Surprise move on tax cuts by Obama

Schneed10

I'm a big fan of moderate Obama.

__________________
Skins' Salary Cap Status | CrazyCanuck's Cap Figures by Player | Salary Cap 101

saden1

Here I was thinking SS with running out of money and the GOP wanted to pay for things and decrease the national debt. This social security gimmick will net me 2 grand and I could use the money... I should be happy but I'm not.

:vomit:Obama

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

Mattyk

Gotta keep the wealthy happy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us...html?src=twrhp

__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop

Chico23231

Dont want to hear any b*tching by the right about deficit anymore.

__________________
Ready for the Draft.

Schneed10

Poor thinking for a number of reasons:

- Tax revenue is only part of the story when it comes to deficits, the other big one being spending. The onus is now on the Republican-led congress to propose spending reductions to bring spending in line with tax revenue and balance the budget. And in turn, the onus will then be on Obama to approve them, or come up with some other way to balance the budget, or he'll be labeled as a spender.

- The whole point of keeping taxes low for the rich is to spur investment and economic growth. As more people get hired and more businesses grow, the more tax revenue the government will bring in. Rising tides raise all boats. Tax revenue isn't just about the rate at which income is taxed, it's also about the number of people and business that have an income to tax.

If you get unemployment down from 10% to 5%, you just increased the number of taxpayers by 5%. Growing the economy in a sustainable manner (ie not through one-time stimulus) is key to balancing the budget.

__________________
Skins' Salary Cap Status | CrazyCanuck's Cap Figures by Player | Salary Cap 101

saden1

Cut the fcking crap, we both know they're not going to make a dent on the budget or the deficit anytime soon with any of their proposals. You can bet your ass the debt ceiling will be raised again to pay this pile of shit.

It worked wonders the last ten years, no reason to believe it won't work in the next ten years. Let's not forget taxes were higher during the Clinton era, no reason to believe we would be worse off if we raised taxes on those making over 250K. If you don't own a boat, well, tough shit...buy a swimming board.

Revenue vs expenditure...5% increase low earners aren't going get you any revenue. Higher corporate tax rates and estate taxes will though but of course we can't touch those rates because they create jobs.



Punt! :vomit:

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

Chico23231

Right so my only question is A) Has the defecit grown since W took office and passed these tax policy? B) Why didnt this logic already happening over the last decade? This is extention of the tax cuts. This is not new tax policy?

The top 1% getting there continuing fat tax cut was politics pure and simple. Your logic is the same rhetoric given when that policy was initial passed.

__________________
Ready for the Draft.

firstdown

Federal spending was also held in check durn the Clinton years also.
Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing

Also federal income has risen over the years so whats your point?
Federal Revenue, Taxes and Tax Rates: Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts

We don't have a tax problem we have a spending problem. Both parties have had this spending problem so I'm not blaming either party. Everyone hated Newt. G. but he was the last person in charge that actually did what he said and kept spending down which allowed Clinton to have a balance budget. I don't have problem paying my fair share in taxes when they clean up the waist.

firstdown

This is a f*&%ed up chart because a good portion of those people don't even pay federal income taxes. So they don't pay but they can get tax refunds in the thousands.

CRedskinsRule

The other f*&%ed up part is that they don't make the income brackets graphically apparent. So when you see it, your eyes focus on the disparity at the top level, and that feels unfair. But if they had the same circles on the income side then the proportionality of the system would be more tangible, and the picture would make better sense. You could still have the debate, it just would be more correctly framed

saden1

What's debilitating and increasing this country financial problems are the wars and the out of control defense budget. Continuing to reduce the federal income by reducing taxes, raiding social security, and spending money on "defense" is certain to make the problem worse. The reason we are where we are is because we don't address the real issues and these morons think their agreement is a step in the right direction.

Down with this garbage...I would rather raise taxes on everyone and spite my face.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

SirClintonPortis

For all their conflicts, a lot of the Dems and Repubs are Keynesians at heart, and the economics-illiterate public gets suckered in by their half-truths.

__________________
Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness".

Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten.

The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is Don Juan.

firstdown

Well maybe if we stopped giving 50% of the people a free ride on federal taxes things would not be so bad. I under stand some of the poor just don't make enough but 50% of the population not paying any taxes. Then a good number of them get tax refunds after paying nothing into the system but we make it sound like the rich are getting a free ride. Hell they are the ones paying the bills.

Also if you actually looked at the chart federal income has not dropped its increased. I agree we need to cut defense but we also need to make a bunch of other cuts in social programs.