death of the Democratic Party

LadyJazzer wrote: Yep, the chart "Tax Breaks for the Rich Versus Budget Cuts" says it all...

You could tax the rich at 100% and you still would not fix the budget deficit and make a dent in the debt. Then what do you do? Keep spending?

Teabagger "reality" is not reality... But I enjoy watching it.

As I pointed out in another thread, closing a single loophole that allows 25 hedge fund managers to claim the bulk of their income at capital gains would raise $44 billion over ten years, which is certainly much more than what would be gained by eliminating funding for NPR. Repeal of the production tax subsidy for oil companies would save another $20 Billion over ten years. Closing other corporate tax loopholes would save taxpayers over $1 Trillion over the next ten years. All this could be done without raising taxes, merely closing special interest loopholes. Yet the Republicans refuse to consider this.

Something the Dog Said wrote: As I pointed out in another thread, closing a single loophole that allows 25 hedge fund managers to claim the bulk of their income at capital gains would raise $44 billion over ten years, which is certainly much more than what would be gained by eliminating funding for NPR. Repeal of the production tax subsidy for oil companies would save another $20 Billion over ten years. Closing other corporate tax loopholes would save taxpayers over $1 Trillion over the next ten years. All this could be done without raising taxes, merely closing special interest loopholes. Yet the Republicans refuse to consider this.

But why didn't the Dems close those loopholes when they owned Congress? Maybe because they use these as talking points only? Are just as beholden to their rich donors? Are rich guys themselves? Senate and Congressional Dems are much wealthier than the new TEA Party Republicans. :bash So you can continue to bash the Republicans but clearly the Dems don't want this either.

Or maybe they know trickle down works? Rich people are consumers too.

Something the Dog Said wrote: As I pointed out in another thread, closing a single loophole that allows 25 hedge fund managers to claim the bulk of their income at capital gains would raise $44 billion over ten years, which is certainly much more than what would be gained by eliminating funding for NPR. Repeal of the production tax subsidy for oil companies would save another $20 Billion over ten years. Closing other corporate tax loopholes would save taxpayers over $1 Trillion over the next ten years. All this could be done without raising taxes, merely closing special interest loopholes. Yet the Republicans refuse to consider this.

Do you even comprehend the scale of the problem here?

I also like how you state

Closing other corporate tax loopholes would save taxpayers over $1 Trillion over the next ten years.

Really, what are they? What in your mind qualifies as a loophole? Do you even know what the production tax subsidy is? Can you describe it to me or are you pulling this out of your ass, just like the so called reporter on NPR did? Did you know the federal government makes more on on gas taxes than oil companies make on profit per barrel of crude oil extracted? http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/27/gas-prices-and-industry-earnings-a-few-things-to-think-about/ All you will end up doing is passing the costs down to consumers as a hidden tax with a huge negative multiplication effect on the economy.

As for NPR that is not a tax savings issues for conservatives, that is more of a "should the government be in the media business in the first places issue". The answer is clearly no besides being a waste of tax dollars.

Both parties are beholden to special interests. Rather than casting blame do YOU call your representative to complain? Refuse to vote for representatives who fail to move to end these abuses? What I see is a group of people who excuse the abuses when their party commits them, but points fingers accusingly when the other party does. Talk about hypocritical behavior. We have to both cut spending AND raise revenue to pay for stuff that we have already bought.

chickaree wrote: Both parties are beholden to special interests. Rather than casting blame do YOU call your representative to complain? Refuse to vote for representatives who fail to move to end these abuses? What I see is a group of people who excuse the abuses when their party commits them, but points fingers accusingly when the other party does. Talk about hypocritical behavior. We have to both cut spending AND raise revenue to pay for stuff that we have already bought.

Then join the Tea Party. We already do that. Do you really think we have a revenue problem?

All you will end up doing is passing the costs down to consumers as a hidden tax with a huge negative multiplication effect on the economy.

Raising taxes (or closing loopholes) whatever term you want to use - only increases the cost of that product to the consumer.

Why can't liberals understand this- I think they have a severe mental disorder. You liberals really want your gasoline to go up even more? This would just be a tax increase for the middle class- everyone who needs gas to do their jobs - every business who uses gas.

I agree that loopholes should be closed - and the tax rates lowered accordingly in order to provide a level playing field- but democrats just want tax increases without lowering the overall rate.

You liberals really want to outright destroy this economy don't you!

Maybe some of your tax $$ are going here:

Remember when President Obama promised to give us the most transparent administration in history? And he even issued an executive order restricting lobbyists from working in his administration.

It was exactly what Americans wanted-but he had no intention of following through. How could he-he needed to take care of his friends. He gave dozens of waivers to lobbyists of his friends-just like he gives thousands of waivers from Obamacare to his Union buddies.

One lobbyist he hired was Cecilia Munoz, the vice president of the National Council for La Raza. Obama put her in charge doling out public funds and made her his liaison to the Hispanic community.

Well a recent study shows just how good Cecilia has been to her old boss. La Raza's government funding under Obama has skyrocketed-from $4.1 million in 2008 to $11 million in 2010. In addition, the La Raza affiliate Chicanos por la Causa got over $18 million from our coffers. http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/ ... res-its-vp

Sixty percent of La Raza's take came from the Department of Labor--run by none other than another La Raza pal, pro amnesty advocate Hilda Solis. They lobbied hard for her and honored her with an award. She paid them back-with millions of dollars of our money!

And to whom do the natural resources on public lands belong to? Why should the American public not receive revenue on their natural resources? It is also a fallacy that taxes would be passed onto consumers (although should not those who actually use a product pay the true costs of that product instead of being subsidized by taxpayers), rather than deducted from the oil company record profits, as the world market sets the price. And yes I know what a loophole is, it is an exemption from paying taxes granted to a special interest.