Getty Images
The Republican message in December:
House Speaker John Boehner's fiscal-cliff proposal purports to raise $1.6 trillion in revenue by "clos[ing] special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates."
The Republican message in February:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Democrats' calls for ending tax loopholes was a "poll-tested gimmick."
For months, as a way to push back against President Obama's call for higher rates on the wealthy, the GOP line was unambiguous: policymakers can close tax loopholes and end deductions, generating hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue.
And now, the GOP line is equally unambiguous, though it happens to be the exact opposite: trying to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue by closing tax loopholes and ending deductions is absurd.
So which is it?
When Republican leaders argued, as recently as last month, that there are ample sources of revenue through loopholes and deductions, were they lying? Were they exaggerating? Were they making something up in desperation, panicked by the idea of asking rich people to pay Clinton-era top rates?
Or were they sincere at the time, but have since come to believe that these tax loopholes should be left in place on purpose, denying new revenue that would lower the deficit they sometimes pretend to care about?
If I had to guess, I'd say they were simply lying before. Indeed, they were never entirely serious about closing loopholes and ending deductions as a way of generating revenue, as evidenced by the fact that they never got around to pointing specifically to any loopholes and/or deductions they'd be willing to give up.
But it brings to mind an anti-drug commercial I saw when I was a kid: From you Mitch, Dems learned about pushing poll-tested gimmicks by watching you.
Leave a Comment:
we the Teapublicans would close the loopholes but we found out that would make our house of cards fall down under the weight of helping.
the Teapublicans motto if its good for Americans its very bad for our wallets.
Translation: Gimmee!
What you folks apparently aren't getting is... now you've given it good to the wealthiest among us, you have shot your... No more revenue for you. Well almost. If you were to go after the carried interest provision, that would pass. Anything else, no.
Shooter, if you want to reduce the debt you can raise taxes, reduce expenses or, if you are really, really serious, do both.
Guess the President wants to do both. Look who is serious now.
Like an old computer with windows 95 caught in a reboot loop .....
here comes shooter and "Free Stuff"
I got mine ...
I think what you mean to say is reduce the deficit, we'll never reduce the debt. That said, if you're going to blame the deficit on rich people not paying Clinton rates, and then getting those rates... you're done. You have no where else to go.
LOL at the 8% free throw shooter.
what you dont get is that We all know that you have nothing but the SSDS stuff.
Shooter, remember the days of that wasteful Bill Clinton? In those years we were in surplus and the money saved was going to reduce the debt. Then that noted "conservative" GW Bush was elected and you guys passed tax cuts intended to throw us into deficit. If we ever get to the point where we eliminate the deficit, I want to cut the debt.
Sadly Ron, the debt wasn't reduced when Clinton was in office. It still grew, albeit infinitesimally. But this begs the question... if you're so enamored of the Clinton era why not all the Clinton rates? That's were the real money is.
That's where the real money was back then, but the steady, continuous upward redistribution of wealth that's been going on in this country since the Reagan years, combined with the top 1%'s success in grabbing the entirety of the new wealth generated by increasing worker productivity for itself is changing that.
And, in large part, all of this is due, directly and indirectly, upon the fact that the rich spent most of those decades gaming the tax system for their benefit.
No Steve. Clinton rates on the rich got you $60 billion/yr. Clinton rates on everyone would have gotten you $300 billion or so. But considering the $60 billion has already been spent on Sandy, you now have zip, zero, nada. Heh.
Shooter, if you actually had been paying attention, you would realize that I was in favor of returning taxes to the Clinton era levels across the board. Sadly for America's future my party agreed with your party about the rates on the middle and lower classes. I don't get everything I want.
Then Ron you should have said so, rather than generically call for more taxes.
Shooter, if any position would get total bipartisan opposition it would be returning to the Clinton rates across the board. We have to deal with the reality we know rather than the unreality we wish. Under those circumstances, we need to raise taxes and decrease spending, if we want to eliminate the deficit and work on the debt. Of course, there are lots of people in both parties who believe deficits don't matter. Krugman and Cheney come to mind. They might be right.
While I'm at it, let's remember that out of Phil Mickleson's million dollar winnings this week, he gets to keep some $380,000 while forking over $620,000 to Govt. He's not working for himself, he's working for Govt. It's time for him to move to Florida.
thanks for yet another confirmation that you are just a boot licker , and not one of them lmao
after all , the wealthy need blinded storm troopers , other wise their self centered agenda would be crushed
Closing tax loopholes and ending deductions is very much a part of conservative philosophy; government should not be picking winners and losers. And that is exactly what tax deductions, credits and other loopholes do. Shooter might have to reconsider his views and agree with my statements. Otherwise he is no conservative, just another welfare junkie.
This is the reason they agreed to the tax hike...because it was irrelevant as long as the loopholes stay open.
And so this is surprising why again?
The loopholes aren't open, almost all of them are means tested already. And let's not forget the AMT. If you really want revenue, you'll have to go after the middle class.
The AMT was fixed in the Fiscal Cliff deal.
No you just do what FDR did and smack the wealthy with a 90% rate for income over $300k
And they STILL made Ludicrous amounts of money!
So Blankman - maybe you can explain the welfare to BIG OIL/Agribusiness/Pharma - those industries are earning money hand over fist - why do they "need" welfare courtesy of taxpayers, again?
Exactly! So much for conservatives being fiscally responsible...
Ron it might have been fixed for you, but there are other people out there who are still bound by it.
Let's see a cite for the ludicrous amounts of money assertion, and if that's true why not make it 100% over $300k? How much do you think that'll get you?
Nahh no need to be greedy
And if you don't believe me Shooter...there are these things called "History Books"
People write them to remind other of the reasons things happened and what had to be done to fix them...
Most people know that if “something is too good to be true , probably isn't.”
Where did money come from? To begin at the beginning--
The well off people had gold and silver bullion.
The state collected taxes in gold and in kind, say barley.
The state used some of its gold to mint gold coins, the 1st money.
Gold and silver coins were “good” so the state made more.
Centuries later, the banks and then the state started printing paper money.
All such paper money were IOUs. It said right on them “Pay to the bearer $XX in silver (or gold) on demand.” Paper money was better than metal money, it was lighter to carry around.
So, in the beginning the people had gold coins, the gov. taxed them to get gold, and then paid for things with paper money which the people wanted because it was lighter.
Then FDR called in all the gold and promised only to back the dollar with gold for foreign “bearers”.
Nixon finally took us completely off the gold backed dollar. Until then, everyone knew that each bill was an IOU because everyone of them said so. My dad used “Silver Certificate” dollar bills to get real silver when I was in college around 1970.
So, for the last about 40 years we have been getting along with “worthless” paper money. It has worked pretty good so far.
Our last real bad inflation did happen soon after, but I think that was because OPEC raised oil prices and the Fed. Bank did not know how to react to that.
I guess they expected inflation and so they fought it in the prescribed way. But, that was a loosing battle. Business men had to pass on the price of the oil they used to make and distribute their goods and services, they HAD to. The Fed's measures to fight inflation created “stagflation”.
Since then inflation has been ongoing but not so bad.
Say you are playing poker. You are loosing. You need more money. You write an IOU and offer to trade it for chips at par. John takes it. You bet with it and win the pot. It was a large pot, so you want to get the IOU back. Would you offer to 'borrow' it back and give him a new interest bearing IOU for it?
No? Why not? In this analogy the 'chips' are gold and your IOU is a dollar bill. You issued the IOU, how can you 'borrow' it back? Does that make any sense?
But, forget that, why would you offer to pay interest on the new IOU that you used to borrow it back? In the analogy this new IOU is a T-Bill.
The point is that – Dollar Bills are already IOUs. They have 'value', at least, because you have to pay your taxes with them. People accept them for all purposes just fine, even foreigners.
Over the last 40 years the US Gov. has acted as if the dollar was still backed with gold. During that time it had to tax the people and borrow from banks and rich people to get the dollars to spend before it could spend them. It was constrained from just issuing more paper money by the gold it held. Now, that is not true.
The Fed. Gov. could just issue more money. Today it would not print it, it could just tell the bank it works with to add some zeroes to its account there. Then it would write checks drawn on that account to Fed. workers, soldiers, defense contractors, and Soc. Sec. recipients, etc.
It can't be forced to be 'insolvent'. It could choose to do so, though. International money traders can't attack the dollar, it is not pegged to anything, not gold or UK
Pounds for example. If China stops buying US T-Bills, if everyone stops buying T-Bills – so what?
They are stuck holding US dollars instead, which in many ways is better (for the US Gov.) because dollars are not interest bearing. China may want to sell its
dollars, but only foreigners have something they want, either gold or some non-US currency.
This probably will reduce the value of the dollar against foreign currencies. This will only effect the import/export part of the US. It will help exporters (thereby
reducing unemployment) and increase the cost of imported goods (again reducing unemployment but hurting consumers). But, this is not the end of the world.
And China can do this whenever it wants, for whatever reason it wants. There are several reasons it might do this, but fear that the US Gov. will run out of dollars to
pay interest is NOT one of them (unless it is crazy).
So, what should constrain the US Gov. from creating more and more money out of thin air? The answer is “inflation”.
Why should the US Gov. create more money than it does now? The answer is “to reduce unemployment”. Or that combined with some other “public good”, like moving toward a more 'green' economy.
So if the Fed. Gov. does not need to get money through collecting taxes and selling T-Bills/Bonds, why should it continue to do these things? The answer is “it is necessary to collect some taxes to create a minimal demand for dollars to pay them, and it is a way to help regulate the economy”. Selling T-Bills is not 'necessary' at all.
An additional reason to collect taxes might be to keep the powerful from using their money to distort votes in Congress and subvert democracy. Like progressively tax campaign contributions over some amount.
The current policies work to aid the rich at the expense of the less well off. Unemployment keeps wages low. Calls to cut entitlements (= Soc Sec.) or just spending (but not defense spending, also = Sec. Sec.) hurt the less well off. Fighting to keep taxes low on the rich help them. The rich own the US Congress.
Sorry Dragoon, the way it works is... of you make an assertion and are called on it, you have to back it up. Otherwise, you're telling people to take your word for it. That's not happening, particularly since you have a history of making grand pronouncements with no evidence.
Wait a second Shooter, you have a long history on this board of making assertions and not backing them up. You are forever telling us to take your word for your assertions. I guess this comment proves IOKIYAR.
Oh really? Do you have some instance where I was asked for a cite and failed to deliver?
Ok shooter
The question under debate was whether or not the wealthy still made a ludicrous amount of money under FDR
I can't pull out the relevant portions and paste them (There are lots) but pay attention to the graph on pg.6
It shows that even during the depression and throughout WWII the share of income for the top 10% never dropped below 30% (although I will grant that was a large drop from the pre-depression high of 49%). So what you have is 1/10 of the population making 1/3 of all the money...that seems pretty ludicrous to me
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/atkinson-piketty-saezJEL10.pdf
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! you have a whole blog full here
Let me add--
Now this nation has very high deficits and almost zero interest rates.
Does standard economic theory say that that is imposible? High deficits are said to lead to high sales of T-Bills, which leads to them crowding out available capital, leading to a need to offer higher interest rates on T-Bills. Right?
So why is it happening?
Could "standard economic theory" be flat out wrong?
Very good.
Let me direct people here--
http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP53-Fullwiler.pdf
About page 14 is where the MMT part starts, so please start there.
The 1st part is a summary of other theories that the author thinks are wrong. All very scholarly.
See also
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=8117 and
http://agonist.org/modern_monetary_theory_an_overview/
Why is anyone surprised? Anything, anything, that Obama comes out to support, if Republicans were ever in favor of it previously, they then reject, solely because the presidential usurper (irony intended, for those who are irony-challenged) supports it. The GOP needs to retire the elephant symbol, and replace it with the head of Janus.
It's like the health care plan the Republicans floated in the 1990s. It wasn't something they actually supported or were willing to fight for. They only needed a rhetorical plan that they could push to give them the appearance of action and a willingness to compromise. Once something happens, however, they no longer need the rhetorical plan because it was never something they believed in.
Actually, Shooter is making the argument I would if I were the GOP -- "You got the revenue from the rate increase so now you don't need the loophole solution." The problem is that the GOP is not saying just that -- they're saying that the loophole solution doesn't work, and mocking it. To that extent, it's no different than any of the things they once advocated (mandates, EIT) that they now oppose.
Hell, Mitch and the Boys are proving to be maladjusted adults with power, and it's gonna wreck our nation unless we corral it, horse collar it, and stomp it to the ground in the next three election cycles! The it you ask?
Why,
The Republican Brand!
Until Mitch McConnell and his gerrymandered Republican House colleagues are punished at the polls, their ill-begotten-vested-interest-or-bust scorch the earth ruinous political behavior will continue relentlessly just like a HONEY BADGER can't help itself when it finds a honey pot no matter how many perils exist to execute the necessary effort to destroy in order to personally gain! -Kevo
So now repubs say there is no way they will look for more revenue, while also saying that they want to avoid the sequester and also repeal things like the medical device tax, all of which will lead to a balanced budget? I know 5-year olds who think more clearly than that! Well, at least we can enjoy throwing hundreds of billions at Pentagon projects that produce weapons that don't work.
In December, closing loopholes INSTEAD OF raising rates was the preferred choice. Now, closing loopholes IN ADDITION TO HIGHER RATES cannot be tolerated no matter what effect it would have on the deficit. Well the preferred choice of the electorate, gerrymandering or no, is to elect adults who will govern this nation for 100% of Americans. Find those adults and replace them.
You got it.
The headline could have as easily said: The Democrats were against closing loopholes before they were for it.
The Republicans were for reforming the tax code by eliminating some of the "loopholes" which are legal practices but makes it easy to reduce tax rate below intended levels. Thus, that is why some of the "rich" were not paying as high a percentage as others.
The Republicans wanted to make it easier to insure people were paying the desired tax rate. Instead, the Democrats wanted to RAISE those rates and leave the loopholes thus diluting the act of raising the rate. NOW, they want to eliminate loopholes. Why?
Because if they had done it the other way around, they would have had a harder time raising the rate. This is not rocket science.
"This is not rocket science."
nope it snot, so guess you have links to back your side up? cause the loopholes they wanted to close was to hurt the middle class. like remember when the middle class got to write off interest? that loop hole got closed.
Ron: Do you seriously trust the Republicans enough to believe a word they say about taxes, rates, and loopholes? That was Romney-speak. They got you...
Whether you believe their motives or trust their actions, the argument has merit. To just dismiss it as they were for it and now against it flys in the face of logic. Here's a simple example:
One doctor says you need to run for a longer time to get in shape but you think you just need to run a longer distance (regardless of the time). You eventually cave and run for a longer time. Then the doctor says, I also need to extend the distance as you stated before. You might resist because you chose to get into shape by run for a greater time, not a longer distance and now the doctor is saying BOTH.
It is far from a perfect analogy but it does demonstrate that you can achieve the results by chosing either option, choosing both takes it to another extreme (which may be beneficial, maybe not) which you do not want to go.
And, yes, there are sources to back up my position. President Obama wanted to raise rates, the Republicans did not but wanted to reform taxes by eliminating loopholes.
Again, you can argue over their motives or even their possible follow through, but the argument has merit.
How so very odd, really curious, how come that no one mentioned getting this through flanks of Congress, before we all fell for it?
The Senate's unbreakable hold on power, where no man, no people or no country can stand in the way.
(Senate) Pike Army Defense (Those spikes are three foot long on 15 foot spears.)
R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R------>
R-R-R-D-D-D-D-D-R-R------>
R-R-D-D-D-D-D-D-R-R------>
R-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-R------>
R-D-D-D-D-N-D-D-D-R------>
R-D-D-D-N-D-D-D-D-R------>
R-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-R------>
R-R-D-D-D-D-D-D-R-R------>
R-R-D-D-D-D-D-D-R-R------>
R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R------>
Moves to the right ---->?
Well, the Republican party is nothing if not predictable these days. Romney was the test pilot--they made him reverse all of his positions to see how their voters would react. When it was evident that no amount of flip-flopping would dissuade Republican voters from voting Republican, they figured they can do the same thing with everything else, assured that their voters would stick with them no matter what.
we need to ask some serious questions. what is the effective tax rate on middle class americans? when you add all of the hidden taxes that are paid, as well as the fact that we pay all of the taxes on every single item or service we buy, the result is staggering. when a company prices items to sell, every penny that they anticipate paying is priced into that item. so in every way, we the consumer pay all taxes! businesses will never pay one dime in taxes. what a joke for the gop to cry and whine about something that businesses don't do. they just want to make more for doing less. but one of the real problems i see coming up, is that people who have retired 10 or 15 years ago are starting to struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table. imagine you retired 15 years ago with 1600$ a month. with the increase in prices of utilities, food, gas, taxes, it is very hard for our older citizens to make ends meet. i do not see anyone talking or doing anything about this. i see more and more older americans taking part time jobs. i do not believe its because they are bored. i see more businesses going private. i believe this effort will continue to grow and grow. wall street has made a lot of business owners and ceos angry at their attitude that the businesses are never doing good enough. so they downgrade their value because they missed some anylists prediction.
Bonehead and McDonald are even more determined that President Obama only be a 2 term President !
However anyone would care to look at the repTards - I see them as Nothing more than an Organized Crime Mob based through Nazi beliefs !