Below from the NYT today. This is what Doc, me and others have been saying for months while the ignorant, self absorbed Libs dismissed us as contards.
"Even if Republicans were to agree to Mr. Obama’s core demand — that the top marginal income rates return to the Clinton-era levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent after Dec. 31, rather than stay at the Bush-era rates of 33 percent and 35 percent — the additional revenue would be only about a quarter of the $1.6 trillion that Mr. Obama wants to collect over 10 years. That would be about half of the $800 billion that Republicans have said they would be willing to raise."
And those target numbers for each still doesn't put a dent in the deficit! Take the blinders off. We need an overhaul of the tax system - tax reform. This president has a historic opportunity to get our financing system on firm ground including entitlements but he spend the bulk of his time on this narrow issue to sock it to the rich and it doesn't fix diddle
You really should read articles, not the first paragraph only:
"Together those changes would raise $407.4 billion over a decade — nearly as much as the president’s proposal on higher rates, which would raise $441.6 billion by 2023, for a total of $849 billion. Another $119 billion would come from higher estate taxes, opposed by Republicans and some Democrats.
And both the president and Republicans are committed to raising hundreds of billions of dollars by overhauling the tax code to further limit or end the tax breaks that high-income taxpayers can claim, though they differ in how to do that.
Republicans want to raise all $800 billion from overhauling the tax code, erasing tax breaks for high-income households and using the new revenues both to reduce deficits and to lower everyone’s tax rates. But they have not proposed how to do that, and the president insists it cannot be done without hitting middle-income taxpayers.
Mr. Obama has proposed to keep existing tax breaks but to limit the rate of those breaks for people in higher tax brackets to 28 percent, which would raise $584 billion in a decade. He has proposed variations of that proposal for four years, only to be ignored by both parties because of opposition from charitable groups, the housing industry, insurers and others to curbing deductions for charitable giving, mortgage insurance and other purposes."
I read the entire article. I generally don't cut and paste complete articles since I always include the source and figure if someone is interested they can read the rest for themselves.
Nothing in the rest of the article changes the facts in the section that I included, it actually helps to prove my point. Add up all those additional revenues and promised savings and then add up the projected deficits and tell me what the difference is prince? That's the problem.
The problem with the republican proposals is they can never propose anything real, and when you accept their own ideas, as in healthcare, they oppose their own ideas. The Republicans use this all to create a muddled process in which they just play the blame game, but actually undermine all progress. The GOP is the nutcase party, plain and simple. You guys need to start with basic math and go from there. Logic, rationality, even support for science, for a change, would be good. Until you crazy nutty GOPers come back down to reality, the rest of us have to carry your sorry #$%$ and do the logic for you.
Keep, that reading comprehension problem continues to dog you. In the very first sentence I point out that the article is from the NYT - last time I checked it wasn't a right leaning rag. Open your eyes dolt.
You and NJ have a remarkable persistence in only criticizing the messenger but you both appear to lack the intellect to respond to any topic on the merits. We are running ANNUAL deficits of well over $1 trillion - use those engineering math skills to show how raising the marginal tax rates on the top 2% of earners (generates about $82bn per year in increased revenue) solves the deficit problem. I know that there's more to the presidents plan but that includes increased spending and some cuts in discretionary spending. Entitlements are not addressed in any substantive way.
Most economist back Obama's plan? What a farce. More economist back Simpson- Bowles or at least the general approach of it. How stupid is it that the president doesn't even follow the recommendations of his own task force?
It just cracks me up that you can't seem to get away from your play book. How you can find away to get bigotry into a discussion on the deficit is amazing - you lack any substance.
"In the very first sentence I point out that the article is from the NYT - last time I checked it wasn't a right leaning rag. Open your eyes dolt."
Theres, the New York Times has many writers, and they report both sides of an issue , unlike your beloved tv show Fox Noise.
Remember, you're judged by the company you keep, and keeping company with Doc makes you a bigot, at least in my book, and most likely a racist to boot.
Theres, you are so full of it, that your eye's are now dark brown. Its interesting, but telling, that you don't state who wrote this article, because the facts are that most economists back Obama's plan, that was designed by the renowned Paul Volcker.
And having Doc as an ally just shows how backward thinking and bigoted you really are. And if it weren't for the libs with their forward and progressive policies, folks like you would still be living in a cave.