The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[Premier]

Cruz getting the bid would be a free ride for the democrat nominee in 2016.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Cruz getting the bid would be a free ride for the democrat nominee in 2016.

It's going to be anyway. So they might as well, for the comedy.

 

[jon_mx]

It's becoming readily apparent that Boehner is going to have to fall on the sword at the end of this thing. I believe he knew the approach the House took was doomed from the start by including Obamacare in the demands. In the end, if and when the Senate makes a deal, he's going to have to bring it to the floor and use Democratic votes to pass it along with the Republicans who are willing to go with the deal. I guess in theory he could choose not to do that, but he knows that not raising the debt ceiling could be catastrophic and I hope he will choose to do what's best for the country at that point. It will be interesting to see if it really is 30-40 holdouts or how many vote against it in the end. This has really been a lost opportunity for fiscal conservatives to try and negotiate meaningful entitlement reform and address budgetary issues. I don't like Obamacare either but thinking they were going to get a deal to gut that program was foolish at best.

Hasn't this been the case for a while though? Before Obama's re-election, it seemed like the GOP was determined to avoid any type of "Grand Bargain" to hurt his chances. Now that he is here for a few more years, I'm not sure what is going on.

I think people vastly underestimate the differences between the two sides. For instance, the "budget" that the dems passed contains almost a trillion dollars in revenue increases over the next 10 years, would add over $5.2 trillion to the debt over that time, and would still leave us with half billion dollar + deficits then.

I know it's convenient to say they just oppose everything because it's him, but there really are massive differences between the two. It's kind of hard to come up with a "grand bargain" when the sides are so far apart (at least in rhetoric).

This is where the GOP should have been focusing election campaigns on for the last dozen years, but have not been. The GOP is trying to play Dem-lite when it comes to spending. Romney's biggest failure in last election was not making the federal deficit the #1 issue. His whole campaign was pretty much an empty suit, which is his own fault beceause he had a real chance after the first debate. Romney presented zero vision and talked exclusively about meaningless reforms which would not even put the slightest dent in the budget..

You keep repeating this, but neither you, nor Romney, nor the Tea Party are ever willing to say where these cuts are going to come from. And we all know why: because ANY kind of significant spending cut will be tremendously unpopular with the public.

I am specific. I think everything should see some cuts. Defense, SS reform, welfare reform, Obamacare, foreign aid, education, etc. Nothing is off my table. And I think some of the tax cuts should be rolled back.

 

[Slapdash]

It's becoming readily apparent that Boehner is going to have to fall on the sword at the end of this thing. I believe he knew the approach the House took was doomed from the start by including Obamacare in the demands. In the end, if and when the Senate makes a deal, he's going to have to bring it to the floor and use Democratic votes to pass it along with the Republicans who are willing to go with the deal. I guess in theory he could choose not to do that, but he knows that not raising the debt ceiling could be catastrophic and I hope he will choose to do what's best for the country at that point. It will be interesting to see if it really is 30-40 holdouts or how many vote against it in the end. This has really been a lost opportunity for fiscal conservatives to try and negotiate meaningful entitlement reform and address budgetary issues. I don't like Obamacare either but thinking they were going to get a deal to gut that program was foolish at best.

Hasn't this been the case for a while though? Before Obama's re-election, it seemed like the GOP was determined to avoid any type of "Grand Bargain" to hurt his chances. Now that he is here for a few more years, I'm not sure what is going on.

I think people vastly underestimate the differences between the two sides. For instance, the "budget" that the dems passed contains almost a trillion dollars in revenue increases over the next 10 years, would add over $5.2 trillion to the debt over that time, and would still leave us with half billion dollar + deficits then.

I know it's convenient to say they just oppose everything because it's him, but there really are massive differences between the two. It's kind of hard to come up with a "grand bargain" when the sides are so far apart (at least in rhetoric).

Isn't this mainly due to projecting the impact to revenue from economic growth? Seems like about ~500B is due to policy.

Sure, I agree that is a big gap from something like the Ryan budget which slashes revenue and spending. But it doesn't end up being too far apart on the debt.

I'm still not sure why something Obama has been proposing like chained CPI hasn't gone through. Not sure why the GOP thinks a deal that is 75% spending cuts is a non-starter. It seems (I could be wrong) that most fiscal conservatives here would take that deal.

 

[jon_mx]

As much as all the Dems wish to dance on the graves of the GOP in the upcoming midterm elections, in the end it will be the individual candidates who win or lose these elections. National polling for how the public views parties does not translate into how people vote for their candidate. In most cases, people hate the national party but like their local candidate. There is still not much love for Democrats in most parts of this country.

I agree that I don't think this will flip the House because of how extremist all of the districts are (both left and right) these days. The only way it flips the House is if the members not involved in this pay the price for the extremes in their own party. Those from the hard right districts will win re-election based on them essentially doing what their constituents want. However, it will cost the Republicans more and more in national races as well as in the Senate. The Republicans should already control the Senate, but instead they nominated Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, etc. Ted Cruz can run for President all he wants because he has no shot nationally anymore. I think Cruz is a bright guy, my guess is he wants to make money on the speaking circuit after all this plays out. He has to know he can't win this.

In 2006 the House flipped. In 2010, the House flipped again. To me that indicates there are a lot of swing districts out there, even despite the gerrymandering. I don't know the exact number. But given the fact that it's flipped twice in recent years, why couldn't an incident like this cause it to flip again?

I did not say it would not flip, I said it would be up to the individual candidates more than the national politics. I am sure the Dem will be playing the Tea Party card over and over and over in every campaign, but they will have to have more than that to win.

 

[Slapdash]

It's becoming readily apparent that Boehner is going to have to fall on the sword at the end of this thing. I believe he knew the approach the House took was doomed from the start by including Obamacare in the demands. In the end, if and when the Senate makes a deal, he's going to have to bring it to the floor and use Democratic votes to pass it along with the Republicans who are willing to go with the deal. I guess in theory he could choose not to do that, but he knows that not raising the debt ceiling could be catastrophic and I hope he will choose to do what's best for the country at that point. It will be interesting to see if it really is 30-40 holdouts or how many vote against it in the end. This has really been a lost opportunity for fiscal conservatives to try and negotiate meaningful entitlement reform and address budgetary issues. I don't like Obamacare either but thinking they were going to get a deal to gut that program was foolish at best.

Hasn't this been the case for a while though? Before Obama's re-election, it seemed like the GOP was determined to avoid any type of "Grand Bargain" to hurt his chances. Now that he is here for a few more years, I'm not sure what is going on.

I think people vastly underestimate the differences between the two sides. For instance, the "budget" that the dems passed contains almost a trillion dollars in revenue increases over the next 10 years, would add over $5.2 trillion to the debt over that time, and would still leave us with half billion dollar + deficits then.

I know it's convenient to say they just oppose everything because it's him, but there really are massive differences between the two. It's kind of hard to come up with a "grand bargain" when the sides are so far apart (at least in rhetoric).

This is where the GOP should have been focusing election campaigns on for the last dozen years, but have not been. The GOP is trying to play Dem-lite when it comes to spending. Romney's biggest failure in last election was not making the federal deficit the #1 issue. His whole campaign was pretty much an empty suit, which is his own fault beceause he had a real chance after the first debate. Romney presented zero vision and talked exclusively about meaningless reforms which would not even put the slightest dent in the budget..

You keep repeating this, but neither you, nor Romney, nor the Tea Party are ever willing to say where these cuts are going to come from. And we all know why: because ANY kind of significant spending cut will be tremendously unpopular with the public.

Kinda hard to run on the debt when your plan doesn't even make a dent in it without assuming massive supply-side impacts.

 

[timschochet]

As much as all the Dems wish to dance on the graves of the GOP in the upcoming midterm elections, in the end it will be the individual candidates who win or lose these elections. National polling for how the public views parties does not translate into how people vote for their candidate. In most cases, people hate the national party but like their local candidate. There is still not much love for Democrats in most parts of this country.

I agree that I don't think this will flip the House because of how extremist all of the districts are (both left and right) these days. The only way it flips the House is if the members not involved in this pay the price for the extremes in their own party. Those from the hard right districts will win re-election based on them essentially doing what their constituents want. However, it will cost the Republicans more and more in national races as well as in the Senate. The Republicans should already control the Senate, but instead they nominated Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, etc. Ted Cruz can run for President all he wants because he has no shot nationally anymore. I think Cruz is a bright guy, my guess is he wants to make money on the speaking circuit after all this plays out. He has to know he can't win this.

In 2006 the House flipped. In 2010, the House flipped again. To me that indicates there are a lot of swing districts out there, even despite the gerrymandering. I don't know the exact number. But given the fact that it's flipped twice in recent years, why couldn't an incident like this cause it to flip again?

I did not say it would not flip, I said it would be up to the individual candidates more than the national politics. I am sure the Dem will be playing the Tea Party card over and over and over in every campaign, but they will have to have more than that to win.

Well FWIW, if the House actually DID flip in the favor of a President going into his 7th year in office, that would be truly extraordinary. Unprecedented, in fact (I think.)

 

[Mark Davis]

It's becoming readily apparent that Boehner is going to have to fall on the sword at the end of this thing. I believe he knew the approach the House took was doomed from the start by including Obamacare in the demands. In the end, if and when the Senate makes a deal, he's going to have to bring it to the floor and use Democratic votes to pass it along with the Republicans who are willing to go with the deal. I guess in theory he could choose not to do that, but he knows that not raising the debt ceiling could be catastrophic and I hope he will choose to do what's best for the country at that point. It will be interesting to see if it really is 30-40 holdouts or how many vote against it in the end. This has really been a lost opportunity for fiscal conservatives to try and negotiate meaningful entitlement reform and address budgetary issues. I don't like Obamacare either but thinking they were going to get a deal to gut that program was foolish at best.

Hasn't this been the case for a while though? Before Obama's re-election, it seemed like the GOP was determined to avoid any type of "Grand Bargain" to hurt his chances. Now that he is here for a few more years, I'm not sure what is going on.

I think people vastly underestimate the differences between the two sides. For instance, the "budget" that the dems passed contains almost a trillion dollars in revenue increases over the next 10 years, would add over $5.2 trillion to the debt over that time, and would still leave us with half billion dollar + deficits then.

I know it's convenient to say they just oppose everything because it's him, but there really are massive differences between the two. It's kind of hard to come up with a "grand bargain" when the sides are so far apart (at least in rhetoric).

Isn't this mainly due to projecting the impact to revenue from economic growth? Seems like about ~500B is due to policy.

Sure, I agree that is a big gap from something like the Ryan budget which slashes revenue and spending. But it doesn't end up being too far apart on the debt.

I'm still not sure why something Obama has been proposing like chained CPI hasn't gone through. Not sure why the GOP thinks a deal that is 75% spending cuts is a non-starter. It seems (I could be wrong) that most fiscal conservatives here would take that deal.

Agreed. The Republicans have a big problem right now with "purity" in the party in my opinion. You can't make a deal with anyone or you're a sellout and a RINO. Someone like that could never represent my district for instance. They could be the most conservative fiscal person you'd ever meet, but if they don't fit the social policy they are ostracized. To me, it should be the other way around. The common link should start with fiscal policy and agree to have a larger tent within the social issues. The Republican party has been the reverse of that in recent times, just look at the last Bush administration. He was a social conservative but he was no fiscal conservative.

 

[jon_mx]

It's becoming readily apparent that Boehner is going to have to fall on the sword at the end of this thing. I believe he knew the approach the House took was doomed from the start by including Obamacare in the demands. In the end, if and when the Senate makes a deal, he's going to have to bring it to the floor and use Democratic votes to pass it along with the Republicans who are willing to go with the deal. I guess in theory he could choose not to do that, but he knows that not raising the debt ceiling could be catastrophic and I hope he will choose to do what's best for the country at that point. It will be interesting to see if it really is 30-40 holdouts or how many vote against it in the end. This has really been a lost opportunity for fiscal conservatives to try and negotiate meaningful entitlement reform and address budgetary issues. I don't like Obamacare either but thinking they were going to get a deal to gut that program was foolish at best.

Hasn't this been the case for a while though? Before Obama's re-election, it seemed like the GOP was determined to avoid any type of "Grand Bargain" to hurt his chances. Now that he is here for a few more years, I'm not sure what is going on.

I think people vastly underestimate the differences between the two sides. For instance, the "budget" that the dems passed contains almost a trillion dollars in revenue increases over the next 10 years, would add over $5.2 trillion to the debt over that time, and would still leave us with half billion dollar + deficits then.

I know it's convenient to say they just oppose everything because it's him, but there really are massive differences between the two. It's kind of hard to come up with a "grand bargain" when the sides are so far apart (at least in rhetoric).

This is where the GOP should have been focusing election campaigns on for the last dozen years, but have not been. The GOP is trying to play Dem-lite when it comes to spending. Romney's biggest failure in last election was not making the federal deficit the #1 issue. His whole campaign was pretty much an empty suit, which is his own fault beceause he had a real chance after the first debate. Romney presented zero vision and talked exclusively about meaningless reforms which would not even put the slightest dent in the budget..

You keep repeating this, but neither you, nor Romney, nor the Tea Party are ever willing to say where these cuts are going to come from. And we all know why: because ANY kind of significant spending cut will be tremendously unpopular with the public.

Kinda hard to run on the debt when your plan doesn't even make a dent in it without assuming massive supply-side impacts.

The key to offsetting spending cuts is to create more job growth, which is where the stimulus failed. We need policies which will allieviate the concerns of Obamacare and create an environment where job growth is rewarded, not punished.

 

[Redwes25]

Is the debt ceiling deadline at 12 AM on the 17th, or do they have until 12 AM the 18th?

I need to know when to head to my emergency bunker.

No one knows exactly what will happen on the 17th, but things probably wouldn't get really hinky unless the US misses an interest payment to bondholders. Which isn't going to happen. If we ever got close I'm pretty sure there would be a fair number of Republicans who would back Obama using the 14th amendment to ignore the debt limit.

While I agree there is nothing magical on the 17th, its not just missing payments to bondholders that will cause think to get "hinky". Not paying the military, or SS recipients or a number of other debts will cause serious consequences.

Article that lays out what bills are due, etc... after the 17th - http://money.cnn.com...conomy/bailout/

 

[Don Quixote]

Saw this in a Politico article:

Drastic tactics are being considered in House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy’s world: there’s discussion of voting on their bill and, if it passes, leaving town — a bid to try to force the Senate’s hand

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-debt-ceiling-default-update-98317.html#ixzz2hoRInd2I

They're not that crazy, right?

 

[Slapdash]

It's becoming readily apparent that Boehner is going to have to fall on the sword at the end of this thing. I believe he knew the approach the House took was doomed from the start by including Obamacare in the demands. In the end, if and when the Senate makes a deal, he's going to have to bring it to the floor and use Democratic votes to pass it along with the Republicans who are willing to go with the deal. I guess in theory he could choose not to do that, but he knows that not raising the debt ceiling could be catastrophic and I hope he will choose to do what's best for the country at that point. It will be interesting to see if it really is 30-40 holdouts or how many vote against it in the end. This has really been a lost opportunity for fiscal conservatives to try and negotiate meaningful entitlement reform and address budgetary issues. I don't like Obamacare either but thinking they were going to get a deal to gut that program was foolish at best.

Hasn't this been the case for a while though? Before Obama's re-election, it seemed like the GOP was determined to avoid any type of "Grand Bargain" to hurt his chances. Now that he is here for a few more years, I'm not sure what is going on.

I think people vastly underestimate the differences between the two sides. For instance, the "budget" that the dems passed contains almost a trillion dollars in revenue increases over the next 10 years, would add over $5.2 trillion to the debt over that time, and would still leave us with half billion dollar + deficits then.

I know it's convenient to say they just oppose everything because it's him, but there really are massive differences between the two. It's kind of hard to come up with a "grand bargain" when the sides are so far apart (at least in rhetoric).

Isn't this mainly due to projecting the impact to revenue from economic growth? Seems like about ~500B is due to policy.

Sure, I agree that is a big gap from something like the Ryan budget which slashes revenue and spending. But it doesn't end up being too far apart on the debt.

I'm still not sure why something Obama has been proposing like chained CPI hasn't gone through. Not sure why the GOP thinks a deal that is 75% spending cuts is a non-starter. It seems (I could be wrong) that most fiscal conservatives here would take that deal.

Agreed. The Republicans have a big problem right now with "purity" in the party in my opinion. You can't make a deal with anyone or you're a sellout and a RINO. Someone like that could never represent my district for instance. They could be the most conservative fiscal person you'd ever meet, but if they don't fit the social policy they are ostracized. To me, it should be the other way around. The common link should start with fiscal policy and agree to have a larger tent within the social issues. The Republican party has been the reverse of that in recent times, just look at the last Bush administration. He was a social conservative but he was no fiscal conservative.

I'd be happy to see that type of shift in the GOP. I am pretty socially liberal so there is just no chance of me voting for them when those issues are pushed so hard. At the end of the day, the biggest difference between parties going for president is who they appoint to the Supreme Court.

 

[[icon]]

OBAMA HATES MURICA!!!!!

OH EM GEE!

 

[Scoresman]

Saw this in a Politico article:

Drastic tactics are being considered in House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy’s world: there’s discussion of voting on their bill and, if it passes, leaving town — a bid to try to force the Senate’s hand

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-debt-ceiling-default-update-98317.html#ixzz2hoRInd2I

They're not that crazy, right?

If this government can pull off 9/11 without being caught then surely they can round up a bunch of white guys and make them come back to DC

 

[Slapdash]

It's becoming readily apparent that Boehner is going to have to fall on the sword at the end of this thing. I believe he knew the approach the House took was doomed from the start by including Obamacare in the demands. In the end, if and when the Senate makes a deal, he's going to have to bring it to the floor and use Democratic votes to pass it along with the Republicans who are willing to go with the deal. I guess in theory he could choose not to do that, but he knows that not raising the debt ceiling could be catastrophic and I hope he will choose to do what's best for the country at that point. It will be interesting to see if it really is 30-40 holdouts or how many vote against it in the end. This has really been a lost opportunity for fiscal conservatives to try and negotiate meaningful entitlement reform and address budgetary issues. I don't like Obamacare either but thinking they were going to get a deal to gut that program was foolish at best.

Hasn't this been the case for a while though? Before Obama's re-election, it seemed like the GOP was determined to avoid any type of "Grand Bargain" to hurt his chances. Now that he is here for a few more years, I'm not sure what is going on.

I think people vastly underestimate the differences between the two sides. For instance, the "budget" that the dems passed contains almost a trillion dollars in revenue increases over the next 10 years, would add over $5.2 trillion to the debt over that time, and would still leave us with half billion dollar + deficits then.

I know it's convenient to say they just oppose everything because it's him, but there really are massive differences between the two. It's kind of hard to come up with a "grand bargain" when the sides are so far apart (at least in rhetoric).

This is where the GOP should have been focusing election campaigns on for the last dozen years, but have not been. The GOP is trying to play Dem-lite when it comes to spending. Romney's biggest failure in last election was not making the federal deficit the #1 issue. His whole campaign was pretty much an empty suit, which is his own fault beceause he had a real chance after the first debate. Romney presented zero vision and talked exclusively about meaningless reforms which would not even put the slightest dent in the budget..

You keep repeating this, but neither you, nor Romney, nor the Tea Party are ever willing to say where these cuts are going to come from. And we all know why: because ANY kind of significant spending cut will be tremendously unpopular with the public.

Kinda hard to run on the debt when your plan doesn't even make a dent in it without assuming massive supply-side impacts.

The key to offsetting spending cuts is to create more job growth, which is where the stimulus failed. We need policies which will allieviate the concerns of Obamacare and create an environment where job growth is rewarded, not punished.

That is fair, but you can't tell me that cutting trillions in taxes is paying for itself. Not saying you think that, but that is what the Ryan-Romney budget did.

 

[RCon]

As much as all the Dems wish to dance on the graves of the GOP in the upcoming midterm elections, in the end it will be the individual candidates who win or lose these elections. National polling for how the public views parties does not translate into how people vote for their candidate. In most cases, people hate the national party but like their local candidate. There is still not much love for Democrats in most parts of this country.

I agree that I don't think this will flip the House because of how extremist all of the districts are (both left and right) these days. The only way it flips the House is if the members not involved in this pay the price for the extremes in their own party. Those from the hard right districts will win re-election based on them essentially doing what their constituents want. However, it will cost the Republicans more and more in national races as well as in the Senate. The Republicans should already control the Senate, but instead they nominated Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, etc. Ted Cruz can run for President all he wants because he has no shot nationally anymore. I think Cruz is a bright guy, my guess is he wants to make money on the speaking circuit after all this plays out. He has to know he can't win this.

In 2006 the House flipped. In 2010, the House flipped again. To me that indicates there are a lot of swing districts out there, even despite the gerrymandering. I don't know the exact number. But given the fact that it's flipped twice in recent years, why couldn't an incident like this cause it to flip again?

Both 2006 and 2010 were prior to the redistricting. If one's argument is that the most recent redistricting prevents most districts from flipping, then results from 2006 and 2010 are irrelevant.

 

[humpback]

It's becoming readily apparent that Boehner is going to have to fall on the sword at the end of this thing. I believe he knew the approach the House took was doomed from the start by including Obamacare in the demands. In the end, if and when the Senate makes a deal, he's going to have to bring it to the floor and use Democratic votes to pass it along with the Republicans who are willing to go with the deal. I guess in theory he could choose not to do that, but he knows that not raising the debt ceiling could be catastrophic and I hope he will choose to do what's best for the country at that point. It will be interesting to see if it really is 30-40 holdouts or how many vote against it in the end. This has really been a lost opportunity for fiscal conservatives to try and negotiate meaningful entitlement reform and address budgetary issues. I don't like Obamacare either but thinking they were going to get a deal to gut that program was foolish at best.

Hasn't this been the case for a while though? Before Obama's re-election, it seemed like the GOP was determined to avoid any type of "Grand Bargain" to hurt his chances. Now that he is here for a few more years, I'm not sure what is going on.

I think people vastly underestimate the differences between the two sides. For instance, the "budget" that the dems passed contains almost a trillion dollars in revenue increases over the next 10 years, would add over $5.2 trillion to the debt over that time, and would still leave us with half billion dollar + deficits then.

I know it's convenient to say they just oppose everything because it's him, but there really are massive differences between the two. It's kind of hard to come up with a "grand bargain" when the sides are so far apart (at least in rhetoric).

Isn't this mainly due to projecting the impact to revenue from economic growth? Seems like about ~500B is due to policy.

Sure, I agree that is a big gap from something like the Ryan budget which slashes revenue and spending. But it doesn't end up being too far apart on the debt.

I'm still not sure why something Obama has been proposing like chained CPI hasn't gone through. Not sure why the GOP thinks a deal that is 75% spending cuts is a non-starter. It seems (I could be wrong) that most fiscal conservatives here would take that deal.

Don't know to be honest. I haven't looked at it in depth because it obviously has no chance at becoming law, but the articles I read just referred to them as "new tax revenues", so it could be a combination.

The reason something like chained CPI hasn't gone through is because no one is going to do things piecemeal. If one side is going to "give" something, they are going to demand something in return. Also, when we're referring to "cuts", it's almost always just smaller increases in spending, and they are mostly put off into the future, where they're sure to be amended.

 

[Slapdash]

I also think it is a big problem that Democrat proposals for new revenue only focus on the highest incomes. Are we really at the point where that is the only political place to go for higher revenues?

Even then, things like investment income and estate taxes are rarely in the conversation. Those are the real tax advantages that go to the wealthy. Increasing taxes on a lawyer, doctor, or business executive's salary is just a shell game to avoid that reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think inequality is a huge problem that both parties have worked together to create. But it isn't going to be solved by just taxing the rich more. You have to look at how the rules of the game have been altered, not just the tax rates.

 

[jon_mx]

I also think it is a big problem that Democrat proposals for new revenue only focus on the highest incomes. Are we really at the point where that is the only political place to go for higher revenues?

Even then, things like investment income and estate taxes are rarely in the conversation. Those are the real tax advantages that go to the wealthy. Increasing taxes on a lawyer, doctor, or business executive's salary is just a shell game to avoid that reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think inequality is a huge problem that both parties have worked together to create. But it isn't going to be solved by just taxing the rich more. You have to look at how the rules of the game have been altered, not just the tax rates.

Exactly. I am not sure what the end game is, 70-90% tax rates like the pre-Kennedy and Carter years. There is only so much you can squeeze out of the top 1% earners before it backfires.

 

[igbomb]

I also think it is a big problem that Democrat proposals for new revenue only focus on the highest incomes. Are we really at the point where that is the only political place to go for higher revenues?

Even then, things like investment income and estate taxes are rarely in the conversation. Those are the real tax advantages that go to the wealthy. Increasing taxes on a lawyer, doctor, or business executive's salary is just a shell game to avoid that reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think inequality is a huge problem that both parties have worked together to create. But it isn't going to be solved by just taxing the rich more. You have to look at how the rules of the game have been altered, not just the tax rates.

Exactly. I am not sure what the end game is, 70-90% tax rates like the pre-Kennedy and Carter years. There is only so much you can squeeze out of the top 1% earners before it backfires.

I agree that we shouldn't just raise marginal rates.

Things like reducing the amount that can be deducted on mortgages or raising the payroll taxable income limit can act as progressive taxes as well.

 

[Mark Davis]

I also think it is a big problem that Democrat proposals for new revenue only focus on the highest incomes. Are we really at the point where that is the only political place to go for higher revenues?

Even then, things like investment income and estate taxes are rarely in the conversation. Those are the real tax advantages that go to the wealthy. Increasing taxes on a lawyer, doctor, or business executive's salary is just a shell game to avoid that reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think inequality is a huge problem that both parties have worked together to create. But it isn't going to be solved by just taxing the rich more. You have to look at how the rules of the game have been altered, not just the tax rates.

The big issue on revenues is you have to many interests fighting for those deductions or "loopholes". I heard someone mention the mortgage interest deduction in a conversation about this the other night and had to laugh. You vote to get rid of that one and you're doomed no matter which party you are in.

I couldn't agree more though that you can only go back to the 1% so many times. At some point it's like the guy in the San Jose paper who was in favor of Obamacare and everyone having healthcare but didn't realize he would be the one to pay for it. We have all been a party to this spending high the country has been on and to pay the bills we are all going to have to kick in something.

 

[Guest]

Flat 6% internet sales tax rate. 3% to the state, 3% to the fed. BOOM! Problem solved.

 

[Mark Davis]

Flat 6% internet sales tax rate. 3% to the state, 3% to the fed. BOOM! Problem solved.

I am opposed to an internet sales tax, hard to enforce. Of course I have my own self interest there just like anyone else as an internet retailer. Seriously though, one of the main obstacles to it is you have a LOT of small business online retailers. I'm a CPA and worked for years with that prior to starting my company. Even with my training, it would create such a burden I'd either have to contract operations or hire someone new to comply with it. Keep in mind, not all states have equal rates and to say it would be equal you'd have to get all 50 states to agree and I don't see that happening.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

OBAMA HATES MURICA!!!!!

OH EM GEE!

Whatever you think you're doing in this thread.... it's not working.

Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable.

 

[Guest]

Flat 6% internet sales tax rate. 3% to the state, 3% to the fed. BOOM! Problem solved.

I am opposed to an internet sales tax, hard to enforce. Of course I have my own self interest there just like anyone else as an internet retailer. Seriously though, one of the main obstacles to it is you have a LOT of small business online retailers. I'm a CPA and worked for years with that prior to starting my company. Even with my training, it would create such a burden I'd either have to contract operations or hire someone new to comply with it. Keep in mind, not all states have equal rates and to say it would be equal you'd have to get all 50 states to agree and I don't see that happening.

How hard is it to comply to a nationwide flat rate?

 

[MikeIke]

$0.001 tax per stock trade. This wouldn't affect the majority of people, just those firms that engage in high-frequency trading.

 

[shader]

I think Wall Street is starting to realize this is no joke. Stocks rolling over. That's usually enough to get these guys to the table. No one in congress likes for the market to go down. Must protect stock market at all costs!

 

[Sammy3469]

Senate talks breakdown...will wait for House plan. Feinstein is saying the Senate needs to vote on something presumably to have something that can merged with anything the House puts together. In other words, the Senate just ran out of time if Cruz wants to filibuster.

 

[ffldrew]

I also think it is a big problem that Democrat proposals for new revenue only focus on the highest incomes. Are we really at the point where that is the only political place to go for higher revenues?

Even then, things like investment income and estate taxes are rarely in the conversation. Those are the real tax advantages that go to the wealthy. Increasing taxes on a lawyer, doctor, or business executive's salary is just a shell game to avoid that reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think inequality is a huge problem that both parties have worked together to create. But it isn't going to be solved by just taxing the rich more. You have to look at how the rules of the game have been altered, not just the tax rates.

Exactly. I am not sure what the end game is, 70-90% tax rates like the pre-Kennedy and Carter years. There is only so much you can squeeze out of the top 1% earners before it backfires.

Since the debt has grown out of control since those days of 70-80% taxes rates - along with the greatest percentage of growth income in that high end bracket - perhaps it is time to look at a more reasonable rate of taxation on these earners. Surely going back to Clinton rates won't kill these people now really? Seems odd that the last time we had any chance of making a dent in the debt was when we had these Clinton rates isn't it ? Wouldn't you agree that we should go back to these reasonable rates. Take that and the sequestration rate of government growth in spending would put us on a pretty good track. It took the Clinton rates 8 years to get back to a balanced budget - I say we set that as the goal for the next 8 years and leave it alone.

 

[RCon]

I also think it is a big problem that Democrat proposals for new revenue only focus on the highest incomes. Are we really at the point where that is the only political place to go for higher revenues?

Even then, things like investment income and estate taxes are rarely in the conversation. Those are the real tax advantages that go to the wealthy. Increasing taxes on a lawyer, doctor, or business executive's salary is just a shell game to avoid that reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think inequality is a huge problem that both parties have worked together to create. But it isn't going to be solved by just taxing the rich more. You have to look at how the rules of the game have been altered, not just the tax rates.

Exactly. I am not sure what the end game is, 70-90% tax rates like the pre-Kennedy and Carter years. There is only so much you can squeeze out of the top 1% earners before it backfires.

Since the debt has grown out of control since those days of 70-80% taxes rates - along with the greatest percentage of growth income in that high end bracket - perhaps it is time to look at a more reasonable rate of taxation on these earners. Surely going back to Clinton rates won't kill these people now really? Seems odd that the last time we had any chance of making a dent in the debt was when we had these Clinton rates isn't it ? Wouldn't you agree that we should go back to these reasonable rates. Take that and the sequestration rate of government growth in spending would put us on a pretty good track. It took the Clinton rates 8 years to get back to a balanced budget - I say we set that as the goal for the next 8 years and leave it alone.

Haven't we already returned to higher rates than the Clinton era on the highest earners? That is, the Bush cuts expired for highest earners, plus we've added the Obamacare "surtax".

 

[timschochet]

Senate talks breakdown...will wait for House plan. Feinstein is saying the Senate needs to vote on something presumably to have something that can merged with anything the House puts together. In other words, the Senate just ran out of time if Cruz wants to filibuster.

This is bull####. DO THESE CLOWNS REALIZE IT'S TUESDAY???

I can't believe what I'm witnessing here.

 

[Slapdash]

I also think it is a big problem that Democrat proposals for new revenue only focus on the highest incomes. Are we really at the point where that is the only political place to go for higher revenues?

Even then, things like investment income and estate taxes are rarely in the conversation. Those are the real tax advantages that go to the wealthy. Increasing taxes on a lawyer, doctor, or business executive's salary is just a shell game to avoid that reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think inequality is a huge problem that both parties have worked together to create. But it isn't going to be solved by just taxing the rich more. You have to look at how the rules of the game have been altered, not just the tax rates.

Exactly. I am not sure what the end game is, 70-90% tax rates like the pre-Kennedy and Carter years. There is only so much you can squeeze out of the top 1% earners before it backfires.

Since the debt has grown out of control since those days of 70-80% taxes rates - along with the greatest percentage of growth income in that high end bracket - perhaps it is time to look at a more reasonable rate of taxation on these earners. Surely going back to Clinton rates won't kill these people now really? Seems odd that the last time we had any chance of making a dent in the debt was when we had these Clinton rates isn't it ? Wouldn't you agree that we should go back to these reasonable rates. Take that and the sequestration rate of government growth in spending would put us on a pretty good track. It took the Clinton rates 8 years to get back to a balanced budget - I say we set that as the goal for the next 8 years and leave it alone.

Haven't we already returned to higher rates than the Clinton era on the highest earners? That is, the Bush cuts expired for highest earners, plus we've added the Obamacare "surtax".

I don't believe that we are back to Clinton rates on capital gains though.

But yes, we should have let the entire Bush tax cuts expire rather than extending the vast majority of them forever.

 

[RCon]

Senate talks breakdown...will wait for House plan. Feinstein is saying the Senate needs to vote on something presumably to have something that can merged with anything the House puts together. In other words, the Senate just ran out of time if Cruz wants to filibuster.

This is bull####. DO THESE CLOWNS REALIZE IT'S TUESDAY???

I can't believe what I'm witnessing here.

Stop believing everything you read. None of these articles saying "here's what's happening right now, here's the current deal being proposed, here's what Joe Senator turned down, etc." have any clue. They're more or less just making #### up so they have something to print.

 

[lod01]

Senate talks breakdown...will wait for House plan. Feinstein is saying the Senate needs to vote on something presumably to have something that can merged with anything the House puts together. In other words, the Senate just ran out of time if Cruz wants to filibuster.

This is bull####. DO THESE CLOWNS REALIZE IT'S TUESDAY???

I can't believe what I'm witnessing here.

You actually thought it would go a different way? This will be resolved late tomorrow.

 

[ffldrew]

I also think it is a big problem that Democrat proposals for new revenue only focus on the highest incomes. Are we really at the point where that is the only political place to go for higher revenues?

Even then, things like investment income and estate taxes are rarely in the conversation. Those are the real tax advantages that go to the wealthy. Increasing taxes on a lawyer, doctor, or business executive's salary is just a shell game to avoid that reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think inequality is a huge problem that both parties have worked together to create. But it isn't going to be solved by just taxing the rich more. You have to look at how the rules of the game have been altered, not just the tax rates.

Exactly. I am not sure what the end game is, 70-90% tax rates like the pre-Kennedy and Carter years. There is only so much you can squeeze out of the top 1% earners before it backfires.

Since the debt has grown out of control since those days of 70-80% taxes rates - along with the greatest percentage of growth income in that high end bracket - perhaps it is time to look at a more reasonable rate of taxation on these earners. Surely going back to Clinton rates won't kill these people now really? Seems odd that the last time we had any chance of making a dent in the debt was when we had these Clinton rates isn't it ? Wouldn't you agree that we should go back to these reasonable rates. Take that and the sequestration rate of government growth in spending would put us on a pretty good track. It took the Clinton rates 8 years to get back to a balanced budget - I say we set that as the goal for the next 8 years and leave it alone.

Haven't we already returned to higher rates than the Clinton era on the highest earners? That is, the Bush cuts expired for highest earners, plus we've added the Obamacare "surtax".

The percentages break down a little different at different levels-

Clinton 15/28/31/36/39.6

Now - 10/15/25/28/33/35/39.6

 

[Sammy3469]

and BTW for those that don't think this matters...T-bills that mature on Oct 17 are now at .48% yield when they would be 0.01% normally

 

[timschochet]

Senate talks breakdown...will wait for House plan. Feinstein is saying the Senate needs to vote on something presumably to have something that can merged with anything the House puts together. In other words, the Senate just ran out of time if Cruz wants to filibuster.

This is bull####. DO THESE CLOWNS REALIZE IT'S TUESDAY???

I can't believe what I'm witnessing here.

You actually thought it would go a different way? This will be resolved late tomorrow.

I hope so. But there's a lot of moving parts and we still have the Tea Partiers demanding an end to Obamacare.

 

[RCon]

Since the debt has grown out of control since those days of 70-80% taxes rates - along with the greatest percentage of growth income in that high end bracket - perhaps it is time to look at a more reasonable rate of taxation on these earners. Surely going back to Clinton rates won't kill these people now really? Seems odd that the last time we had any chance of making a dent in the debt was when we had these Clinton rates isn't it ? Wouldn't you agree that we should go back to these reasonable rates. Take that and the sequestration rate of government growth in spending would put us on a pretty good track. It took the Clinton rates 8 years to get back to a balanced budget - I say we set that as the goal for the next 8 years and leave it alone.

Haven't we already returned to higher rates than the Clinton era on the highest earners? That is, the Bush cuts expired for highest earners, plus we've added the Obamacare "surtax".

The percentages break down a little different at different levels-

Clinton 15/28/31/36/39.6

Now - 10/15/25/28/33/35/39.6

So for the highest earners, if you include the Obamacare surtax, the current rates are quite a bit higher.

Slapdash's point about capital gains may change things a bit, although I don't think capital gains should be treated identically to income anyway, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Senate talks breakdown...will wait for House plan. Feinstein is saying the Senate needs to vote on something presumably to have something that can merged with anything the House puts together. In other words, the Senate just ran out of time if Cruz wants to filibuster.

This is bull####. DO THESE CLOWNS REALIZE IT'S TUESDAY???

I can't believe what I'm witnessing here.

It's all part of the show Tim.

If it weren't part of the plan moderate Republicans would be defecting. The fact that they're still on board the Tea Party Express means that they're still working their strategy.

 

[shader]

gold just went off the charts in the last twenty minutes

 

[ffldrew]

Since the debt has grown out of control since those days of 70-80% taxes rates - along with the greatest percentage of growth income in that high end bracket - perhaps it is time to look at a more reasonable rate of taxation on these earners. Surely going back to Clinton rates won't kill these people now really? Seems odd that the last time we had any chance of making a dent in the debt was when we had these Clinton rates isn't it ? Wouldn't you agree that we should go back to these reasonable rates. Take that and the sequestration rate of government growth in spending would put us on a pretty good track. It took the Clinton rates 8 years to get back to a balanced budget - I say we set that as the goal for the next 8 years and leave it alone.

Haven't we already returned to higher rates than the Clinton era on the highest earners? That is, the Bush cuts expired for highest earners, plus we've added the Obamacare "surtax".

The percentages break down a little different at different levels-

Clinton 15/28/31/36/39.6

Now - 10/15/25/28/33/35/39.6

So for the highest earners, if you include the Obamacare surtax, the current rates are quite a bit higher.

Slapdash's point about capital gains may change things a bit, although I don't think capital gains should be treated identically to income anyway, for a variety of reasons.

The Obama "surtax" is on Capital Gains 3.8%

 

[Slapdash]

I also think it is a big problem that Democrat proposals for new revenue only focus on the highest incomes. Are we really at the point where that is the only political place to go for higher revenues?

Even then, things like investment income and estate taxes are rarely in the conversation. Those are the real tax advantages that go to the wealthy. Increasing taxes on a lawyer, doctor, or business executive's salary is just a shell game to avoid that reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think inequality is a huge problem that both parties have worked together to create. But it isn't going to be solved by just taxing the rich more. You have to look at how the rules of the game have been altered, not just the tax rates.

The big issue on revenues is you have to many interests fighting for those deductions or "loopholes". I heard someone mention the mortgage interest deduction in a conversation about this the other night and had to laugh. You vote to get rid of that one and you're doomed no matter which party you are in.

I couldn't agree more though that you can only go back to the 1% so many times. At some point it's like the guy in the San Jose paper who was in favor of Obamacare and everyone having healthcare but didn't realize he would be the one to pay for it. We have all been a party to this spending high the country has been on and to pay the bills we are all going to have to kick in something.

This is why I like the framing BFS does about taxes being the price of government. If you keep lowering the price of government, people will keep demanding more and more services. At some point we have to raise the price of government to what it really costs. Otherwise both parties are going to keep expanding the defense and entitlement spendings when they are in power.

 

[Fennis]

gold just went off the charts in the last twenty minutes

congress people buying it up?

 

[lod01]

gold just went off the charts in the last twenty minutes

Senators and House reps currently busy selling into strength. Give them time to get their orders in before they settle this. Easy $.

 

[Slapdash]

Since the debt has grown out of control since those days of 70-80% taxes rates - along with the greatest percentage of growth income in that high end bracket - perhaps it is time to look at a more reasonable rate of taxation on these earners. Surely going back to Clinton rates won't kill these people now really? Seems odd that the last time we had any chance of making a dent in the debt was when we had these Clinton rates isn't it ? Wouldn't you agree that we should go back to these reasonable rates. Take that and the sequestration rate of government growth in spending would put us on a pretty good track. It took the Clinton rates 8 years to get back to a balanced budget - I say we set that as the goal for the next 8 years and leave it alone.

Haven't we already returned to higher rates than the Clinton era on the highest earners? That is, the Bush cuts expired for highest earners, plus we've added the Obamacare "surtax".

The percentages break down a little different at different levels-

Clinton 15/28/31/36/39.6

Now - 10/15/25/28/33/35/39.6

So for the highest earners, if you include the Obamacare surtax, the current rates are quite a bit higher.

Slapdash's point about capital gains may change things a bit, although I don't think capital gains should be treated identically to income anyway, for a variety of reasons.

Maybe not identical, but half the rate strikes me as way too much distortion. Particularly when you think of loopholes like carried interest.

FWIW, I am a fan of the additional buckets that ffldrew pointed out.

 

[shader]

gold just went off the charts in the last twenty minutes

congress people buying it up?

Must be nice to be able to move the stock market with little slips to the press.

You know these congress guys trade this stuff left and right.

 

[ffldrew]

Since the debt has grown out of control since those days of 70-80% taxes rates - along with the greatest percentage of growth income in that high end bracket - perhaps it is time to look at a more reasonable rate of taxation on these earners. Surely going back to Clinton rates won't kill these people now really? Seems odd that the last time we had any chance of making a dent in the debt was when we had these Clinton rates isn't it ? Wouldn't you agree that we should go back to these reasonable rates. Take that and the sequestration rate of government growth in spending would put us on a pretty good track. It took the Clinton rates 8 years to get back to a balanced budget - I say we set that as the goal for the next 8 years and leave it alone.

Haven't we already returned to higher rates than the Clinton era on the highest earners? That is, the Bush cuts expired for highest earners, plus we've added the Obamacare "surtax".

The percentages break down a little different at different levels-

Clinton 15/28/31/36/39.6

Now - 10/15/25/28/33/35/39.6

So for the highest earners, if you include the Obamacare surtax, the current rates are quite a bit higher.

Slapdash's point about capital gains may change things a bit, although I don't think capital gains should be treated identically to income anyway, for a variety of reasons.

Inheritance tax rates have also changed fairly considerably. I

Not enough to make much of a giant dent - plenty of exemptions still apply and with proper trust execution it makes little difference anyway.

 

[ffldrew]

Since the debt has grown out of control since those days of 70-80% taxes rates - along with the greatest percentage of growth income in that high end bracket - perhaps it is time to look at a more reasonable rate of taxation on these earners. Surely going back to Clinton rates won't kill these people now really? Seems odd that the last time we had any chance of making a dent in the debt was when we had these Clinton rates isn't it ? Wouldn't you agree that we should go back to these reasonable rates. Take that and the sequestration rate of government growth in spending would put us on a pretty good track. It took the Clinton rates 8 years to get back to a balanced budget - I say we set that as the goal for the next 8 years and leave it alone.

Haven't we already returned to higher rates than the Clinton era on the highest earners? That is, the Bush cuts expired for highest earners, plus we've added the Obamacare "surtax".

The percentages break down a little different at different levels-

Clinton 15/28/31/36/39.6

Now - 10/15/25/28/33/35/39.6

So for the highest earners, if you include the Obamacare surtax, the current rates are quite a bit higher.

Slapdash's point about capital gains may change things a bit, although I don't think capital gains should be treated identically to income anyway, for a variety of reasons.

Maybe not identical, but half the rate strikes me as way too much distortion. Particularly when you think of loopholes like carried interest.

FWIW, I am a fan of the additional buckets that ffldrew pointed out.

fixing carried interest would make a dent for sure - question is do those "incomes" move offshore along with the hedge fund.

 

[shader]

Robert Costa says the medical device delay is now out of the House's bill.

https://twitter.com/robertcostaNRO

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

gold just went off the charts in the last twenty minutes

congress people buying it up?

A 1% move on the day is nothing really.