Thursday, October 11, 2012
A Quick Observation on Tonight's Debate
Martha Raddatz asked Vice President Biden a very simple question tonight. She asked him what, other than raising taxes on the wealthy, would the Obama administration do to reduce the budget deficit. His hysterical response (and, yes, he was pretty much hysterical all night) was, "Just let the Bush tax-cuts for millionaires expire!" That was it. That was all that he said. Now, I don't mean to be disrespectful to the Vice President here but if he thinks that that's all that's necessary, then he is a total frigging idiot. Allowing the Bush tax-cuts to expire for families making over $250,000 a year ($200,000 for individuals) will only net the treasury 70 billion dollars a year. This, while our deficits will continue to swell well in excess of a trillion a year. This was not a serious answer and hopefully Obama and Biden will thoughtfully shore this up in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
The interest is not in balancing the budget thus eliminating deficits, or in reducing the debt. For the Obama/Biden team and their supporters it is about increasing the size of, and dependency on, the federal government.
In all fairness the same can be said of Romney/Ryan and team. The only difference being the rate of growth and dependency.
I hate my "smart phone", it is unpredictable, unreliable, frustrating, and does a bunch of unexplained BS.
Both parties talk a good game but neither Obama nor Romney fully embraced Bowles-Simpson and the end-result was and continues to be gridlock, a continuously farcical clown-show, etc..
Sort of like the government.
I figured, Les. And, yes, exactly like the government.
Not only that, but I think he'd get much less from his proposed greedy unnecessary tax hike than he claims. He people he wants to overtax further would just find ways to move their money around, perhaps overseas, to avoid the taxes.
They'd do it pretty easily under Biden and his administration through loopholes. Remember, Biden opposes the idea of closing loopholes.
I think that, in order to get a deal with the other party, revenues are probably going to have to be on the table. But your point is also a valid one. The higher taxes of Wilson, Hoover, and FDR (and, in fairness, Obama's proposal isn't anywhere near as draconian as those Presidents') didn't exactly flood the treasury with moolah (once again, unintended consequences), now did they?
Come on Will.....revenues??? How about having the 47% now paying zero federal income tax pay say.....7%.
You've been in favor of eliminating the mortgage deduction....you do realize that would be a middle class tax hike?
I think you've also lobbied against the present 15% capital gains tax being too low...personally I think its too high.
The answer is a 15% flat tax on eveyone....and every corportation...no deductions for anything.
Yes, I came out for eliminating that deduction BUT, just like with Mr. Romney, I also proposed a lowering of the rates.......And, yes, I did come out for a doing away of the special exemption for capital gains BUT I do index it for inflation AND I'm in favor of drastically cutting the clumsy and counterproductive corporate rate. I'm not exactly like Mr. Obama on taxes, Russ.
Will said: "and, in fairness, Obama's proposal isn't anywhere near as draconian as those Presidents"
If he had his way, the tax hikes would be a lot more destructive and greedy.
After all, this is the man who said, if he had his way, he would Stalinize healthcare through "single payer".
Dmarks, you're saying that he's taking what he can get (I'm not necessarily disagreeing, mind you)?......And, Russ, Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-Domenici, Gang of 6 - they all raise some revenues (basically through closing loopholes). They're compromises and that's what's going to have to happen.
Come on Will.....revenues??? How about having the 47% now paying zero federal income tax pay say.....7%.
Who are the 47%. Fox Business did a breakdown here:
The 47 Percent by Category
28% are people with jobs, but who earn so little they are not taxed. It is the bottom marginal tax rate, which effectively comes out to be zero. Romney also pays 0.00 on this portion of his income. The bottom margin is not taxable and no one pays it, not the poor, not the middle class, not millionaires.
10.3% The next largest group is the elderly, who were already taxed when they were working.
The breakdown does not specifically mention it, a portion of the 47% are millionaires.
Romney rejects all of these people was useless drains on society, not out of meanness, I think, but out of pure ignorance. He simply does not understand taxation. He earns his wealth via long term capital gains, where the top marginal rate is 15%, the same top marginal rate for someone earning 34,000.00 per year.
Which of these people in the 47% should now pay seven percent again? Are you saying that people who make 9k, for example, and end up paying nothing should pay 7% on their first 9%, even though the rest of us end up paying no income tax on our first 9k? Or is it the retired community who paid in their whole life, whose money the government now holds? Is it the military personal, returning from service and now unemployed? Is it the impoverished, who currently have trouble feeding their children, and whose children would do without more basic needs as a result?
The notion that 47% of Americans want to be supported by the other 53% is a lie by most who tell it. In Romney’s case, I think he genuinely has no clue how taxation works (since almost all of his income in in the top margin and he does not care about those who have a different situation, which is most people).
I will admit this: it is unfair to say that Romney does not care what 47% of the people think, as they are a lost cause. The percentage of people he does not care about, is much higher than 47%, even though in private he only acknowledges that 47% of Americans are exempt from his area of concern. He can’t get the actual percentage right because he is blissfully saved by the fact that he does not know what he is talking about.
John, Romney's 47% comment was stupid. In fact, it was MORE stupid than Obama's clinging to their guns and religion comment. At least Mr. Obama was trying to win these people over as opposed to Romney writing them off.......My advice to all of these folks is to talk like everything is being recorded because it probably IS.
It was more than just a stupid comment, though, because it betrayed a complete ignorance of reality. He mistook this 47% as non-working welfare recipients, and that is not who they are. Even after all this talk, I suspect that he would be astonished to learn that part of the them are millionaires or that the income portion on which they are not getting taxed, he also pays no taxes, making him a moocher by his own definition. It showed that he doesn't know what is going on in the nation he wants to lead. With this basic misunderstanding, every budget proposal is beyond is comprehension. He is not qualified to be the president of any nation that is not wholly populated by rich people.
OK, it was a stupid (clearly the 47% includes Social Security, Medicare - both of which I support means-testing for - and veterans benefits) AND delusional comment. I don't defend the indefensible, John.
As for WHY he said it, I obviously can't get into his mind and I certainly don't want to apologize for him but, if I had to make a theory here, I'd probably have to say that he was saying what he thought that the people in the room wanted to hear - pandering, in other words.
In fact, Romney pays millions in taxes every year. He shoulder a large part of the burden.
To be a burden, a burden must be felt. The taxes Romney pays do not burden him or change his life at all. The taxes a single mother pays burdens her greatly and is sorely felt. Romney's burden is far less than that of most people.
Post a Comment