Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

Boo Radley said:

It's a fools game to judge someone's heart. You could be as wrong as me and vise versa. However, I would say this, if this is campaign talk alone, he needs to be in campaign mode more often. Perhaps he should stay in that mode all during his term.

Click to expand...

Some would say he has.

Wow? Where did you get that from the Forbes article? Is this a squirrel moment?

Click to expand...

Oh no, don't start that Bull **** again Joe. Cut it right now.

j-mac

Boo Radley said:

Wow? Where did you get that from the Forbes article? Is this a squirrel moment?

Click to expand...

I got that from the Obama speech and proposals which is the thread topic. Why would anyone support raising taxes on anyone with 25 million plus unemployed and underemployed Americans? Why would anyone reward politicians and not the taxpayers with tax increases to fund a retread program that was already rejected by a filibuster proof Senate in 2009?

Boo Radley said:

J, aren't they two separate issues?

Click to expand...

No, the point is that by going after the so called 'rich' and businesses that libs don't like, he is setting up for failure, and harming this nation.

j-mac

j-mac said:

Some would say he has.

Click to expand...

Some would be clearly wrong

Oh no, don't start that Bull **** again Joe. Cut it right now.

j-mac

Click to expand...

Just show me where that out of the blue comment had anything to do with what he commented to, and I'll not ask. You know as well as I do it was not responsive to the post he commented on. Do you think it unreasonable to expect a response to be somehow connected to what is posted?

Conservative said:

I have seen that chart many times and I continue to look at the line item expenses of the Federal Govt and just cannot seem to find tax cuts listed as an expense. Further I keep waiting for any projections from this Administration or the CBO to actually be accurate especially since govt. revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented.

Click to expand...

First... if we can't use CBO numbers, then what's more accurate? Second... that last bit about revenue rising sounds like the old saw about revenue rising every time taxes are cut... which is a logical impossibility. If tax rates = 0, then revenue = 0. Therefore, there must be some effective tax rate >0 that maximizes revenue.

j-mac said:

No, the point is that by going after the so called 'rich' and businesses that libs don't like, he is setting up for failure, and harming this nation.

j-mac

Click to expand...

No. And who says liberals don't like business? Seriously, I asked you this earlier, with no response, but you're setting up a premise that is simply inaccurate. Not treating business as if they were special, incapable of pulling their weight, is not a sign of hating business.

But you gave an artilce that is a separate issue to one you responsed to. Giving tax breaks or ending these breaks has very little to do government efforts to stimulate by proving jobs (and it is your side that think he fails if he doesn't produce jobs, whihc can only be done by government by hiring folks).

Conservative said:

I got that from the Obama speech and proposals which is the thread topic. Why would anyone support raising taxes on anyone with 25 million plus unemployed and underemployed Americans? Why would anyone reward politicians and not the taxpayers with tax increases to fund a retread program that was already rejected by a filibuster proof Senate in 2009?

Click to expand...

Which has what to do with the post you responded to? Make the connection you think I'm missing.

nijato said:

First... if we can't use CBO numbers, then what's more accurate? Second... that last bit about revenue rising sounds like the old saw about revenue rising every time taxes are cut... which is a logical impossibility. If tax rates = 0, then revenue = 0. Therefore, there must be some effective tax rate >0 that maximizes revenue.

Click to expand...

CBO has a responsibility to score bills based upon the assumptions given them, wrong assumptions wrong projections. Read about the CBO and their charge?

The fact is that tax RATE cuts are benefiting all income earners today and continues to benefit taxpayers, why do you have a problem with that. The facts are quite clear, there have onlhy been three tax rate cuts in the past 50 years, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush and all three showed revenue growths. Putting money into the hands of the consumer and rewarding them makes economic growth a lot easier.

Boo Radley said:

Which has what to do with the post you responded to? Make the connection you think I'm missing.

Click to expand...

I responded to the thread topic and as posted the dueling Forbes articles. You pick and choose what you want to respond to whereas I recognize that tax cuts reward taxpayers and not politicians who created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt

Conservative said:

I responded to the thread topic and as posted the dueling Forbes articles. You pick and choose what you want to respond to whereas I recognize that tax cuts reward taxpayers and not politicians who created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but when you choose a post to respond to, you need to respond to what is in that post. If you have nothing to say to that post, please ignore.

Boo Radley said:

I'm sorry, but when you choose a post to respond to, you need to respond to what is in that post. If you have nothing to say to that post, please ignore.

Click to expand...

So you make the rules here? I reject your statement and responded to your post in context with the thread topic.

Zyphlin said:

Here's the problem. You've randomly decided to deem Polls as "The will of the people".

Last I checked, Congress is elected by these thing called "people". They are also there due to the "Will of the people". The "Will of the People" voted them into power to act in what those congressmen think is in the best interest of the country and their constitutents.

Why is it that you feel one "Will of the People" is more important than the other "Will of the People"? Are you consistant and ALWAYS feel that whatever a poll says is what we should do? Or just when you agree with it?

The "Will of the People" by your definition (polls) said that we should ban gay marriage. So you support the republicans continually pushing for an amendment to ban it, attaching such a thing onto every major issue each few months?

Click to expand...

You're essentially asking me "do you think they should continually fight for what they believe in".The obvious answer is yes. I'm not saying that we should govern through the use of polls. If there are enough Republicans in the House or Senate to block or filibuster an end to the tax cuts then that's fine. If that's what they think is best for the country or that's what their constituents want then more power to them. They'll either be right and gain support or be wrong and lose support. I'm not saying we should declare a dictatorship and do it anyways. I'm saying that if the president honestly thinks we'd be better off without the tax cuts for the wealthy, and every poll shows that it's a popular idea, I'm not going to be angry at him for continually pushing the idea.

BTW, no where did I deem polling to be the "will of the people". I didn't even use that phrase. I don't know if you're trying to attribute to me the idea that if 51% of the people answer the same way on a poll that it should instantly become law, but if you are you'd be wrong in doing so. The only point I'm making, and please don't try to conflate it past the rather simple point I'm making, cause I'm not trying to make this out to be some grand argument against a representative democracy, is that if the politician has an issue that he believes in and all signs point towards it being popular with voters, then I can hardly be mad at them for pushing it. Now, that doesn't mean that those on the other side can't still criticize the idea as much as they want, but arguing that the guy shouldn't be allowed to even bring it up because they don't like it just won't cut it.

Yes, most polls (that I know of, I don't go around looking at gay marriage polling data daily or anything) favor banning gay marriage. If Republicans want to continually argue for that and present bills with then ban every few months, then they can do that. I can criticize their ideas and say they are misguided and whatever else I want to say but I would not argue that it's awful of them to be arguing in favor of what they think is right and in favor of what they think the people want.

Zyphlin said:

Here's the problem. You've randomly decided to deem Polls as "The will of the people".

Last I checked, Congress is elected by these thing called "people". They are also there due to the "Will of the people". The "Will of the People" voted them into power to act in what those congressmen think is in the best interest of the country and their constitutents.

Why is it that you feel one "Will of the People" is more important than the other "Will of the People"? Are you consistant and ALWAYS feel that whatever a poll says is what we should do? Or just when you agree with it?

The "Will of the People" by your definition (polls) said that we should ban gay marriage. So you support the republicans continually pushing for an amendment to ban it, attaching such a thing onto every major issue each few months?

Click to expand...

So your trying to say that all elected officials are there for the will of the people that you agree with ? hate to tell you theres most likely alot more elected officials whose constituents elected them with another ideal other than yours.

Conservative said:

So you make the rules here? I reject your statement and responded to your post in context with the thread topic.

Click to expand...

Make up the rules? I made a request.

You comment made no sense to me, and doesn't even in the context of the thread, but really out there in context to the post you respnded to.

Boo Radley said:

Just show me where that out of the blue comment had anything to do with what he commented to, and I'll not ask. You know as well as I do it was not responsive to the post he commented on. Do you think it unreasonable to expect a response to be somehow connected to what is posted?

Click to expand...

What I think is unreasonable, and quite childish is to resort to this name calling back and forth that you did for nearly an entire thread in the past, and it is typical of how you tend to respond when you are moving toward not debating a topic honestly. You do this to try and take your opponent off their game in the debate, by rattling them with this childish tactic, and it needs to stop.

No. And who says liberals don't like business? Seriously, I asked you this earlier, with no response, but you're setting up a premise that is simply inaccurate. Not treating business as if they were special, incapable of pulling their weight, is not a sign of hating business.

Click to expand...

Then please tell us why it is that the progressive liberal cabal in charge today is constantly going after oil, coal, gas, and any other company that they see as standing in the way of their vision of what they want?

Remember when in the campaign that Biden let slip that they were going to tax the hell out of the coal industry? And when Obama was asked about it we got the 'energy prices will necessarily skyrocket' BS?

How many new regulations have been placed on business since the first day of this tyrants term?

But you gave an artilce that is a separate issue to one you responsed to. Giving tax breaks or ending these breaks has very little to do government efforts to stimulate by proving jobs (and it is your side that think he fails if he doesn't produce jobs, whihc can only be done by government by hiring folks).

Click to expand...

Obama stands in Martha's Vineyard and tells the nation that he will give a complete plan when he gets back to DC, then he revises to say he will give a plan but not all the specifics, (why?) then he proceeds to rattle off the same BS we heard in the first stimulus speech, complete with the ever predictable 'you must pass it now, without reading it, hurry, its a crisis' crap!

And like a lemmings the libs all get in line.

j-mac

Boo Radley said:

Kind of like that Ryan bill he knew wouldn't pass?

As my statement was both sides play politics, and you agree, exactly what makes it hog wash? I suggest that partisans always see the other side as playing politics, and in doing so allow themselves an out for not considering what is being proposed.

Click to expand...

The bolded part is what makes your statement hogwash. I am partisan and I don't always see the other side as playing politics. I also don't always see my side as not playing politics.

However, in this instance, Obama is playing politics. He may have had a chance to get the jobs bill passed, slim, but a chance none the less. But then he made it absolutely unpalatable to republicans by proposing to pay for it in a way that has already been completely rejected. He doesn't want this bill passed. If he did he would look for a way to pay for it that has a chance.

j-mac said:

What I think is unreasonable, and quite childish is to resort to this name calling back and forth that you did for nearly an entire thread in the past, and it is typical of how you tend to respond when you are moving toward not debating a topic honestly. You do this to try and take your opponent off their game in the debate, by rattling them with this childish tactic, and it needs to stop.

Click to expand...

J, I don't know why you want to go down this road. I didn't call anyone a name. I responded to the fact that he was not responding to the post he answered. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Then please tell us why it is that the progressive liberal cabal in charge today is constantly going after oil, coal, gas, and any other company that they see as standing in the way of their vision of what they want?

Remember when in the campaign that Biden let slip that they were going to tax the hell out of the coal industry? And when Obama was asked about it we got the 'energy prices will necessarily skyrocket' BS?

Click to expand...

Going after? That too is your skewed view. All anyone is doing is saying they don't need those breaks. They are no more in need as anyone else. You do know business used to carry their own weight. You don't have to hate or go after to merely ask they do so again today.

How many new regulations have been placed on business since the first day of this tyrants term?

Click to expand...

J, notice your language. First, the number doesn't matter as long as anything passed was proper and necessary. You might also recall he has asked for a review to illimanate uneccessary regulations.

Obama stands in Martha's Vineyard and tells the nation that he will give a complete plan when he gets back to DC, then he revises to say he will give a plan but not all the specifics, (why?) then he proceeds to rattle off the same BS we heard in the first stimulus speech, complete with the ever predictable 'you must pass it now, without reading it, hurry, its a crisis' crap!

And like a lemmings the libs all get in line.

j-mac

Click to expand...

J, I don't claim he's perfect. Hardly. Some one asked me the other day what I thought of his speech. I said it was ok, but I noted he said the plan would be paid for when what he really did was merely call on congress to find a way to pay for it. I don't argue with you guys on things I think you have a point on. Only on the silliness that too often saturates these discussions. Tyrannt, hates business, socialism, and such merely clouds issues and keeps any valid discussion from taking place.

buck said:

The bolded part is what makes your statement hogwash. I am partisan and I don't always see the other side as playing politics. I also don't always see my side as not playing politics.

However, in this instance, Obama is playing politics. He may have had a chance to get the jobs bill passed, slim, but a chance none the less. But then he made it absolutely unpalatable to republicans by proposing to pay for it in a way that has already been completely rejected. He doesn't want this bill passed. If he did he would look for a way to pay for it that has a chance.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think republicans need to be called out more often, and not less. They need to work to compromise more often and not less. And no, doing what he's done all along, caving into republicans who only want to make his presidency fail, and not what is good for the country, is not what he should be doing. He should now, as he should have in the past, call republicans and democrats out for their silliness. He hasn't done this often enough.

Boo Radley said:

I disagree. I think republicans need to be called out more often, and not less. They need to work to compromise more often and not less. And no, doing what he's done all along, caving into republicans who only want to make his presidency fail, and not what is good for the country, is not what he should be doing. He should now, as he should have in the past, call republicans and democrats out for their silliness. He hasn't done this often enough.

Click to expand...

In other words, you acknowledge that republicans won't pass it due to how Obama proposes to pay for it, and he is just playing politics by trying to paint the other side as obstructionists. I'm glad we finally agree. Well done.

Boo Radley said:

I disagree. I think republicans need to be called out more often, and not less. They need to work to compromise more often and not less. And no, doing what he's done all along, caving into republicans who only want to make his presidency fail, and not what is good for the country, is not what he should be doing. He should now, as he should have in the past, call republicans and democrats out for their silliness. He hasn't done this often enough.

Click to expand...

What exactly would you have the Republicans compromise and does compromise to you mean the Republicans do what the Democrats want? Why would anyone propose raising taxes in this economic climate and what assurance do you have that the "jobs bill" will be successful. Obama signifies partisanship with his rhetoric and his arrogance. Nothing in this jobs bill makes any sense and is nothing more than recycled liberal economic class warfare. Why was the Ryan bill not debated in the Senate? Why was Cut, Cap, and Balance not debated in the Senate? Why did Obama say "I won, you lost" in dealing with the Republicans? Compromise seems to be defined as I stated, Republicans do what Democrats want.

roughdraft274 said:

You're essentially asking me "do you think they should continually fight for what they believe in".The obvious answer is yes.

Click to expand...

I think doing this is a disservice to the country. I don't mind a president pushing an idea, even pushing it a number of times. But when every 3 months you attach it to an important issue you're doing a country a disservice by focusing so much of your time, the debate, and your efforts towards something that is reasonable to assume will fail. I'm not saying don't fight for your principles, but I'm saying don't try and make every major issue be tied with that particular pet peeve issue.

Now I do agree with you they should be allowed to bring it up, no where am I saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it. I just think when you bring something up as part of every major issue that comes up every couple of months when its been unsuccessful both under a majority controlled by your party and by the current make up of congress the ONLY reason you're doing it is for political posturing. That its a waste of time, its a disservice to the public, and its theather and nothing more.

I'm not saying he can't do it. I just find it distasteful when he or anyone does it.

I understand your point a bit more now, and I don't disagree at its core. Where we disagree is you seem to support the notion of them doing it and see it as a good thing and I don't. I see it as political grandstanding and putting ones political asperations ahead of actually attempting to get things done.

lpast said:

So your trying to say that all elected officials are there for the will of the people that you agree with ? hate to tell you theres most likely alot more elected officials whose constituents elected them with another ideal other than yours.

Click to expand...

No, I was saying that if you're going to say doing something is okay because its "popular with the people" because polls show it that way you can't ignore that the reason the people in congress are there was becuase they were "popular with the people" as well, and thus why should one example of popularity be greater or more important than the other example.

AdamT said:

It's $200k per individual and $250k per household -- nothing new there.

This is a perfectly reasonable way to pay for the plan.

Click to expand...

And I'll be letting some people go if this is passed. You can bet on that.

buck said:

In other words, you acknowledge that republicans won't pass it due to how Obama proposes to pay for it, and he is just playing politics by trying to paint the other side as obstructionists. I'm glad we finally agree. Well done.

Click to expand...

No. Republicans may well play politics. You may be right. But they don't have. They can actually try to work with this. Obama is right in what he is calling for. Obama, unlike republicans, is compromising. Republicans are being obstructionist, using my way or the highway. As they ahve been all along. It is proper to call them on it.

Erod said:

And I'll be letting some people go if this is passed. You can bet on that.

Click to expand...

If you have the business, you won't. It's that simple. If business is so linked to taxes, then we could never tax them. I just don't buy that. And the research does not show the link you suggest.