- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Did Obama completely cave on Taxes yet?
Did Obama completely cave on Taxes yet?Follow
I haven't been paying that much attention to it lately, but we must be getting near the point where the Obama stepin fetchit instinct kicks in and gives the GOP whatever they want., I'd say the over under on earned income for actual tax burdens increasing is about $850k.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
There was a meeting yesterday.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I think Obama said $400k a few days ago?
Political Wire wrote:
President Obama delivered to House Speaker John Boehner a new offer on to resolve the pending fiscal crisis, "a deal that would raise revenues by $1.2 trillion over the next decade but keep in place the Bush-era tax rates for any household with earnings below $400,000," the New York Times reports.
"The offer is close to a plan proposed by the speaker on Friday, and both sides expressed confidence that they were closing in on a major deficit-reduction plan that could be passed well before January... The two sides are now ********* over price, not philosophical differences, and the numbers are very close."
Wall Street Journal: "After weeks of public sniping, negotiations have intensified in recent days, with both sides making significant concessions. Obstacles still remain, especially the reaction of lawmakers on both extremes, but the movement suggests negotiators could reach a compromise and pass by the end of the year a deal to avert a series of spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect in January."
Politico: "The president's proposal is not a final offer, but the White House views it as something that should get the two sides close to a deal because they have met Republicans more than halfway on spending and halfway on revenues."
"The offer is close to a plan proposed by the speaker on Friday, and both sides expressed confidence that they were closing in on a major deficit-reduction plan that could be passed well before January... The two sides are now ********* over price, not philosophical differences, and the numbers are very close."
Wall Street Journal: "After weeks of public sniping, negotiations have intensified in recent days, with both sides making significant concessions. Obstacles still remain, especially the reaction of lawmakers on both extremes, but the movement suggests negotiators could reach a compromise and pass by the end of the year a deal to avert a series of spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect in January."
Politico: "The president's proposal is not a final offer, but the White House views it as something that should get the two sides close to a deal because they have met Republicans more than halfway on spending and halfway on revenues."
I'm just cutting & pasting. I've only been paying nominal attention until someone announces something for real.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
The two sides are now ********* over price
Kinky.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
The two sides are now ********* over price
Kinky.
Jophiel wrote:
I'm just cutting & pasting. I've only been paying nominal attention until someone announces something for real.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8gbaji,
Posted: Dec 18 2012 at 3:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm kinda amused by how the numbers just keep getting invented in terms of dollars of deficit reduced. Most estimates (for years now) have pegged the 10 year tax revenue gain by implementing the Clinton tax rates on just those earning over $250k/year at $800B, which works out to $80B/year average. Yet recently, Obama has been using a $1T figure as the 10 year deficit reduction value (I can only assume he's just been rounding it up or something). But now he's talking about compromising that up to $400k/year, and claiming it'll save $1.2T over 10 years.
gbaji wrote:
I'm kinda amused by how the numbers just keep getting invented in terms of dollars of deficit reduced. Most estimates (for years now) have pegged the 10 year tax revenue gain by implementing the Clinton tax rates on just those earning over $250k/year at $800B, which works out to $80B/year average. Yet recently, Obama has been using a $1T figure as the 10 year deficit reduction value (I can only assume he's just been rounding it up or something). But now he's talking about compromising that up to $400k/year, and claiming it'll save $1.2T over 10 years.
I fully acknowledge there may be other components that are getting tossed in there as well (the whole "deal" so to speak), but it does seem interesting how political language often trumps the actual numbers. It's like he's more interested in making it seem like whatever he's doing is significant, even when it's not. Again, that's politics. I get it. But it's still funny to watch.
I fully acknowledge there may be other components that are getting tossed in there as well (the whole "deal" so to speak), but it does seem interesting how political language often trumps the actual numbers. It's like he's more interested in making it seem like whatever he's doing is significant, even when it's not. Again, that's politics. I get it. But it's still funny to watch.
All politicians do this. Math can do many different tricks depending on where you start and finish. When Walker was running for gov here, he decried the accounting methods used when Doyle was in office. He then proceeded to use that exact same method of accounting when he was talking about the supposed deficit our state was facing due to the cost of state worker healthcare and pension. It's easy to make numbers dance for you.
Paskil wrote:
Math can do many different tricks depending on where you start and finish.
Indeed, if you ask Obama, the net savings from his proposed spending cuts are higher than Boehner concedes, because Obama is counting the interested that would be accrued on the additional expenditures as savings as well. In the end, he's correct that the interest on any borrowed money counts as savings also if the money is never borrowed, but it's one of those "far future" predicitions that carries some degree of variability as to the exact numbers.
Edited, Dec 18th 2012 5:58pm by BrownDuck
I'm kinda amused by how the numbers just keep getting invented in terms of dollars of deficit reduced.
I'm kinda amused we're going to suffer through a decade of economic stagnation because a small group of super wealthy people sold the country on "the deficit" as something that matters at all in the present economic circumstances.
Wait, not amused. Resigned. The best part is that not only are historical examples of the failure of austerity policy during economic downturns, there are PRESENT DAY examples. **** it, though, let's follow Europe off the cliff.
I'm kinda amused we're going to suffer through a decade of economic stagnation because a small group of super wealthy people sold the country on "the deficit" as something that matters at all in the present economic circumstances.
Wait, not amused. Resigned. The best part is that not only are historical examples of the failure of austerity policy during economic downturns, there are PRESENT DAY examples. **** it, though, let's follow Europe off the cliff.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#12gbaji,
Posted: Dec 18 2012 at 7:34 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm sorry? I thought the problem in Europe is the refusal to actually implement any austerity measures in the first place. You know, spending more money than you have even when it becomes abundantly obvious that you can't afford to do so anymore. Add to that the belief by those countries who keep spending too much money that those who have practiced some measure of sane spending and are still solvent will just keep propping them up cause they're all in the same Eurozone and "in it together".
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
The two sides are now ********* over price
Kinky.
Racist.
And I'm amused by people who don't realize that Krugman is full of ****.
I know, right? The Nobel committee, MIT, Princeton. Suckers. That said, no one on the left views him as some sort of magical economics wizard. His blog, which I assume is what you're referring to since you have little chance of understanding any of his actual work, is more of an aggregation of Macro stuff on the web. Not sure why you brought him up. I assume he agrees with me, but that's because he can do math, not because we've secretly agreed to pretend a terrible policy that would cripple the economy is the way to go because...socialism.
I'm sorry? I thought the problem in Europe is the refusal to actually implement any austerity measures in the first place. You know, spending more money than you have even when it becomes abundantly obvious that you can't afford to do so anymore. Add to that the belief by those countries who keep spending too much money that those who have practiced some measure of sane spending and are still solvent will just keep propping them up cause they're all in the same Eurozone and "in it together".
Kinda like when Obama talks about "shared sacrifice" and it's clear he doesn't actually mean everyone shares the sacrifice. It means that some people get stuff they can't afford, while others pay for it. But I guess it sounds better his way.
I don't want to speak for your two term President here, but I think he's probably hinting at the idea that the broke people living in squalor have already sacrificed.
I know, right? The Nobel committee, MIT, Princeton. Suckers. That said, no one on the left views him as some sort of magical economics wizard. His blog, which I assume is what you're referring to since you have little chance of understanding any of his actual work, is more of an aggregation of Macro stuff on the web. Not sure why you brought him up. I assume he agrees with me, but that's because he can do math, not because we've secretly agreed to pretend a terrible policy that would cripple the economy is the way to go because...socialism.
I'm sorry? I thought the problem in Europe is the refusal to actually implement any austerity measures in the first place. You know, spending more money than you have even when it becomes abundantly obvious that you can't afford to do so anymore. Add to that the belief by those countries who keep spending too much money that those who have practiced some measure of sane spending and are still solvent will just keep propping them up cause they're all in the same Eurozone and "in it together".
Kinda like when Obama talks about "shared sacrifice" and it's clear he doesn't actually mean everyone shares the sacrifice. It means that some people get stuff they can't afford, while others pay for it. But I guess it sounds better his way.
I don't want to speak for your two term President here, but I think he's probably hinting at the idea that the broke people living in squalor have already sacrificed.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
The austerity that broke Greece was extreme. (And it's why it's still broken.) They halved the minimum wage, cut benefits down to the marrow or removed them entirely, and various other measures that resulted in most of the population ending up with the expectations of a feudal serf a century ago. This was from pressure from Germany.
We haven't heard much from Italy or Spain recently, but in those countries as well as Greece, the problem was exacerbated by the fact that dodging taxes is the national sport. So, they would have had the revenues, except for 50% of the populace cooking the books to avoid actually paying any money. (The other half of the population either didn't make enough to pay taxes, is retired, or these days, is unemployed.)
$400K a year is higher than I think it should be, but it's better than the one million amount that had been tossed around earlier.
On the entitlement front, NPR has been having a tongue-in-cheek "Twelve Days of Tax Hikes" in which they discuss various tax breaks that are on the chopping block for negotiations. Today was the adoption tax break, in which a couple who adopts gets a $6,000 refundable chunk to offset adoption expenses. The plan for that one is to keep the tax break in place only for those who adopt special needs children. (So, you won't get cold hard cash for getting a perfect baby from a forced adoption any more.)
We haven't heard much from Italy or Spain recently, but in those countries as well as Greece, the problem was exacerbated by the fact that dodging taxes is the national sport. So, they would have had the revenues, except for 50% of the populace cooking the books to avoid actually paying any money. (The other half of the population either didn't make enough to pay taxes, is retired, or these days, is unemployed.)
$400K a year is higher than I think it should be, but it's better than the one million amount that had been tossed around earlier.
On the entitlement front, NPR has been having a tongue-in-cheek "Twelve Days of Tax Hikes" in which they discuss various tax breaks that are on the chopping block for negotiations. Today was the adoption tax break, in which a couple who adopts gets a $6,000 refundable chunk to offset adoption expenses. The plan for that one is to keep the tax break in place only for those who adopt special needs children. (So, you won't get cold hard cash for getting a perfect baby from a forced adoption any more.)
Smasharoo wrote:
And I'm amused by people who don't realize that Krugman is full of sh*t.
I know, right? The Nobel committee, MIT, Princeton. Suckers.
I know, right? The Nobel committee, MIT, Princeton. Suckers.
Yup. Given that a nutty liberal can basically get a Nobel prize just for showing up, it's not surprising really.
Quote:
That said, no one on the left views him as some sort of magical economics wizard.
No one? He's pretty much the number one economist that liberal pundits trot out whenever they want to make their nutty ideas sound like they must be good because here's a Nobel prize winning economist saying they are. He's pretty much slobbered over by CNN and MSNBC. So maybe not "the left" as you see it, but certainly "the left" as it's presented to the public.
Quote:
His blog, which I assume is what you're referring to since you have little chance of understanding any of his actual work, is more of an aggregation of Macro stuff on the web. Not sure why you brought him up. I assume he agrees with me, but that's because he can do math, not because we've secretly agreed to pretend a terrible policy that would cripple the economy is the way to go because...socialism.
I mentioned him because you've repeated nearly verbatim things I've heard him say. The idea that deficits don't matter, that inflating our way out of debt is a great idea, and that the stimulus failed because we didn't spend enough money are all positions he's advocated strongly. They are all, not coincidentally I'm sure, positions you've repeated on this forum. But hey! You're free to substitute his name with whatever nutty Neo-Keynesian Economist you like most if that makes you feel better.
Quote:
I don't want to speak for your two term President here, but I think he's probably hinting at the idea that the broke people living in squalor have already sacrificed.
Not by any useful definition of the word "sacrifice", no, they haven't. Well, wait a minute! I suppose you could call the choice to give up freedom and opportunity for government entitlement a sacrifice, but that only makes sense if Obama were actually trying to help people to regain that freedom instead of working hard to take it away from yet more people.
So no, not really a sacrifice. Screwed over by their government and liberal economic polices? Sure. I'm not sure how more of the same helps though. Perhaps you'll enlighten us all though!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Damn. Who crapped in your corn flakes this morning? Try sounding more bitter.
#18gbaji,
Posted: Dec 18 2012 at 10:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'd say it's still a bit low, but closer to an acceptable target. Maybe $.5M? The problem with such a big relative hike at such a point is that it creates a larger desire to avoid the tax than if tax rates are gradual. That's why the Bush tax rates worked well in the first place, taxes went down across all tax brackets. But raising it just at one level and above creates more of a tax bracket "cliff". Higher is better in this case because you want to avoid punishing the people who might only occasionally (or even just once) hit that level of income, while also not giving too much incentive to those who consistently hit it to avoid the higher rate.
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Damn. Who crapped in your corn flakes this morning? Try sounding more bitter.
Actually, I was going for sarcastic whimsy.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Whimsy is lighthearted. That was not lighthearted, but nice try Anne Shirley.
catwho wrote:
The austerity that broke Greece was extreme. (And it's why it's still broken.) They halved the minimum wage, cut benefits down to the marrow or removed them entirely, and various other measures that resulted in most of the population ending up with the expectations of a feudal serf a century ago. This was from pressure from Germany.
We haven't heard much from Italy or Spain recently, but in those countries as well as Greece, the problem was exacerbated by the fact that dodging taxes is the national sport. So, they would have had the revenues, except for 50% of the populace cooking the books to avoid actually paying any money. (The other half of the population either didn't make enough to pay taxes, is retired, or these days, is unemployed.)
We haven't heard much from Italy or Spain recently, but in those countries as well as Greece, the problem was exacerbated by the fact that dodging taxes is the national sport. So, they would have had the revenues, except for 50% of the populace cooking the books to avoid actually paying any money. (The other half of the population either didn't make enough to pay taxes, is retired, or these days, is unemployed.)
gbaji wrote:
So no, not really a sacrifice. Screwed over by their government and liberal economic polices? Sure. I'm not sure how more of the same helps though. Perhaps you'll enlighten us all though!
I'd rather get screwed by our liberal government than gang-banged by Walmart, Tyson, Exxon and Pfizer.
Edited, Dec 19th 2012 2:41pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I mentioned him because you've repeated nearly verbatim things I've heard him say. The idea that deficits don't matter, that inflating our way out of debt is a great idea, and that the stimulus failed because we didn't spend enough money are all positions he's advocated strongly. They are all, not coincidentally I'm sure, positions you've repeated on this forum. But hey! You're free to substitute his name with whatever nutty Neo-Keynesian Economist you like most if that makes you feel better.
Or anyone who can do math, right? Because that's the standard. I know it makes you feel better to assume I'm blindly parroting some opinion maker, or perhaps assume it's the only possible way, knowing nothing else, but the reality is that if you locked 50 people with sufficient math skills in closets and let them slide notes under the door, they'd reach the same conclusions. I don't read Krugman so I can understand what's going on with the US economy, I read Krugman hoping he's found a good way to explain it to morons like you. Well, not you, obviously, but someone capable of logical reasoning. . To convince you, I'd have to wait for Limbaugh to decide it was the case. Like if Romney had been elected, entitlement reform would have still been very important but deficits would have been meaningless. Since that didn't happen, though, deficits are critical.
Or anyone who can do math, right? Because that's the standard. I know it makes you feel better to assume I'm blindly parroting some opinion maker, or perhaps assume it's the only possible way, knowing nothing else, but the reality is that if you locked 50 people with sufficient math skills in closets and let them slide notes under the door, they'd reach the same conclusions. I don't read Krugman so I can understand what's going on with the US economy, I read Krugman hoping he's found a good way to explain it to morons like you. Well, not you, obviously, but someone capable of logical reasoning. . To convince you, I'd have to wait for Limbaugh to decide it was the case. Like if Romney had been elected, entitlement reform would have still been very important but deficits would have been meaningless. Since that didn't happen, though, deficits are critical.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Boehner is calling his proposal to raise taxes on people making over $1 million a year a "tax cut" because it would avoid the set increases for lower incomes.
I'm sure Gbaji will be rolling on the floor over the silliness of that number-spin.
I'm sure Gbaji will be rolling on the floor over the silliness of that number-spin.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Boehner is calling his proposal to raise taxes on people making over $1 million a year a "tax cut" because it would avoid the set increases for lower incomes.
Insisting the payroll tax cut expires though, that's "fiscal responsibility", I'd imagine.
Insisting the payroll tax cut expires though, that's "fiscal responsibility", I'd imagine.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Boehner basically said today "tax raises only for incomes over $1 million, **** you, I'm out."
Recent Visitors: 378
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (378)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Did Obama completely cave on Taxes yet?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC