Middle clas tax increase

[Guest]

I just tuned in. I thought the board would be all abuzz with the "middle class tax increase" that was all over the networks this am. Of course this is very early but hints are being dropped.

[Guest]

I think that it is just that no one is surprised. So much for change that you can believe in.

[Guest]

If Congress refuses to reduce spending and the prospective buyers of the debt we've been using to finance all our spending are beginning to drag their feet in wanting more of our Treasury bills and bonds, what other alternative is there?

If you refuse to lower spending and the lenders won't give you any more money, then the only alternative is to increase government revenues (taxes). And I'm sure that the fact that current U.S. tax rates are near an all-time historical low hasn't escaped the attention of our spendthrift Congress.

This is Accounting 101.

Maybe we all ought to go back to school and take Civics 101. There we might learn that there might be some benefit to replacing all those in Washington who are so gloriously "representing" us.

[Guest]

WASHINGTON – The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation's plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.
The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.
Other figures in an Associated Press analysis underscore the recession's impact: Individual income tax receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago. Corporate income taxes are down 57 percent. Social Security tax receipts could drop for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes are on pace to drop for only the third time ever.
The last time the government's revenues were this bleak, the year was 1932 in the midst of the Depression.

Looks like a great time to launch EXPENSIVE health care system!

[Guest]

If Congress refuses to reduce spending and the prospective buyers of the debt we've been using to finance all our spending are beginning to drag their feet in wanting more of our Treasury bills and bonds, what other alternative is there?

If you refuse to lower spending and the lenders won't give you any more money, then the only alternative is to increase government revenues (taxes). And I'm sure that the fact that current U.S. tax rates are near an all-time historical low hasn't escaped the attention of our spendthrift Congress.

This is Accounting 101.

Maybe we all ought to go back to school and take Civics 101. There we might learn that there might be some benefit to replacing all those in Washington who are so gloriously "representing" us.


You may say "Aww, C'Mon" but people saw this coming BEFORE the election, and that is not to say the same thing would not have happened whomever was in the WH, but this is NOT what was promised or voted for !!!

And it would be my prediction that the increases will simply grow in all areas over the next years. The predictions that were given to us as to how jobs will be grown. etc. will be debunked ! I hope that is not true....I really do, but........

[Guest]

I just tuned in. I thought the board would be all abuzz with the "middle class tax increase" that was all over the networks this am. Of course this is very early but hints are being dropped.


The last time a President said "Read My Lips No New Taxes" he was soundly defeated in the next election. Perhaps we should be so lucky as to have it turn another President out of office?

[Guest]

...people saw this coming BEFORE the election, and that is not to say the same thing would not have happened whomever was in the WH...If you choose to go back and check my posts during the election campaign, I for one proposed that the debate between the two candidates as to who would cut taxes the most was absolutely ridiculous. Even before the depth of the financial crisis became better known, I was proposing that taxes had to be increased, not decreased.

With the decline in tax revenues cited by BobFL above, combined with the continued deficit-producing spending by Congress, the tax increase I predicted is inevitable. As I've said before, the fact that the federal tax rates are near an all-time historical low hasn't escaped the attention of those in Congress who might see the need for increased revenue.

Bucco, this isn't a problem that can be placed on the doormat of this President or even this Congress. They have both continued the spending practices of elected officials before them, going back at least a decade. One big difference is that the earlier spendthrifts did so in the environment of strong economic conditions, not the financial crisis and unemployment that exists now.

What's sad is that it doesn't appear that any of these elected officials will be among those that really change this spendthrift behavior. Chances are that the majority of the 435 need to turn over before much will happen. Even then it'll be pure chance that we get some replacements that really are fiscal conservatives.

The only other hope we have is that the sovereign debt markets give the U.S. some "tough love" by refusing to buy more of our debt. If that happens, after the Fed prints as much more money as is feasible, Congress will have no choice but to dramatically cut spending. The arguing that will occur will make the recent debate in the California legislature look like kindergarten. And we will ALL feel the effects very, very quickly. First will be the quick increase in inflation from the money-printing. Then will come the reality of dramatically reduced government services. Remember what Congress has to work with. If Congress was to eliminate all government spending for all items other than debt service, Social Security, Medicare and Defense, that still would not produce a balanced budget. We are in deep do-do.

[Guest]

If Congress refuses to reduce spending and the prospective buyers of the debt we've been using to finance all our spending are beginning to drag their feet in wanting more of our Treasury bills and bonds, what other alternative is there?

If you refuse to lower spending and the lenders won't give you any more money, then the only alternative is to increase government revenues (taxes). And I'm sure that the fact that current U.S. tax rates are near an all-time historical low hasn't escaped the attention of our spendthrift Congress.

This is Accounting 101.

Maybe we all ought to go back to school and take Civics 101. There we might learn that there might be some benefit to replacing all those in Washington who are so gloriously "representing" us.I think most of us plan to return to the voting booth rather than school. I recall some very firm promises made re the middle class and taxes.

[Guest]

If you choose to go back and check my posts during the election campaign, I for one proposed that the debate between the two candidates as to who would cut taxes the most was absolutely ridiculous. Even before the depth of the financial crisis became better known, I was proposing that taxes had to be increased, not decreased.

If taxes are increased, with the decline in tax revenues cited by BobFL above, combined with the continued deficit-producing spending by Congress, the tax increase I predicted is inevitable. As I've said before, the fact that the federal tax rates are near an all-time historical low hasn't escaped the attention of those in Congress who might see the need for increased revenue.

Bucco, this isn't a problem that can be placed on the doormat of this President or even this Congress. They have both continued the spending practices of elected officials before them, going back at least a decade. One big difference is that the earlier spendthrifts did so in the environment of strong economic conditions, not the financial crisis and unemployment that exists now.

What's sad is that it doesn't appear that any of these elected officials will be among those that really change this spendthrift behavior. Chances are that the majority of the 435 need to turn over before much will happen. Even then it'll be pure chance that we get some replacements that really are fiscal conservatives.


I did NOT lay this at the feet of this President; in fact, I said "...and that is not to say the same thing would not have happened whomever was in the WH.."

NOR do I doubt what you said during the campaign, and remember you saying something to that affect...

My point is...THIS President was VERY VERY clear on this subject....and that was foolhardy...he should not have done that, but he did. He was even more clear that the first Bush on this and said it many many more times.

Now, perhaps it will not come to fruition and that will make us all happy !

Yes I AGREE totally about the spending the last 10 or MORE years, and we need to change what is going on in congress. I am one that believes the MAKEUP of the congress RELATIVE to the WH philosophy is very important!!

Not sure if that makes sense but from that came my "perfect storm" phrase during the campaign. To the point made by many on here....congress has to be changed in 2010 ~~~

PS: I must add this PS...although I agree in general with your comments VK on spending in the last 10+ years, the one that sort of chokes me is approx 60/70 % of the so called stimulus bill....THAT was spending that was not necessary and we were tricked. But, in general I agree

[Guest]

Obama promised no middle class tax increase. Economics 101 or not he made that campaign promise. I agree it was naive. However it is something again when you make the promise, then go and SPEND, SPEND, SPEND and then claim you need a tax increase to pay for all your spending. And it will not stop. Even his own COB is telling everyone that the current health care bill will add another 1 trillion to the deficit. And if we can't borrow it, then you have to tax for it. Just keep supporting all these programs that increase spending. You will see tax hikes that you can begin to believe. To meet current spending alone the minimum tax rate at $40,000 income will have to rise to 63%. And to 90% plus at the highest incomes. So guess what? Why work? And the problem gets worse when high income people leave, take business elsewhere, or just shut down their business. And there are many examples of the fact it does happen.

A tax increase during a recession is the worst possible answer. As I have said before, get ready for 15% to 20% interest rates, 20% unemployment, and 25% to 50% inflation. Go back to Carter who did the same things except Obama is doing it many times worse.

[Guest]

Obama promised no middle class tax increase. Economics 101 or not he made that campaign promise. I agree it was naive. However it is something again when you make the promise, then go and SPEND, SPEND, SPEND and then claim you need a tax increase to pay for all your spending. And it will not stop. Even his own COB is telling everyone that the current health care bill will add another 1 trillion to the deficit. And if we can't borrow it, then you have to tax for it. Just keep supporting all these programs that increase spending. You will see tax hikes that you can begin to believe. To meet current spending alone the minimum tax rate at $40,000 income will have to rise to 63%. And to 90% plus at the highest incomes. So guess what? Why work? And the problem gets worse when high income people leave, take business elsewhere, or just shut down their business. And there are many examples of the fact it does happen.

A tax increase during a recession is the worst possible answer. As I have said before, get ready for 15% to 20% interest rates, 20% unemployment, and 25% to 50% inflation. Go back to Carter who did the same things except Obama is doing it many times worse.

The good news is: no matter what legislation is passed that can cause more spending , it will take several months to set the agencies in place, write the regulations and a little longer before real spending happens. Even HR 3200 has 1-year timetables before many of the regulations are to be in place, and that rarely happens according to Congressional timetables. SO, there is ample time to put a new Congress in place to reverse whatever other Santa Claus legislation comes from the sitting Congress.

The bad news is: It indeed costs money to shut down operations, so the taxpayer is still stuck with paying bills that should never have happened. BUT at least much of the fiscal bleeding can be clotted before the patient is terminal, IF we do change out the 2-year spendthrifts in office in 2010.

[Guest]

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day, "Obama lied- capitalism died"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpajamasmedia.com%2Finstapundit%2 F&feature


Look, whether we would be in this mess if someone else was president is immaterial. Americans don't like being lied to. Ask George's dad.
I wonder how many socially liberal but fiscally conservatives fell for that one?

[Guest]

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day, "Obama lied- capitalism died"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpajamasmedia.com%2Finstapundit%2 F&feature


Look, whether we would be in this mess if someone else was president is immaterial. Americans don't like being lied to. Ask George's dad.
I wonder how many socially liberal but fiscally conservatives fell for that one?

And they stole that from "When Clinton lied Nobody Died"

[Guest]

And they stole that from "When Clinton lied Nobody Died"
Are we talking about the same guy who played "general"and gave deployment orders for troops in Somalia while simultaneously "not having sex according to his definition" ? ? ? Army Rangers paid the price for that self-centered episode.

So, when Clinton played, others paid...

[Guest]

And they stole that from "When Clinton lied Nobody Died"

I'm assuming you are not including the 3,000 people who died on 9/11 as well as those killed by Al Queda since then. Clinton lied when he said he did not have the chance to kill UBL - several times. He lacked the moral courage to do what needed to be done.

[Guest]

And they stole that from "When Clinton lied Nobody Died"

Actually, I was one of many Vietnam veterans that marched in Boston in 2004, to protest against John Kerry. When we went by his multi-million mansion we were chanting, "John Kerry lied-good men died". It was very impressive.