• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barack Obama's rich supporters fear his tax plans show he's a class warrior

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Barack Obama's rich supporters fear his tax plans show he's a class warrior - Telegraph

...it is now dawning on many among them that Mr Obama was serious about his campaign trail promises to bring root and branch reform to corporate America - and that they were more than just election rhetoric.

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, a free enterprise think tank, said Democrats in Congress were unnerved by the president's latest plan to raise $210 billion over 10 years from multinational corporations.

But Democratic opposition is building in Congress to many of the President's proposals. A plan to reduce tax deductions for charitable gifts by richer people may have to be scrapped, because the charitable sector - which includes hospitals, museums and voluntary service groups - depends heavily on tax-deducted donations.

Mr Obama needs to find a way to pay for the $750 billion spending spree Congress authorised after he took office to get the stalled economy going again.

Why be surprised? Didn't they look at his scant but heavily left laden background, notice his voting record was off the charts, listen to his off-script moments, or to his equally hostile wife... or wonder what the hell he was doing having Rev. Wright as his mentor, or even listening to him for 20-years?

So much for the theory floated on one thread that proclaims rich want to pay more taxes, and here we are talking specifically about rich Democrats that voted for Obama.

They must feel pretty stupid.

.
 
Why be surprised? Didn't they look at his scant but heavily left laden background, notice his voting record was off the charts, listen to his off-script moments, or to his equally hostile wife... or wonder what the hell he was doing having Rev. Wright as his mentor, or even listening to him for 20-years?

So much for the theory floated on one thread that proclaims rich want to pay more taxes, and here we are talking specifically about rich Democrats that voted for Obama.

They must feel pretty stupid.

Not stupid, betrayed. The usual pattern of the transaction is that when a man sells you his soul he's supposed to deliver the goods once payment has been received. Dear Leader, on the other hand, has sold his soul so many times over that he has to betray someone at least every other day just to show up in the Oval Office.
 
**** this scares me:

"Mr Obama made no secret of his plans to raise taxes on the "working rich" (individuals earning more than $200,000) by imposing a top income tax rate of almost 40 per cent, and there is little surprise that those plans remain on track, even during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

Im all for Obama raising taxes on the rich AFTER the economy recovers, but a tax increase on the rich at this point would be completely suicidal.

I thought I heard Obama say that he was going to hold off the tax increases on the rich because of the economy. Oh god I hope that he is sticking with what he alluded to a few months ago...
 
Translation of this entire article :

"Wait....so Obama wasn't kidding?"

Gotta love the telegraph's form of journalism.
 
Translation of this entire article :

"Wait....so Obama wasn't kidding?"

Gotta love the telegraph's form of journalism.

It's the rich they are reporting on.
It's not an OPED.

**** this scares me:

"Mr Obama made no secret of his plans to raise taxes on the "working rich" (individuals earning more than $200,000) by imposing a top income tax rate of almost 40 per cent, and there is little surprise that those plans remain on track, even during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

Im all for Obama raising taxes on the rich AFTER the economy recovers, but a tax increase on the rich at this point would be completely suicidal.

I thought I heard Obama say that he was going to hold off the tax increases on the rich because of the economy. Oh god I hope that he is sticking with what he alluded to a few months ago...
If reducing taxes is the answer to recovery, why in the world would you want to punish success after tax cuts have proven effective to stimulate the economy, create jobs and increase government revenues?

This is a cap gains portion of an exchange with Charlie Gibson/Obama, and his class warfare answer reveals what type of individual Obama is.

The Tax Foundation - Obama and Gibson Capital Gains Tax Exchange
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can't do that for free.

OBAMA: And you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren, and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about.

And that is irresponsible. I believe in the principle that you pay as you go. And, you know, you don't propose tax cuts, unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending, unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy. And it's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
 
Last edited:
If reducing taxes is the answer to recovery, why in the world would you want to punish success after tax cuts have proven effective to stimulate the economy,

This is exactly why I find it so disingenuous to hear supply-siders say "We can't raise taxes during a recession." Because you make exactly the same argument during economic booms or any other time. If you don't want higher taxes, you can just say so without pretending like your feeling on the subject has anything at all to do with the economy.

For my part, I prefer low taxes (like we currently have) during a recession, and higher taxes during good economic times. The second best option is to have a middle-of-the-road tax policy that doesn't change depending on the economic climate. The WORST option is to shriek about tax cuts because the economy is in recession, then shriek about more tax cuts because the economy is booming, then shriek about even more tax cuts because the economy is back in recession.

Assuming Obama simply allows the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011, this should coincide well with the most probable course for economic recovery.

zimmer said:
create jobs

Once the economy recovers the employment rate will follow.

zimmer said:
and increase government revenues?

This is a myth that has been so thoroughly debunked it's tantamount to economic creationism.
 
Last edited:
Why be surprised? Didn't they look at his scant but heavily left laden background, notice his voting record was off the charts, listen to his off-script moments, or to his equally hostile wife... or wonder what the hell he was doing having Rev. Wright as his mentor, or even listening to him for 20-years?

Not seriously. Obama was the most unvetted candidate to run for president.
 
Most rich democrats knew that they would be paying more taxes if Obama won, so why should any of them be surprised?
 
Obama has proved he doesn't mind the Democrat rich not paying their taxes. It seems he wants to get rich Republicans to pay the freight.
 
A rich man voting for a socialist is like Gun Owners of America member or someone else who is actually pro-2nd amendment voting for anti-2nd amendment nut. I do not think they have any right to complain about tax increases when they knowingly vote for someone they know is a socialist. Socialist programs are not self funding,socialist do not believe in the concept that a man should keep the vast majority of what he earns, and socialist believe in stealing from others to give to those who didn't earn it. So why the **** should these people be shocked,surprised or even complain when a socialist increases their taxes?
 
A rich man voting for a socialist is like Gun Owners of America member or someone else who is actually pro-2nd amendment voting for anti-2nd amendment nut.

Understood. But the Obama hype was/is so sweeping many voted on emotion and not logic. Now, they will pay. :mrgreen:
 
Understood. But the Obama hype was/is so sweeping many voted on emotion and not logic. Now, they will pay. :mrgreen:

maybe they want to pay....
going from 35% to almost 40% isn't going to kill the wealthy...
 
maybe they want to pay....
going from 35% to almost 40% isn't going to kill the wealthy...


Maybe so, but does the "rich" start at a certain figure and is that figure gross or net. I have the feeling that some of the "rich" may not be so rich after all.
 
I can tell you this scary tidbit, and I'd bet similar conversations are being had across the country.

My company fortunately has been recession proof because of what we do specifically, so we haven't made staff reductions at all; in fact, we've hired some sharp people who were severed at other places.

But we've had meetings already about who and how many we'll be severing once Obama's corporate tax structure goes into affect, depending on the level of impact.

If he wants to see employment skyrocket, he need only raise corporate taxes. We'll adjust accordingly....with layoffs.
 
**** this scares me:

"Mr Obama made no secret of his plans to raise taxes on the "working rich" (individuals earning more than $200,000) by imposing a top income tax rate of almost 40 per cent, and there is little surprise that those plans remain on track, even during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

Im all for Obama raising taxes on the rich AFTER the economy recovers, but a tax increase on the rich at this point would be completely suicidal.

I thought I heard Obama say that he was going to hold off the tax increases on the rich because of the economy. Oh god I hope that he is sticking with what he alluded to a few months ago...
And he should wait because, why? Because the rich employ people? I thought the con position was that it's a function of corporate taxation?
 
Obama has proved he doesn't mind the Democrat rich not paying their taxes. It seems he wants to get rich Republicans to pay the freight.
Really? He proved it? Well then it should be easy for you to prove it to us... ready... set... go!
 
A rich man voting for a socialist is like Gun Owners of America member or someone else who is actually pro-2nd amendment voting for anti-2nd amendment nut. I do not think they have any right to complain about tax increases when they knowingly vote for someone they know is a socialist. Socialist programs are not self funding,socialist do not believe in the concept that a man should keep the vast majority of what he earns, and socialist believe in stealing from others to give to those who didn't earn it. So why the **** should these people be shocked,surprised or even complain when a socialist increases their taxes?
Obviously you are uninformed on what socialism is. Not that you really care anyway, you just want to mouth the FAUX NEWS mantra.
 
I can tell you this scary tidbit, and I'd bet similar conversations are being had across the country.

My company fortunately has been recession proof because of what we do specifically, so we haven't made staff reductions at all; in fact, we've hired some sharp people who were severed at other places.

But we've had meetings already about who and how many we'll be severing once Obama's corporate tax structure goes into affect, depending on the level of impact.

If he wants to see employment skyrocket, he need only raise corporate taxes. We'll adjust accordingly....with layoffs.
Alright, so tell us what Obama's corporate tax structure will be when it goes into effect? I believe I read that the actual tax paid is somewhere around 2.X % and not the 35% on the books.

How was the economy and tax rate when Eisenhower (republican) was in office?
 
And he should wait because, why? Because the rich employ people? I thought the con position was that it's a function of corporate taxation?

cause increasing taxes takes money away from the private sector. thats not good for the economy, and the economy can't take much harmful government actions for it
 
This is exactly why I find it so disingenuous to hear supply-siders say "We can't raise taxes during a recession." Because you make exactly the same argument during economic booms or any other time. If you don't want higher taxes, you can just say so without pretending like your feeling on the subject has anything at all to do with the economy.

Then again, since they're right and it's bad to raise taxes, clearly the problem with government is too much spending.
 
cause increasing taxes takes money away from the private sector. thats not good for the economy, and the economy can't take much harmful government actions for it
increasing tax on those individuals that make more than 250k. when you say the "private sector" do you mean private corporations or the public? Joe-I make 5 million a year-CEO doesn't not stop spending money in a down economy. In fact people with money spend more in a down ecomony because goods and services and real estate are less expensive and they take advantage of that. My Father is looking at buying more farmland right now because he has money and the prices are cheap. My neighbor just bought 3 used cars because they were "in distress", my cousin just took a 3 week trip to Europe, my father-in-law just came back from visiting family in France, my brother-in-law just bought a single engine plane at a great price...
 
increasing tax on those individuals that make more than 250k. when you say the "private sector" do you mean private corporations or the public? Joe-I make 5 million a year-CEO doesn't not stop spending money in a down economy. In fact people with money spend more in a down ecomony because goods and services and real estate are less expensive and they take advantage of that. My Father is looking at buying more farmland right now because he has money and the prices are cheap. My neighbor just bought 3 used cars because they were "in distress", my cousin just took a 3 week trip to Europe, my father-in-law just came back from visiting family in France, my brother-in-law just bought a single engine plane at a great price...

Do you have any large survey that rich people spent more in an recession? I thought it was common knowedge that the opposite is happening.

One problem in this recession is that the even rich people who don't need to cut spending, are doing so anyway.

And what does that have to do with taxes anyway??

anyway by what you were saying, we should really not increase taxes on the rich because that will reduce the money that they would surely spend to help the economy.
 
Last edited:
Not seriously. Obama was the most unvetted candidate to run for president.

It's true, but there were enough signals.

The signals were rarely followed up on by the press, and McCain given opportunities galore to keep Obama busy defending his hard left ways and associations did little to nothing.

But a half assed observant voter had enough goods to make an informed choice about the the radical leftist running for POTUS.

It took one bimbo to nuke Gary Hart.

Obama had no bimbo's with breasts, but he left a trail of bimbo ideas and statements, verbally and through his books, the equivalent of being one big blonde joke.

Wright and Ayers; these two are pure poison, and he sought them out. What type of judgment does a man have to associate themselves with these radical dolts.
Bitter clingers.
Spread the wealth around.
His voting record in the Senate.
Defending and pushing for infanticide.
His getting schooled by Gibson about wanting to raise Cap Gains.
Referencing actions taken by US troops as terrorism.
His ACORN association.

The tip of the iceberg.

These alone were enough fodder to have enabled McCain to hammer his opponent relentlessly, and drag the press screaming and kicking to reporting it.

.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom