Page 21 of 28 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 279

Thread: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

  1. #201
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    He said he "brought us back from the brink and saved or created millions of jobs" So tell me when we stop extending unemployment payments? Why 99 months and how do we pay for it?
    Yes, he was referring to our economy not collapsing.

    We could pay for it by stopping our policing of the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  2. #202
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by randel View Post
    99 months??? didnt realize it was that long..lol
    Been a long day, 99 weeks

  3. #203
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,853

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Small number of people? 16+ million? 4 million more since Obama took office? Those dire economic straits show a recession ending in June 2009.
    Now do the math and tell us what percentage of the total population this is and decide if that is a relatively small number of people.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  4. #204
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Now do the math and tell us what percentage of the total population this is and decide if that is a relatively small number of people.
    16 million plus means real people looking for work and is 4 million higher since Obama took office. How is that hope and change working out for these people? That being the case since it is such a small percentage then why the outrage over 2% of the people and what they pay in taxes? 2% of the labor force is approximate 3 million income earners.

  5. #205
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I didn't say that it was certain that your car would be stolen. It would be more likely to happen though. It was an example of what could happen. Since we are talking about the future, all we have are hypotheticals. You are trying to make it sound unreasonable when it is perfectly reasonable extrapolation.
    Except you're presenting it as if it is a definite that it will impact it that much, in hopes of playing to peoples emotions rather than logic. Its reasonable to suggest that cuts on the police or the transit budget COULD have a negative affect...the question of course though that is more important is how much of a negative affect. Is it a 1% higher likilihood that you're going to get mugged, or a 50%? Are potholes going to go from one every once in a while to two every once in a while, or to a new one every day? From your words, you seem to be implying much of the cuts would come from those two places...since that's where you IMMEDIETELY suggested the cuts would go without mentioning anything else...and that somehow the cuts would be significantly impacting.

    And if you don't think that they're definitely going to have a significant impact, there was really no reason to try and throw out such an emotionally charged argument as to why it can't be done.

    They still could have handled this differently. It's not like the top 2% were facing a crisis. That's what the GOP was fighting for.
    So they should've just ignored their constituents? You're creating a self fulfilling prophecy when you lament that people have no power and then basically are saying politicians should ignore the people. Not to mention, the top 2% were set to expire just the same as anyone elses, so not dealing with that now was just as foolish if you felt it was an issue than not dealing with all of it, because doing nothing defaulted to letting it raise. If they felt that NO ONES taxes should raise then they had to act NOW because by doing nothing about it the default was that it would raise.

    I didn't call them evil. You keep reverting back to that strawman. Not facing a crisis is not equal to evil.
    Not a strawman, it was hyperbole to match your ridiculous hyperbole of the rich having all the power and using it for nothing but their own greed.

    There are those in the top 2% that are fine with their taxes going up. I didn't say that those in control were the whole top 2%.
    Your made it out that you had an issue that "2% of the population" was controlling what we do about revenue. You then went on to say Politicians and Spin doctors fell in that 2%. I'm simply pointing out that its rather hypocritical for you to complain about the 2% controlling revenue when, by your definition of that 2%, EVERY government issue is controlled by that 2% and that 2% is actually representing both sides of the revenue issue right now...because there's politicians and spin doctors arguing on both sides.

    Only if you strawman my statements to mean that the top 2% were a homogenous group ideologically.
    You were attempting to instill negative emotions by invoking classism by complaining about the "top 2%" controlling what happens when revenue which is a rather irrelevant comment to make considering by your own definition the top 2% control EVERYTHING that the government does in EVERY instance. Its the political equivilent of shouting at someone for spraying your chest with a squirt gun in the middle of a down pour. Its obvious disingenuous and being done for ulterior reasons.

    I think too many people would be harmed by a complete immediate collapse of our economy and government. Of course, they really haven't proposed any remedies either way yet. Time will tell.
    And again, as I said, its a difference in philosophy. I'll take a small portion, relative in time, of people being severely harmed for the (highly plausable in my mind) possability of a large portion being comfortable in the long run. The alternative, based on what you're suggesting, to me is harming a huge amount of people over a long period of time with no real hope for improvement, just not as bad of pain as quickly.

    To give an analogy...if we have two groups of 10 people taken hostage. There's a choice where you could do one of two things:

    1. The 10 will be housed in bad conditions for five years, with two of them dieing and two being severely injured with it being 50/50 if they live or die. However, after 5 years, they're all are freed.

    2. All 10 get routinely beat, but never to the point of serious injury or death. They are given moderate living conditions but will be held there for the rest of their lives, as will any of their kids, and their kids kids, and onward.

    To me, in such a theoritical, I'd go with number 1. While more life, in a technical sense, is preserved in number 2 I would actually prefer number 1. This is because that while some life is lost, the majority of others are actually able to LIVE their lives to the fullest and those that come from them in the future will be free to do so as well. On the flip side, number 2 is perpetually living in a crappy existance, with the number of people exposed to said bad existance increasing each time new children are born into it. They're alive, but they have no real way to truly live to the fullest.

    At its hearts its the great difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives and the reason I think there will always be a divide in this country. To me the difference is clears. Conservatives want people to be able to reach the highest of highs and accept that to have that people will also hit the lowest of lows, with the distribution of the rest falling along that trajectory in between. Liberals want people primarily to be comfortable and equitable, wanting a relatively steady middle baseline with little deviation up or down. And I think often when it comes to economic type issues that's the real heart of contention.

  6. #206
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I have used the actual data from the Treasury Dept. that is all that I have any interest in seeing and the actual bank account for the U.S. Govt. shows an increase in revenue. Why does any other matter?
    Revenue doesn't just include income and corporate taxes... it's better to eliminate those things that didn't change so your data is more specific as to whether or not the the cuts themselves had any effect.

    Did the treasury dept. stats show the real revenue, or the revenue before inflation?

    As for your question earlier, I am concerned with tax specifically because we're talking about the effect tax cuts have on revenue...

    The tax cuts we're talking about extending were legislated in 2001, not 2003. That was a different bill entirely. The "compromise" they came to was to pass the cuts if they expired in 10 years.

    The graph shows an obvious decrease in tax revenue. While total revenue only dropped by something around 150bn (about 10%), tax revenue dropped by 150bn also (about 14%), social insurance and retirement payments increased a good 75bn to compensate.

    Therefore I question that extending the same tax cuts would have an effect you describe. Note that I am for extending the cuts for 80% of the population or so.

    Thanks!

  7. #207
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by SirPwn4lot View Post
    Revenue doesn't just include income and corporate taxes... it's better to eliminate those things that didn't change so your data is more specific as to whether or not the the cuts themselves had any effect.

    Did the treasury dept. stats show the real revenue, or the revenue before inflation?

    As for your question earlier, I am concerned with tax specifically because we're talking about the effect tax cuts have on revenue...

    The tax cuts we're talking about extending were legislated in 2001, not 2003. That was a different bill entirely. The "compromise" they came to was to pass the cuts if they expired in 10 years.

    The graph shows an obvious decrease in tax revenue. While total revenue only dropped by something around 150bn (about 10%), tax revenue dropped by 150bn also (about 14%), social insurance and retirement payments increased a good 75bn to compensate.

    Therefore I question that extending the same tax cuts would have an effect you describe. Note that I am for extending the cuts for 80% of the population or so.

    Thanks!
    Does your bank account show revenue or revenue before inflation? Does it matter today?

    Let me ask you how do tax cuts affect you? Do you have more or less take home pay after tax cuts? Then what?

    The tax cuts legislated in 2001 were the same as Obama's rebate checks, the withholding cuts came in July 2003 AFTER the GOP Took Congress, notice the revenue change?

    If you are for extending cuts for 80% of the people and based upon your concern for the deficit how much does that add to the deficit vs. raising taxes on the 3 million or so that are so called rich? The 80% amount to millions more.

  8. #208
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    of course you don't.

    President Obama Signs Small Business Jobs Act - Learn What's In It | The White House

    Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts – Effective Today, Providing Immediate Incentives to Invest: The President had already signed into law eight small business tax cuts, and on Monday, he is signing into law another eight new tax cuts that go into effect immediately.
    Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments:Under the Recovery Act, 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments this year were excluded from taxes. The Small Business Jobs Act temporarily puts in place for the rest of 2010 a provision called for by the President – elimination of all capital gains taxes on these investments if held for five years. Over one million small businesses are eligible to receive investments this year that, if held for five years or longer, could be completely excluded from any capital gains taxation.
    Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses’ Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments: The bill increases for 2010 and 2011 the amount of investments that businesses would be eligible toimmediately write off to $500,000, while raising the level of investments at which the write-off phases out to $2 million. Prior to the passage of the bill, the expensing limit would have been $250,000 this year, and only $25,000 next year. This provision means that 4.5 million small businesses and individuals will be able to make new business investments today and know that they will earn a larger break on their taxes for this year.
    Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation:The bill extends – as the President proposed in his budget – a Recovery Act provision for 50 percent “bonus depreciation” through 2010, providing 2 million businesses, large and small, with the ability to make new investmentstoday and know they can receive a tax cut for this year by accelerating the rate at which they deduct capital expenditures.
    A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed:The bill allows 2 million self-employed to know that on their taxes for this year, they can get a deduction for the cost of health insurance for themselves and their family members in calculating their self-employment taxes. This provision is estimated to provide over $1.9 billion in tax cuts for these entrepreneurs.
    Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions:The bill changes rules so that the use of cell phones can be deducted without burdensome extra documentation – making it easier for virtually every small business in America to receive deductions that they are entitled to, beginning on their taxes for this year.
    An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses:The bill temporarily increases the amount of start-up expenditures entrepreneurs can deductfrom their taxesfor this year from $5,000 to $10,000 (with a phase-out threshold of $60,000 in expenditures), offering an immediate incentive for someone with a new business idea to invest in starting up a new small business today.
    A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits:The bill would allow certain small businesses to “carry back” their general business credits to offset five years of taxes – providing them with a break on their taxes for this year – while also allowing these credits to offset the Alternative Minimum Tax, reducing taxes for these small businesses.
    Yeah and the only way to qualify for any of those, is to spend money, on equipment that your business doesn't need, because there's not enough work in the market, to justify buying the new equipment. Or, if a business hires personel, that it doesn't have work for.

    These are red herring tax cuts. Which means, you have to hire an employee and pay him 30 grand a year, just to get a $3,000 tax deduction.

    So, IOW, no business in the country, actually saw an actual tax cut. No corporate income tax was cut, no self employment tax was cut, nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #209
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    It doesn't create jobs, it staves off the loss of more jobs.
    I guess that's why we lost a net of 239,000 jobs this summer? Because unemployment was staving off the loss of more jobs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #210
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:22 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,069

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Yeah and the only way to qualify for any of those, is to spend money, on equipment that your business doesn't need, because there's not enough work in the market, to justify buying the new equipment. Or, if a business hires personel, that it doesn't have work for.

    These are red herring tax cuts. Which means, you have to hire an employee and pay him 30 grand a year, just to get a $3,000 tax deduction.

    So, IOW, no business in the country, actually saw an actual tax cut. No corporate income tax was cut, no self employment tax was cut, nothing.
    That was the biggest joke of a "tax benefit" I've ever heard of.

    Any businessman stupid enough to fall for that isn't in business anymore anyway. LOL

Page 21 of 28 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... 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
  •