Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 241

Thread: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-25-11 @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    464

    Re: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    So Obama is trying to get tax increases that already failed.
    The failure to renew a tax cut with a sunset provision is not a "tax increase," it's the continuation of current law. Please reflect this fact in future statements, so as to be more accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Shows how incompetent he is.
    Supporting current tax policy in order to deal with a massive revenue shortage is "incompetent"? See, I would be more likely to say that the people trying to eviscerate the budget and cut taxes in the middle of a revenue shortage were the incompetent ones, but perhaps incompetence isn't even the right word for Republican politics: More like corruption.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Republicans, who now control the House, are signaling they will be even less receptive.
    Good. It's important that Republican priorities be on full display. The American people are being asked to sacrifice with smaller budgets, and are then being told that people who make 6,000 times more than they do should get tax cuts and contribute even less to the nation. What the Republican Party thinks of the American people is abundantly clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    The plan unveiled Monday includes tax increases for oil, gas and coal producers
    Good. This would slightly defray the enormous external costs they impose on the economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Wealthy taxpayers would have their itemized deductions limited
    Oh no! The poor, poor wealthy! How can Obama victimize them like this???

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    "These policies were unfair and unaffordable when enacted and remain so today," Obama said in his budget message.
    Thank you, President Obama. I would have been a lot less diplomatic, but I'm glad we have a President who is so amiable toward people who give no consideration in return.
    Last edited by Troubadour; 02-16-11 at 08:54 AM.

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Troubadour View Post
    The failure to renew a tax cut with a sunset provision is not a "tax increase," it's the continuation of current law. Please reflect this fact in future statements, so as to be more accurate.
    Its a continuation of the current law, its a raise of the current tax rates. If the rates is "X" on one day and "X+15" the next day the rates went up. There's no other way to spin that. Now, they went up because the current law was allowed to sunset rather than because new law was passed to raise them...but the fact that they went up from what they were the previous day is undisputable.

  3. #43
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,040

    Re: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Its a continuation of the current law, its a raise of the current tax rates. If the rates is "X" on one day and "X+15" the next day the rates went up. There's no other way to spin that. Now, they went up because the current law was allowed to sunset rather than because new law was passed to raise them...but the fact that they went up from what they were the previous day is undisputable.
    Agreed. The taxes went up the following day. There is no debating that. I think everyone is arguing past each other.

    If The tax cuts were written in a way so as they stop after ten years, during the next presidents administration, then you could say that taxes went up under that president, though I think the honest way to put it is to say that the president let the tax cuts expire, but you can't argue that the president passed a tax increase, as no bill was passed in order to raise taxes. That's like saying Obama declared war on Iraq because the guy before him did so.
    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.

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    If The tax cuts were written in a way so as they stop after ten years, during the next presidents administration, then you could say that taxes went up under that president, though I think the honest way to put it is to say that the president let the tax cuts expire, but you can't argue that the president passed a tax increase, as no bill was passed in order to raise taxes. That's like saying Obama declared war on Iraq because the guy before him did so.
    I agree, you can't argue that the president passed a tax increase. You can argue the President ALLOWED for a tax increase.

    Similarly, you can't declare that Obama passed a "tax cut" either, because the tax's from one day to the next did NOT go down...they stayed the same. You can say he passed a "tax extension" or argue that he didn't allow for a tax increase.

    But you can't have your cake and eat it too....you can't say that he wasn't pusing for a tax hike when he wanted part of the bush tax cuts to expire but to say that he was pushing for a tax cut when he wanted parts of the bush tax cuts to be extended.

    Obama pushed to allow for a tax increase and in the end signed off on allowing for a tax rate extension. He didn't pass a bill to specifically raise taxes, nor did he pass a bill to specifically lower them either.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-25-11 @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    464

    Re: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Its a continuation of the current law, its a raise of the current tax rates. If the rates is "X" on one day and "X+15" the next day the rates went up. There's no other way to spin that. Now, they went up because the current law was allowed to sunset rather than because new law was passed to raise them...but the fact that they went up from what they were the previous day is undisputable.
    Very well, that is an accurate description of an event - i.e., "taxes increased." But you are describing that event as a specific action when no specific action is taken. It is not "a tax increase" - this phrase has the connotation of some agency being involved. The reversion to prior rates was included in the same law that passed the tax cuts, so the reversion is not a tax increase, but the expiration of a tax cut. "Expiration of tax cuts" is the valid statement. To refer to them as a tax increase is clearly deceptive spin. They were never intended to be permanent tax cuts. Never, at least, as they were advertised to the American people - who to do this day continue to rate budget priorities more highly than those tax cuts. The Republican Party needs to get to work representing the American people and stop trying to rob them on behalf of rich campaign contributors.

  6. #46
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Troubadour View Post
    Very well, that is an accurate description of an event - i.e., "taxes increased." But you are describing that event as a specific action when no specific action is taken. It is not "a tax increase" - this phrase has the connotation of some agency being involved. The reversion to prior rates was included in the same law that passed the tax cuts, so the reversion is not a tax increase, but the expiration of a tax cut. "Expiration of tax cuts" is the valid statement. To refer to them as a tax increase is clearly deceptive spin. They were never intended to be permanent tax cuts. Never, at least, as they were advertised to the American people - who to do this day continue to rate budget priorities more highly than those tax cuts. The Republican Party needs to get to work representing the American people and stop trying to rob them on behalf of rich campaign contributors.
    Here we go again, the whatever you choose to call it, was extended, by a Democratic house, a Democratic senate, and signed by a Democratic President. So exactly how has this anything to do with Republicans?
    If your beloved liberal democrats we so intent upon getting the revenues up for the government, then why didn't they just let the tax cuts expire as they were meant to be?

  7. #47
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,426

    Re: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts.
    It's like saying the reason I'm broke is because I don't make enough money...meanwhile I make $80K/year and gamble it all away.

    That's the liberal argument though, not the 800lb gorilla. That these programs that were put in place because of a crisis (Depression, war), are *vital* to our nation, and so, naturally, since they *must* be paid for, you have to raise taxes? And of course, since the people who needs these *vital* things can't actually afford it, we'll force the people who don't need it, to foot the bill. And then we'll run our political campaing on continuing those handouts to the majority, which gives us enough votes to compete. That's obviously a biased analysis of the argument, but you get the point.

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    What do you mean that the tax cuts for the rich depend on the economy getting better?
    Tax cuts for the "rich" cost $70 billion a year at most. This year's deficit is about $1.6 trillion. Want another try on why we have a deficit. Debating is a lot less fun when one side uses such inept arguements.

  9. #49
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Tax cuts for the "rich" cost $70 billion a year at most. This year's deficit is about $1.6 trillion. Want another try on why we have a deficit. Debating is a lot less fun when one side uses such inept arguements.
    Where the hell did you get the $70 billion figure?

  10. #50
    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 budget resurrects rejected tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    No the answer is quit spending and stop all subsidies
    Let me know when that happens. Hell, let me know when a majority of Americans call for 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.

Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •