We give money away to a few people at the expense of the many.GOP Senator Lindsay Graham • Pushing to close tax loopholes that benefit upper-income earners. While it seems obvious (to most) that we ought to close tax loopholes, Republicans in Congress have, for the most part, resolutely opposed any modification of the tax code that brings in additional revenue. To hear a prominent Republican say something like this is a faint glimmer of hope that maybe—and that’s a big maybe— Republicans will bend a bit on revenues; this could, in turn, translate into a deal to raise the debt-ceiling. Which would be nice. source (via • follow)
I’ve reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this.President Obama • Toward the end of a budget meeting with Republicans. It’s not clear what policy he won’t yield on, but from the texture of the debate thus far, we’re guessing it’s the inclusion of revenue increases in the deal to raise the debt-ceiling.source (via • follow)
I think it’s clear that the Republicans are opposed to any tax hikes, particularly during a fragile economic recovery. Now, do we believe tax reform is necessary? I would say absolutely.Sen. John Cornyn • Opening the door for the possibility of raising revenue … very slightly. See, Cornyn is OK with changing the tax code so as to fix loopholes in it. But he won’t willingly offer to raise taxes, no ifs, ands or buts. Sen. John McCain is in the same boat, willing to consider “revenue raisers” — without offering details. Now, this all seems like “whatever,” until you realize that this is the closest any members of the GOP have gotten to the idea of raising taxes — or any revenue at all, that is. How pathetic is it that this as far as the GOP has been willing to compromise on this issue? Why should Democrats have to do all the compromising? This isn’t even a step forward. This is like kicking your foot forward a quarter-inch by accident. This redefines movement. source (via • follow)
airzona asks: It also means people (including myself) can't make money off Amazon Associates. :(
(Insert anti-tax, anti-government rant here).
» SFB says: We’re torn about the issue. We think affiliate marketing like Amazon Associates is a great way to make money, and could be one potential way for Tumblr blogs to make money through the dashboard, for example. But at the same time, California’s in dire straits and has been for a while, and you gotta wonder if this was a last resort. We lean a little more towards your feeling on the matter, overall. — Ernie @ SFB
» During his time as Minnesota’s governor, Tim Pawlenty staked out a few moderate stances. This is understandable, as Minnesota is a moderate state. But moderation doesn’t fly in the current incantation of the Republican party (just ask Mike Castle or Bob Bennett). It especially doesn’t fly for Republicans who want to be President, and perhaps no position is as sacrosanct to the modern Republican party as that of low taxes. Still, Pawlenty’s proposed tax plan is really extreme, even by supply-sider standards; for example, he proposes that millionaires alone receive a 41% tax cut. So, while it’s understandable that T-Paw wants quell the concerts of Republican primary voters by tacking to the right, we wonder if he really needed to adopt a tax plan that, in the words of Ezra Klein, “makes George W. Bush look like Robin Hood.”
So… how y’all feel about that speech? Reviews streaming in following President Obama’s remarks about U.S. budgetary issues are somewhat mixed, but that’s what you’d expect when the speech in question struck such a starkly firm, at times defiant tone. Indeed, the favorite words of the administration, like “bipartisanship,” “compromise,” and “common ground” were all there, but there was also a lot of base-feeding red meat to his pitch that likely inflamed conservative orthodoxy and left liberals feeling better than they had expected.
One of the perks of being an early employee...
Over the last 90 days, the Digg...
Thanks. I guess my thoughts are as follows:
1. I think...
neightkelly said: Not taking the money from people does not add to the government’s deficit, it’s not the government’s money. It’s like saying because you aren’t mugging that person you are now down 25 dollars.
» We say: Think about it this way. It’s like going to college. You may not like all the classes, but they still need to be paid for by the collective student body. Because, since they get all that tuition, they have room to offer a Women’s Studies program. And a wider variety of programs ensures a better experience for everyone. If money goes away, programs get cut. That’s the thing with your “mugger” analogy that doesn’t work. Even if you’re a hardcore libertarian, you’re still benefitting from that tax income whether you choose to enjoy it or not. There is a benefit to paying your taxes. You drive on those roads that the government provided the money and planning to create and maintain. You eat food made healthier by government regulation. You don’t get sick because the government put money into improving medical standards. You live in a safe country because the government did things to improve our country’s security both here and abroad. I’ve yet to meet a mugger who gave back so much after they stole your wallet. (EDIT: Now this is not to say that the government is the best at these particular jobs, but it is how they use the money.)