Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

Wiseone said:

You know oil and gas, hedge funds, and people with individual income over 200K don't really come to mind when I think "who should get a tax break with the amount of federal debt that exists." Don't get me wrong, I don't like taxes, but the simple fact is that to cut the debt we need BOTH spending cuts AND tax increases, there's no way around it.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is, those are pretty much the only people paying taxes anyway.

I crack up how people that don't pay taxes think they should get tax breaks.

Zyphlin said:

I understand your point a bit more now, and I don't disagree at its core. Where we disagree is you seem to support the notion of them doing it and see it as a good thing and I don't. I see it as political grandstanding and putting ones political asperations ahead of actually attempting to get things done.

Click to expand...

If he were to say that he would not sign any bills unless it included ending the tax cuts, then I could agree that putting it out there is stopping things from getting done, but if he's just suggesting it as a starting point and is willing to negotiate, which he has shown to me that he is willing to since every past negotiation did not include ending these tax cuts, then I see no problem with it. Also, he's not attaching this to bills that have nothing to do with it. When we are discussing issues that involve needing to pay for programs, balancing the budget, helping the economy, this pretty clearly is involved in the discussion in my opinion. I'd agree if we were discussing a bill to legalize weed (something random) and he said that it must include ending tax cuts for the rich well then that has no place in that debate and it doesn't make sense for it to be included.

Really I think we just disagree on a matter of opinion and I can live with that.

I just don't see it as a legitimate negotiating point when you know its something they're not going to accept. As I said, I see it as political theater. Its like if the Republicans came into every debate that even touched finances in some way and said "We want to eliminate the minimum wage entirely as part of this agreement". They know 100% that it won't be allowed but they're just putting it in there to make a political point and so they can say later "See, we compromised, we wanted the minimum wage gone but gave it up". Or going "We want a 3% tax cut per bracket for all brackets as part of this" knowing that the Democrats won't go with it and then going "See, Democrats are just being obstructionists because they're refusing to accept our modest proposal".

Its cheap political theater. I'm not a big fan of theater as is, but if its going to be there showing me the same show over and over again makes for unentertaining theater.

Boo Radley said:

No. Republicans may well play politics. You may be right. But they don't have. They can actually try to work with this. Obama is right in what he is calling for. Obama, unlike republicans, is compromising. Republicans are being obstructionist, using my way or the highway. As they ahve been all along. It is proper to call them on it.

Click to expand...

In other words, the way he is playing politics is working on you. It's nice that you acknowledge to being so easily manipulated. If Obama were actually serious, he would have tried to pay for the jobs bill by a method that has not already been rejcted by both republicans and democrats.

Zyphlin said:

I think doing this is a disservice to the country. I don't mind a president pushing an idea, even pushing it a number of times. But when every 3 months you attach it to an important issue you're doing a country a disservice by focusing so much of your time, the debate, and your efforts towards something that is reasonable to assume will fail. I'm not saying don't fight for your principles, but I'm saying don't try and make every major issue be tied with that particular pet peeve issue.

Now I do agree with you they should be allowed to bring it up, no where am I saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it. I just think when you bring something up as part of every major issue that comes up every couple of months when its been unsuccessful both under a majority controlled by your party and by the current make up of congress the ONLY reason you're doing it is for political posturing. That its a waste of time, its a disservice to the public, and its theather and nothing more.

I'm not saying he can't do it. I just find it distasteful when he or anyone does it.

I understand your point a bit more now, and I don't disagree at its core. Where we disagree is you seem to support the notion of them doing it and see it as a good thing and I don't. I see it as political grandstanding and putting ones political aspirations ahead of actually attempting to get things done.

Click to expand...

This past year, the President has been attacked on a continuous basis by the opposition party. I have never seen such a massive misuse of the term socialist being applied to one person in my entire life. It has become crystal clear that the opposition party does not want to cooperate with the President on any issue. For instance, the debt ceiling fiasco was the epitome of irresponsibility; and instead of passing the debt ceiling in an orderly manner during a time of economic uncertainty, they were willing and ready to only pile on the uncertainty.

What do you expect the President to do? Should he just sit back and take such displays of disrespect like a "good ole boy"? Nonsense. The GOP has put ideology ahead of the well being of the American people. Therefore, it is this mans job to expose them for what they are....

Goldenboy219 said:

This past year, the President has been attacked on a continuous basis by the opposition party. I have never seen such a massive misuse of the term socialist being applied to one person in my entire life. It has become crystal clear that the opposition party does not want to cooperate with the President on any issue. For instance, the debt ceiling fiasco was the epitome of irresponsibility; and instead of passing the debt ceiling in an orderly manner during a time of economic uncertainty, they were willing and ready to only pile on the uncertainty.

What do you expect the President to do? Should he just sit back and take such displays of disrespect like a "good ole boy"? Nonsense. The GOP has put ideology ahead of the well being of the American people. Therefore, it is this mans job to expose them for what they are....

Click to expand...

Why do you have such disdain for the word socialist for isn't that what you and Krugman are supporting? You don't think that Obama wants control of production? You don't think Obama wants redistribution of wealth? Could it be that you know by using the word socialist instead of progressive is detrimental to the Obama agenda? I would love to hear any liberal here explain how proposing tax hikes for the rich is going to put 25 million plus unemployed and underemployed Americans? What is it about progressives that want to reward any politician that has helped create the 14.6 trillion dollar debt instead of rewarding the taxpayers who earn the money to pay for that abuse of federal power?

More good news for Obama supporters who again want more govt. power all in the name of compassion

Census: US poverty rate rises to 15.1 percent; number of uninsured hits high of 49.9 million - The Washington Post

Erod said:

And I'll be letting some people go if this is passed. You can bet on that.

Click to expand...

How much do you earn if you don't mind me asking. I'm talking actual earnings after writing off all business expenses and such, before taxes?

I understand if you don't want to answer. Just curious.

TurtleDude said:

why not make everyone-especially those who pay no taxes-pay more? can you say political pandering?

Click to expand...

Obviously, those people who pay no FIT have enough deductions to lower their taxable income to zero or less. The millionaire owner of the LA Dodgers paid no taxes.

Zyphlin said:

I just don't see it as a legitimate negotiating point when you know its something they're not going to accept. As I said, I see it as political theater. Its like if the Republicans came into every debate that even touched finances in some way and said "We want to eliminate the minimum wage entirely as part of this agreement". They know 100% that it won't be allowed but they're just putting it in there to make a political point and so they can say later "See, we compromised, we wanted the minimum wage gone but gave it up". Or going "We want a 3% tax cut per bracket for all brackets as part of this" knowing that the Democrats won't go with it and then going "See, Democrats are just being obstructionists because they're refusing to accept our modest proposal".

Its cheap political theater. I'm not a big fan of theater as is, but if its going to be there showing me the same show over and over again makes for unentertaining theater.

Click to expand...

IDK, I understand where you're coming from but in the grand scheme of things much of the other stuff they do for political theater makes this pale in comparison. I'll never begrudge a politician for speaking his views. ****, Ron Paul has made a presidential run based off of stuff that has absolutely no chance of ever being passed through congress. I still respect him for being honest about it though.

Conservative said:

Why do you have such disdain for the word socialist for isn't that what you and Krugman are supporting?

Click to expand...

Socialism is achieved when property rights are redefined giving workers (labor) complete control of the means of production. Neither I, Krugman, nor the President support such a notion, so kindly refrain from misusing the term socialism, if for nothing other than your own sake.

You don't think that Obama wants control of production? You don't think Obama wants redistribution of wealth?

Click to expand...

No. The entire U.S. financial system could have been nationalized without increasing government spending. The President rejected such notions.

Could it be that you know by using the word socialist instead of progressive is detrimental to the Obama agenda?

Click to expand...

The use of the word is a simple misrepresentation aimed at destroying credibility in a fallacious manner.

I would love to hear any liberal here explain how proposing tax hikes for the rich is going to put 25 million plus unemployed and underemployed Americans?

Click to expand...

Fallacy. I have not seen anyone claim that tax hikes will put 25 million plus unemployed back to work. Care to provide a source, or retract your statement as it is a fallacy.

What is it about progressives that want to reward any politician that has helped create the 14.6 trillion dollar debt instead of rewarding the taxpayers who earn the money to pay for that abuse of federal power?

Click to expand...

Consumers have had 10 years of low taxes, and it has equated to how many new jobs? If low taxes were the end all solution to our economic woes, we would not be in this trouble in the first place rof

Goldenboy219 said:

Socialism is achieved when property rights are redefined giving workers (labor) complete control of the means of production. Neither I, Krugman, nor the President support such a notion, so kindly refrain from misusing the term socialism, if for nothing other than your own sake.



No. The entire U.S. financial system could have been nationalized without increasing government spending. The President rejected such notions.



The use of the word is a simple misrepresentation aimed at destroying credibility in a fallacious manner.



Fallacy. I have not seen anyone claim that tax hikes will put 25 million plus unemployed back to work. Care to provide a source, or retract your statement as it is a fallacy.



Consumers have had 10 years of low taxes, and it has equated to how many new jobs? If low taxes were the end all solution to our economic woes, we would not be in this trouble in the first place rof

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong. We are not in this mess bc of low taxes, we are in it bc of two wars, the high cost of terrorism, and OVERSPENDING. higher taxes on the rich would not even cover 10% of the spending we have now....we need to reform our top programs that are bankrupting our nation

roughdraft274 said:

How much do you earn if you don't mind me asking. I'm talking actual earnings after writing off all business expenses and such, before taxes?

I understand if you don't want to answer. Just curious.

Click to expand...

That's difficult to say because there's so much reinvestment into the business that I PREFER to do when the economy is predictable. But yes, I'll take enough personally to be well into that range where he wants to bite more taxes from me, and I'm hardly living rich.

Here's the rub: I have to operate within a profit margin, or the risk just becomes too great to stay in business. Therefore, if my tax obligation increases, I have to make the necessary changes to make sure my margin is acceptable, which is about 12 percent for me. I'm as lean as I can get operationally, so the only thing I can do is ask some employees to do more. Some businesses are more volatile due to the debt they owe or hold for clients, so they need a better margin than me. A change in taxes will crush them because their owners will get scared about their personal financial well-being.

It's all pretty simple math, and it's not about being a "cold-hearted company". It's just basic business. Obama wants to tax those that don't vote for him anyway instead of asking more from his base of voters. Never forget, rich people can always take their money and go home if they get too spooked.

Plus, it's ridiculous what he calls rich. How much will $250K a year get you in New York or San Fran? Are those people living the luxury life? Hell no.

If you have a house and 2-3 kids in San Diego, $250K is not going to buy you the high life.

305rob305 said:

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong. We are not in this mess bc of low taxes, we are in it bc of two wars, the high cost of terrorism, and OVERSPENDING. higher taxes on the rich would not even cover 10% of the spending we have now....we need to reform our top programs that are bankrupting our nation

Click to expand...

Why is it that you redefine my statement to create a strawman? Did i say we are in the mess because of low levels of taxation? Of course not. I simply stated that if low taxes are the end all solution to a nations economic woes, we would never have been in this position to begin with.

Goldenboy219 said:

Why is it that you redefine my statement to create a strawman? Did i say we are in the mess because of low levels of taxation? Of course not. I simply stated that if low taxes are the end all solution to a nations economic woes, we would never have been in this position to begin with.

Click to expand...

If decades of mishandling of tax revenue got us into this mess, how could you possibly want to give them more money to mishandle? Do you have any confidence whatsoever that these additional revenues would go to the debt burden?

j-mac said:

Yeah, let's just outlaw private business in America, then all will be well won't it?

j-mac

Click to expand...

hmmmmm.....outlaw private business...now where did he say that? oh wait, he didnt....how about actually answering the question? that question was "why do so many of you guys have big problems with government social programs, but you have no problem with the government handing out billions in corporate welfare?" try answering what was asked

randel said:

hmmmmm.....outlaw private business...now where did he say that? oh wait, he didnt....how about actually answering the question? that question was "why do so many of you guys have big problems with government social programs, but you have no problem with the government handing out billions in corporate welfare?" try answering what was asked

Click to expand...

I don't know, ask Obama why he did it.

apdst said:

Recycling money hasn't worked, before; why will it all of a sudden work now?

Click to expand...

'recycling money'? you do understand how the economy works, right? from this statement, i have my doubts. i buy a product from you, you buy more product from your supplier, you pay your employees, your employees take their wages, buy things from the local grocery store, pay their light, gas, house, car payments, so on and so forth, wash, rinse, repeat...to use your terminology, money is constantly 'recycled' in an economy.

Erod said:

That's difficult to say because there's so much reinvestment into the business that I PREFER to do when the economy is predictable. But yes, I'll take enough personally to be well into that range where he wants to bite more taxes from me, and I'm hardly living rich.

Here's the rub: I have to operate within a profit margin, or the risk just becomes too great to stay in business. Therefore, if my tax obligation increases, I have to make the necessary changes to make sure my margin is acceptable, which is about 12 percent for me. I'm as lean as I can get operationally, so the only thing I can do is ask some employees to do more. Some businesses are more volatile due to the debt they owe or hold for clients, so they need a better margin than me. A change in taxes will crush them because their owners will get scared about their personal financial well-being.

It's all pretty simple math, and it's not about being a "cold-hearted company". It's just basic business. Obama wants to tax those that don't vote for him anyway instead of asking more from his base of voters. Never forget, rich people can always take their money and go home if they get too spooked.

Plus, it's ridiculous what he calls rich. How much will $250K a year get you in New York or San Fran? Are those people living the luxury life? Hell no.

If you have a house and 2-3 kids in San Diego, $250K is not going to buy you the high life.

Click to expand...

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.

Erod said:

Do you have any confidence whatsoever that these additional revenues would go to the debt burden?

Click to expand...

I do not understand the question.

buck said:

In other words, the way he is playing politics is working on you. It's nice that you acknowledge to being so easily manipulated. If Obama were actually serious, he would have tried to pay for the jobs bill by a method that has not already been rejcted by both republicans and democrats.

Click to expand...

Not really, no. He's doing what is proper to do.

As for paying for it, my one criticism of him as he only charges congress with figuring that out, that is an area for debate and real discourse. Republicans and democrats shoudl sit down and say "how can we pay for this." This would be proper.

Boo Radley said:

J, I don't know why you want to go down this road.

Click to expand...

Me?! :shock: I am responding to your childish outburst.

I didn't call anyone a name.

Click to expand...

What's the squirrel BS all about then, it is quite annoying, and that is your aim, so knock it off please.

I responded to the fact that he was not responding to the post he answered. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Click to expand...

What ever dude, just grow up a little will ya?

Going after? That too is your skewed view. All anyone is doing is saying they don't need those breaks.

Click to expand...

You do realize that as you increase their operating cost, they pass it along to us right?

They are no more in need as anyone else.

Click to expand...

Says who? You?

You do know business used to carry their own weight.

Click to expand...

How long ago was it practice to not be able to write off new equipment deprecation? And when has that been selectively applied?

You don't have to hate or go after to merely ask they do so again today.

Click to expand...

You don't have to, but that doesn't discount the fact that liberals, and Obama are targeting industries like Oil, and Coal in order to force people toward Green alternatives. It's Bull.

J, notice your language. First, the number doesn't matter as long as anything passed was proper and necessary.

Click to expand...

The number does matter. And define "proper and necessary" According to who? Liberals? Industry leaders? the People? You? Whom?

You might also recall he has asked for a review to illimanate uneccessary regulations.

Click to expand...

Oh well, BRAVO! he eliminates one and adds ten.

J, I don't claim he's perfect. Hardly. Some one asked me the other day what I thought of his speech. I said it was ok, but I noted he said the plan would be paid for when what he really did was merely call on congress to find a way to pay for it. I don't argue with you guys on things I think you have a point on. Only on the silliness that too often saturates these discussions. Tyrannt, hates business, socialism, and such merely clouds issues and keeps any valid discussion from taking place.

Click to expand...

He is what he is Joe.

j-mac

Boo Radley said:

Not really, no. He's doing what is proper to do.

As for paying for it, my one criticism of him as he only charges congress with figuring that out, that is an area for debate and real discourse. Republicans and democrats shoudl sit down and say "how can we pay for this." This would be proper.

Click to expand...

Proper? According to whom? you?

j-mac

randel said:

hmmmmm.....outlaw private business...now where did he say that? oh wait, he didnt....how about actually answering the question? that question was "why do so many of you guys have big problems with government social programs, but you have no problem with the government handing out billions in corporate welfare?" try answering what was asked

Click to expand...

Define corporate welfare....If you can Greenie.

j-mac

j-mac said:

Me?! :shock: I am responding to your childish outburst.

Click to expand...

There was no outbrust j. you're misreading. I merely commented on hsi squirrel moment, where he leaves what is said to go down some other road.

What's the squirrel BS all about then, it is quite annoying, and that is your aim, so knock it off please.

Click to expand...

As I told you before and above, it is about ignoring what he is responding to to go down some other road. I find that annoying.

What ever dude, just grow up a little will ya?

Click to expand...

Which is the grow up way to say I don't want to understand, . . . dude?

You do realize that as you increase their operating cost, they pass it along to us right?

Click to expand...

So, why tax them at all. Why not say they are exempt from being citizens, and we should always pander to business? I don't buy the argument that business is so special that they can't carry their own weight.

Says who? You?

Click to expand...

Feel free to show me their special need. I always laugh at how the poor should pull themselves up and have personal responsibility, but business is too weak and fragile and dependent to ever function without our help. Don't you see how funny that sounds?

How long ago was it practice to not be able to write off new equipment deprecation? And when has that been selectively applied?

Click to expand...

Which has what to do with my comment? I seeking to understand how you're connecting the two thoughts because I don't see it.

You don't have to, but that doesn't discount the fact that liberals, and Obama are targeting industries like Oil, and Coal in order to force people toward Green alternatives. It's Bull.

Click to expand...

That is only your belief. You're free to provide evidence on that if you have any, but the fact remians it is also quite possible that others may well believe that business can carry their own weight and feel that way without hating them. Obama could as well for that matter.

The number does matter. And define "proper and necessary" According to who? Liberals? Industry leaders? the People? You? Whom?

Click to expand...

I think according to any reasonable evaluation. Poisoning the water table or the air would be reasonable to stop. Too much mercury in food would be quite reasonable to control. It's not that hard to work through. And we know that busness has in the past be quite lax about policiing themselves. So, it is not unreasonable to protect people from the harm that can come from too little regulation. The critieria should be on if it is necessary to keep us safe.

Oh well, BRAVO! he eliminates one and adds ten.

Click to expand...

Feel free to support that.

He is what he is Joe.

j-mac

Click to expand...

He is. But he is not what you mistakenly try to make him. those who call him a socialist, for example, simply have no understanding of the word.