Sure it does, because most of those inthe raise it at all camp were in the little to 50-50 camp, and only if there are also real spending cuts to go along with it What the Dems currently have are not real spending cuts, they are merely promises not to spend more. Cuts to a proposed budget increase are not spending cuts, just a smaller increase. Troop reductions were happening regardless of this debt ceiling stuff. Any savings realized because of it can't be counted as a spending cut, because you weren't gonna spend it anyway.

 

Ryan's budget used the same gimmicks. Most of the deals presented thus far offered substantial cuts and restructuring of social programs, though Reid's does rely largely winding down the wars.

 

This still doesn't explain your "wants to raise taxes=not centrist" objection.

If the Dems propose a bill that has real actual spending cuts in it, somethgin that has some teeth and not smoke and mirrors, I will listen. Even if it has 'tax increases', even though you can bet your ass it won't be on just people earning over $250k. I would be more in favor if he also added a tax onthe poor, even if just $20 or something. No wonder a certain percentage favor tax increases when half the country has, to quote our President, 'no skin in the game'. Easy to take from others. Perhaps that poll should be done only of those that actually paid taxes. I wonder what that ratio would look like.....

If the Dems propose a bill that has real actual spending cuts in it, somethgin that has some teeth and not smoke and mirrors, I will listen. Even if it has 'tax increases', even though you can bet your ass it won't be on just people earning over $250k. I would be more in favor if he also added a tax onthe poor, even if just $20 or something. No wonder a certain percentage favor tax increases when half the country has, to quote our President, 'no skin in the game'. Easy to take from others. Perhaps that poll should be done only of those that actually paid taxes. I wonder what that ratio would look like.....

I'm genuinely impressed, it took less than 6 hours from a person posting the graph showing that a person with an income of $7000 a year still pays a 5% federal tax rate until a person repeated this blatant falsehood. I thought it would take weeks.

Criticizing the various Dem plans still doesn't mean they're not centrist plans, or that raising taxes is not centrist.

 

But regarding "who pays taxes," that'd be everyone.

 

BTW the "Gang of Six" included Democrats, including your own Senator Durbin, which proposed plenty of actual spending cuts.

I'm genuinely impressed, it took less than 6 hours from a person posting the graph showing that a person with an income of $7000 a year still pays a 5% federal tax rate until a person repeated this blatant falsehood. I thought it would take weeks.

By the time they get thru with refunds and tax credits, they pay nothing in federal income tax. and I know not of what graph you speak of, but I am sure you will point me in the right direction.

Criticizing the various Dem plans still doesn't mean they're not centrist plans, or that raising taxes is not centrist.

 

But regarding "who pays taxes," that'd be everyone.

 

Dems have brought ONE plan up for vote, not sure what other 'plans' you speak of. They can TALK about anything, but until it comes up for a vote, it is just talk.

By the time they get thru with refunds and tax credits, they pay nothing in federal income tax. and I know not of what graph you speak of, but I am sure you will point me in the right direction.

 

Well that was the point of the graph (reposted one page back), the "no federal income tax" quickly and easily becomes "no taxes" with a slight-of-hand. It's also a little odd to focus on one single tax.

By the time they get thru with refunds and tax credits, they pay nothing in federal income tax. and I know not of what graph you speak of, but I am sure you will point me in the right direction.

The idea that "Federal Income Tax" is having "Skin in the game" but "Medicare and Social Security taxes" are not is just lunacy. Hell, for the past 25 years the Social Security tax surplus has financed upper class federal income tax cuts.

Dems have brought ONE plan up for vote, not sure what other 'plans' you speak of. They can TALK about anything, but until it comes up for a vote, it is just talk.

 

Ok. This tangent still has nothing to do with raising taxes=not centrist since an overwhelming majority of people are for raising taxes. That'd be like me saying cutting spending=not centrist since a small minority of people want no cuts at all.

The idea that "Federal Income Tax" is having "Skin in the game" but "Medicare and Social Security taxes" are not is just lunacy. Hell, for the past 25 years the Social Security tax surplus has financed upper class federal income tax cuts.

And for years the top 5% of taxpayers have subsidized the lower 50%. You know, if you feel like you are not paying enough in taxes, you are free to pay more. Nobody is stopping you.

Ok. This tangent still has nothing to do with raising taxes=not centrist since an overwhelming majority of people are for raising taxes. That'd be like me saying cutting spending=not centrist since a small minority of people want no cuts at all.

25% is small? It isn't a majority, but I wouldn't call it small.

And for years the top 5% of taxpayers have subsidized the lower 50%. You know, if you feel like you are not paying enough in taxes, you are free to pay more. Nobody is stopping you.

And if you think the federal government needs to cut services, no one is stopping you from paying back the funds you get.

I gotta stop engaging you guys in the afternoon, never enough time. More deliveries to make.....

And for years the top 5% of taxpayers have subsidized the lower 50%. You know, if you feel like you are not paying enough in taxes, you are free to pay more. Nobody is stopping you.

 

Sweet, they also control a vast majority of wealth and income, so it's not surprising that they also pay a lot of taxes (even if their marginal rates are at historic lows!).

 

This tangent still has nothing to do with raising taxes=not centrist.

25% is small? It isn't a majority, but I wouldn't call it small.

 

You're insisting that a minority position is really the majority position. Stop doing that.

And if you think the federal government needs to cut services, no one is stopping you from paying back the funds you get.

What do I get from the feds? Anything specific for ME? School money is money I paid to them just for the priviledge of having it go to Washington so some can get skimmed off before it gets sent back to the states. Road money? I already paid those in gas taxes just so the feds can hold my state hostage to do certain things just to get our money back. TSA? I'll pay a few bucks extra to fly for private security. How about I cut what part of my taxes pay for the county hospitals, or the local housing authority. I don't use those. I'll just stop payign those parts, and pay extra for airline screening. To go off on a tangent, every department can cut. But everytime you tell them that, they b**** and moan, then try and cut the person(s) that will generate the most bad pub so they can say 'see? We NEED the money1". That's why when faced with budget shortfalls, Dems always threaten to layoff teachers, firefighters and police first, instead of some of the streets and san workers, general mainenance or personal staff.

You're insisting that a minority position is really the majority position. Stop doing that.

Read, please. I will say again, 25% ISN'T a majority but I wouldn't call it small.

Read, please. I will say again, 25% ISN'T a majority but I wouldn't call it small.

 

Who cares? This is irrelevant to your claims.

 

The point was that I wouldn't claim that a call for $4T in revenues with no cuts is centrist. It makes no more sense than claiming that 'no revenue" is.

Edited July 27, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

What do I get from the feds? Anything specific for ME? School money is money I paid to them just for the priviledge of having it go to Washington so some can get skimmed off before it gets sent back to the states. Road money? I already paid those in gas taxes just so the feds can hold my state hostage to do certain things just to get our money back. TSA? I'll pay a few bucks extra to fly for private security. How about I cut what part of my taxes pay for the county hospitals, or the local housing authority. I don't use those. I'll just stop payign those parts, and pay extra for airline screening. To go off on a tangent, every department can cut. But everytime you tell them that, they b**** and moan, then try and cut the person(s) that will generate the most bad pub so they can say 'see? We NEED the money1". That's why when faced with budget shortfalls, Dems always threaten to layoff teachers, firefighters and police first, instead of some of the streets and san workers, general mainenance or personal staff.

 

FDA, CDC, DOD, DOE, FAA, billions in R&D, not having old and poor dying in the streets, etc.

What do I get from the feds? Anything specific for ME? School money is money I paid to them just for the priviledge of having it go to Washington so some can get skimmed off before it gets sent back to the states. Road money? I already paid those in gas taxes just so the feds can hold my state hostage to do certain things just to get our money back. TSA? I'll pay a few bucks extra to fly for private security. How about I cut what part of my taxes pay for the county hospitals, or the local housing authority. I don't use those. I'll just stop payign those parts, and pay extra for airline screening. To go off on a tangent, every department can cut. But everytime you tell them that, they b**** and moan, then try and cut the person(s) that will generate the most bad pub so they can say 'see? We NEED the money1". That's why when faced with budget shortfalls, Dems always threaten to layoff teachers, firefighters and police first, instead of some of the streets and san workers, general mainenance or personal staff.

Gas taxes come tens of billions of dollars short in paying for roads.

 

Do you have employer provided health insurance? That's several hundred dollars in tax credits per year you're receiving.

 

Do you have a mortgage on a home? On average, that tax credit is annually worth 2% of income to most homeowners.

 

Do you rent? Your rent is impacted by that same effect.

 

Do you have a bank account? The FDIC has been kind of useful over the last few years.

 

Do you pay extra for unemployment insurance?

 

Did you pay below market interest rates on student loans (if you had any, you did). Did you or your family use a 529 college savings plan?

 

Do you have a 401k or an employee sponsored tax-advantaged retirement account?

 

Did you go to private or public school?

 

Have you been robbed lately? Or had an occupying army quarter itself in your residence?

Dems have brought ONE plan up for vote, not sure what other 'plans' you speak of. They can TALK about anything, but until it comes up for a vote, it is just talk.

 

Given that a bill like the debt limit bill has to, if I am correct, originate in the House of Representatives. The person who sets the legislative agenda for the House of Representatives is the Speaker of the House. I wonder how many Democratic led bills regarding the debt limit have actually been allowed to come to a vote.

Given that a bill like the debt limit bill has to, if I am correct, originate in the House of Representatives. The person who sets the legislative agenda for the House of Representatives is the Speaker of the House. I wonder how many Democratic led bills regarding the debt limit have actually been allowed to come to a vote.

Of course, there is the trick for the Senate that still works...taking a budgetary bill that has been passed by the House, stripping out the entire text, and inserting totally new text.

 

Can only be done so many times since the House only passes so many budgetary bills, but if you have a bill that can be passed that's the route.

Of course, there is the trick for the Senate that still works...taking a budgetary bill that has been passed by the House, stripping out the entire text, and inserting totally new text.

 

Can only be done so many times since the House only passes so many budgetary bills, but if you have a bill that can be passed that's the route.

 

And if Boehner's plan actually passes tomorrow, that's exactly what you'll see happen in the Senate.