Needed: BASEBALL BAT for Paul Krugman
- Thread starter Chicago_CTA
- Start date
+1. Kr*gman isn't talking about a small increase in taxes, let's say 37% to 42% tax rate, etc.
He is talking about something PUNITIVE. Commissions on let's say crude oil future, would go from let's say $4 to $25 on EVERY TRADE.
Instead, we should propose a tax for every word Kr*gman writes, let's say $0.01 per word. So small he'll hardly notice
BTW, Chicago traders, by and large, are not spoiled.
Some of the most wonderful people live here and work damn hard for their money [profits] with absolutely no guarantee of success.
The Federal Governments of the world *ARE* the problem.
The middle class IS the nation the progressives want to / need to tax!
All the rhetoric about taxing the rich is just lip service to get the unsuspecting middle class followers to unknowingly buy in to taxing themselves.
Krugman has a habit of trying to channel disgust with admittedly obscene CEO compensation into support for higher taxes on "the rich." We know that when democrats start talking about "the rich" however, they think in terms of just above what two schoolteachers make.
There are plenty of reasons to rein in out of control CEO pay, but the tax system is just about the worst possible tool to use. It's part of the democrats' class warfare agenda. If democrats were really so concerned, they could have taken away "carrried interest" tax treatment for hedge fund managers when they controlled congress, but of course they didn't. Too much campaign money involved. Of course, they did absolutely nothing to stop excessive CEO pay either.
It's the same deal with this unending attack on Grover Norquist, who committed the apparently heinous crime of getting candidates to sign a no tax increase pledge, then holding them to their promise. As Ann Coulter pointed out in her column today, republicans fell into this exact same trap twice before, agreeing to raise taxes as part of a "balanced" approach to cutting the deficit. Both times democrats reneged on their end of the bargain, ie to cut spending. They defeated George H. W. Bush, who at one time had an over 90% approval rating, because of his violation of his now-infamous "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.
They know that if they can coerce congressional republicans into raising taxes and breaking their oaths to voters, republicans voters will be incensed and will not turn out to vote for the lying bastards. That is all the democrats care about. Winning.
There are plenty of reasons to rein in out of control CEO pay, but the tax system is just about the worst possible tool to use. It's part of the democrats' class warfare agenda. If democrats were really so concerned, they could have taken away "carrried interest" tax treatment for hedge fund managers when they controlled congress, but of course they didn't. Too much campaign money involved. Of course, they did absolutely nothing to stop excessive CEO pay either.
It's the same deal with this unending attack on Grover Norquist, who committed the apparently heinous crime of getting candidates to sign a no tax increase pledge, then holding them to their promise. As Ann Coulter pointed out in her column today, republicans fell into this exact same trap twice before, agreeing to raise taxes as part of a "balanced" approach to cutting the deficit. Both times democrats reneged on their end of the bargain, ie to cut spending. They defeated George H. W. Bush, who at one time had an over 90% approval rating, because of his violation of his now-infamous "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.
They know that if they can coerce congressional republicans into raising taxes and breaking their oaths to voters, republicans voters will be incensed and will not turn out to vote for the lying bastards. That is all the democrats care about. Winning.
The reason i have lost faith in republicans as well when it comes to spending is because it would be incredibly simple for them to make a move which curbed spending and would eventually lead to a balanced budget.
Why dont republicans simply create a bill that spending will not exceed current levels until the budget is balanced. I dont get it, it seems like such a no brainer for them to create a bill to simply freeze spending, they wouldnt even have to go on the hook for spending cuts anywhere, and get raked over the coals by dems, and they could demagogue the issue to death, and win. Let democrats be on the hook for saying they want spending to rise when we dont have any money to pay for it.
If republicans did that and locked in spending levels and it was guaranteed i would have no problem letting the bush tax cuts expire provided they were not allowed to spend another dime until the budget was balanced.
Why dont republicans simply create a bill that spending will not exceed current levels until the budget is balanced. I dont get it, it seems like such a no brainer for them to create a bill to simply freeze spending, they wouldnt even have to go on the hook for spending cuts anywhere, and get raked over the coals by dems, and they could demagogue the issue to death, and win. Let democrats be on the hook for saying they want spending to rise when we dont have any money to pay for it.
If republicans did that and locked in spending levels and it was guaranteed i would have no problem letting the bush tax cuts expire provided they were not allowed to spend another dime until the budget was balanced.
I realize they have passed something similar in various forms but it always has other attachments, which gives dems the opportunity to kill the issue, they should just make it simple, spending can not get any higher until the budget is balanced. Period. no cuts, nothing.. Then when dems reject it they should go on the campaign trail and demagogue the democrats to death like Obama is doing right now.