Page 127 of 205 FirstFirst ... 2777117125126127128129137177 ... LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,270 of 2044

Thread: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

  1. #1261
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    muRda;1059845883]Congressional Budget Office - Fact Sheet

    I use it because the budgetary numbers take into account other micro and macroeconomic factors other numbers usually don't from what I've noticed. And they often do comparisons between budgets and actual results.
    CBO is listed as non partisan but CBO takes assumptions given them by Congress or the Administration, isn't allowed to change them, and if assumptions are wrong so are the predictions. It provides non partisan information from partisan assumptions and that is why the data is seldom accurate. Suggest you chack out the history of CBO and their projections.

    Investing in the Middle East was exciting (Cold War), then boring, then exciting again (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.)?
    The cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars have been 1.4 trillion dollars over 10 years offset by the tax revenue collected from the businesses and individuals affected by those wars. Without those wars the debt would be 13.2 trillion today.


    As one of the more powerful nations in the world, if there is no duty to ensure the rights to all citizens hoped for us in the Constitution of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then that is a failure of living up to the very ideals upon which this country was founded. What you see as wasteful spending on a lazy person, the liberal may see as spending on a mentally handicapped person. In a more grounded sense, the economy and society as a whole is worse off when its members are not contributing or are unable to. Society also owes a livelihood for those who become physically or mentally unable to contribute after they have spent their time in the working force (unless you want to just treat people like meat). The economic principle that gets stretched out to unjustifiable lengths by those on the right is freeloading, where an economic measure will always end up serving a portion not truly deserving of its creation.
    SS and Medicare are contributory and that has nothing to do with my question as to why SS and and Medicare are on budget. where do you think your SS "contribution" is going?

    I don't see how troops stationed internationally are defending this country. Also, relative to the military spending of other countries, I would think 10% would even be more than enough.
    So you continue to be upset over the 700 billion dollar military budget but not the other items in the 3.7 trillion dollar budget? Interesting. Do you understand what provide for the common defense and PROMOTE domestic welfare means?

    Eliminating bases around the world wouldn't make a dent in that budget although I agree with you that they need to be cut back.

    So confused.
    If you are confused then don't use the term "conservative diatribe" if you cannot back up the statement

    I'm probably going to look to move out of New York because it's expensive, too. That's usually what you get when you live near a major city in any country, let alone most populous.
    So another tax payer leaving the state. I live near the 4th largest city in the nation and we aren't having a loss of population nor is the state of TX.

  2. #1262
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    As usual you are apparently a guilty individual who complains about what others don't have as you work in your garden and do nothing to really help someone else. "Your" President voted for the bank bailout and filled his Administration with those Wall Street individuals you now want to hate. Instead of doing something constructive you simply want to blame someone else for the failure of others. Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress 2007-2011 and what was accomplished? Obama voted for the 2009 budget while in the Senate and had overwhelming numbers in Congress yet poverty increased yet what you do is ignore facts.

    Obama and liberalism has done more to destroy the economy than any other President in History and the results show it. Keep buying the liberal rhetoric and ignore the liberal results.
    It looks like you are trying to get away from our conversation about the major role that wall street and the republicans have played in the economic decline of our country. Just between us unemployment effects revenues, lost revenues effect the deficit, The collapse of wall street effected peoples abilities to spend money= increased unemployment=less revenues=increased deficit.

    Are you ready to dispute Wall Street's and the republican's role in the economic problems faced today? I know lets talk about the 47 million who pay no taxes but lets not address the reasons

  3. #1263
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Your post is confusing because the facts you presented don't have anything to do with your questions. Where do you get the notion that 12 trillion was spent on helping the American people rather then enabling bloated military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy for the last 30 years?
    Tax cuts are not spending cuts. In fact there are tax cuts, or rather not paying any federal taxes at all, for almost 50% of the people despite them also using federal services.. Are you looking at that as an expense?

    Yes, where did that $12 trillion go? You say it went toward helping the American people but it seems it was just pissed away on F.O.B., Friends of Barry. But now you have bragging rights to owning car companies and solar energy companies, among others I suppose.

    You gotta give Obama credit in one area anyway. He's entrepreneurial.

  4. #1264
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Still waiting for an answer, do you believe 47% not paying any FIT means they are paying their fair share? Liberals supporting the class warfare are doing so mostly to keep their power and support for a large central govt. You seem to have this fixation with govt. revenue and the need for more money at the Federal level and the question is why? You think raising taxes raises GDP? What do you think will happen to state tax revenue when FIT taxes go up on the rich?
    Like I mentioned earlier, yes, they are paying payroll and other taxes, no they aren't paying federal income tax but that's more a result of A) The Bush tax cuts because the number paying was higher pre-Bush Tax cut and B) because a large chunk of Americans are falling out of the middle class. I have a fixation with government revenue because we're running deficits. Nobody seems to want to cut Defense or Entitlements so either you raise revenue or you cut the small 25%ish of government spending that goes into essentials.

    Yes governement spending creates economic growth. Computers improved over decades due to government spending. Satelites which pretty much led to a major communication boom were created and improved by NASA. The Internet was invented at a Public University not in some private company. The Erie Canal and the transcontinental railroad led to the largest economic booms pre-modern age....one was completely government funded the other was based on government subsidies. It's not hard to prove how government in conjunction with private business creates tons of jobs and tons of new technology.

    Please tell me how a President spends money without Congressional approval and I hope you don't believe that Congress doesn't spend money? 5 trillion dollars has been added to the debt since 2007. Who controlled the purse strings during that period of time?
    I'm just using the same logic you are...I think it's faulty but YOU are the one that wants to look at deficits by Presidency. Since it's not convienient now you want to change it....
    Reagan took over with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion. Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion debt and it is 14.6 trillion now. Bush and Congress added 4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 YEARS and Obama will exceed that in four.
    It's really difficult to argue this because Bush policies has been the main driver of debt during the Obama administration. Medicare Pescription plan, 2 wars and Bush tax cuts. PolitiFact Ohio | Rep. Dennis Kucinich says Bush tax cuts caused a substantial part of the deficit
    Obama stimulus was 842 billion and he was left 350 billion of TARP, a program that he voted for. the 2009 budget was passed by a Democrat Congress with Democrat votes of which Obama was one. Obama then put the Department heads in place to spend that budet. Those tax cuts were targeted and were worthless. You got a rebate check if you worked and once it was spent it was gone. Suggest you learn exactly what those tax cuts were. Seems to me you are out of your league here and you are the one misinformed.
    I agree tax cuts are generally worthless in spurring the economy.

    The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The package was designed to quickly jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:
    •$288 billion in tax cuts.
    •$224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
    •$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.

    so 600 billion was low, it's not 900+billion like you've said.

  5. #1265
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    It looks like you are trying to get away from our conversation about the major role that wall street and the republicans have played in the economic decline of our country. Just between us unemployment effects revenues, lost revenues effect the deficit, The collapse of wall street effected peoples abilities to spend money= increased unemployment=less revenues=increased deficit.

    Are you ready to dispute Wall Street's and the republican's role in the economic problems faced today? I know lets talk about the 47 million who pay no taxes but lets not address the reasons
    "Your" President hired many of those evil Wall Street individuals and put them in his Administration. Where is your outrage? Where is your outrage over the huge contributions to "your" President. Obama had total control of the Congress for 2 full years and Congress was under total Democrat control for 4 so what did he and they do to correct the problems you claim exist? So to claim it is a Republican role only is disengenuous and total partisan bull****.

    You want to now talk about the 47 million that don't pay FIT? It is more like 65 + million but who is counting? I don't care who is paying what, you are the one claiming the govt. needs more revenue. 53% of the income earners will never be able to fund the liberal spending appetite

  6. #1266
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    iliveonramen;1059846683]Like I mentioned earlier, yes, they are paying payroll and other taxes, no they aren't paying federal income tax but that's more a result of A) The Bush tax cuts because the number paying was higher pre-Bush Tax cut and B) because a large chunk of Americans are falling out of the middle class. I have a fixation with government revenue because we're running deficits. Nobody seems to want to cut Defense or Entitlements so either you raise revenue or you cut the small 25%ish of government spending that goes into essentials.
    The repeal the entire Bush tax cuts not just those on the rich. Interesting how you ignore those moving out of the middle class into the upper class. As for running deficits stop spending and that won't be a problem. Obama budgets are 600 billion a year more than Bush's 2008 budget thus the baseline is 3.7 trillion. Why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget?


    Yes governement spending creates economic growth. Computers improved over decades due to government spending. Satelites which pretty much led to a major communication boom were created and improved by NASA. The Internet was invented at a Public University not in some private company. The Erie Canal and the transcontinental railroad led to the largest economic booms pre-modern age....one was completely government funded the other was based on government subsidies. It's not hard to prove how government in conjunction with private business creates tons of jobs and tons of new technology.
    20% of GDP is govt. spending so tell me who pays for that govt. spending? Spending offset by debt creates a net gain of zero.


    I'm just using the same logic you are...I think it's faulty but YOU are the one that wants to look at deficits by Presidency. Since it's not convienient now you want to change it....

    It's really difficult to argue this because Bush policies has been the main driver of debt during the Obama administration. Medicare Pescription plan, 2 wars and Bush tax cuts. PolitiFact Ohio | Rep. Dennis Kucinich says Bush tax cuts caused a substantial part of the deficit
    Deficits are yearly and if you are going to blame Bush for the Medicare Part D expense you better look at the Democrat alternative which was much higher. As for tax cuts, still waiting for you to explain your passion for increasing taxes and leaving the American people with less spendable income. Tax cuts aren't an expense and never will be.

    I agree tax cuts are generally worthless in spurring the economy.
    then you would be wrong and someone who doesn't know the components of GDP

    The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The package was designed to quickly jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:
    •$288 billion in tax cuts.
    •$224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
    •$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.

    so 600 billion was low, it's not 900+billion like you've said.
    I posted the breakdown on the tax cuts on this thread. Suggest you review them and then explain how they helped the economy especially since we have more unemployed today than when that stimulus was signed and when Obama took office. The actual number today is 842 billion dollars and was for shovel ready jobs. Guess the shovels weren't ready. 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans don't think the stimulus was successful
    Last edited by Conservative; 10-04-11 at 12:21 PM.

  7. #1267
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    "Your" President hired many of those evil Wall Street individuals and put them in his Administration. Where is your outrage? Where is your outrage over the huge contributions to "your" President. Obama had total control of the Congress for 2 full years and Congress was under total Democrat control for 4 so what did he and they do to correct the problems you claim exist? So to claim it is a Republican role only is disengenuous and total partisan bull****.

    You want to now talk about the 47 million that don't pay FIT? It is more like 65 + million but who is counting? I don't care who is paying what, you are the one claiming the govt. needs more revenue. 53% of the income earners will never be able to fund the liberal spending appetite
    Let's let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, the economy was far better under Clinton than Bush.

    FactCheck.org: Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by FactCheck
    Summary

    President Bush stumbled Feb. 19, saying the average tax cut is $1,089. The White House corrected that figure to $1,586. But the fact is that most Americans won't see anywhere near either of those amounts.
    As we've said before when disputing equally misleading lowball figures given by Howard Dean, half of all individuals and families will get less than $470, and half will get more. The “average” is misleading because it is inflated by very large cuts given to a relative few at the top.


  8. #1268
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Let's let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, the economy was far better under Clinton than Bush.

    FactCheck.org: Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts
    Again, so much passion for increasing taxes on taxpayers and the question is why? If you aren't part of the problem then you have been brainwashed into believing what the liberals tell you. Why would you ever support sending more money to D.C. to politicians that helped create the 14.6 trillion dollar debt? Do you really support a massive central govt. that provides for your every need or at least tries to?

  9. #1269
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,971
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Not to sound offensive, but I find it's next to impossible to debate true, hardcore liberals with facts, numbers, and other qualitative, quantifiable figures. They tend towards the emotional range of most arguments, rather than dealing with cold hard facts.

    HOWEVER.

    Here are some thoughts. Where does the majority of our government's spending money already come from? Middle class, lower class, or upper class? Well, let's see...there is virtually NO middle class anymore, so it can't be them, and the lower class pays no taxes, other than sales tax...so, it must already be coming from the upper crust folk, right? So then, if they are already paying the bulk of our budget...does it seem very fair to ask them to do more? There is an emotion based argument, and have at it.

    Here is another thought. What do these super rich people do for a living? What does Warren Buffet do for a living? Does he run a company? Does that company employ people? The majority of the wealthy in this country are owners, operators, and board members of large, large companies. We're talking, companies that own other companies, that own other companies. Globally. Simple enough facts to grant...so here is a question. Warren Buffet aside, which of these old white men do you think is going to say, "Hey, the US just upped my tax amount each year by another 5%. I guess now I'll just have to settle for 5% less income now." Listen, these people didn't get rich by settling for that. They got rich because they are uncompromising men who only settled for the absolute best they could get. They are NOT going to take a paycut. They are going to cut expenses, and increase the cost of their products and services. This equals higher cost of living, and possibly greater levels of unemployment, or worse, UNDERemployment. Which is to say, people with masters degrees working at the checkout lane in grocery stores. Taxing the wealthy is, at best, a VERY temporary solution, and at worst, a short sighted nightmare. Now I'm not saying it's right that you have, say, 12 HUGE companies that own most everything in this country, and on this planet, and that to attack those companies profit margins results in ever lowering standards of living for us all...but that is the world we live in. You can't fix the top of a building without first making sure the foundation is secure, and our foundation is anything but, these days.

    A closing thought...The real problem here, aside from the presence of mega corporations that are now legal people (LOL), is the fact that the US government is the single largest employer in the world, now. No other companies, hell, almost no other GROUPS of companies, employ as many people as the government does. That is a pyramid scheme. If most of the people are employed by a firm that doesn't produce profits, where does the payroll come from? From the other people working there, and the minority of the rest of us that DON'T have cushy government jobs. So, n a nutshell, would you say that it might be time to severely cut back the the single largest "company" in the land?

  10. #1270
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    11-13-11 @ 01:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    CBO is listed as non partisan but CBO takes assumptions given them by Congress or the Administration, isn't allowed to change them, and if assumptions are wrong so are the predictions. It provides non partisan information from partisan assumptions and that is why the data is seldom accurate. Suggest you chack out the history of CBO and their projections.
    Funny how the numbers you posted for 2009 here...
    are eerily similar to the numbers I posted here:
    Quote Originally Posted by muRda View Post
    I said "much," not vast majority. 20% of the government budget goes to "Defense Discretionary." Mandatory spending makes up 55% of total expenditures, of which Social Security (35%), Medicare (27%), and Medicaid (13%) made up 76% (i.e. ~42% of the total spending) in 2011.

    Congressional Budget Office - Budget and Economic Information
    They're listed differently and under different topics but still roughly similar.

    I also don't know where you read-in that the CBO takes assumptions from Congress. And having studied government accounting, I'd really rather not take information from a site that uses it for numbers, even if they be from the U.S. Treasury. It's a cluster**** I will loathe when I have to study for my remaining parts of the CPA exam.

    The cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars have been 1.4 trillion dollars over 10 years offset by the tax revenue collected from the businesses and individuals affected by those wars. Without those wars the debt would be 13.2 trillion today.
    Okay, you're going from apples to oranges. I'm comparing military spending to military spending, not to overall spending.

    SS and Medicare are contributory and that has nothing to do with my question as to why SS and and Medicare are on budget.
    ...because it's part of government expenditures?

    where do you think your SS "contribution" is going?
    A big pot in Washington.

    So you continue to be upset over the 700 billion dollar military budget but not the other items in the 3.7 trillion dollar budget? Interesting. Do you understand what provide for the common defense and PROMOTE domestic welfare means?
    I care about waste just as much as you do, and one of the main areas of waste is defense spending. I fail to see how a concern in how 20% of the budget is spent is not something to be concerned about. And I guess not, please explain.

    Eliminating bases around the world wouldn't make a dent in that budget although I agree with you that they need to be cut back.
    That's the kind of assbackwards thinking that's going on in Washington right now. No one wants to cut anywhere, they just want to cut big.

    If you are confused then don't use the term "conservative diatribe" if you cannot back up the statement
    I was being sarcastic. I'm well aware of what it means and why I said it.

    So another tax payer leaving the state. I live near the 4th largest city in the nation and we aren't having a loss of population nor is the state of TX.
    Yes I pay taxes, and no, I'm not leaving simply because of taxes. That seems to be the easiest, go-to scapegoat tho. Again, you really oversimplify everything by saying either "it's taxes" or "it's Obama." Millions of variables are setting the conditions, not just the one in the headlines.

    Speaking of conservative diatribes...
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinKohler View Post
    Not to sound offensive, but I find it's next to impossible to debate true, hardcore liberals with facts, numbers, and other qualitative, quantifiable figures. They tend towards the emotional range of most arguments, rather than dealing with cold hard facts.
    Awesome how you lead with that, and then succeed in doing exactly what you accuse "the other side" of doing.
    Last edited by muRda; 10-04-11 at 01:50 PM.

Posting Permissions

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