Well he compromised...

[TheBeast]

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

? John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

[CoeburnCane]

1) Eliminate earmarks.

2) Get rid of lobbyists.

3) Have a tiered tax system in place.

4) NEVER de-regulate Wall Street nor large corps ever again.

5) Make public assistance programs work smarter, not larger.

Problems solved.

BUT--that takes way too much compromise on both sides of the aisle. It will never happen.

[pvfan]

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Or invest in foreign markets with the money saved instead of investing in American jobs.

[R13]

Of course it was Kennedy, he actually had some sense and knew what needed to be done to increase federal revenue. You will notice that he talked about actual cuts across the board especially for businesses, big businesses more so than others.

Look up bar stool economics it is just an anecdote but it is very fitting of the view that dems/libs have on the "rich".

I'll go ahead and do the work for ya.



Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Do you think that this copy and paste barstool shit, not you doing anything, that's been passed around from every gullible righty is going to simplify anything for us poor ones on the left? lmao This analogy is full of holes every other word, unrealistic and plain fallacious. You top yourself again.

[R13]

Dems will allow vote on it.

Estate tax emerges as key Democratic beef in Obama's compromise - CNN.com

[R13]

Senate passes it, now on to the House. Hopefully that estate cut will be taken out of there.


Washington (CNN) -- The Senate approved a controversial $858 billion tax cut package Wednesday, overwhelmingly voting to extend the Bush-era tax reductions despite a series of objections from both the left and the right.

The measure, which passed 81-19, now advances to the House of Representatives.

The House will take up the bill Thursday, according to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland.

The package includes a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire December 31. It also would extend unemployment benefits for 13 months, cut the payroll tax by 2 percentage points for a year, restore the estate tax at a lower level and continue a series of other tax breaks.

The estate tax -- currently scheduled to exempt inheritances up to $1 million and tax amounts above that at a rate of 55% -- would be reduced under the tax package to a rate of 35% on amounts above a $5 million individual exemption.
New bill has billions in new earmarks
The estate tax impact
Obama makes case for tax plan

President Barack Obama praised the vote and urged the House of Representatives to quickly approve the bill, which the White House negotiated with Senate GOP leaders.

The Senate vote is "a win for American families, American businesses, and our economic recovery," Obama said in a written statement. "As this bill moves to the House ... I hope that members from both parties can come together in a spirit of common purpose to protect American families and our economy as a whole by passing this essential economic package."

House Democrats, however, have repeatedly warned that they may change the measure, particularly provisions dealing with the estate tax.

Conservatives argue that a full return of the estate tax would, among other things, make it nearly impossible for many family-owned small businesses to be passed down from one generation to the next. Liberals contend that a lower or nonexistent estate tax would merely benefit the wealthy while doing little to aid the economy.

A number of House Democrats want to change the estate tax to levels previously approved in a separate House bill that would exempt inheritances up to $3.5 million and tax amounts above that at a 45% rate.

However, more than two dozen moderate House Democrats submitted a letter to their House leadership Tuesday, calling for the tax package to be passed unchanged so it can go directly to Obama to be signed into law.

"This bipartisan compromise is by design a temporary measure and, with its passage, we must acknowledge that our work is not done," said the letter signed by 27 House Democrats as of Tuesday evening. "We must continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion -- with a sense of shared responsibility -- toward solutions that address our economic and fiscal challenges. It is time for us to put aside the partisan talking points and accomplish what the American people sent us here to do."

Republicans involved in the negotiations with the White House on the package have warned that any changes by the House could derail the entire proposal, causing tax rates to increase in 2011.

"If the House Democratic leadership decides to make partisan changes, they will ensure that every American taxpayer will see a job-killing tax hike on January 1st," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in a statement Monday.

If the House passes a bill that differs from the Senate version, the revised package would need to return to the Senate for another vote. The Senate, in turn, could send back the original bill without any changes to the estate tax provision for a second House vote. Such a scenario, analysts note, would give House liberals unhappy with the president's plan a chance to say they tried to change it.


With the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, Obama and Democrats face a fast-approaching deadline to reach a deal. Republicans won control of the House and reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate in the new Congress convening in January, which would give Democrats less leverage to negotiate after the current lame-duck session.

House liberals are not the only ones objecting to the agreement. A number of conservatives, including likely 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, are challenging the deal because it doesn't permanently extend the Bush tax cuts and would add to the deficit.

Senate passes controversial tax cut deal - CNN.com

[Rocky]

all i can say on this whole thing is good job Obama, very very good compromise would have been a little bit better leaning more towards the left side on this one (yeah i know, shut up)