Obama Draws Line in the Sand with Republicans - Will Not Extend Bush Tax Cuts

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
"The rich do not employ people."
I should frame that and put it on the wall.

It would be good for a laugh every time i see it.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)

Please do.
I have never been employed by a rich person...then again, I am not some immigrant looking to cut their estate's grass or clean their house.

they don't create jobs...companys and corporations do.

Do you see job creation as yard service for mansion owners? is that your 18th century view of life? sorry mate...actually, if you want to put people as job creators verses entities, then its middle class consumerism that creates jobs...rich folks are simply title holders and investors...the rich do not stay rich because of endless stimulation of the economy...they don't buy a boat every other month...they hoard and save, which does no good for economics
the middle class person is spending almost all the money they make to get food, clothes, televisions, etc...they may not have a giant nest egg, but its their direct funding that keeps companys open, and people employeed

when you frame that statement, make sure to thank the middle class person for allowing the frame store to remain open, thank the middle class worker for doing the woodwork, and thank the customers in the store for spending money to keep the store open.

I suggest a baroque frame...the classics are still the best imo.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism


Scare tactics, BS, bogus reasoning?

Prove me wrong. Or continue with the generalized insults.

Which ever.

Originally posted by Morpheas
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I like the idea of a flat tax rate for all income levels. If you base it on dependents then people are going to have many kids and we'll have a major over population problem.

I don't think so. It is already based on dependents, and the deduction per dependent does not begin to cover the cost of caring for that dependent. I think the standard deduction should be about $10,000 per dependent. Therefore a single person would not pay tax on the first $10k, a family of 4 would not pay on the first $40k, a family of 6 would not pay on the first $60k. That only amounts to $1500 in tax money saved per dependent, and it certainly costs a lot more than that to support a dependent for a year.

This is really just a small concession to keep the already impoverished people from having any extra burdens. It doesn't really affect those in or above the lower-middle class area.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't the Bush era tax cuts mostly extend to the rich? If that's the case, if the economy has been on the slow decline since Bush was first in office, then what positive effect has there been by extending these cuts for nearly a decade or more now? These tax cuts, from my knowledge, were meant to spur sufficient economic growth as well as job growth. But I ask anybody who is more knowledgeable in this field, what growth has there been that can be considered as "sufficient?"

The US unemployment rate is being reported as being at 9.1 for the month of May. The US national debt is topping at over $14 trillion. Businesses are continually moving their operations out of country and overseas, and with the move their jobs are being outsourced. The United States is effectively headed toward a Great Depression era-like recession. So please, tell me, how are the Bush era tax cuts working?

I agree that taxes don't necessarily need to be raised in this type of economy, but I don't see the Bush era tax cuts working quite like they're intended to work. The truth of the matter is that some people can actually afford to pay their taxes and do not necessarily need a break in paying them. So it's a matter of who is receiving the tax breaks and who is paying taxes that should become the focal point of any type of tax reform and debate therein.

Originally posted by beezzer
Even if tax increases reached 99%, the rich would never feel it because the goods and services that their companies provide would pass the added expense onto us, the middle class.
So laugh! Gleefully enjoy the "gouging" that the rich will feel.
It'll only last as long as it takes to raise prices.

Are you aware of the tax rate in the US over history and throughout the world and how it has benefited nation states? I'm guessing you don't. You're just repeating party propaganda.

Now that a grown-up has explained things, you kids can go out and play now.

Ahh, yes, the signature of someone who DOESN'T grasp the facts. Tanks for that.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


Tax cuts didn't give us this economic tailspin.
Freddy and Fanny, TARP, a democrat house and senate did that. Bush isn't blameless, he signed the damned things, but don't blame tax cuts.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by beezzer
Even if tax increases reached 99%, the rich would never feel it because the goods and services that their companies provide would pass the added expense onto us, the middle class.
So laugh! Gleefully enjoy the "gouging" that the rich will feel.
It'll only last as long as it takes to raise prices.

Are you aware of the tax rate in the US over history and throughout the world and how it has benefited nation states? I'm guessing you don't. You're just repeating party propaganda.

Now that a grown-up has explained things, you kids can go out and play now.

Ahh, yes, the signature of someone who DOESN'T grasp the facts. Tanks for that.

Please explain, without using liberal shill propoganda, how tax cuts are terrible.

There's nothing on tv and I'm in the mood for some fiction.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Morpheas
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I like the idea of a flat tax rate for all income levels. If you base it on dependents then people are going to have many kids and we'll have a major over population problem.

I don't think so. It is already based on dependents, and the deduction per dependent does not begin to cover the cost of caring for that dependent. I think the standard deduction should be about $10,000 per dependent. Therefore a single person would not pay tax on the first $10k, a family of 4 would not pay on the first $40k, a family of 6 would not pay on the first $60k. That only amounts to $1500 in tax money saved per dependent, and it certainly costs a lot more than that to support a dependent for a year.

This is really just a small concession to keep the already impoverished people from having any extra burdens. It doesn't really affect those in or above the lower-middle class area.

I think the overpopulation problem is in China and India.
-------------------------------------
I like the Flat Tax idea.
When it gets passed go ahead and NAIL a copy of it to the General Electric HQ front door !
-------------------------------------
I prefer to focus on the " Outgo" instead of the "Income".
Reduce the size of the U.S. Government.
Lip service is not enough. Get rid of the duplication in Washington D.C. ASAP !

Originally posted by beezzer


Please explain, without using liberal shill propoganda, how tax cuts are terrible.

I didn't say they were 'terrible'. I said the notion that tax cuts will never help because they will merely be passed on to the consumer does not jive with the history of tax rates in this country, or around the world.

I also pointed out that your reliance upon referring to yourself as an 'adult' while calling other people things like "liberal shill 'propoganda'" is the hallmark of someone who does not really grasp the issues.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

 

Tax cuts didn't give us this economic tailspin.
Freddy and Fanny, TARP, a democrat house and senate did that. Bush isn't blameless, he signed the damned things, but don't blame tax cuts.

The POINT, of course, is that if tax cuts for the wealthy helped the economy, we wouldn't be in an economic crises right now, as Bush installed his tax cuts a decade ago.
How you spin that into something else is beyond reason.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


A flat tax could reduce the size of the IRS payroll by about 80%!!!

Also, Ron Paul has stated that he would like to see the Federal Govt operate at all times, the same way they operate on snow days. On snow days, all "non-essential" personnel are not required to be at work. If those people are "non-essential" then they never really need to be at work do they? Cut the size of the Federal Government back to the size it operates on for snow days. Pretty good common sense approach.

That is part of the reason I decided to support Ron Paul this time around. He seems to be taking his campaign more seriously, and he is saying some things that make very, very good sense!

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Tax cuts are not to blame, but they didn't do anything to help.

Tax cuts very rarely do anything to help the economy. What is an extra $30 per week on anyone's paycheck going to do to help the economy? Those $600 refund checks that everyone got cost the government billions, but they didn't make a dent any individuals life. In fact, they probably went to pay a couple of bills that were falling behind, then the next month the bills were charged right back up again and nothing changed.

We cannot extend the tax cuts at this juncture. Over time, we can lower taxes, but first we have to get a handle on the budget and deficit.

I absolutely will not pay MORE taxes to support MORE spending! BUT, paying more taxes while cutting spending, and lowering the deficit is acceptable to me, for now.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Tax cuts are not to blame, but they didn't do anything to help.

Good. Because I didnt blame them. I merely pointed out that the GOP mantra that tax cuts will restore the economy is unfounded.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

A flat tax could reduce the size of the IRS payroll by about 80%!!!

Also, Ron Paul has stated that he would like to see the Federal Govt operate at all times, the same way they operate on snow days. On snow days, all "non-essential" personnel are not required to be at work. If those people are "non-essential" then they never really need to be at work do they?

Cut the size of the Federal Government back to the size it operates on for snow days. Pretty good common sense approach.

That is part of the reason I decided to support Ron Paul this time around. He seems to be taking his campaign more seriously, and he is saying some things that make very, very good sense!

Well, i'm sure you've heard the argument that with more people in government they can - serve -
you better. The problem is that now it's - bloated - so i like trying your idea for 1 year and
just see what happens.
BTW, Sarah Palin is also for reforming the U.S. Government and the current tax system.
----------------------------
I would also like President Sarah Palin to - Abolish & Defund - the EPA.
That would kill the back door Cap & Tax trick used by the Obama Administration.
Try it for 1 year and just see what happens.
I'm guessing the world will not come to an end if we severely reduce the size of the
U.S. Government.

Raising taxes during a recession (depression) double-dip, whatever you want to call it, is not a good thing.

The increases in taxes will be passed to the consumer.

But look on the bright side! That'll mean even more people relying on food stamps and government dole.

Originally posted by beezzer
Raising taxes during a recession (depression) double-dip, whatever you want to call it, is not a good thing.

The increases in taxes will be passed to the consumer.

But look on the bright side! That'll mean even more people relying on food stamps and government dole.

Can you show evidence of a similar time when higher taxes hurt the economy? I'm curious on what data you are basing your opinion. Thanks in advance!

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by beezzer
Raising taxes during a recession (depression) double-dip, whatever you want to call it, is not a good thing.

The increases in taxes will be passed to the consumer.

But look on the bright side! That'll mean even more people relying on food stamps and government dole.

Can you show evidence of a similar time when higher taxes hurt the economy? I'm curious on what data you are basing your opinion. Thanks in advance!

I'm pretty sure there is no evidence of higher taxes hurting the economy. At least when those taxed are in the upper class.

Beezzer, sorry if you think I insulted you, that wasn't my intention, just civil discussion. I just don't think there is any evidence of what you're saying (or Republicans continue to say) in regards to tax cuts for the wealthy. Quite the opposite actually.

The whole "raising taxes during a double-dip recession" is a classic scare tactic that is repeated over and over again by virtually every Republican when asked about taxes on TV. I dunno, I think I'm willing to take the risk!

I'd rather do that than lose SS and medicare.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by beezzer
Raising taxes during a recession (depression) double-dip, whatever you want to call it, is not a good thing.

The increases in taxes will be passed to the consumer.

But look on the bright side! That'll mean even more people relying on food stamps and government dole.

Can you show evidence of a similar time when higher taxes hurt the economy? I'm curious on what data you are basing your opinion. Thanks in advance!

There has not been a time where someone was stupid enough to raise taxes during an economic downturn. Most of the time, past leaders were trying to help the economy, not kill it.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism


So raising taxes in an economic downturn helps?

Please provide data.

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
Again, it's been 10 years of tax cuts for the wealthy, where are the jobs? More bogus BS talk from the Republicans. It's basically a provable fact that these guys are lying at this point.

Doing a little more research would tell you that businesses are still afraid to add jobs because extending the Bush tax cuts was TEMPORARY. For them to raise personnel and other expenditures now based on a TEMPORARY tax cut would be equivalent to them being out on a fiscal limb and waiting for obama to saw it off behind them. Think about it. Would YOU go out and buy things on long term credit based on a temporary raise. Not if you're smart you wouldn't, anyway.

Scare tactics are used a lot by politicians to trick people into thinking things like tax cuts for the wealthy are needed or else we are all doomed. I find it extremely offensive that someone that is voted in to office abuses their position like that. But it happens all the time.

You mean like the scare tactics progressives are using these days to scare seniors on medicare, etc. when none of the proposed cuts will affect anyone over 55? Let's hear you tell us all how offensive the progressives are for doing that ...