Well lets say that their is no yield from the bonds for the public, the money is still spent back into the economy and is a neutral sum. This isn't the case though, the public does benefit from the yield, at least a portion of it and foreigners do invest in our economy so it is a plus game for us.
Which is why I said taxing the wealthy more would be better. I'm saying that would be even better than just going at those who make over 200k. I wouldn't mind starting the tax at 350K and up though. Anyway when I said it would be better, I meant better than the current proposal.
Two questions: 1) If you are willing to have the suspension of disbelief to actual buy into the lie that is that this tax hike is revenue neutral, then let me ask you this: What qualifies Charlie Rangel to re-distribute income across the economy? What qualifies him to tell us what our 'fair share' is? 2) DO YOU WANT SOMEONE FROM HARLEM TELLING YOU HOW TO ALLOCATE YOUR MONEY? Think about that for a moment. I don't.
Because he was elected to do exactly that, and has knowledge of the inner workings of govt. that you will never have. By the way I'd bet recent investment in Harlem and property value increases there are far and away more than what has gone on in your neighborhood.
this plan is better for people making under 500k than the current amt. secondly we need to kill the income cap on student loan interest deductions and add a cap on mortgages.
Also, do not overlook that Rangel is proposing to NOT RENEW the current levels of taxation on capital gains and dividend income. So anyone that either owns stock (half of US households) or receives a dividend (or works for a company that pays a dividend) will have their taxes raised big time. This will have a devastating impact on the stock market. Expect carnage. How do we pay the bills without raising taxes? How do we not leave our kids/grandkids with big debt? CUT SPENDING. The only silver lining here is that this shifts the political narrative to fiscal policy, an area where the Republican candidates will perform well with voters.
I have no idea why you think this. The principal may be net neutral, but every single bit of interest is a net negative, and as that interest compounds and compounds year over year the principal becomes less and less relevant. It’s like a game of musical chairs. As long as we keep the music playing and continue to resell we can put off and put off that reckoning when we have to balance accounts. But eventually the music will stop and someone will be left without a chair. Eventually, they will want to move that principal plus the accrued interest somewhere else and the music will stop. A large external debt is bad. Period.
Your boy had 6 years and a compliant Congress to do whatever he wanted... but they all went to the trough and the deficit and debt ballooned. You talk about carnage... look at the current economy. People are scared about homes and job stability like never before in my lifetime. The dynamic has changed greatly since the last election. Your boy and his sychophantic Reps and Sens have killed the Republican message of the last several elections. You're like the French standing steadfastly behind the Maginot Line not realizing the world is different.
this is what i was referring to above, but you've got your figures wrong. the deficit is just 1.2% of GDP.
Is this your idea of economic analysis? Superficial. Unconvincing. Inaccurate. Stick to firefighting. The strength of the economy as a whole is what is preventing the credit issues from totally driving us into a bad place. That's very very significant. Equity values (the stock market) remains very strong. We are enjoying a period of VERY low unemployment, low interest rates, and strong corporate earnings. Some of you libs simply parrot flawed economic analyses simply for partisan fighting purposes. It really damages your cred.
BOTTOM LINE... the us national debt will hit ~9 TRILLION soon... we have an open ended commitment in iraq/afghanistan... we need to cut the budget and increase taxes... dont tell me that increasing taxes 4% is gonna stop the rich from finding smarter ways to invest and grow their fortune... it doesnt make sense to say that a 4% tax increase is going to really hurt a single person making $100,000+/yr (even in ny/nj). i can see how it would hurt dual income families in ny/nj who have 4+ kids. but if their smart enough to make $200,000+/yr, theyre not going to let a 4% tax increase cripple them... is it fair that the new tax burden will fall on the rich? NO its not fair. who has money? the rich do. also, a 4% increase will not affect the rich like it would affect the poor and middle class.
It's not just the 4%, if a Dem gets into the white house, she/he would just not renew the 2003 tax cuts, and the effect would be raising the tax by almost 10%. Yeah, that would hurt a few middle-high income families. If this crap happens, get ready for a repeat of the Carter years, which would be far worse for the average family.
There's a reason it's called the Dismal Science. You can't reduce people to numbers, even if they were good numbers. I doubt the housing crisis has hit TX as hard as some areas, but two friends in AZ have lost jobs in the construction industry and another friend from NM had to turn down a promotion because they couldn't sell their house. Every weekend here in OR there are several Sheriff's auctions of homes. Foreclosures are killing the Stockton and Sacramento areas. Now, these folks aren't beyond some blame, but they are also caught up in a national mood that directly affects them and that mood could be changed by policies... just not under this administration. By the way, I've asked you twice to help me understand why Rangel's plan is not revenue neutral. You have declined both times. Avoiding issues really damages your cred.
Sound familiar? Those are all from prominent Repubs talking about the 1993 Tax Bill. Repubs have no real plan... just rhetoric they hope will convince enough Americans to let them keep raping the country.
I'm not a supporter of Clinton (unless she gets the nod), but there is no evidence that she will attempt a major overhaul of the current tax system. Not that I am aware of. Obama or Edwards would be more likely to do that than Clinton, IMO. She's DLC (Democratic Leadership Council, who helped Bill get elected) all the way, and that is more centrist than a hell of a lot of Democrats (and some of the Independents I know). We need more equity in our tax system. It has become far too tilted towards the wealthy, at the expense of the Middle Class. I think you can make some changes and not upset the apple cart. Also, if we have major economic problems with the next President, whoever he/she is, it will be the result of Bush and the GOP Congress, with what I consider their wild, reckless, and destructive fiscal policy. D&D. Attempt to Be Civil! Impeach Bush.
Unfortunately, they don't adhere to fiscally conservative policy once in office. As evidenced by the years from 2000 to 2006, they will increase spending even more than Clinton did, even if you only look at discretionary spending. HO HO HO
