Seeking Alpha

A GOP counter offer to the White House includes $800B in new tax revenues (but without higher...

A GOP counter offer to the White House includes $800B in new tax revenues (but without higher rates), and $1.4T in spending cuts. House Speaker Boehner calls the White House's original proposal a "la-la land offer."
Comments (55)
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    taxes now, and we'll figure out spending later. Yea, that has always worked out well.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    Get it on paper...throw it in their face..then they can´t say you have not done anything...The Republicans will never get any credit..and will be blamed for everything..but that does not mean they can´t be right...keep doing what is right....it will come out in history...
    3 Dec 2012, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    No no, we need more stimulus, don't you know that. Maybe we can hire another 200k teachers. That'll grow our GDP #'s.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    Puede escribir en espanol por favor?
    3 Dec 2012, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (665) | Send Message
     
    The Republicans don't deserve any credit other than credit for the mess we currently are in. Tax cuts have never generated enough "growth" to offset the negative effect on tax revenues. It didn't work for Reagan and it didn't work for George W. And I voted for both of them!
    3 Dec 2012, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    What negative effects? Tax revenue increased after the tax cuts.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • kgerickson
    , contributor
    Comments (163) | Send Message
     
    The mating dance begins. Hang on to your wallet.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    No more free rides for wealthy. Raise taxes to Clinton rates when the US economy was booming, and 22 million jobs were created.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    Honestly? You realize you could take 100% of the wealth in the top 1% and you wouldn't fund the federal government for any sustainable length of time. You really think jobs will be created when you raise taxes?

     

    Why are liberals such envious little angry people. Let other people who have earned their success enjoy it. You want to be rich, go do it yourself.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • Petrarch
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    clearly raising taxes is a job creation scheme
    why stop at 40% - raise it to 70% - hell take it all
    the more the better

     

    make those evil richers pay

     

    P
    3 Dec 2012, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    Honestly, progressives just don't like math because the numbers don't add up. You can take it all, and still not make a meaningful dent in the federal deficit. All of the subsidies (corporate and individual) need to be severely cut down over a period of time, and eventually stopped. The Federal government needs to go back to being small, and doing only what the Constitution prohibits it to go.

     

    Problem is, both parties, but more so Democrats, have their voters on the dole, so good lucking taking ANYTHING away from them. See what happens in Greece when you can't retire at 42 anymore with a full pension and medical benefits for the other half of your life.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • Greg Sommer
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Free rides for the wealthy? Are you assuming every wealthy person in America is a trust fund baby and no one who is a millionaire worked for their success.

     

    Their is already capital flight from the U.S. which will get worse as globalization matures. Tomlos is right, you could take the entire net worth of the worlds billionaires and it would fund the U.S. budget deficit for four years! If that doesn;t put the spending problem in perspective for you then nothing will.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    Hold on, he's going to moveon.org to get his next set of talking points. It'll come, just wait. Next it will be the fault of the oil companies, or big pharma. I've heard this before... I have progressive in-laws, which makes holidays a blast.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    What's the problem with raising the revenue off high earners via closing loopholes and limiting deductions? Why does it have to be rates? Money is money.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    Tomlos! You're forgetting about the trump card- its Bush's fault!!! Or is that card expired since the prior administration is now the Obama administration?
    3 Dec 2012, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    Hang on chief. 100% of the wealth is a really big deal eg all the Walton Kids billions. You mean income perhaps?

     

    And btw wtf did the Walton heirs do exactly to earn their success?
    3 Dec 2012, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Short term memory problems for the Republicans, they just lost the election because America rejected those ideas.

     

    Those who forget history are doomed to become republican.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    Who cares? Why the hell do you care what someone else did or did not do? Why do you care that it was passed down?

     

    Let's screw you when you try to pass anything on to your children. That's the American spirit you knucklehead. They created the biggest retailer on the planet that has benefited countless people who can't afford to shop elsewhere. What have you done? Stop complaining already.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    Boy, the President has inherited quite a mess from the previous guy. Wonder how he'll get out of this one.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    I guess you are calling me a knucklehead. Quite plainly it takes one to know one.

     

    Anyway Walton Family wealth equals combined wealth of lowest 40% of all Americans. http://bit.ly/XjbsXS
    Not quite 47% but close enough.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    They did nothing besides have the right family. But their family earned their success which translated to lots of assets, which includes money. Or are assets / private property not allowed to be passed from one generation to the next?
    3 Dec 2012, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    So then we shouldn't forget the history of the Democat party, who included Senator Byrd, a former KKK grand wizard, or all the Democrats who rejected the ERA.

     

    Thanks Terry, I'll be sure not to forget history.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    Yea, Terry forgets what party afforded Black Americans in this country to thrive. Remember the Democrats, then Dixiecrats? Terry has selective memory as do the vast majority of Democrats.
    3 Dec 2012, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • smell
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    According to some rough calculations, 100% of the annual wages of the top 1% would cover the fiscal deficit and then some. Seems like it would fund the federal government indefinitely? Of course, the whole idea is ludicrously unsustainable if you don't presuppose that it's sustainable to take 100% of someone's wages

     

    Liberals are not denying the enjoyment of the rich by decreasing their income on a percentage basis. It is questionable whether they are even impacting it marginally as many studies have shown that, beyond a certain minimum net worth, the level of happiness of an individual is not proportional to the amount of money he has.
    3 Dec 2012, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • Petrarch
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    you read it hear first
    1.1t in revenue and
    1.1t in spending
    is where we will end up

     

    let the dance continue

     

    P
    3 Dec 2012, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Tax cuts for top few percent has hurt 95% of American families, lower work wages, fewer retirement benefits,etc.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    You're stupidity is mesmerizing.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    Amazing how the top 1% can foot 34% of the bill, yet they're still not doing their "fair share." I say if they're not doing their fair share, they are obviously being a drag, and should be immediately deported. Imagine what THAT would do to the economy!
    3 Dec 2012, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • Greg Sommer
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    The reason wages seem poor for working class folks is because globalization makes it easier to move operations to the most efficient environment, ie. China, Vietnam etc. Until their wages rise, which the are, and american wages become competitive again you won't see companies hiring in droves here.

     

    Second, your standard of living is going down due to the monetary (printing money) and fiscal policies(the reason we are printing money) implemented by the Obama administration. Because of these policies $8 an hour buys a lot less than it did ten years ago. The 4% difference in top tax rates has little effect on global economic trends.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    All the voters in Cuyahoga county, and urban Philadelphia will fix the problems, no worries.

     

    Let's chase the rich out of Chicago too why don't we. Let the CME leave, everyone else. The CTU will fill in the gaps. Trash the rich and people who actually create wealth enough, they'll leave, and you'll be stuck with nothing to pay the bill.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (665) | Send Message
     
    yours is equally as mesmerizing. you all should check what happens to the deficit when tax rates are cut......it goes up. You know what it does when taxes are raised? You're damn right it goes down. Restore the tax rates before the Bush cuts and get serious about cutting spending. WE ain't talking raising taxes....we're talking repealing tax cuts.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (665) | Send Message
     
    The 6 Walton heirs have more wealth than the bottom 43% of the rest of the US population. The majority of their income is from qualifying dividends and long term capital gains which are taxed at 10% and 15%. Now how much friggen work do they do? How many jobs are they creating? Maybe a couple hundred servants that are paid minimum wage. Oh boy.......
    3 Dec 2012, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    Bear, I'm completely with you. We should bring back Clinton era tax rates. But we also have to bring back that level of spending, roughly 18-20% of GDP, as opposed to the current 25%.
    3 Dec 2012, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    You will see REVENUES drop next year...and the year after....more expenses..less revenue....and its all Obama´s.....he owns it all....the press will back him..be he will leave this country in a very deep dark hole...watch food stamps..Disability income...jobs...not just the number...the quality of them...the top 2% earnings will drop...Corporations will move...to different states..and to different countries...and watch our deficits will go to 2.5 trillion a year..until the rest of the owrld tells us to stop...and they will...no one will buy our paper except us....that is when it gets interesting...
    3 Dec 2012, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    If you live in Colombia you really have no standing in this conversation. It's for patriots only.
    3 Dec 2012, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (665) | Send Message
     
    like Bush did?
    3 Dec 2012, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (665) | Send Message
     
    Just like the story I read to day, I believe the Republicans will crawl back into their holes and vote present and let the tax increases go through. The Republicans don;'t have any balls. My favorite Pres and I voted for him twice and would vote for him again Ronni Reagan, would at least have the balls to come to the table and negotiate in good faith and not pull any of this drama queen shit. I sure hope we get some Reagan types running in the Republican party 2014 and 2016 so I can go back to voting Republican.
    3 Dec 2012, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    Agreed. Amen to that.
    3 Dec 2012, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    I'm with you there Bear.
    3 Dec 2012, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • Matt Jonza
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
     
    that's thing thing that the ronald reagan republicans don't realize today... we have done all we can with tax cuts to grow the economy!
    I'm sure everyone out there is familiar with the Laffer curve.. has anyone stopped to think we might have passed the sweet spot? the one instance where tax cuts expanded the economy significantly was reagan... and he dropped marginal tax rates from 70% to 50%! But while economic growth boomed, the budget deficit swelled. This was a fair trade off though since the increased jobs accounted for the loss of revenue in only a few years... but then we did it again. and again. we have gotten to the point where further tax breaks only increase the deficit and decrease the standard of living of the average american. please people... WAKE UP! we are on the left side of the laffer curve now. our tax rates are too low and our government revenue is too.
    3 Dec 2012, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (665) | Send Message
     
    If the Bush tax cuts are such a great thing for this country, why did we have the "Great Recession" these great tax cuts should have saved us, right? Secondly, again if they are so great why haven't they brought us out the "Great Recession" because truthfully not much has changed in the spending revenue mix. If the 1percenters create jobs with all this tax money they are not paying, why haven't jobs been increasing. After all these tax cuts still in effect!
    3 Dec 2012, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    You need to google the Community Reinvestment Act and get an understanding of why banks were forced to loosen the restrictions on lending. Progressives had huge visions of giving everyone a home, cars, etc! Unfortunately, not even is rich. There will be rich, and everyone in between, and poor.

     

    What you forget is, in the scenario the President and his posse is pushing now, you WILL make the rich poorer, but don't forget, you will make the poor that much poorer. It doesn't work.
    3 Dec 2012, 04:23 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (416) | Send Message
     
    STOP! Please don't post common sense ideas here...
    3 Dec 2012, 04:28 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    No I know, it's just funny to get'em actually thinking. It's just easy with this blame someone else crowd. Hell, I'm 28 and already know much better than the aging hand out crowd.. The 60's were a hell of a time and most haven't come back from the haze.
    3 Dec 2012, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    The 1960s?

     

    What do you know about the Sixties? When do you think Dick Cheney was draft dodging and GWB was getting thrown in jail for drunk driving? Yah you're right. I blame them for a lot though not all of our current mess.
    3 Dec 2012, 04:59 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    The 60s was also when Obama was eating dog in Indonesia.
    3 Dec 2012, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • Greg Sommer
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    The highest tax revenue year in U.S. history was 2007 under the Bush era tax policy. The point of keeping taxes lower for eveyone is that there is more disposable income to go into the economy. Not to mention it's the peoples' money that they earned and not some piggy bank for the government to steal when they enact irresponsible spending policies.
    3 Dec 2012, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    The most efficient use of capital is when the person providing the capital is spending it on themself (consumer!). The most INEFFICIENT use of capital is when a third party collects the capital, then spends the capital on another third party (government!).

     

    So who believes that government can make more efficient use of money than the private consumer/taxpayer?
    3 Dec 2012, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    tru dat bro dag I going to get me some chili dog right now
    3 Dec 2012, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    2007? Why does that ring a bell?
    3 Dec 2012, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    See this is where our philosophy differs with the left very much. You say it's the Peoples' money while the left sees it is not, it's simply on loan from the government. It's perfectly legal for the government to go reach into our back pocket and take our money, but when someone else does something like that in normal life, they get thrown in jail.

     

    Another simple example. The loons who think that "Internet" and "Health Care", "Food" is a right. Perfect, so people should be able to walk into the supermarket, take food because they're hungry. Hell, it's their right isn't it? They should be able to walk onto my property, hack my WiFi and use it because, it's their right to have internet isn't it? Healthcare, same thing. They should be absolutely able to just get care and forget all about paying for it.

     

    Until we very clearly outline what is a "good" and a "right", we're all screwed. Our rights are outlined in the Constitution clear as day. You have a right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That's it. You earn the rest.
    3 Dec 2012, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    Inefficient use of capital you say? How'd that massive stimulus go for us in 2008? Lot of good that did in keeping down the unemployment rate like promise. It did so good that B-Rock wants another $50B to hand out to his cronies. Unions benefit, we all get screwed.
    3 Dec 2012, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    It went horrible Tomlos. Just look at our economy. I'm detecting maybe a miscommunication based on my post. What I'm saying is that capital is better used where it originates, in the hands of the owner of the capital. The government spending taxpayers' money on other citizen (not necessarily taxpayers) is the most inefficient use.

     

    For example, if you're spending your own money on dinner for yourself, you're going to find the best deal and make sure the quality is worth it. Very efficient. If you're spending your company's money on dinner for a potential client, you won't care very much what the bill is or if its worth it or how much it is.
    3 Dec 2012, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (2548) | Send Message
     
    Generating new revenues by closing loopholes or curtailing deductions like the home interest one is a tax increase. One analyst estimated the housing bubble burst removed $1.3 to 1.4 trillion in GDP activity from this country. The giant super sized global credit bubble is gone and not coming back this lifetime. Not for increased federal spending GDP growth in this country would have been - not +. the last few years. American companies can hire 3 engineers in India for the price of one stateside Get used to it.
    4 Dec 2012, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • tuning50
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Heard a comment on Tom Sullivan yesterday, If we go back to the Clinton era Tax rates lets go back to the Clinton era Regulations. There are too many regulations and restrictions on business today that are destroying margins. Diesel was $.45 cheaper than gas. The added cost for diesel is these days is taking the sulfur out of the fuel and each state fas a different requirement. California has the most stringent requirements thus the highest cost. If there was a federally defined gas/diesel additive or purity standard it could reduce the price of fuel nation wide. But the state tree huggers keep messing with it.

     

    $40k of the price of a new Peterbilt is regulation compliance's.

     

    Oh and yes, Glass-Steagall was in effect too during some portion of the Clinton era.

     

    The common misconception is there was a surplus under Clinton. That is a huge spin. The surplus was because of a increase in SS taxes.
    7 Dec 2012, 01:35 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|