Let's discourage investment some more...

This will be sold in the name of "fairness," if anyone else in the press corps notices, but the worst implications are economic. The 0.9% increase is another tax on job creation, though Democrats claim they want more jobs. The devious 2.9% hike on investment income will raise the cost of capital, though Democrats claim to want more capital investment. Sometimes we wonder if Democrats even listen to their own rhetoric, or if they assume voters are too dumb to notice their contradictions.

If Americans need another reason to oppose ObamaCare, or more evidence of its destructiveness, here it is.

This will never get through. Coburn said today that he won't support a reconciliation bill unless the House passes a revised bill first. The House barely passed its version last year, no way it would get through now. But I'm glad Obama keep pushing this crazy agenda of his, because it will make the elections that much tougher for the Dems this year.

everyone must pay their "fair share". We need to have "shared sacrifice".

We really need a flat tax. That's the only fair tax. Otherwise, you just see politicians doling out deductions, credits and subsidies based on political favors.

"This will never get through. Coburn said today that he won't support a reconciliation bill unless the House passes a revised bill first."

Since when does a single Republican seantor dictate policy?

And how long until Soctt Brown pulls a Specter and becomes a Democrat? The Teabaggers are pissed after he voted for the jobs bill, aks Stimulus 2.0.

Tea bagging is what socialists engage in.

Why don't you get an airplane license and fly yourself into a library. That other disgraceful waste of money.
Flmao. Go ahead and abolish the system that gave your mama the right to vote, have an abortion and divorce. Flmao

the problems with crazy anywingers are they don't know when to stop. Plz put a thesis on what roles govt should be in and maybe I'll rejoin your camp,eh? .

has anyone seen the defense budget recently? if we had had half the defense spending from 1980 to present i wonder what our financial situation would look like.

plenty of blame to go around, people. last i heard the socialists (as we ignorant modern people define them) weren't responsible for the defense budget. gollyburton, anyone?

we're a corporatist state, not a socialist one, and it doesn't have anything to do with party affiliation. to the extent anything is given to the people, it's to keep them manageable for as long as possible until the higher ups have drained them of every cent they might have.

My problem with this is that $250k ($200k for singles) represents vastly different levels of wealth depending on where you live. I saw a stat on the news tonight projecting that more than 25% of the incremental revenue across the WHOLE COUNTRY would come from NY, NJ & CT. I actually don't mind paying a little more so that that everyone has access to basic healthcase but to ignore cost of living differences is really targeting the Northeast.

But remember, the northeast, and NYC in particular is a taker economy, not a producer economy. Wall Street, media, legal, fashion, etc..these industries effectively tax citizens and businesses throughout the country and siphon those dollars to NYC.

I'm not sure why cost of living differences should be factored in. Presumably the higher cost of living in NY reflects a market assessment of the value of living here. The choice to live in NY is, in part, a choice to consume a lot more (in dollar terms and market value) of housing costs (and other costs of daily life) in order to enjoy the luxury of living in NY. Why should we receive tax subsidies to make this luxury consumption cheaper?

JohnDoe: I see your point on say something like a Broadway show which simply doesn't exist in e.g., Cleveland. But a bottle of Amstel is $6 in NYC and $3 in Cleveland; I am not consuming more here in NY it's just at a higher dollar amount. So to me it seems like it would be fair to incorporate that into tax thresholds. The same is done for salaries when people who work for large companies move to different locales e.g., someone moving from Pittsburg to Boston will get a cost-of-living wage increase.
Patient09: that's a heavy generalization though it's hard to argue with the statement that Wall Street has run amok in an era of deregulation and reform is badly needed. But Wall Stret alone did not produce the credit crisis (add: US culture of consumption, loan officers, complicit ratings agencies, US Government) and for the economy to recover we will need a functioning (lending!) Wall Street. And I think you are - as is fashionable now - demonizing all professional services that don't directly lead to the creation of a tangible "thing" but are essential to the "thing" being created and sold.

not sure why anyone is surprised? higher rates, higher taxes, higher health care costs, its all coming.

aboutready, tell us what you would cut from the defense budget.

"But remember, the northeast, and NYC in particular is a taker economy, not a producer economy. Wall Street, media, legal, fashion, etc..these industries effectively tax citizens and businesses throughout the country and siphon those dollars to NYC."

So, let me get this right.... growing corn and selling it is "producing", but making dress is "taking"?
Was there a pants subsidy I wasn't aware of?

Producing television shows, running ad campaigns, thats a "tax"?

Are we kidding?

Middle america is paid for the coats. There is no hoover dam without NYC. Hell, most of America doesn't get built out. Those roads, etc. Who do you think paid for them?

And we're STILL paying more than we're getting.

I believe the correc phrase is not a taker economy, but "value added"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added

In economics, the difference between the sale price of a product and the cost of materials to produce it is the value added. In national accounts used in macroeconomics, it refers to the contribution of the factors of production, i.e., land, labor, and capital goods, to raising the value of a product and corresponds to the incomes received by the owners of these factors. The national value added is shared between capital and labor (as the factors of production), and this sharing gives rise to issues of distribution.

You're joking right?

Wall Street wouldn't exist if it were not for all the businesses and people spread around the U.S.

Media wouldn't exist if it were'nt for all the TV's and consumers around the country..

These are service industries that extract a fee from the broader economy. Just so happens a large portion of these industries continues to be domiciled in NYC...for now.

etc..etc..

Bernie: I'm viewing the luxury as living in New York. The $6 cost of an Amstel in a bar in NY is a part of the cost of the luxury of living here. Another way to think about it is that the $6 Amstel in New York costs $6 because, among other things, the real estate the bar occupies is very expensive. Part of what youre paying for is the convenience of drinking your Amstel in a bar in Manhattan rather than, e.g., Ohio.

As to your contention that you're not consuming more, but just a higher dollar amount, in a market economy, I'm not sure it makes sense to measure consumption other than by looking at cost (otherwise, it seems like you're left having to make arguments that rely on the idea that you know better than the market what something is really "worth", in some ethereal sense of "worth.")