View Poll Results: Obama Tax Supporters=What is more Important to You

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • Saving the tax cuts for yourself (and the rich)

    1 6.25%
  • Sticking it to the rich with a tax hike for everyone

    15 93.75%
Page 24 of 33 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 324

Thread: Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

  1. #231
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    You don't really believe your statement that I've highlighted, do you? More revenue has ALWAYS resulted in more spending...not smaller deficits.
    I repeat, did you miss the 1990s?

    And then...in your second statement...you switch from some effect on the deficit to an effect on the economy. Make up your mind what you are talking about instead of throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall, eh?
    Both happened. The economy improved and the deficit was significantly reduced as a result of the both cutting spending and eliminating some of the tax cuts for the rich.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #232
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Did you miss the 1990s when we reduced the deficit by both cutting spending and eliminating some of the tax cuts for the wealthy?
    The highlighted part is not correct.

    Under Clinton, spending AND revenues went up every single fiscal year - except FY 2001, when revenues went down, but spending went up anyway.

    Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays

  3. #233
    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 Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Cutting spending needs to be done...for sure. Raising taxes...not necessarily. But, the fact is, we need to cut spending first. Any talk of doing both right now only means that the taxes will be raised and spending won't be cut...leaving us in worse shape than we are in right now.
    Both need to be done. When we're over extended here, I take a second job and cut spending. It works real well.

    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.

  4. #234
    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 Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You and others in the far right minority, are the only ones talking about reducing government, and fortunately none of the far right candidates won. All the rest of us care about is reducing the deficit. making life better for people, and improving the economy.

    Nevertheless, our allowing the creation of banks too big to fail through GLB was a big factor in our increased debt. Without the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, both parties realized that we were now trapped in the position of having to bailout investment banks to prevent a collapse of the world financial market.

    Not too surprising that: "Sanford Weill , the 'one-time poster boy' for creating bank supermarkets (as noted by former FDIC Chairperson Sheila Bair), was conveying during his interview. He essentially called for the return of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, which imposed banking reforms that split banks from other financial institutions such as insurance companies. The conversation revolved around the repeal of the Act, which prohibited commercial banks from acting like investment banks, by taking on much greater risk. Although there are those who will dispute it, there is little doubt that this drastic climate change in contributed to the financial meltdowns of recent years."
    Glass-Steagall: Why We Shouldn't Fix Things That Aren't Broken - Seeking Alpha
    I saw that. Interesting.

    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.

  5. #235
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    The highlighted part is not correct.

    Under Clinton, spending AND revenues went up every single fiscal year - except FY 2001, when revenues went down, but spending went up anyway.

    Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays
    Even more impressive that Clinton was able to reduce the deficit without cutting spending. Good point!

    But it also shows that Clinton spent about half what Bush spent, and together with the tax increases was able to significantly reduce the deficit.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #236
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Even more impressive that Clinton was able to reduce the deficit without cutting spending. Good point!

    But it also shows that Clinton spent about half what Bush spent, and together with the tax increases was able to significantly reduce the deficit.
    And what it shows is

    a) you had NO IDEA what you were talking about when you twice typed that Clinton reduced spending.

    and b) maybe you owe Mycroft an apology for not once but twice accusing him of 'missing the 90's' when it is clear that you yourself had at least one of his 'facts' totally wrong about that period.
    Last edited by DA60; 07-27-12 at 05:03 AM.

  7. #237
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

    Re: Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Yes, reducing the deficit as we did in the 1990s, (the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years) by both cutting spending, mainly on the military, and increasing the tax rates for the wealthy.





    Nope, because we foolishly removed the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, allowing the investment banks to fail would have brought down the whole world economy. The question is will we learn from our mistakes.





    Exactly why we need to reestablish the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks. As referenced above, even "Sanford Weill , the 'one-time poster boy' for creating bank supermarkets (as noted by former FDIC Chairperson Sheila Bair), was conveying during his interview. He essentially called for the return of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, which imposed banking reforms that split banks from other financial institutions such as insurance companies. The conversation revolved around the repeal of the Act, which prohibited commercial banks from acting like investment banks, by taking on much greater risk. Although there are those who will dispute it, there is little doubt that this drastic climate change in contributed to the financial meltdowns of recent years."
    I think most people have figured out that those who constantly support Obama's divide and conquer class warfare tax scheme really don't care about the deficit. If the deficit is so important than those tax hikers should support massive spending cuts as well as a tax increase on EVERYONE.

  8. #238
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

    Re: Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The choice is not yours alone. The people will decide, as it should be.
    I love your stock response-anytime someone points out that you are really interested in income redistribution , not solving the deficit of the massive problems caused by runaway spending you spew the nonsense that somehow trumps your ability to defend your welfare socialist positions

  9. #239
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

    Re: Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Did you miss the 1990s when we reduced the deficit by both cutting spending and eliminating some of the tax cuts for the wealthy?
    did you miss the boom economic times?

  10. #240
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,895

    Re: Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Limit the government to its constitutional functions

    of course that means all the unconstitutional crap FDR rammed through will take a serious shearing

    Department of education-get rid of it to start with

    sell off lots of federal lands

    stop paying for people to have illegitimate kids

    cut back by at least 30% our military presence in places like Germany

    end the war on drugs-that will eliminate 75% of the federal law enforcement costs
    The current debt is just shy of $16 trillion dollars.
    Each day we add some $3 billion 900 million dollars to that total.

    U.S. National Debt Clock

    The current years federal budget is $3.7 trillion dollars.

    Just how much would each component of your 'plan' (and I use that term very very loosely) in paying that deficit and ending the annual deficit and the total debt?

    Tell us with each of your 'proposals' how much we would be saving.

    look at your proposals

    Limit the government to its constitutional functions

    of course that means all the unconstitutional crap FDR rammed through will take a serious shearing
    The Supreme Court does this. The government can have no unconstitutional functions. Since you are cutting nothing - you are sving nothing. Turtle does not get to decide what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. That has already been done.

    Department of education-get rid of it to start with
    Okay. And how much is that going to save?

    sell off lots of federal lands
    So you want to have a fire sale an get rid of Yosemite,Yellowstone and the rest. And how much will that raise and where is the public support for such a radical and extremely short term idea?

    Lets look at the right wing wet dream on this issue since both Ryan and Santorum have eagerly lapped it up

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ks-to-big-oil/

    A government witness at a hearing on Chaffetz’s proposal last fall noted that the sale of these lands would be “unlikely to generate revenue.” On the other hand, public lands managed by the Interior Department stimulated $363 billion in economic activity in 2010.
    stop paying for people to have illegitimate kids
    And how much would that save from the federal budget?

    cut back by at least 30% our military presence in places like Germany
    And how much would that save us?

    And what then is the total of your savings?

    end the war on drugs-that will eliminate 75% of the federal law enforcement costs
    Last edited by haymarket; 07-27-12 at 08:27 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

Page 24 of 33 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... 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
  •