In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 526
Online now 634 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Valid point...and the question is always what people want vs. what they're willing to pay for. So I say let the whole thing burn, let the taxes increase and the people will react accordingly. If they're happy with paying more taxes, so be it. If not, they're going to be very receptive to politicians who want to shrink the burden the government is putting on them.
It's not as simple as saying people "want" entitlements. They're forced to pay into them whether they want them or not. But other than that, I think Paul's right here...raise taxes and let the people decide what to do about it.
The economy will suffer, but something has to give here.
This post was edited by frode 17 months ago
No, because they lost. But if they won, sure it would.
Speaking of Costco, nice to see Jim Senegal reap over $3M in benefits from the recent special dividend distributed to avoid the upcoming tax hikes. But, but what about all that fair share middle class talk in his speech at the Democratic Convention supporting Obama? Maybe he should take that savings and donate it to reducing the debt or charity.
Bunch of friggen hypocrites.
If we cut the amount of revenue the government currently gets in HALF it would take us to around the amount it was bringing in right around September 11th. Remember 2001? Was it total anarchy on the streets and no one could get anything done? Oh wait, 2001 we had an unemployment rate about what is half of what it is today and gas was about $1.70 a gallon. Also, did you know if you abolished the income tax for all americans right now, the government would have about as much revenue still coming in every year as it did in 2001? These are facts the statists won't deal with.
LOL, you forgot they're BORROWING the money to pay for that as oppposed to making it from Operations.
What Paul said.
Although Romney didn't really run on the Ryan budget, at least the inconvenient parts (i.e., the parts that saved money via unpopular means). He distanced himself from it whenever difficult questions were asked.
But hell yes. I'd be insulted if he didn't put forth his optimal budget framework as his starting point.
This all would have been avoided if you idiots had voted the DOY/Neal990 ticket. I'd propose a shitload of cuts and tax increases. And a load of pork-barrel stimulus for an "Athletic Improvatorium Zone," aka practice facilities for MD football and basketball.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
I'll make a deal - we go back to Clinton era tax rates as long as we go back to Clinton era government spending rates. Ok?
Do you know what that was? On average, about 19.5% of GDP. Obama? Between 24-25% of GDP
All this "Clinton era tax rates" is just a bunch of demagoguing.
I'm blanking on his name, but there was an economist who worked for Reagan who has argued that you should raise taxes on everyone if you want the size of government to shrink. He thought that low taxes gave people government services and benefits without them feeling the pain of paying for them, so the demand for those services and benefits remains high. Raise taxes on everybody to meet the current level of government spending and see how quickly the demand goes down. The important caveat of that is that you'd need to raise taxes across the board, if you just raise taxes on the rich then there will still be many people who will get the benefits without paying the cost.
Again, House Republicans were re-elected to a majority of the House. Yes, I know you like to point to gerrymandering, which both sides are guilty of, and popular vote totals added up from hundreds of different candidates, as reasons to dismiss that, but the fact remains that it's not as simple as "we won, they lost."
That student loan cliff is really insane. It will get worse. You talk about kids that go to schools out of state (NOW) and graduate with $700-$900/month payments.....lol.
Clinton had a Republican-controlled house and senate for his final 6 of his 8 years as president, yet people give him and the democrats 100% of the credit for all economic success during that time. I'm not a Republican by the way, just think it's funny sheep who are a part of either party like to put things into simplified little boxes and have no depth of understanding about what is actually going on.
This post was edited by Havax 17 months ago
Obama is not negotiating with Romney. He's negotiating with House Republicans, who actually passed the Ryan budget. And as I responded to Paul, House Republicans also "won."
Great. Awesome. Done.
I'll get you to entitlements, even if I have to Socractic Method you into submission.
It actually is that simple in POTUS years. Especially when the House budget guy was on the ticket!
Ryan budget remains the only "serious" one out there. Since he won, maybe we should turn to the O budget--the one that got 0 votes in the Senate. Or the Senate budget. Oh, wait. Or the ones being bandied about now between negotiators. Oh, wait, they can't get past tax rates. I don't know why Boehner's negotiating anything. They already proposed for this Congress. They did their job while Senate and Prez continue to abdicate. Now they should wait for the counter or the next Congress--no matter how much squealing from Dems and the media.
Not to mention, the best the Clinton-era tax rates did in terms of generating revenue was 20.6% in 2000, in the middle of the dot-com bubble, and AFTER capital-gains tax rates were cut. The average was more like between 19 and 20%. So even if we go back to the Clinton-era tax rates for everyone, you're still going to have deficits of 4-5% of GDP with the spending Obama is proposing.
I don't know, that was some hefty legislation and I just got $4T in revenue over the next decade. I need a cigarette.
BTW--Friday Viagra dose seems to be kicking in on this thread this afternoon.
I'd do that too, and it's still not enough without entitlement reform.
Go away, KA!
The Ryan budget takes 28 years to balance the budget. That's not serious at all. The fact that people think that plan is extreme shows you our country is already far gone.
Completely agree in principle. But it beats nothing and any of the rumors we're hearing.
yeah, read that today.
Paying out dividends from operational cash they don't have to avoid tax increases that are coming by adding debt to take advantage of ridiculously low borrowing rates fueled by misdirected monetary policy.
Well, then I guess the Republican Congress should have just rolled over for Clinton in 1997 after he won re-election against one of their members! I guess we truly are living in the age of the imperial Presidency. Sorry Founders, I know you intended the legislature to be the dominant branch, but that's just so old-fashioned.
Like I said earlier in the thread. Everyone should be reading the Road to Serfdom.
Whole Foods just followed suit with special dividend, not sure if they borrowed or not.
At least S&P whacked Costco's credit rating for it.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports