about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is that other than the military they seemed to have a grasp of what kind of budget we needed.

A point to make is although we spend a lot on military, a lot of that spending sustains manufacturing companies. When the government buys material needed for tanks, planes, guns, etc it helps those businesses. The thing Romeny and Ryan got wrong was that spending on the military doesn't need to be increased, merely sustained at a level that can support the companies that make their stuff.

On the other hand raising taxes on the wealthy simply isn't a solution and the President doesn't seem to understand it doesn't raise enough revenue to make any significant decrease in our deficit. One big reason is that even if you raise taxes on the rich, they can still make deductions because of the loopholes in our tax code, so rates do nothing. Secondly actually closing those loopholes actually generates more revenue than raising taxes in the first place.

One of the problems I have with Obama is that he wants to make this a war on rich people. It's not about attacking the rich and making things "equal" it's about helping ALL of the American people, because all of us (any American on here) are citizens of this country and we need to pull out of this together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unBx6is8Htw

A balanced approach-yes. But the way he's describing that approach is as unbalanced as ever, it doesn't make sense. Obama may have been reelected but it wasn't because people were fired up about him, it was more like a choosing between the lesser of two evils. To Americans, Obama was the lesser of the two evils, not the tell all answer to the problem, because Obama has done nothing to solve it.

And Mr President name me one Republican that voted for you I'm pretty sure no GOPer was running to your cause this time.

But in any case I'm like the rest of the country I want to see a solution done right, and it can't involve higher tax rates.

Are you ever going to get over the fact Romney lost?

[quote=Just Lou]Are you ever going to get over the fact Romney lost?[/quote

Lou I'm over it. I've been over it. Obama is the President and that's that. But he needs to start leading from the middle rather than the left. I've said nothing that indicated Romeny "should have won". Only pointing out what needs to be done in a time like this. Raising taxes isn't one of them.

You're not over. You keep preaching trickle down economics over and over again, which is by no means moderate policy.

[quote=Just Lou]You're not over. You keep preaching trickle down economics over and over again, which is by no means moderate policy. [/quote

For God's sake Lou I'm not some asshole waving signs on the street saying Obama should be impeached. Just because I disagree with his ideas doesn't mean I don't accept he is the leader of this country.

This country is a democratic republic. That means we vote for people who we believe will vote the way we would if it was a democracy. It means that we vote for people whose ideology and principles we agree with. The majority has spoken. President Obama got the most votes and he now owes it to his constituents to carry out the plans he spoke of during the campaign. That includes raising taxes on the wealthiest in the nation.

He has an obligation to look out for all Americans, not just his own agenda. A President may have his ideas and his own philosophy on things, but he must govern from the middle. Going too far right or left is not the way to run a country. Bush did it when he was President at times, I'm seeing the same with Obama right now.

I disagree with you, as you might guess from my post. President Obama campaigned with that exact agenda. He believes that the wealthy should be taxed at a higher and more fair rate. Judging from the election results, the majority of Americans agree with him. Why would you be surprised that he now wants to pursue that agenda?? Why do you feel he's being intransigent for pursuing exactly the course of action that he said he would??

America voted Obama in, but as I said before everyone has different reasons for voting for someone. IMHO America is still pretty divided on the issue of higher taxes. I'm willing to bet their were a lot of independents who voted for Obama due to the fact he looked more appealing than Romney. But that doesnt mean they agreed with everything he wants to do.

It's more prudent to raise revenue by closing loopholes that allow the rich to pay less in the first place. Raising rates just means they technically have to pay higher, but they can still use those deductions to get around it. The whole tax system needs to be revamped, but for now you can get more revenue by preventing the rich from making deductions.

This country was not built on "fair". It was built on equality which means everyone has the right to go out and become a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates success story. Everyone is equal in terms of rights and the pursuit of happiness. But the capitalism was not founded upon "equality".

Obama needs to realize this. When did rich people become the enemy anyway? We're all Americans, one group should not be the target of scrutiny.

Who says the rich are the enemy? Nobody. What has been said is that for someone like Mitt Romney, who is wealthy beyond most people's dreams, pays only 14% income tax, is not fair. And I'm not trying to pick on Governor Romney, but even Warren Buffett, who you mentioned in your post, says it would only be fair if he was taxed at a higher rate. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-secretary-talk-taxes/

But it doesn't add up is what I'm saying. If taxing the rich higher worked than I would be all for it. But raising rates on the rich won't help to cut the deficit in any way shape or form. It simply does not bring in enough revenue. Which is why I am in favor of closing the loopholes and deductions that allow people like Governor Romney to pay less than they should. That itself can bring in money that along with spending cuts can shrink our debt.

Forget it. You're wasting your time. He seems to have some kind of fantasy of Obama dropping everything he ran on, and turning himself into Mitt Romney.

Check your PM Lou.

I support the President's plan.

If anything, Obama's approach has been irritatingly balanced and centrist. One look at the link Lilo gave and you can see the tax plan he has proposed is half of what it was in Clinton era. They shot down his plan of 1 to 10 tax increase to cutting spending. I personally would do 0.8 to 1. He has been centrist and not getting love from this congress. It's time for him go a bit to the left.

While I disagree with you on Obama being centrist, I would say for him to go farther left would be disastrous. The House would go insane and the stalemate would only worsen. This is not just a case of Boehner needing to be open, the President needs to be as well. Positive signs have been shown on both sides, but each must come half way.

He doesn't have to move anywhere in fact. If he does nothing, the tax breaks would expire. It seems that serves the right wing congress right (or should I say left? ), for not accepting his proposal of 1 to 10 tax increase to cutting spending. Obama wouldn't do it, I'm quite sure of it, and it's a shame. For once I hope he grow a pair and teach them a lesson.

See this is where we disagree. Actually returning the highest marginal tax rates to Clinton era levels (an increase of 3% btw) would actually make a significant decrease in the deficit. You may not think that's a very smart or wise thing to do and that's a completely fair and honorable POV though I disagree. But math is math. Raising revenue reduces the deficit. Cutting spending does the same. Our political preferences inform the mix that we want to use to do this or even if it is an important thing to do short term.

I don't think the President wants to make this a war on rich people. On quite a few economic issues the President is actually to the right of where Nixon was. The issue is that the right wing has shifted far to the right.

WHAT LOOPHOLES? WHAT DEDUCTIONS?

I have asked this question over and over and over, and nobody seems to have an answer, mainly because I think they mean the mortgage interest deduction, which would be disastrous for the working poor and the middle class and they want to make it seem like that's not it.

SB,

I agree and they don't answer because that IS one of the deductions they want to toss out. I'll tell you, when I was a single mother raising two young children I depended on that deduction as the only savings and/or biggest amount of money I'd ever get at one time. Even then it usually went toward something else. But have rich pay a tad more, well God forbid.

TIS

Romney flat out refused to answer this question. So either he didn't want the people to know, or he really had no plan to begin with. He also floated the idea of capping the maximum amount of deductions. But when asked, he refused to answer how much the cap would be.