Page 17 of 40 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 396

Thread: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

  1. #161
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Hey, If you are going to cut something out, make the case, and make damned sure it is for all, across the board...Don't tell me how Solyndra should recieve my money, but Exxon shouldn't.

    j-mac
    Have I done that?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #162
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,256

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Goldenboy, I appreciate that is what you believe but the actions of both say differently. Krugman wants massive govt spending of taxpayers dollars and thus greater control of the govt. over that spending. Obama by his actions wants to redistribute income. No one is going to state they want socialism and will always react like you are reacting now but incrementalism will lead us that way.
    In all fairness, your interpretation of their actions lead you to this conclusion. Socialism is simply unsustainable here in the U.S. Case and point; people are free to form worker owned enterprises, but they do not make up even .1% of all companies. The notion does not even bare mentioning within the context of this discussion.

    As for the 25 million unemployed and underemployed, that is reality today and my question is HOW DOES RAISING TAXES ON ANYONE PUT THOSE PEOPLE BACK TO WORK. I am raising that question and you are refusing to answer it.
    Raising taxes on the wealthy will minimally impact overall consumption because those with high incomes have high savings rates. Raising taxes on families with zero or negative savings rates will in fact undercut the economy, but i have not heard such a policy being discussed.

    Consumers deserve to keep their money rather than waste it sending it to the govt. that created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Those tax cuts have been reduced in value by the costs of the Obama Administration in the form of regulations, potential tax increases, Obamacare, and strings attached to those tax cuts. The tax cuts for small business are offset by the tax increases and regulations from Obama.
    What regulations, specifically, are offsetting tax increases? I hear this all the time, but have yet to see evidence of the actual regulations impact on economic activity. Remember, we deregulated the financial sector in 1999 which proved to be a disaster of epic proportions. To say that "all regulation" is bad for business is simply untrue.

    None the less, my statement still stands. If tax cuts are the end all approach for eliminating our economic woes, how on earth can we be in this employment situation to begin with?
    Last edited by Kushinator; 09-13-11 at 02:52 PM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #163
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,022

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    Based on some post defining corporate welfare, and seem to be against cooperate welfare. Got to ask, why then do so many support tax breaks and tax dollars building sports stadiums? Why sports and not other companies that may provide larger employment and tax revenue to a state/community?
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  4. #164
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Based on some post defining corporate welfare, and seem to be against cooperate welfare. Got to ask, why then do so many support tax breaks and tax dollars building sports stadiums? Why sports and not other companies that may provide larger employment and tax revenue to a state/community?
    I don't. But sports fans want teams, and I think often don't think this through. Just an opinion.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #165
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    Goldenboy219;1059794151]In all fairness, your interpretation of their actions lead you to this conclusion. Socialism is simply unsustainable here in the U.S. Case and point; people are free to form worker owned enterprises, but they do not make up even .1% of all companies. The notion does not even bare mentioning within the context of this discussion.
    I agree that socialism is unsustainable here just like it is collapsing all over the world yet that doesn't stop the arrogance of liberals to continue to promote it. Obama as has been shown has zero executive and management experience and skills. All he knows how to do us community organize and take money from someone else. That is what he is trying to do now. A good leader wouldn't be promoting class warfare and wealth redistribution, a good leader would encourage the poor to reach a higher income status instead of demonizing it.

    Raising taxes on the wealthy will minimally impact overall consumption because those with high incomes have high savings rates. Raising taxes on families with zero or negative savings rates will in fact undercut the economy, but i have not heard such a policy being discussed.
    Then what is the purpose of raising taxes on the rich? It sends the wrong message and attempts to redistribute wealth. It demonizes wealth creation and promotes class warfare. Do you think the 47% that don't pay any FIT care about raising the taxes on someone else?

    What regulations, specifically, are offsetting tax increases? I hear this all the time, but have yet to see evidence of the actual regulations impact on economic activity. Remember, we deregulated the financial sector in 1999 which proved to be a disaster of epic proportions. To say that "all regulation" is bad for business is simply untrue.
    Yesterday I posted an article on regulatations. Not going to do it again because you ignored the one yesterday and will ignore it today. Obama is totally anti business except those chosen ones that support him, i.e. GE. Where is your outrage over the Head of the Jobs Committee having a company that doesn't pay any Corporte taxes because they make all their income overseas? No one is saying all regulations are bad is an exaggeration but we have laws on the books that should have prevented what happened with the financial crisis.

    None the less, my statement still stands. If tax cuts are the end all approach for eliminating our economic woes, how on earth can we be in this employment situation to begin with?
    As does mine stand. raising taxes on one class while redistributing that to another promotes classware and hurts the economy. When you increase the number of people dependent on the Federal Taxpayer you eventually destroy the taxpayer thus giving more power to the Govt. The private sector will bring us out of this economic malaise we are in and that isn't going to happen until Obama is fired.

  6. #166
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,071

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    1. We can't base the entire argument on two cities. In general making 250,000 is doing extremely well. If you're struggling on getting by on that then I would assume it's much more due to living outside your means more so than cost of living. My household income is half of that and at the age of 25 my wife and I have bought our own house, have two vehicles that were purchased new, mine was paid off in a year and her's we bought outright, and at the same time are donating as much is allowed into our 401k's and have a side savings account. If we can manage that then anyone earning 250,000 shouldn't be having a hard time regardless of the city. Of course if you earn 250,000 and you think that it's a good idea to stretch yourself by buying a home or condo worth 1.5 million you can barely afford is a good idea that doesn't mean you aren't doing well, it just means you make poor decisions.

    2. If you earn 250,000 your taxes won't go up according to his plan. You won't owe one penny more. It's only an increase in taxes on earnings over that amount. Lets say you earn 300,000, your taxes will go up 1500 give or take a little. If that puts you in the poor house while earning 300,000 then it's you with the problem.

    3. Lets just go out on a limb and say you earn a hefty 500,000 next year. If we bump up the top marginal tax rate to what is proposed that means an extra 7,500 in taxes. Sorry, but arguing that this is going to put anyone in the poor house or that anyone earning that much will have to lay someone off so they can afford it is being disingenuous.
    So how much is enough? $7,500 today, then the government blows that, too. Next up is what, $15,000 more? $25,000 more? How much do you want?

    And no, $250,000 is not a lot of money. Imagine living in Phoenix, Chicago, Seattle, San Diego, San Francisco, LA, Miami, Tampa, New York, Boston, DC, Burlington, Richmond, Denver - it's not just two cities - and trying to put two kids through college while paying your bills.

    You might think it's preposterous for someone to want to live in more than 1,800 square feet, but that's just your socialistic mind at work. The government has done nothing additional for me to warrant stealing my money at a higher rate. Nothing.

    The government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. Don't ask me to subsidize their problem. Tell them to fix it.

  7. #167
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,256

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    As does mine stand. raising taxes on one class while redistributing that to another promotes classware and hurts the economy.
    Increasing taxes on a high saving demographic while keeping taxes constant on the low saving demographic will increase overall consumption, and therefore boost the economy. You cannot deny this, even if you disagree with it in nature.

    When you increase the number of people dependent on the Federal Taxpayer you eventually destroy the taxpayer thus giving more power to the Govt. The private sector will bring us out of this economic malaise we are in and that isn't going to happen until Obama is fired.
    I just want a real sustainable recovery. To achieve this, we need a large sustainable boost in aggregate demand. Public works projects and infrastructure repairs will surely achieve this. Tax cuts on the other hand will not. Just because you disagree with my analysis on a ideological basis does not render it incorrect. Tax cuts do not boost demand in a highly indebted society.

    FWIW my position in February 2009.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Depending on our Marginal_Propensity_to_Consume domestic goods, the amount of money spent on a given time, will have a multiplier effect due to the original injection of dollars, and the remaining transactions (known as steps 2 through infinity) provide the multiplier effect.

    Here is a very very very very basic example of a Keynesian multiplier effect, that is semi representative of our economy in the US:

    In one year, unemployment has jumped 2.7%. According to Okun's Law, a 1% rise in unemployment equates to a 2% loss in GDP. So we have a decrease in GDP (income) of around $740 billion from January of last year. Full employment GDP (market equilibrium) is probably in the 3% ranges.

    Most people would think, "hell our stimulus package is greater than the GDP shortfall, so we are gonna be ok."

    But we forgot about the multiplier effect. Say for instance that our marginal propensity to consume domestic goods is 50%, giving a multiplier of 2. From steps to through infinity (when the money stops trickling), an additional $740 billion of economic activity (GDP) occurs (assuming there are no leakages).

    Does $1.48 trillion sound like it possesses the sheer quantity to overt asset liquidation? Consider the consequences of 10% unemployment, or $1.9 trillion in GDP shortfall. This money does not filter into the system until the end of the summer, when they plan spend something like $150 billion tops by the end of 2009. By that time, unemployment could be higher than 10%...

    Missing the mark is really bad, even worse than going way over the shortfall, because it will fail to turn the tide, and could lead to higher prices (stagflation). But that is not the worse possible consequence of this fake ass stimulus.

    This money has to come from somewhere, and it forms a zero sum game with private investment. More and more money flowing into the treasury to pay for this endeavor equates to less and less investment in the private sector. Private sector innovation creates greater worker productivity, and higher standards of living.

    Future generations will be far more harmed by the crowding out of private investment, much more so than this big debt number that has eclipsed $10 trillion.
    Notice.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 09-13-11 at 03:12 PM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #168
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    Goldenboy219;1059794189]Increasing taxes on a high saving demographic while keeping taxes constant on the low saving demographic will increase overall consumption, and therefore boost the economy. You cannot deny this, even if you disagree with it in nature.
    The low saving demographic aren't paying any FIT, what part of that don't you understand? Increasing taxes on anyone during these poor economic times is suicidal and is either a sign of incompetence or design. Which is it?



    I just want a real sustainable recovery. To achieve this, we need a large sustainable boost in aggregate demand. Public works projects and infrastructure repairs will surely achieve this. Tax cuts on the other hand will not. Just because you disagree with my analysis on a ideological basis does not render it incorrect. Tax cuts do not boost demand in a highly indebted society.
    Anything the govt. does is short term and has no sustainability as evidenced by the first stimulus. this one isn't any different, bailing out teachers, police, and firefighters isn't a Federal Responsibility, that is a state responsibility.

    The first stimulus was supposed to support infrastructure spending and failed to do that. Why do you believe this is any different? Tax cuts put more money into the pockets of those high indebted taxpayers and that is what drives the economy, not taking more of that tax revenue from the people that earn it. We have a 14.6 trillion dollar debt today and you want to reward politicians that generated that debt by giving them more? That is illogical.

    Don't care about your position in 2009 and it is obvious to me that you have never hired, trained or fired anyone in your career thus are unfamiliar about the cost associated with all those activities. Obama doesn't have a clue either.

  9. #169
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    More good news for liberals and the Obama administration

    U.S. crosses $1 trillion deficit threshold for third straight year, logging $1.23 trillion deficit with one month to go before end of fiscal year

    More headlines from FoxNews.com:
    Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

  10. #170
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,068

    Re: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    You might think it's preposterous for someone to want to live in more than 1,800 square feet, but that's just your socialistic mind at work.
    And bam. Thanks for showing that you're not capable of intelligent discussion.

    If you have the money then I see absolutely no reason that you shouldn't be able to buy any house you want. You should be able to have gold toilets for all I give a ****. However, if you make 500,000 a year and then buy a multi million dollar house and then buy a few fancy sports cars, then pay for two kids to get a top of the line ivy league education and at the end of the day your so stretched by your over spending that 7500 in taxes would cause you serious distress then that's you're fault.

    You can call a tiny tax increase "stealing" all you want but understand that most people see right through the talking points bud.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

Page 17 of 40 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •