Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

j-mac · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
Because it was true and the middle class pay a higher tax rate than the rich do.

Nonsense.

j-mac

sangha · Jul 12, 2011

Ikari said:
Not really surprising. Though this does speak to the "fiscally sound" conservatives more than anything else. Always claiming less debt and smaller government; yet we rarely realize that during a Republican presidency. Now we have two big deficit spending parties. Woot.

It's OK If a Republican Does It

sangha · Jul 12, 2011

Tettsuo said:
Thank you for the welcome!

I based my opinion partly on the comment you made regarding unions. Unions (historically speaking) were a major factor in the creation of the middle class.

The other part is your focus on business owners. If they are making over $250,000 in profit (profit is after all costs have been addressed and accounted for) you are in no danger of having your business fail due to a 3% increase in personal taxation. Those additional taxes will be much more helpful for the rest of the country through entitlement programs, education, infrastructure and research into new technologies to improve America. You are much more value than the business owner's 3% in profit taxation and the smart business owner is very much aware of that... you should be aware of that as well.

Fighting for the business owner to keep 3% of their profits for fear they'll fire people just doesn't make sense when the nation itself hangs in the balance.

You don't sacrifice benefits for the 98% for the benefit of just the 2%. That's simply illogical.

Welcome

The rightwingers think that if we increase the income tax rate by 3%, they will pay more in income taxes than they earn in income. :roll:

j-mac · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
It's OK If a Republican Does It

No, stawman argument...No one has said that. Next fallacy

j-mac

j-mac · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
Welcome

The rightwingers think that if we increase the income tax rate by 3%, they will pay more in income taxes than they earn in income. :roll:

Oh, so now you read minds as well? You need to re word this in coherent language.

j-mac

sangha · Jul 12, 2011

j-mac said:
The premise you are laying out here is one where I don't get that 3% though, government does. And although the business might not fail due to a 3% increase in taxation, it doesn't have that money to reinvest in the business either, that makes it weaker.

If business has less money to invest in shipping jobs overseas, that is A Good Thing.

Right now, corporate america has record-setting profits, but they're not investing in american jobs. There is insufficient demand for goods and services for business to get businesses to invest in creating jobs no matter what the income tax rate is. Cutting taxes does not create jobs and never has

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

j-mac · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
If business has less money to invest in shipping jobs overseas, that is A Good Thing.

"Shipping jobs overseas" is yet another talking point platitude. no substance. If you even understood a scintilla of why businesses do that you would realize that it is a bottom line factor. IOW, your wet dream of raising that bottom line will somehow keep jobs here makes no sense what so ever.

Right now, corporate america has record-setting profits, but they're not investing in american jobs. There is insufficient demand for goods and services for business to get businesses to invest in creating jobs no matter what the income tax rate is. Cutting taxes does not create jobs and never has

They are sitting on their money because it is the policy of this administration to bludgeon them at every turn, demonize them as you have here, and inject uncertainty. Cutting the Cap Gains rate would absolutely spur job growth, always has.

j-mac

Taylor · Jul 12, 2011

jding said:
On a personal level, I think whenever we have a deficit, it means there has to be some tax collected to repay the money owed...So you need to pay taxes equal to the amount your government spent. How can you spent money and pay nothing, who is going to pay it? the next generation?

We're currently spending at unprecedented levels, so without some dramatic cuts there's no way any taxation will cover the difference.

Further, the key to generating tax revenue is by growing the economy and putting millions of taxpayers back to work. It's doubtful that a 3-percent increase in taxes on the rich will provide any additional revenue (certainly no significant revenue) above and beyond the growth of the economy, and taxes don't help that.

Good for the politics of envy, bad for the economy.

sangha · Jul 12, 2011

The Barbarian said:
Mind you I'm not saying they didn't ... but the point should be made ... that it hasn't only been republicans running up the debt .. . that last two years of Clintons term .. the house and senate was controled by the Republicans ... and for the majority of the time .. of Republcian presidents .. the house and senate have been controlled by Democrats

but it was the repubs who racked up most of the debt...an odd result for those who claim to want a balanced budget and a small govt

sangha · Jul 12, 2011

j-mac said:
As compared to what? Liberal spending historically? Really?

j-mac

As compared top their claims, which are really just lies to fool the ignorant

Ikari · Jul 12, 2011

Tettsuo said:
Number wise it is... but as you say that's neither hear nor there honestly. Neither have been serving the people as they should.

I just find the claim that Republicans are fiscally conservative a bit lacking in historical evidence.

There's no such thing as Republican fiscal responsibility. They outspend everyone...well Obama is gonna take that title for now, but they did a damned good job. Their economic policies are usually bad for the whole of us, good for a select few. But the Democrats have become the same.

The entire show here of people saying "It's Obama's fault" and pretending that the Republicans would be different would be hilarious if it weren't so devastating to the whole of the Republic. So long as we remain blinded by partisan politics, we'll never fix the real problem.

sangha · Jul 12, 2011

j-mac said:
"Shipping jobs overseas" is yet another talking point platitude. no substance. If you even understood a scintilla of why businesses do that you would realize that it is a bottom line factor. IOW, your wet dream of raising that bottom line will somehow keep jobs here makes no sense what so ever.

They are sitting on their money because it is the policy of this administration to bludgeon them at every turn, demonize them as you have here, and inject uncertainty. Cutting the Cap Gains rate would absolutely spur job growth, always has.

j-mac

It's a bottom line issue because the govt passed laws that make it profitable for them to do so. You act like free trade agreements sign themselves.

And the job creation under cap-gains tax cutting repubs does not support your claim. Reality rarely does

j-mac · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
As compared top their claims, which are really just lies to fool the ignorant

Well, outline for us then your personal system complete with marginal tax rates, and regulations of the perfect society.

Oh, and you keep posting that chart that is not yet been cited as to your source...Why are you hiding that?

j-mac

sangha · Jul 12, 2011

j-mac said:
Well, outline for us then your personal system complete with marginal tax rates, and regulations of the perfect society.

Oh, and you keep posting that chart that is not yet been cited as to your source...Why are you hiding that?

j-mac

Request denied

j-mac · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
It's a bottom line issue because the govt passed laws that make it profitable for them to do so. You act like free trade agreements sign themselves.

And the job creation under cap-gains tax cutting repubs does not support your claim. Reality rarely does

Not a complete graph.

j-mac

sangha · Jul 12, 2011

j-mac said:
Not a complete graph.

j-mac

it's a complete graph

GhostlyJoe · Jul 12, 2011

The Prof said:
no, things are changing

California budget: Democrats pass austerity budget - Los Angeles Times

Cuomo budget: $10 billion deficit cut, no new taxes, layoffs likely

Jerry Brown Budget Cuts | California budget: Gov. Jerry Brown approves cuts to services for poor, sick and elderly - Los Angeles Times

MA House votes to restrict unions - Boston.com

New Jersey Assembly Passes Bill That Requires Public Workers' Unions To Pay More For Benefits - WPIX

Emanuel Unveils Major Budget Cut On First Full Day « CBS Chicago

Governor Pat Quinn signs Illinois education reform bill into law, new rules effect school days, teacher strikes, tenure | abc7chicago.com

Detroit Moves Against Unions - WSJ.com

Union Deal Defeated; Gov. Malloy Pledges To Cut State Workers - CTnow

hang in

The more things change ...

Ohio Gov. John Kasich gets low approval numbers in another poll

SB 5 petition signatures triple goal

Walker statewide approval rating falls slightly

posing as democrats? reeks of desperation, dun'it? Wisconsin Recall Elections: Six Fake Democrats Force Primaries In Recall Races

will it work? PPP Poll: Wisconsin Wants To Recall Walker — And Put Dems In The State Senate

uh-oh ... the best laid plans of elephants and men ...

Christie Approval Rating Is at Lowest in Year as Women Turn More Negative

Florida Governor Rick Scott's approval rate hits new low

smooth sailing, eh?

The Prof · Jul 12, 2011

Tettsuo said:
The only difference has been the party controlling the white house

no, the difference is NOW (as opposed to then)

ask the democrat governors of new york, california, connecticut, maryland, illinois...

ask the state assemblies of massachusetts, jersey, lincoln land...

ask the mayors of new york, chicago, detroit...

ask ANYONE in the eu...

2011 is an entirely different tune---keynes is completely kaput

CUTS are chichi

The Prof · Jul 12, 2011

Taylor said:
Sadly, you'd have to double the length of the Y-axis to fit Obama's yearly contributions. CBO estimates suggest he's on track to add more debt than all those other presidents combined.

sangha said:
CBO estimates are always wrong.

about how tall elmendorf must extend the y axis to accomodate obama's debt?

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about

The Prof · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
If business has less money to invest in shipping jobs overseas

vote obama, 2012!

business will have less money to invest in shipping jobs overseas!

seeya at the polls, pals

GhostlyJoe · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
And because the rich have been waging class warfare on us

nice, colorful charts, but they don't tell the whole story. Missing is family makeup and the fact that modern households are more likely to be two- or even three-income households, and those numbers look even more stark.

The Prof · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
but it was the repubs who racked up most of the debt...an odd result for those who claim to want a balanced budget and a small govt

yeah, you're gonna have to make that chart a good 6 inches taller

LOL!

sangha · Jul 12, 2011

The Prof said:
about how tall elmendorf must extend the y axis to accomodate obama's debt?

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about

The Prof · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
Request denied

YouTube - Twilight Zone intro

The Barbarian · Jul 12, 2011

sangha said:
but it was the repubs who racked up most of the debt...an odd result for those who claim to want a balanced budget and a small govt

I'm not saying Republicans have been any better then democrats … the plain an simple truth is they lost their conservative ways when it came to spending, what I am saying is two fold .. first the best government we can hope to have .. is when the balance of power is split .. we have seen where total control of government by one party .. is not good .. no matter what side has it. 2Nd … is the party that “seems” to be changing is the conservative party .. (time will bear out if they are or not) while the liberal party .. is showing no signs of change what so ever .. it's purely tax and spend .. .as it always has been.