View Poll Results: Read the intro and vote accordingly

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • better

    4 21.05%
  • worse

    13 68.42%
  • other

    2 10.53%
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 115

Thread: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

  1. #81
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    Objecting to crippling tax hikes in the middle of "the worst crisis since the Great Depression" is casting gloom and doom on every tax hike?

    Weak smear. Try actually debating sometime.
    What you keep forgetting is that Obama is not proposing any tax hikes that will go into effect for your next paycheck. He's talking about allowing temporary tax cuts to expire, which won't affect anyone until 2011. No one has any idea if the economy will still suck then. If not, then the tax cuts can expire as planned. If it does, then they can be extended for another year or two at that time.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub
    Any tax hike during "the worst crisis since the Great Depression" would be a mistake-the larger the tax hike, the larger the mistake. Objecting to that is a sign of intelligence, not hysteria.
    It's a sign of hysteria because you act as though Obama is going to double your tax rate and it will take effect tomorrow. Instead, we'll have an increase of a few percent on the top earners in 2011.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub
    We weren't in the worst crisis since the Great Depression during the 80s and 90s. Sorry I keep going back to that slogan of Obama's...I'm trying to "choose hope over fear."
    And we may very well not be in the worst crisis since the Great Depression in 2011 either.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub
    Clinton taxed a boom into a recession.
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your apocalyptic rants about the dangers of raising taxes during a recession would sound much more genuine if you didn't say the exact same thing when talking about an economic boom.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub
    Reagan cut the crap out of Carter's disastrous mid-recession tax hikes and doubled federal revenues, while creating sweeping economic growth.
    So then are you telling me that what matters is not the actual tax rate (since it was higher during the 80s and 90s) but rather the CHANGE to the actual tax rate? If that's the case, I'll tell you what. Obama can increase the top tax rate by 5%, and then cut it 1%. Then you can rest assured knowing that the economy will prosper from the Obama Tax Cut.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    Again, that was using the most favorable numbers to your case imaginable. In reality, the person earning exactly $250K (if that was the cutoff) would not be affected by the change at all, as the tax bracket starts at $250K.
    Fine, allow me to clarify: those making $251K a year.

    And even a person earning $500K would see his effective tax rate increase by much less than 3%.
    Explain. Not being obtuse; genuinely curious.

    If the "fat-cats in Washington" were taking your dad's money and spending it entirely on themselves, then I would agree. But for the most part, they are spending it on health care, energy, education, infrastructure, and many other public services that people want.
    In effect they are spending it on themselves. They enact class-specific welfare programs, programs from which my dad will derive no conceivable benefit yet is expected to fund, and use them as leverage to garner political support.

    I'm not taking issue with government programs from which Americans derive a comprehensive benefit. I'm speaking to programs that confer benefits onto a select demographic and the idea that people have an obligation to subsidize the cost of these benefits.

    See my previous point re: having higher tax rates in the 80s and 90s and our economy doing just fine.
    I'm aware but I fail to see the connection between our current economic status and those of the 80s and 90s. Also, as much as you would like to confine this debate to matters of practicality there is still a moral issue at the center of this issue. Why must people like my dad be forcibly compelled to fund class-specific welfare programs? That he is able to is not a sufficient justification.

    Sure, but the tax cuts don't expire until the end of 2010...which means the change won't affect anyone until 2011. It doesn't make much sense to cite our current economic condition as justification for making temporary tax cuts permanent instead of letting them expire in two years.
    Valid point. I suppose in terms of practicality you have the upper hand for now. It remains to be seen whether or not the current status of our economy persists until 2011.

    Seems like pretty good justification to me, since the alternative is to rack up the debt. And please don't give me any of that "starving the beast" nonsense, because that has never worked. The annual federal budget hasn't declined a single time since 1965.
    Of course it seems like a good justification to you, you're arguing for higher taxes. But racking up debt is not the only alternative despite you preemptive effort to dismiss spending cuts as a viable option.

    There are a multitude of government programs that have absolutely no basis for their existence except as a medium for garnering political support and maintaining dependence upon a bloated government.

    One such example is Social security. SS is broken and people of our generation should not expect the government to support them in their old age. A sunset clause needs to be added to Social Security and Americans should be encouraged to privatize their retirement options. I certainly won't be counting on my SS check when I get old and neither should anyone else. It's outlived its usefulness and only those people who are currently dependent upon it or are on the cusp of dependence should be allowed to retain the benefits.

    This is only ONE thing I can think of that should either be phased out or totally restructured. Your unwillingness to accept these ideas as viable is not evidence of their impracticality.

    Well, let's look at this logically:
    1) We, as a society, have determined (through elections) that we want the government to pay for certain services.
    2) There are three ways of paying for things: Printing, borrowing, and taxing.
    3) Printing is risky. In severe recessions, a little printing isn't too terrible because it counteracts deflation, but in almost every other economic situation it should be avoided.
    4) Borrowing isn't risky, but it is essentially the same as taxing. It's just taxing future generations instead of present generations.
    5) That leaves us with taxation. So whom do we tax to pay for the government programs that our society has determined it wants? People who HAVE money to tax, or people who DON'T have money to tax? Should we get our milk from the cow or the bull?
    This all rests upon your first point. Our political framework was never meant to be used a medium for accommodating popular sentiment. We are supposed to be a Republic of laws, not a direct democracy where the whims of the people dictate the manner in which we run our country.

    The government has a legitimate role in taxing its citizens but only insofar as it uses the revenue to fund institutions of necessity. Simply because the people want something does not mean they have a right to it. No one should be given access to my belongings by mere virtue of their desire.

    See, that's the thing. I'm not a moralizing ideologue. I don't derive my policy views from rigid moral prescriptions about what policy is right for all-time in every situation. I derive my policy views from solid economic principles that actually, y'know, make sense.
    Not everyone who adheres to their principles is a "moralizing ideologue." My argument has a legitimate basis in legal theory and history and your fixation on matters of practicality is not reason enough to disregard the principles upon which this country was founded.

  3. #83
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,738

    Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    Massive. Crushing.

    Gonna be my new motto.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #84
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Coast
    Last Seen
    09-21-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,979

    Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar
    If you want to blame someone for raising taxes in 2010, blame George Bush.
    Exactly. The reason the tax cuts were temporary was because the Republicans didn't want anything to do with 'bi-partisanship'. Instead of sitting down and working with the Democrats to hammer out a permanent tax cut bill, they wanted it their way. Well they got it and now it's come full circle.

    The tax cuts were part of a 'Budget Reconciliation'. Going this route meant the Republicans could expedite passage of budget issues by limiting debate/filibuster and amendments and needing only a simple majority in the Senate.

    According to the provisions of the so-called 'Byrd Amendment', anything passed via Budget Reconciliation can only be temporary.

    The 2001 Economic Growth and Recovery Tax Act

    House votes:

    Republicans.....224 yea....1 nay
    Democrats.........7 yea..198 nay

    Senate votes:

    Republicans.......48 yea....3 nay
    Democrats..........2 yea...46 nay
    Independents.......0 yea....1 nay

    Notice the tie in the Senate. The Republican Vice-President cast a yea vote for a simple majority.

    Despite their protests, the tax cut expiration sits squarely where it belongs, on the Republicans back.




    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar
    So you want the government, you just don't want to pay for it.
    LOL...This reminds me of a quote I heard many years ago, I don't remember who said it or I would give credit.

    "Democrats and Republicans want the same thing. Republicans just don't want to pay for it."
    Im worried that I will be the last Republican president. - George W. Bush

  5. #85
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Fine, allow me to clarify: those making $251K a year.
    OK, well if we continue with the assumption that taxes would be increased 3% on people earning more than $250K, then a person earning $251K would see their tax bill increase a whopping $30. That hikes their effective tax rate by 0.012%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Explain. Not being obtuse; genuinely curious.
    A person earning $500K (continuing with the same assumptions) would see their income in excess of $250K increase by 3%, for a total tax increase of $7,500. That hikes their effective tax rate by 1.5%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    In effect they are spending it on themselves. They enact class-specific welfare programs, programs from which my dad will derive no conceivable benefit yet is expected to fund, and use them as leverage to garner political support.
    If those programs are used only to garner political support then I would agree they should be eliminated. But it's good for the economy to have an educated, healthy population that can use a functional infrastructure system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I'm not taking issue with government programs from which Americans derive a comprehensive benefit. I'm speaking to programs that confer benefits onto a select demographic and the idea that people have an obligation to subsidize the cost of these benefits.
    Depends on the demographic. If the demographic is based on race or age, then I agree with you. If it's open to everyone and/or the demographic is based on poverty and/or inability to afford necessities such as education or health care, then I disagree.

    I don't see why you should expect for your father to benefit from every single dollar he spends on taxes. That isn't the idea of government spending. If the government worked like that, then we wouldn't need it at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I'm aware but I fail to see the connection between our current economic status and those of the 80s and 90s.
    Do you mean our current short-term economic status (i.e. a severe recession), or are you speaking more generally about our long-term economic status (i.e. an advanced information economy that is more integrated with the rest of the world than it was in the 80s and 90s)?

    If you're talking about the current recession, there is no guarantee that it will still be going on when the tax cuts expire in 2011. If it is, it can be renewed for another year or two if necessary. If not, it can expire as planned.

    If you're talking more long-term, it's true that our economy has changed, but I see no logical reason to assume that those changes mean that we need a much lower top tax rate today for the same amount of economic growth compared to what we had in the 90s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Also, as much as you would like to confine this debate to matters of practicality there is still a moral issue at the center of this issue. Why must people like my dad be forcibly compelled to fund class-specific welfare programs? That he is able to is not a sufficient justification.
    If the people decide they want the government to fund certain programs, someone will have to pay for them. Who would you recommend, if not the people who have the ability to pay for them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Of course it seems like a good justification to you, you're arguing for higher taxes. But racking up debt is not the only alternative despite you preemptive effort to dismiss spending cuts as a viable option.
    The annual budget has not decreased since 1965. If the American people were alarmed by this, one would expect them to have elected budget-cutters at least once since then. I'd welcome efforts to trim a lot of the wasteful spending out of the budget, but history is not on your side on this one. Even if you cut wasteful spending, the overall level of spending is likely to continue to increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    There are a multitude of government programs that have absolutely no basis for their existence except as a medium for garnering political support and maintaining dependence upon a bloated government.

    One such example is Social security. SS is broken and people of our generation should not expect the government to support them in their old age. A sunset clause needs to be added to Social Security and Americans should be encouraged to privatize their retirement options. I certainly won't be counting on my SS check when I get old and neither should anyone else. It's outlived its usefulness and only those people who are currently dependent upon it or are on the cusp of dependence should be allowed to retain the benefits.

    This is only ONE thing I can think of that should either be phased out or totally restructured. Your unwillingness to accept these ideas as viable is not evidence of their impracticality.
    I have no problem with that. In fact, I'd welcome social security reform. Let's make it means-tested as it originally should have been, and let's gradually phase out the benefits and raise the retirement age. Eventually I'd like to see the government assist people based on their poverty rather than their age.

    With that said, social security reform would not cut costs anytime soon. In fact, it would dramatically INCREASE costs in the short term, so it isn't really a basis to justify tax cuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    This all rests upon your first point. Our political framework was never meant to be used a medium for accommodating popular sentiment. We are supposed to be a Republic of laws, not a direct democracy where the whims of the people dictate the manner in which we run our country.
    Let's suspend disbelief for a second and assume I agree with your assessment of the government's present role in the economy. Do you really believe that there is any going back to the way things were 200 years ago? That the American people are about to rise up, dump all the Washington politicians, forsake all wealth-transfer programs, and never do it again? I see a lot of evidence to the contrary, in fact.

    Whether or not you believe that "accommodating popular sentiment" is a change for the worse, the situation is what it is. Would you rather pay for it now, or have future generations pay for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    The government has a legitimate role in taxing its citizens but only insofar as it uses the revenue to fund institutions of necessity. Simply because the people want something does not mean they have a right to it. No one should be given access to my belongings by mere virtue of their desire.
    "Institutions of necessity" is subjective. I consider public health care, public education, poverty reduction programs, and a highway system to be institutions of necessity. I favor these things not just because 51% of people might want them, but because I believe they are economically sound policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Not everyone who adheres to their principles is a "moralizing ideologue." My argument has a legitimate basis in legal theory and history and your fixation on matters of practicality is not reason enough to disregard the principles upon which this country was founded.
    If you want to protest the evolution of our government from 1789 to 2009, you're a little late. After the current recession ends, a small tax hike will almost certainly be necessary to pay for our government. Especially if we add on universal health care in addition to what we already have.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #86
    Counselor

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-07-09 @ 04:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,856

    Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    When did Obama announce Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes?

    I listened to him yesterday and this did not happen then. I have read and watched his statements and have not seen this in anything he said or wrote.

    Imagination is wonderful thing.

  7. #87
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    09-12-16 @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,513

    Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Massive. Crushing.

    Gonna be my new motto.
    eggzactly !!!
    up until this thread, I must have only THOUGHT I knew what massive and crushing meant....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  8. #88
    Educator ronpaulvoter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 02:25 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    627

    mad Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    This is madness. Obama has got to be denied a Congressional majority in 2010:
    Should we change his name from Obama to Owebama?

  9. #89
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,718

    Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The tax cuts were never permanent to begin with. That's why they have an expiration built in. Get it now? Good.
    The scum that promoted the first income taxes said those were to be temporary as well

    The dems want a society where they get the votes of the 75% that won't pay this tax and buy those votes with the wealth of the 25% that do.


    Atlas needs to shrug and let the looters starve.
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  10. #90
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-21-15 @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,036

    Re: Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

    Wouldn't be a need to raise taxes if we were governed better.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •