GOP Rejects Obama Offer of $1.6 Trillion Tax Increase

[Wneglia]

Interesting spin on flat tax

[Wneglia]

If you confiscated every penny of incomes (100% tax) above $100K, you could still not pay for government at the current level of spending. CUT SPENDING

[Reality]

WNG, Vred doesn't undertsand. Don't waste your time.

[Supsalemgr]

It is not about raising revenue to libs. It is about punishing the successful.

[bannination]

Applicable to current topic: Warning, HUGE image - Death and Taxes

[bannination]

It is not about raising revenue to libs. It is about punishing the successful.

It's not about raising revenue to Supsalemgr, it's about making sure the poor pay the successful's share of taxes.

[Wneglia]

"americanthinker" -

Anyhow, even if Wneglia's proven wingnut site is correct and nor distorting the issue, I did not say it could.

WNG, Vred doesn't undertsand. Don't waste your time.

"Reality" doesn't "undertsand" that Wneglia's "point" was irrelevant to my pic. Nor will he ever "undertsand" that no deficit reductions will ever be possible without large cuts to the Pentagon bloat - more than half the discretionary budget - that he fawns over.

It is not about raising revenue to libs.

Most Americans, not just "libs." Please try to be honest.

It is about punishing the successful.

It's not about success to Supsalemgr. It is about his hatred for democracy and love for deficits.

It may be that they will someday "undertsand" that most Americans support raising taxes on the rich as part of the solution to our budget woes and loss of true democracy, and that they've already lost this battle, but I'm not hopeful in "Reality" and Supsalemgr's cases.

I'm not against increasing taxes on the rich, only pointing out that it will accomplish almost nothing other than scoring a few political points for Obama. It will be a drop in the ocean so far as fixing our debt. The only way to fix that is to CUT SPENDING. I agree that some cuts should be in the military, but we also need to address the entitlements that consume so much of the budget.

I would even favor limiting charitable deductions to $100K. Then the Gates, Soros, and Buffets would finally pay their fair share.

[Supsalemgr]

"americanthinker" -

Anyhow, even if Wneglia's proven wingnut site is correct and not distorting the issue, I did not say that taxing the rich could do that.

WNG, Vred doesn't undertsand. Don't waste your time.

"Reality" doesn't "undertsand" that Wneglia's "point" was irrelevant to my pic. Nor will he ever "undertsand" that no deficit reductions will ever be possible without large cuts to the Pentagon bloat - more than half the discretionary budget - that he fawns over.

It is not about raising revenue to libs.

Most Americans, not just "libs." Please try to be honest.

It is about punishing the successful.

It's not about success to Supsalemgr. It is about his hatred for democracy and love for deficits.

Vrede went off the sanity cliff with the two above sentences. How in the world does he surmise I hate democracy and love deficits. We do know he does have quite an imagination, especially when it comes to "mind reading" other posters.

It may be that they will someday "undertsand" that most Americans support raising taxes on the rich as part of the solution to our budget woes and loss of true democracy, and that they've already lost this battle, but I'm not hopeful in "Reality" and Supsalemgr's cases.

[Supsalemgr]

I'm not against increasing taxes on the rich, only pointing out that it will accomplish almost nothing other than scoring a few political points for Obama. It will be a drop in the ocean so far as fixing our debt.

It's a start and I'm unaware of anyone saying it will be sufficient. "Reality" got confused in thinking that our posts, if your "americanthinker" one is even accurate, debunked my pic.

The only way to fix that is to CUT SPENDING.

I suspect your "only way" is inaccurate but it makes no difference. Everyone agrees that we should, but the GOP is fooling their minions into thinking they are the only ones that would do so even though the record shows the opposite.

I agree that some cuts should be in the military,

"some" won't do it. They'll have to be huge if we're going to balance the budget. As banni's link shows, DoD is larger than any other single program.

but we also need to address the entitlements that consume so much of the budget.

We'll have to, though not necessarily as part of the immediate deal. I'd start with the tax cap and means testing benefits, the GOP wishes to start with those least able to afford it.

I would even favor limiting charitable deductions to $100K. Then the Gates, Soros, and Buffets would finally pay their fair share.

Sounds okay to me, though the shortfall might create the need for more social services. Is it a real proposal?

I agree with Doc and I believe most Republicans are OK with an increase for the top taxpayers. The issue is the dems won't even discuss entitlements where the "real" money is. The GOP hopefully will not do another "Charlie Brown and the football" and believe the dems that cuts will come later. We have already seen that picture show.

[Supsalemgr]

It is my opinion. Now about the second part of my post?

Vrede is so predictable.

[O Really]

I don't know where Super-S got his opinion, but I'd agree that a lot of Republican rank and file people would support some tax increase - at least the one proposed. Most of the wildest rhetoric about no tax increase comes from the Norquist-owned politicians. According to today's poll http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... snhp&pos=1

About 65% of the public supports a balanced approach including tax increases, and that includes 66% of Republicans. Only 28% are stupid enough to support a cliff dive.

[Stinger]

I don't know where Super-S got his opinion, but I'd agree that a lot of Republican rank and file people would support some tax increase - at least the one proposed.

Bloomberg poll -- almost half of Republicans support Obama's tax increase.

http://www.moneynews.com/FinanceNews/Bl ... /id/467358

Wanna guess how many Democrats support Adolph Norquist's tax ultimatum/pledge?

[O Really]

Wanna guess how many Democrats support Adolph Norquist's tax ultimatum/pledge?

Ummm, that would be zilch.

[Stinger]

Wanna guess how many Democrats support Adolph Norquist's tax ultimatum/pledge?

Ummm, that would be zilch.

So a compromise would be meeting halfway between zero Democrats supporting Adolph Norquist's no-tax-increase dictum and almost half the Republicans supporting Obama's tax hike.

This ain't rocket science.

[bannination]

Maybe we could cut back on some of this: Link

So, just how good are these benefits? For the top brass, not bad at all. According to a Washington Post investigation, each top commander has his own C-40 jet, complete with beds on board. Many have chefs who deserve their own four-star restaurants. The generals’ personal staff include drivers, security guards, secretaries and people to shine their shoes and iron their uniforms. When traveling, they can be accompanied by police motorcades that stretch for blocks. When entertaining, string quartets are available at a snap of the fingers.

A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million — per general. That’s not even including their own salaries — which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation — and the free housing, which has been described as “palatial.” On Capitol Hill, these cadres of assistants are called the generals’ “flotillas.”

In Petraeus’ case, he didn’t want to give up the perks of being a four-star general in the Army, even after he left the armed forces to be director of the CIA. He apparently trained his assistants to pass him water bottles at timed intervals on his now-infamous 6-minute mile runs. He also liked “fresh, sliced pineapple” before going to bed.

[mike]

Nah, if that were to happen, the neo-cons wouldn't be able to hypocritically speak of the President having his own jet ...

[Stinger]

Nah, if that were to happen, the neo-cons wouldn't be able to hypocritically speak of the President having his own jet ...

They only speak (stupidly, ignorantly, and hypocritically) of the presidential jet when there's a Democratic president. Bush flew to Crawford 77 times in 8 years. Obama flies to Hawaii once a year, and it's bad.

[Wneglia]

Get out the KY and..

[Wneglia]

One of many reasons Federal spending out of control

[Reality]

So banni, I take it you have flown on one of the aircraft these 4 Star General's have at their disposal or do you believe everything you read about the military, especially all the negatives.