In partnership with CBSSports.com
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.
Well than why the fuck is the Republican party fighting him on that? Say we will give you that it is worthless but. You have to cut this, raise the age on benefits to this, and start to pay down this debt... Instead they ping pong back a message that generates half as much tax money through loopholes and deductions. And that is the lead part of the plan they offered up. Obama promised these tax hikes on the over >250K were coming. I dont see him backing down but I do see him backing down elsewhere if he get's some acceptance. Instead the Pub's continue to cater to the wealthiest white people in the country while the per centage of our country that makes up that group continues to erode
No, frankly it doesn't. We voted these losers on both sides into office.
We 're getting exactly what we deserve.
Ok, hypothetically let's say republicans gave in on higher rates for the rich. Then what? You think Obama is all of the sudden going to sign on to spending cuts and entitlement reform? Get serious.
And for the record I think taxes for everyone should go up, but the revenue part of this is such a small part of the solution. Without cuts and most importantly entitlement reform, any tax increase is meaningless. And Democrats could not be firmer on their resistance to that, despite the math staring them in the face.
Go away, KA!
Yep. Lemmings on both sides. It's alright though. There is no problem until there is a problem. People will just choose to ignore it, not believe it, and dismiss it until they have no choice. Too bad most of the ones dismissing it will feel it the hardest.
I don't necessarily buy into the "blame the MSM" outrage either, but the way you present the narrative and the premise is the reason Republicans accuse Democrats of class warfare. The 2% versus everybody else. The rich vs. the middle class. More than 250K vs. less than 250K. Whose side are you on? Republicans want to keep the tax cuts in place for EVERYONE, the 2% AND the 98%. The rich AND the middle class. Those over 250K AND those under. They are fighting for both groups equally. Yet Democrats have successfully created the narrative that Republicans are only looking out for the rich and want to give them special treatment. At the very least, the MSM hasn't really done anything to challenge that narrative. But to be honest, Republicans haven't really done a great job either of forcefully challenging it, other than the generic class warfare accusations.
I think the problem is that those tax hikes on the "rich" do little to affect the deficit but could also do damage to an economy that is inching perilously close to being back in recession. The GOP plan of raising revenue through capping deductions and loopholes (if done right, which is a major caveat) will raise revenue and shouldn't affect growth as much as just increasing tax rates on income.
The thing that boggles my mind the most is the Administration's obsession with the income tax rates. As the chart below shows, the revenue over 10 years from letting those expire is around $440 billion. Now, the Republicans have offered him almost twice that amount in revenue from closing loopholes and limiting deductions, and pretty much from the same people (the rich), but he says no, no deal without letting the income tax rates rise. That's the line in the sand. Why? What difference does it make if you're getting $400 billion from higher rates and $400 from closing deductions or $800 billion, all from closing deductions. It's all coming from rich people. How does Obama come off as the responsible adult in the room in this?
here is why:
You don't negotiate in a vacuum.
This isn't the singular issue that Obama is making it out to be, and the Republican have their own constituancy to answer to. There is no mandate in the house to go along with this.
But I do think it could be successfully negotiated as part of a larger package. The problem is the president wants this first, period, and then wants to negotiate everything else. The next thing he's going to want is no congressional approval of the debt ceiling period, then he'll negotiate everything else. And so on.
This isn't how negotiating is done.. President Obama isn't in a position to dictate this. He's using the fiscal cliff as leverage assuming that Republicians will bend rather than go over the cliff. I think the Pubs should call him on it.
Real negotiating is done face to face. Paul is right about most of this being posturing/politics.
and yeah, lol at your wealthest white people comment. that's a joke. you might want to take a look at who already pays the most taxes, employs the most people, etc. wtf does being white have to do with anything anyways. love it when white guys play the race card.
plus, who the fuck are you going to overtax when we are gone (you are right, we are eroding)?
Yeah, I can just hear Brian Williams now covering:
(1) Obama's prior statement about cutting the deficit in half during his first term; or
(2) Obama stating how "Increasing America’s debt during the Bush tenure weakens us domestically and internationally.... that leadership means that the buck stops in Washington, but Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren ... that America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership and Americans deserve better"; or
(3) how Obama's call for the increased taxes on the purported wealthy will only fund our Gov't for approximately 8 days, that the real problem is with entitlement reform, which Obama won't touch; or
(4) how Obama sold the public on his seriousness in addressing the debt/deficit by appointing the Bowles-Simpson commission only to walk away from the commission's plan; or
(5) how life long Dem, Erskine Bowles, was critical of Obama for his handling of entitlement reform.
You mean these types of stories Wiscy. Well, I guess I must have missed Mr. Williams covering them.
You talking about climate change?
You and Neal have both put forth reasonable arguments in defense of loopholes vs. rates.
Wiscy, what is your defense of rates vs. loopholes?
I think we would all like to hear a reasonable argument.
If more people understood the magnitude of our fiscal problems, then maybe our leadership in Washington would feel more heat about the complete BS they are selling the public right now and would actually work to solve these problems. Unfortunately, the MSM is not doing their job on this front and that is their job.
Get back to me when the MSM starts to deal in unpleasant facts like these:
Democratic domination of Congress for the last 50 years...they write the checks...
Democratic domination of the House Ways and Means Committee for the last 50 years or so...13 years only since 1955 have the Republicans led this committee. Yet the tax code completely favors the wealthy - but no, it COULDN'T be the Democrats who screwed the middle class, now could it? lololololol
That Social Security started to get raided under Democrat Johnson in the mid-1960's for other projects - obviously its not a third rail to Democrats...
Democrats have dominated the fiscal management of this country for 50 years. Yet to 90% of liberal Democrats say it's got to be "Bush's or Reagan's fault". Not a single admission of their long-term fiscal management out of their party or by the MSM.
Omitting stories so unpleasant truths don't have to be told is as fraudulent as outright telling lies, if the omitted information is important enough. But wait, if the stories aren't publicised, then most Americans won't know about them. Information control...
Hard numbers vs leftist propaganda.
Because higher taxes hurt future economic growth.
See how easy to answer a direct question?
And once again, several people have conceded more taxes. Great. We're in the same place as we were before punitive taxes in the name of "fairness."
I ask you again: what's next?
As a general observation, deduction = loophole to liberals. So if you're on board with that line of thinking, prepare to lose your dependent deductions, your mortgage interest deductions, etc, etc etc.
Oh wait, you say you're not rich? ORLY!
I'm still for it because I think the eventual deal (when everything is done, incl. debt ceiling, etc.) will resemble it.
However it's hard for me not to feast on the massive amount of butthurt in this thread.
I'm sure it's fun for you.
Personally, I'm enjoying the lack of anything resembling an intelligent democratic response on the board. There is no plan presented by any of you that makes any sense.
You guys have drank the 2% Kool-Aid hook, line, and sinker. It's like you're hypnotized.
And even when presented with this new technology called Math, continue to insist that taxing the 2% solves everything.
Hell, you even have Wiscy playing the race card, after you just played it last week! Now that's funny.
I'm playing it in the next thread, so don't even go there.
BTW, the latest republican response is closer to the debt committee's findings then Obama's current plan. But let's not let actual policy get in the way.
Even if Obama got the rates he wants, he would probably still demand more like the deductions as well and act like a complete prick while doing it, then the pubs walk away from everything, Obama is the worst compromiser/negotiator of all times.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Teraskins 16 months ago
Find me one person in this thread who has said taxing the top 2% solves everything.
The president didn't propose a plan his entire first term, despite pledging to cut the debt in half. Why would you expect one now?
They don't propose a plan because the math doesn't add up. They know it doesn't, so they prefer the status quo.
Pubs were flat stupid to try and sell that ish!
Taxing the top earners will not hurt the economy one iota. But Obama wants sequestration and all the tax cuts to expire. He wants the cuts in defense and the tax revenue from the middle class, and he has cover. 59% of the voters polled blame the Pubs for this if it happens. And it will.
Dems are wrongheaded about tax and spend but politcally smart. Pubs are just dumbasses!
This post was edited by tagterp 16 months ago
Smart move and was key in his re-election.
I think you're slowly losing your mind. Relax, man, everything is going to be OK.
Unfortunately, a cogent, detailed policy response from the Dems on the board will probably not solve the crisis in Washington.
Nobody here thinks taxing the 2% solves everything. That doesn't mean it's totally insignificant.
Making the point that politically it would be pretty stupid to have a televised scene of a bunch of old white R senators going apeshit on a young, black and eminently qualified woman in a confirmation hearing isn't playing the race card, it's expressing common sense. Given that Rs just last month lost amongst blacks by 90%, and women by 11%.
Policy will work itself out sometime after Christmas, and until then we're all getting upset over posturing and bullshit. Much better to sit back and have a laugh from time to time while those clowns get their shit together once the clock ticks down far enough.
A majority of the commission pussied out on Bowles-Simpson, including conservative hero Paul Ryan. Arch-liberal Dick Durbin voted yes, ironically enough, on that plan--which would raise more taxes than either Obama or the Republicans have proposed and adjust entitlements more than both as well.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports