Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 5, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 401

We Hiked Taxes. Now What?

:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
It's no secret that the US is on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. Our deficit continues to grow, and the interest payments on our debt will soon be a large enough portion of our GDP to make it impossible to truly repay our national debt. [link] When that eventuality occurs (about 3-5 years from now), we will officially be in a Greek-style financial crisis with no escape.

So we just enacted the Democrats' proposed solution to the problem- tax hikes on the rich. And nothing has changed about our situation. Our budget deficit is still going to be over $1 trillion (5% of the GDP) [link] and growing. We're still accumulating debt on an unsustainable trajectory.

Is there a Part 2 to the left-wing plan to save the US from fiscal catastrophe? I thought you were all saying all we needed to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich, and the country would be saved? You got your tax hikes on the rich, so why isn't the country saved yet? When the Republicans come forward and demand entitlement cuts to save the country from a debt catastrophe, what's going to be your alternative proposal to eliminate the deficit?

Step 1: Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconpuddelbal:
puddelbal Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
You do realize that the DNC platform consists of more than just tax hikes, right?
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
Right, so what portion of their platform is actually going to solve the debt crisis?
Reply
:iconpuddelbal:
puddelbal Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
What's more important, the debt, or unemployment? The US isn't on the verge of defaulting on it's loans, so it'd be much better to worry about getting folks back to work and pay the debt down slowly.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Every year we dig ourselves deeper in debt, it becomes more difficult to avoid default in the future. In other words, yes, we're not immediately on the verge of defaulting, but we are past the point where the debt grows faster than our economy.

Every year we ignore the debt, our entire society loses more wealth. If we address the debt now, sure we might increase unemployment by 2%, but if we wait 3 more years, it might take an increase of 4% in unemployment to fix the mess. There is absolutely no advantage to waiting. The only reason the Democrats want to wait is because they don't want to admit that their ideology has doomed us, so they'll continue to deny it all well beyond the point of economic collapse.
Reply
:iconagburanar:
Agburanar Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013
yawn

You're distorting the position of the left, I think. They would like to fix our current budgetary problems by a combination of taxation and spending cuts, rather than the Tea Party's bizarre solution of gutting social services and instituting a more regressive tax regime.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
He's not distorting a thing.

The Left has been harping on about how upping taxes on the amorphously defined 'rich' would make pretty much everything better.

We've had that a while now. Why do projections still look dismal and grim, set to become REALLY bad in about the same amount of time the next president will be in?

And tell me how the 'bizarre' solution of both tax and spending cuts would not work.

It's general belt-tightening, the way you would like you're on a diet, but Democrats want their bon-bons...
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
A while? It's been a couple of weeks. Just how fast do you think the economy moves, anyway?

As far as low taxes helping, we've had a historically low tax burden ever since the Bush years. If it was supposed to generate jobs, where are they? You people never acknowledge that you ALREADY had the lowest taxes since the end of WWII, and that they weren't helping.

But when did we last have budget surpluses? Gee, let me think...
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Have you bothered to look at *why* Billy Blowjob presided over a surplus?

Unless you're willing to concede that Obama is responsible for digging us a multi-trillion dollar hole since he's presiding over it.

But I suppose in Black and White, Republicans can only ever preside over catastrophe and Democrats only ever do good things.

It's a full spectrum out there, dude...
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Oh yes. And I've also looked into *why* Obama has been "digging" a multi-trillion dollar hole. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like the answer.

Republicans, Schmepublicans. Not everyone who dislikes Bush is an ultra-radical freak.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
amorphously defined 'rich'
It's not amorphously defined. It's defined as $250,000 a year and up.

And tell me how the 'bizarre' solution of both tax and spending cuts would not work.
It's not bizarre. We've advocated for a balanced solution consisting of new revenues and spending cuts. It's the Teapublicans who've advocated no tax hikes and harmful spending cuts.

Reply
:iconsexy-cowboy-predator:
Sexy-Cowboy-Predator Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
"It's not amorphously defined. It's defined as $250,000 a year and up."

I mak about 30,000$ a year and my income taxes have gone from ~3% to ~6% in the past couple weeks. So it must be a pretty loose definition more like "250,000$ plus or minus 220,000$" seems kind of amorphous to me....
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Actually, your income taxes have stayed the same. Your payroll taxes went up. Thanks. :)
Reply
:iconsexy-cowboy-predator:
Sexy-Cowboy-Predator Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Semantics dont change the facts. Thanks :)
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Blame Teapublicans as far as the hikes go. Obama wanted to extend the payroll tax cut. =/
Reply
:iconsexy-cowboy-predator:
Sexy-Cowboy-Predator Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I didnt lay blame anywhere. as far as im concerned its everyone in our governments fault. i dont care to pay more taxes, as much as i need the money, if it would actually help the situation. unfortunately its just a spiteful attack that will do very little besides hurt working class families such as mine.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Bullshit and bullshit again.

I say amorphously defined because the ignorant, like yourself, do not understand small businesses. Oh, someone can pull in $250,000, but that is not total profit. That is simply income.

After expenses, wages, maintenance, inventory and the witheringly high taxes, there's not much left to life off of.

Your side is under the impression that anyone in that income bracket swim in money like Scrooge McDuck.

And I think you missed the context of that discussion. But it seems much flies over your head, doesn't it?

Tell me then, o ignorant and sycophantic one... WHAT FUCKING PLANET ARE YOU FROM?!

'Teapublicans' advocate a flat tax across the board and spending cuts that effect *everything* so as to distribute the weight of the impact.

You guys? Your solution is to dance like the Pied Piper's rats behind moron hypocrites like Michael Moore with 'fleece the rich!' as your chant.

Tell me... what exactly are the *harmful* spending cuts you speak of?
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Oh, someone can pull in $250,000, but that is not total profit. That is simply income.
Which makes up less 5% and less of businesses. In the real world, small businesses don't make $250,000 a year. In your faux-reality Republican bubble, hedge funds are small. Get real.

After expenses, wages, maintenance, inventory and the witheringly high taxes, there's not much left to life off of.
$250,000 is the profit, not the expenses genius. Expenses aren't taxed from yearly income. Profit is. Once again, are you fucking blind, or does reality just elude you?

Your side is under the impression that anyone in that income bracket swim in money like Scrooge McDuck.
And your side is under the impression that being poor means being lazy. That being said, if you take home a $250,000 a year profit, you're swimming in money. Maybe you're not as luxurious as Warren Buffett, but you're swimming in a much bigger pool than your average teacher, construction worker, restaurant owner, and police officer. i.e. you're swimming in a much bigger pool than 95% of Americans.

But it seems much flies over your head, doesn't it?
Like reality flying over yours.

Tell me then, o ignorant and sycophantic one
This is the second time you've used the word sycophantic. The first time was also incorrect. I'm not being sycophantic, and you need to look up that word.

WHAT FUCKING PLANET ARE YOU FROM?!
Earth - where tax cuts for the rich don't grow jobs, and the defense budget is way too fucking large.

advocate a flat tax across the board and spending cuts that effect *everything* so as to distribute the weight of the impact.
Actually, it just increases income disparity. Since you're not from this plain of reality, maybe you don't know. The US has a huge problem with income distribution.

what exactly are the *harmful* spending cuts you speak of?
Sure. Food stamps seems to be a big one with you guys. In addition to that, Medicare and Social Security, which is hugely ironic because the biggest supporters of the Teapublican morons are people who depend on Social Security and are the unhealthiest mother fuckers around. You know what's a harmless spending cut? Defense. It doesn't keep us safer. The USSR isn't stocking up nukes to come to war with us. Germany isn't going to begin another war in Europe. I think it's pretty safe to say we don't need as much spending as we have in there.
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013   Artist
We've had that a while now.
We've had what a while now? The taxes that just went up a few weeks ago?!?

Why do projections still look dismal and grim, set to become REALLY bad in about the same amount of time the next president will be in?
What projections?
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Not those. The tax hikes from the last electoral cycle.

I'll let you do your own searching since any projections I show you, you will suspect *because* I provided them. But let this be the tip of the iceberg... [link]
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Last electoral cycle? 2010? Obama gave you tax cuts then. Do you know anything about politics, or did you accidentally click this while trying to hit Deviant Meets?
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
The one prior. I tired the debating tactic of intentionally misunderstanding. Really pedestrian of you.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
I don't think you know what pedestrian means either.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013
But they already got their taxation. Are you saying it's not enough? At what point will the left decide, "That's enough taxation- time to cut spending"?
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013   Artist
They already cut 2 trillion in spending, too, and the Republican's new tax hike on the middle class won't help matters.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013
Where? I don't see any spending cuts in the latest deal.
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013   Artist
Taxes weren't raised during the Republican debt ceiling downgrade of 2011, it was all spending cuts.

The next deal will need to be balanced -- like dollar for dollar cuts.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013
Need to be balanced...for what purpose? Just to make the Republicans squirm? More tax hikes won't solve the spending problem any faster.
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013   Artist
More cuts to spending won't grow the economy or pay off the debt, but there's a lot more that can be done with taxes. As I said before, even 39% is a ridiculous rate for multi-millionaires and billionaires -- they should all have a top tax rate of at least 70 if not 90%. So, they'd get taxed less at 10 million, say 39%, but on every million over 100 they get taxed at 65 or 70%. It used to be like that...now, the more money you make, the more you kepp. It's disgusting.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
Zucca-Xerfantes Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
There is not a single thing you said that is not a complete crock of nonsense.

Let me try to spell it out for you, sycophant...

Cuts to spending will do what? Save more money! What does this mean? This means there will be more money to go around!

And no, the taxes did not used to be like that, idiot...

The *percentages* may be low, but when you think about how much money they pull in, even twenty percent of a million dollars is more than thirty percent of sixty thousand.

And you wouldn't say it's disgusting if it was you making the big bucks. I gauran-frikken-tee it.

Besides, due to Keynsian economics the Left love so much, inflation ran amock and money is worth less now than it was in yesteryears.

Been to the grocery store lately, VP?
Reply
(2 Replies)
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
Cuts to spending are the only thing that will pay off the debt. [link]
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icongussiejives:
gussiejives Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
So last week, the economy's in peril, this week, it's the deficits again? 

Almost as if you have some kind of fiscal Tourette's going on here.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Both are true. This should be a sign to you that running up massive deficits through excessive spending doesn't save the economy.
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013   Artist
Hopefully Republicans will stick to their guns next time, instead of raising taxes on the already overtaxed.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
instead of raising taxes on the already overtaxed.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013   Artist
You have a sick desperation in your laugh. I'm guessing you just found out that taxes were actually raised on just about everyone.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Oh my no. I know taxes just went up. It was the overtaxed remark which had me laughing.
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013   Artist
A two percent payroll tax increase is nothing to laugh at when you're barely above water to begin with. Mind you, I don't have to pay it, myself...but I'm not dumb enough to laugh it off in the face of those who do, either.
Reply
:iconsexy-cowboy-predator:
Sexy-Cowboy-Predator Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
(I may be wrong but...) I dont think MGonzales has to pay it either, and if he does, probably is not faced with chosing whether or not to pay rent or go to the grocery store or buy gas to get to work this week.
Reply
:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Student Writer
Why don't we do what Iceland did, and hold those who caused the crash (bankers who gambled and lost) accountable for their losses?

I think the shittiest form of "socialism" in the USA right now is corporate socialism--they fail, and then get billions for failing! In a truly free market, we would just let those banks go under instead of making the tax payers pay up for their personal business mistakes. The banks don't have to takes real risks, because even if they lose, the government will foot the billion dollar bill.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
'Why don't we do what Iceland did, and hold those who caused the crash (bankers who gambled and lost) accountable for their losses?"

Because if you hold the rich people accountable for their actions and the problems their mistakes caused you, you're just a poor person who doesn't want to take responsibility for your own actions and mistakes.

At least, that's what I always get told. Somehow even though I put in the hard work and got laid off due to the knock-on effects of the financial crisis, and the Republicans constantly blocking every attempt to get job growth back up to the level it needs to be to employ everyone, that's magically me not taking responsibility for my own mistakes according to everyone.

(I made one mistake in my life related to my work... and before the financial crisis hit I had already fixed/dealt with it.)
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Because the Democratic Party would rather save those bankers from even experiencing the pain of their losses and give them bailouts.
Reply
:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Student Writer
Same with the Republicans. Both parties supported giving the failing bankers billions in free handout money.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Supported. But one party recanted those views. The other continues to hold them, even placing new corporate welfare in the latest tax-hiking deal.
Reply
:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Student Writer
OK? I don't like either party, they're two different legs attached to the same asshole.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Right, but you should at least acknowledge that one party is actually getting better, while the other is going full-steam towards every form of government authoritarianism.
Reply
:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Student Writer
No, neither party is getting better. They're both bought and paid for by the same corporations. They exist to give Americans an illusion of choice when really there is none.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
That's such a bullshit new-age thing to say. I hate when people parrot that. Are you so blind that you cannot tell the difference? Seriously.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
[link]

It all actually makes perfect sense.

Which should scare the fuck out of everybody.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Yeah, Obama certainly does love his brinkmanship.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
The whole point of brinksmanship is you need 2 or more parties playing it... You can't have just one side playing brinksmanship because the other side would just accept their demands rather than waiting till the last second...
Reply
Add a Comment: