PDA

View Full Version : Obama Fact check : More lies !


ROYC75
09-20-2010, 09:07 PM
http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/09/10/gao-finds-sebelius-misleading-taxpayers-health-reform?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogs%2Femac+(Internal+-+EMac's+Stock+Watch+-+Blog)

Fact Checking the President -- Again

by Elizabeth MacDonald


“Right now, we could decide that every American household would receive a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income…The leaders across the aisle..want to hold these middle-class tax cuts hostage until they get an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. It would mean borrowing $700 billion..to give a tax cut..to millionaires and billionaires.” -- President Barack Obama, September 15, 2010

Let’s start with: “Right now, we could decide that every American household would receive a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income” and that the Republicans are demanding “an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.”

This debate is about preserving the Bush tax cuts for all brackets that were enacted earlier this decade that are set to expire January 1 -- not creating new ones.

Tax cuts that 28 House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats, including Democrat Senators Max Baucus, Dianne Feinstein, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu all voted for in May 2001.

Tax cuts that Senator Baucus, along with Senator Chuck Grassley, said then in voting for them:

"Entrepreneurs and small businesses ... will receive 80% of the tax relief...Experts agree that lower taxes increase a business' cash flow, which helps with liquidity constraints during an economic slowdown and could increase the demand for investment and labor."

Taxpayers making $250,000 or more are considered middle class in many urban areas with a high cost of living, and are not as the President said “millionaires and billionaires.”

Next up: the President’s comment: “We simply can’t afford” extending the Bush tax cut on the upper bracket.

The US government takes in just $2.2 trillion annually in tax revenues from individuals and companies.

In the 20 months since the President took office, DC has borrowed $2.8 trillion, swamping the annual federal tax haul.

Taxing small businesses and workers won't cure the nation's estimated $13.4 trillion national debt. Interest costs on the national debt: about $375 billion.

Next: The president’s statement on reinstating the upper bracket cut: “It would mean borrowing $700 billion in order to fund these tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans.”

First, that $700 billion cost is not just for one year, it represents costs over a decade, according to government estimates, and the figure is actually $679.6 billion.

Moreover, the Treasury Dept. says the cost of the marginal income tax cut for the wealthiest is just $364.5 billion over ten years. The total $679.6 billion cost includes what the upper bracket would forgo in the way of expired tax cuts for capital gains and dividends, and other deductions.

So letting the tax cut on the $250K+ crowd expire would bring in just $36.5 billion to $68 billion in annual federal tax revenues, depending on how you slice it.

And that just about covers the estimated $27 billion in annual Congressional pork spending and many other subsidies given to buy votes, take your pick.

That revenue would cover only about 9% to 18% of the interest on the nation's debt, which the President and Congress have added to in dramatic fashion.

Government spending that will lead to inflation, pushing your income and capital gains into higher tax brackets, creating more tax bills because the alternative minimum tax and capital gains tax rates are not indexed to inflation (the AMT is catching more of the middle class every year).

You’ll also hear that “just 3% of Americans will be hit with higher taxes, 97% will not."

Small businesses will be hurt by the tax hike on the upper bracket.

Estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, based on IRS 2007 return data, show that 48% of small business net income is reported on the returns of 750,000 taxpayers in the $200K/$250K+ crowd.

That’s the 3% of taxpayers cited now by White House officials. Government estimates show that the IRS is expected to collect $1 trillion in aggregate net business income in 2011. Meaning, an estimated $480 billion will be subject to higher taxes.

The $480 billion is more important than the 3% figure, because it is business income (and not the number of business taxpayers) that fuels new jobs.

“What you should focus on is how much money you are taking out of the hands of the entrepreneurs, not how many entrepreneurs you are taking money from,” says Fox News analyst James Farrell.

Also the President’s new small business jobs bill is partially paid for by a tax on multinationals — even though Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the Administration have reassured the American people that the government will export our way out of the present recession.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” – President Barack Obama, 2008.

I cede the rest of this column to Fox Business news director Ray Hennessey:

The debate in Congress now about whether the top 2% deserve the same tax breaks as the rest of the country has to be viewed in the context of the above quote, made to the man who would ultimately be known as Joe the Plumber during the campaign of 2008.

At the heart of why the administration does not want every American to be treated equally is an idea that spreading the wealth around – better known as wealth redistribution – helps make the economy better.

If you succeed, you should throw back some of that success to those who don’t, thus making them succeed, too. But there’s no basis in economic theory that supports that.

In fact, wealth redistribution is the destruction of wealth. If you work hard, succeed and make an income that hits some kind of arbitrary level, you are expected then to kick that back to the government so that the public sector can then make sure that those who perhaps have not worked hard or succeeded get an income, too.

So your wealth is capped. More importantly, that approach kills initiative, entrepreneurism and work ethic – all pillars on which this country is built. Why work hard to build your wealth when you will be forced to just give it to others?

On the flip side, why bother even working when you know your income will come from the government, subsidized by taxpayers who have succeeded? It doesn’t take an economic genius to see that such a model isn’t sustainable. Hell, even Cuba wants more free enterprise nowadays.

There is an element of class warfare here, as well. Particularly during an election season highlighted by growing populism, it pays politically to take an “us-versus-them” approach.

But it misses the point that the populism sweeping the country reflects that more and more Americans are finding their hard work is not appreciated, their success is punished and their burden in paying for the rest of the nation – a nation where now a majority of citizens gets a check from the government – is constantly rising.

The top 1% of the country pays 40.42% of the taxes, according to National Taxpayers Union. The top 5% pay 60.63%. Some observers have mentioned the so-called rich have to “pay their fair share.”

Yet, the current tax structure is such that the bottom 50% of this country pays just 2.89% of taxes.

So the reason the administration says the country can’t afford to extend tax breaks to the top 2% is because, indeed, that is true: the country relies disproportionately on the highest earners for the most revenue. So much for “fair share.”

And who are the “rich?” We are told they are “millionaires and billionaires.” Not so.

They are small business owners, fathers and mothers, and, indeed, some people finding that the cost of living makes it difficult to pay for college for their children. We are not talking about Mr. Monopoly here.


Read more: http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/09/16/fact-checking-president-again?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogs%2Femac+%28Internal+-+EMac%27s+Stock+Watch+-+Blog%29#ixzz1086NFDLB

ROYC75
09-20-2010, 09:10 PM
Fact Checking the Democratic Leadership on Jobs

by Elizabeth MacDonald

Time to fact check the Democratic leadership's claims on job growth, given the smoke bombs being set off in this debate as the midterm elections loom.

First, the data. The Bureau of Labor Statistics issued a press release on the new unemployment numbers showing U.S. employers made a net cut of 54,000 jobs in August, aggravated by the loss of 114,000 Census worker jobs.

The unemployment rate, calculated using a separate household survey, edged up to 9.6% from 9.5% as more job seekers entered the labor force, versus the peak of 10.1% in October 2009. July payrolls were revised to a loss of 54,000 from an original estimate of a 131,000 drop.

Private-sector companies added 67,000 jobs, following an upwardly revised 107,000 gain in July. Manufacturers shed 27,000 jobs, after adding 34,000 the previous month.

Economists now attribute a chunk of the decline in the jobless rate to 9.6% to the net 1.4 million people who left the labor force since May. Add in 1.4 million people, and the jobless rate zooms higher to 10.3%, says Miller Tabak strategist Dan Greenhaus.

Deutsche Bank also says the private sector created a net total of 689,000 jobs since November 2009, the point when the jobs picture turned positive. That 689,000 is anemic compared to the 8.5 million private jobs lost in the downturn, Deutsche says, noting too that monthly private sector job creation is trending down. The Administration says stimulus enacted in February 2009 created or saved 3.4 million jobs--2.35 million jobs were lost since stimulus passed. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, says without stimulus, "we would have two and a half to three million fewer jobs," and the unemployment rate would be 11.5%. The White House said stimulus would drive the unemployment rate down below 8.5%. The government has added more than $3 trillion in debt in two years--14.9 million are still without jobs.

Now to fact checking the claims—Fox News analyst James Farrell has a go at it:

“We will have job growth of 250,000 to 500,000 a month.”

- Claim: In an April 23, 2010 fundraiser, Vice President Joseph Biden stated "Well, I'm here to tell you some time in the next couple of months we're going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month."

FBN Fact check: What today's BLS employment release stated: "Total nonfarm payroll employment was little changed (-54,000) in August."

"Automotive workers worked through the 'summer shutdown.'"

- Claim: In the July 2010 report titled "Rebuilding the Auto Industry," the administration claimed that "2010 is on track to be the strongest year of job growth in the auto industry since 1999.” To highlight the job growth, the report highlighted "the recent experience of the big three automakers" of "Working through the Summer Shutdown: Nine of GM’s eleven manufacturing and assembly plants, including Hamtramck, skipped the customary summer plant shutdown to meet growing consumer demand."

FBN Fact check: The latest employment release from the BLS indicates that automotive job numbers were inflated in July because workers did not "work through the Summer shutdown" – instead the timing of the "Summer shutdown" was adjusted to fall in August: "A decline in motor vehicles and parts (-22,000) offset a gain of similar magnitude in July as the industry departed somewhat from its usual layoff and recall pattern for annual retooling."

"Health care jobs will boom after Obamacare is signed."

- Claim: On February 25, 2010, in discussing Obamacare, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated: "So this bill is not only about the health security of America. It's about jobs. In its life it will create four million jobs -- 400,000 jobs almost immediately; jobs, again, in the health care industry, but in the entrepreneurial world as well."

FBN Fact check: What today's BLS employment release stated: "Thus far in 2010, the health care industry has added an average of 20,000 jobs per month, about in line with the average monthly job growth in 2009."

"Construction employment will increase during the 'Summer of Recovery.'"

- Claim: In a June 2010 report touting the "Summer of Recovery," Vice President Biden wrote: "As summer construction season kicks into high gear, commitments made late last year to infrastructure investments will transition from committed dollars into tangible action—thousands of projects will break ground and thousands more will increase activity and hiring."

FBN Fact check: The latest BLS employment release says that construction employment was in fact up by an estimated 19,000 in August, which seems like an improvement. But the BLS says this change partially reflected the return to payrolls of 10,000 [construction] workers who were on strike in July." So, the Vice President's claim might have been true, if Chicago construction workers had not gone on strike and delayed state and local construction projects. The workers went on strike to secure a 3.25% pay increase each year for the next three years --which the union workers said was necessitated by the rising costs of their health insurance premiums, the same rising premiums that health reform was supposed to drive down.


Read more: http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/09/03/fact-checking-democratic-leadership-jobs#ixzz1087F6Q1V

ROYC75
09-20-2010, 09:13 PM
GAO Finds Sebelius Misleading Taxpayers on Health Reform

by Elizabeth MacDonald

The Government Accountability Office says a Medicare mailer sent out by Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, to Medicare recipients on the new health-care law isn’t accurate.

In fact, according to the GAO, the brochure, which cost $18 million in taxpayer dollars to publish and emanated from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, presented a view of the health reform law that is “not universally shared,” that it “overstated the benefits” of health reform,” and that it failed to note the possibility of less generous Medicare benefits and higher costs.

While the GAO cleared the administration of putting together a purely partisan or propagandizing brochure, it was nonetheless critical of its content.

Is this Sebelius brochure good use of nearly $20 million in taxpayer money?

Prior to press, Fox Business reached out to HHS for its response to the GAO report. After the story appeared on the FBN website, HHS emailed this statement: "The GAO report confirms what we have been saying all along. The Medicare brochure is a critical tool to inform Medicare beneficiaries and their families about how the Affordable Care Act affects them." The statement concludes by saying that the GAO report "confirms that it [the brochure] is not partisan and is not propaganda."

The irony is rich. Almost a year to the day, Humana, one of the biggest private insurers offering richer Medicare plans to the elderly, sent out a letter last September warning senior citizens that a government revamp of health insurance could eliminate their benefits.

An official with a unit of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services then sent the insurer a threatening letter instructing Humana that it was now under investigation, that it must “end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries” and that it must “remove any related materials” from its website, adding, “please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions.”

That letter set off an explosive fight in Congress, with Democrats Sen. Max Baucus and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the one side and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell on the other.

Representatives David Camp (R-Mich.) and Wally Herger (R-Calif.) had asked the GAO to determine whether the HHS brochure violated publicity or propaganda prohibitions in federal law.

In the brochure, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, says the handout provides taxpayers with “accurate” information about “new services and benefits” under health reform.

Specifically, in a section entitled "What Stays the Same," Sebelius advises taxpayers that "[t]he guaranteed Medicare benefits you currently receive will remain the same,” that reform “preserves and strengthens Medicare," makes "improvements," and creates "new benefits."

But the GAO says those statements are misleading and are overstatements.

For example, the GAO says the brochure fails to note that reform actually delivers cuts to the Medicare program, increases Medicare prescription premiums, and cuts payment to doctors.

The GAO also says the Sebelius brochure made misleading statements about health reform making “improvements” to Medicare Advantage, and that the brochure does not cite the $123 billion in estimated cuts over a ten-year period to Medicare Advantage, which provides services beyond regular Medicare offerings. Medicare Advantage is the private options that about one in five Medicare beneficiaries enroll in.

And the GAO says the brochure fails to note that “two government analyses have determined that [health reform] reductions in funding for Medicare Advantage may decrease enrollment and result in less generous benefit packages.”

The GAO also says the brochure misleadingly tells Medicare recipients that health reform "increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants" enrolled in Medicare, when in fact, reform only provides incentives for those doctors to voluntarily join or stay in Medicare.

The GAO also says the brochure misleadingly refers to new programs as being available for Medicare recipients, when they are not eligible for these offerings.

A spokesman for the GAO says the report "confirms what we have been saying all along. The Medicare brochure is a critical tool to inform Medicare beneficiaries and their families about how the Affordable Care Act affects them and remind them to be on the alert for any scams asking for personal information. Today's GAO report confirms that it is not partisan and is not propaganda."

In a section called “Improvements beyond Medicare that you and your family can count on,” Sebelius’s brochure notes that under the new health reform law, children up to age 26 can stay on their parents plan. But the GAO says that section is misleading, as Medicare beneficiaries “are likely to be ineligible” for that offering, meaning, their children can’t get Medicare benefits.

And in that same section, the Sebelius brochure also cites a new long-term care insurance program that requires enrollees to work while paying premiums. But the GAO says that, again, Medicare beneficiaries “are likely to be ineligible” for that offering.

The GAO also says the brochure fails to acknowledge what the 2010 Medicare Trustees Report says, “that while the financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of” reform, “the feasibility of long-range improvements is still uncertain, and significant increases in premiums for some beneficiaries may be necessary.”

The Sebelius brochure also states that reform will "ensure accountability throughout the health care system,” but the GAO report says it “does not guarantee it.”

Similarly, the brochure notes that health reform "reduces payment errors, waste, fraud, and abuse,” but again the GAO says those reductions are not guaranteed.

And the GAO says the brochure makes other “overstatements of information” on health reform, including that "[i]nsurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition for children starting in September, and for adults in 2014," when in fact the new law “does not apply to all health plans,” and that “a subset of health plans-grandfathered individual health insurance plans-are exempt” from restrictions on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.


Read more: http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/09/10/gao-finds-sebelius-misleading-taxpayers-health-reform?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogs%2Femac+%28Internal+-+EMac%27s+Stock+Watch+-+Blog%29#ixzz1087ytfy8

Brainiac
09-20-2010, 09:21 PM
Does this remind anyone of the tax on luxury boats that Congress passed in the early 1990s? That was another tax intended to soak the rich. It nearly destroyed an entire industry and cost thousands of people their jobs before it was hastily repealed.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. F*cking morons.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/21/nyregion/new-luxury-tax-trimming-boat-sales.html

New Luxury Tax Trimming Boat Sales

By PENNY SINGER
Published: July 21, 1991



THE 10 percent excise tax on pleasure boats, coming on top of the recession, is helping to scuttle parts of the local boating industry, say those who make their livings building, selling and maintaining the boats.

The luxury tax, which began Jan. 1, is applied to that part of a new boat's sale price over $100,000. The National Marine Manufacturers Association, the industry trade group, estimates that from 10,000 to 15,000 boats nationally will be subject to the tax.

In Mamaroneck, Howard McMichael Jr., who is 52 years old and joined the family business, McMichael Yacht Brokers, in 1962, said his business has been hit by the tax and the recession. Sales of New Boats Down

"In 1989, we sold 30 boats costing over $100,000," Mr. McMichael said. "We sold 8 last year in that category and so far this year, we've sold 2."

The business was founded in 1935. "Traditionally, we have always sold a mix of new and used boats, with the bulk of sales, or about 60 percent of them, in new boats," he said. "Today, new boat sales account for only 10 percent of our business."

According to the manufacturers association, new boat sales, which reached a high of 749,020 in 1988, dropped to 504,100 in 1990 and are expected to drop even more sharply this year. .

Mr. McMichael's father, who founded the business, said this season is the worst he can remember.

"Everything hit at once," he said. "The luxury tax plus the recession left boat dealers with large inventories of boats they can't sell while they owe the banks millions of dollars in outstanding loans."

The elder Mr. McMichael said that over the years, he had been over-cautious about borrowing and keeping large inventories. "Now," he said, "over-caution has turned into an economic benefit. We're not saddled with a lot of new boats we can't sell." The company has broken sales records in the last three months, Mr. McMichael said, but the sales have been for used boats.

The executive vice president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, Frank Scalpone, said the tax had already adversely affected the nation's top boat builders. He cited companies like Pearson Yachts, O'Day Corporation, Shannon Boat Builders and Bristol Yachts as ones that have been forced out of business. "For production boat builders fighting the recession, it was the straw that broke the camel's back," Mr. Scalpone said.

The trade organization reports that new boat sales, which soared to a high of 749,020 in 1988, dropped to 504,100 in 1990; they are expected to drop even more sharply this year, Mr. Scalpone said. Exceptions to the Trend

In Westchester, two companies -- one a top-of-the-line luxury craft designer and one a dealer whose trade is mostly in sailboats costing less than $100,000 -- are going against the trend. They said their business is good, despite the tax and the recession.

At the Mamaroneck shipyard of Robert E. Derecktor, work has just been completed on a custom-designed 58-foot sailboat commissioned for a New Jersey couple at a price of $1.6 million. And work is almost completed on a $6 million 110-foot motor yacht for another private owner.

The Derecktor yard, which built the 1987 America's Cup winner, the Stars & Stripes, is well known for its custom-designed yachts in the $1.5 million to $8 million range. Mary Ann Clerkin, director of marketing, said general consumer apprehension about the Persian Gulf war had affected sales there more than the luxury tax.

"Customers thought twice about ordering yachts while the war was raging, and they put their plans on hold," she said. "Since our boats take 12 to 20 months to build, business slowed down to the point where we had to let some of our employees go."

"With the end of the war," she said, "orders started coming in and we not only rehired all our old employees, but we added additional workers."

Ms. Clerkin said Derecktor's customers were escaping the luxury tax by setting up off-shore corporations to purchase the boats. The corporations are exempt from all taxes, including state sales tax.

Mr. Scalpone explained that boats bought through offshore corporations cannot be brought back to the United States for six months.

"In reality, the boat tax is self-defeating," Ms. Clerkin said. "Not only is it not bringing in the revenue that was expected, it has caused great hardship to the boating industry, which is one of the few United States manufacturing industries that earns money abroad.

"Everyone in the industry has been actively lobbying to get the tax repealed," she said, "and we have hopes that will happen sometime very soon before it does even more damage." 'One of Our Best Seasons Ever'

At Samalot Marine in Ossining, the luxury tax has had little effect because the company mostly sells sailboats under the $100,000 cutoff where the tax begins.

"What kind of a year are we having? A very good one, one of our best seasons ever," said Guy May, the manager. "More people want sailboats instead of power today, and we've been selling a lot of used sailboats for under $10,000."

Besides boat sales, Mr. May said, "we have a long waiting list for our slips; all 33 of them were rented early." Priced at $50 a foot, or about half of what a slip on the Sound costs, it is not surprising.

Businesses connected to boat sales have felt the ripple effect of the recession and the luxury tax, said Virginia Daniels of the Nichols Yacht Yard, in the West Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor. Cheaper Slip Rental

"In 1989, we were charging $105 per foot, or $3,100, to rent a slip for a 30-foot boat, and we had a waiting list of people who wanted berths," Ms. Daniels said. "Last year, we were 70 percent full, so this year we lowered the price. A 30-foot boat now costs $2,900 and we're 80 percent full, which we feel is very good when other yards are reporting 40 to 50 percent occupancies this season."

Near the Nichols yard, at Total Yachts Sales, Thomas G. Caruso, who owns the yard with his father, John, said his 120 slips had all been sold at $100 a foot.

"But our sales of new boats costing more than $100,000 are nonexistent," Mr. Caruso said. "We haven't sold one since January. We've also had a couple of boats in the yard that have been repossessed when their owners couldn't keep up their bank payments."

Several boat owners went bankrupt, he said, leaving unpaid yard bills for storage and maintenance. "We were able to get only a small percentage of what we were owed."

To compensate for the drop in new boat sales, Mr. Caruso said, he is expanding his storage and service work. Mixed Reports at Sailing Schools

"We figure that people are buying more used boats and people with boats are keeping them longer, and that they will need more in the way of service and repairs to keep those boats in good shape," he said.

Similarily, to stimulate the sales of used boats, McMichael is offering boat owners who want to sell a package including a haul-out, a scrub, yard space and advertising, said the younger Mr. McMichael.

At other businesses connected to boat sales -- two sailing schools on City Island in Long Island Sound -- reports on business were mixed.

"The excise tax is terrible for the future of the industry, but our business was more directly affected by the war in the gulf and the recession," said Stephen Palma, owner of the New York Sailing School. "Our bookings came in late this year; the war stopped people from thinking about such things as sailing lessons.

"And those people who formerly were our best customers -- Wall Street types who wanted to learn how to sail before buying a boat -- have pretty much disappeared." A four-day learn-to-sail program in 23-foot Sonar boats costs $395.

But at the Offshore Sailing School, Tyler Pierce, director of operations, said the number of students was about the same as last year. "We did especially well selling learning-to-sail courses at discount to people who signed up for it at the Boat Show this year," Mr. Pierce said. His two-week sailing class, in Soling boats, costs $425.

And with fewer people buying boats, he said, he is offering rentals.

petegz28
09-20-2010, 09:29 PM
This is what most people know, though some can't come to grips with themselves to admit it but deep down they know we were lied too. The HC bill does absolutely nothing to reduce costs at all. This Administration has been shoveling bullshit since day 1 and now the once emotionaly charged Obama supporters are starting to realise they were shafted.

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2010, 10:16 PM
How long will it take for reactionary conservative types to realize, that citing FOX news and its affiliates...is just plain, stupid, for supporting their arguments. FOX is bought, stock, lock, and barrel by, Republican interest groups. Period. End of any rational discussion.

FTR...yeah, yeah, there are plenty of liberally biased sources as well, that are equally stupid for libs to cite. However, this is your side doing the same shit. And the shit still stinks to high heaven, regardless of which "side" is doing it.

Period. :rolleyes:

morphius
09-20-2010, 10:23 PM
How long will it take for reactionary conservative types to realize, that citing FOX news and its affiliates...is just plain, stupid, for supporting their arguments. FOX is bought, stock, lock, and barrel by, Republican interest groups. Period. End of any rational discussion.

FTR...yeah, yeah, there are plenty of liberally biased sources as well, that are equally stupid for libs to cite. However, this is your side doing the same shit. And the shit still stinks to high heaven, regardless of which "side" is doing it.

Period. :rolleyes:
Prob about the same time that people on the left realize that people on the right believe the same of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN...

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2010, 10:35 PM
Prob about the same time that people on the left realize that people on the right believe the same of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN...

Agreed. No prob, from me.... :shrug:

Brainiac
09-21-2010, 05:45 AM
How long will it take for reactionary conservative types to realize, that citing FOX news and its affiliates...is just plain, stupid, for supporting their arguments. FOX is bought, stock, lock, and barrel by, Republican interest groups. Period. End of any rational discussion.

FTR...yeah, yeah, there are plenty of liberally biased sources as well, that are equally stupid for libs to cite. However, this is your side doing the same shit. And the shit still stinks to high heaven, regardless of which "side" is doing it.

Period. :rolleyes:

It's telling that that you made no absolutely no attempt to say that anything posted was factually incorrect. You simply trotted out the tired old "Fox is Republican" argument.

THAT'S what is stupid.

mlyonsd
09-21-2010, 06:44 AM
How long will it take for reactionary conservative types to realize, that citing FOX news and its affiliates...is just plain, stupid, for supporting their arguments. FOX is bought, stock, lock, and barrel by, Republican interest groups. Period. End of any rational discussion.

FTR...yeah, yeah, there are plenty of liberally biased sources as well, that are equally stupid for libs to cite. However, this is your side doing the same shit. And the shit still stinks to high heaven, regardless of which "side" is doing it.

Period. :rolleyes:

Says the guy whose job is based on tax revenue.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2010, 06:44 AM
Remember that previous luxury boat tax? It crashed that industry with the average joe who builds them, sells them lost their jobs due to huge drop in sales.

Obama is stooooopid!

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 06:53 AM
It's telling that that you made no absolutely no attempt to say that anything posted was factually incorrect. You simply trotted out the tired old "Fox is Republican" argument.

THAT'S what is stupid.

You can blow it up point by point, but that takes time and effort. I'll do it in cursory fashion, but don't have time for this now. Suffice to say that Faux News is always spinning things their way because it's a politicized organization with a specific agenda.

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 06:59 AM
Fact Checking the President -- Again

by Elizabeth MacDonald


“Right now, we could decide that every American household would receive a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income…The leaders across the aisle..want to hold these middle-class tax cuts hostage until they get an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. It would mean borrowing $700 billion..to give a tax cut..to millionaires and billionaires.” -- President Barack Obama, September 15, 2010

Let’s start with: “Right now, we could decide that every American household would receive a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income” and that the Republicans are demanding “an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.”

This debate is about preserving the Bush tax cuts for all brackets that were enacted earlier this decade that are set to expire January 1 -- not creating new ones.

The law RIGHT NOW is that the tax will be X as of Y date. To vote to lower that tax as of Y date is a tax cut. That is one legitimate way of looking at it. Yes, it's semantics by the Democrats, but semantics and how you describe something is how you try to control the argument, right? So spare me the false outrage.

Next up: the President’s comment: “We simply can’t afford” extending the Bush tax cut on the upper bracket.

The US government takes in just $2.2 trillion annually in tax revenues from individuals and companies.

In the 20 months since the President took office, DC has borrowed $2.8 trillion, swamping the annual federal tax haul.

Taxing small businesses and workers won't cure the nation's estimated $13.4 trillion national debt. Interest costs on the national debt: about $375 billion.

Thsi same thinking, applied eleventy billion times to other "minor expenditures" of a billion here and a billion there, is how we're $11 trillion or whatever in debt. "A billion here and a billion there and soon you're talking about real money." :shake:

Next: The president’s statement on reinstating the upper bracket cut: “It would mean borrowing $700 billion in order to fund these tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans.”

First, that $700 billion cost is not just for one year, it represents costs over a decade, according to government estimates, and the figure is actually $679.6 billion.

Usually numbers above 5 round up to the next increment. Also, governmental estimates are usually off, and usually to the government's disfavor. Besides, you just said (paragraph above) that a few billion dollar is an insignificant sum compared to the overall deficit/debt, but now you're outraged by rounding the number 679.6 to 700? WTF?!? Finally, the usual way the government does estimates is over a 10 year period. THAT'S WHY THESE TAX BREAKS SUNSETTED AFTER 9 YEARS OR WHATEVER, because the government could HIDE THE TRUE COST of the tax breaks because having them reset to the higher number resulted in a disingenously lower number in the estimates made back in 2001.

So again, spare me the bullshit.

Yeah, that's enough. Again, no time for this.

Brainiac
09-21-2010, 07:05 AM
You can blow it up point by point, but that takes time and effort. I'll do it in cursory fashion, but don't have time for this now. Suffice to say that Faux News is always spinning things their way because it's a politicized organization with a specific agenda.

Fair enough. No sensible person would deny that Fox News leans far to the Right. However, I don't immediately dismiss what they report simply because the story supports their agenda. When Left-leaning networks like MSNBC and CNN report the news or editorialize, I listen to what they have to say and decide whether or not it's credible, just like I do with Fox.

Based upon what I've seen so far from the Obama administration, these stories appear very credible to me, especially the story about Sebelius. The way Sebelius is attempting to engage in thought control regarding HC reform is chilling. If a Republican were doing that the Democrats would be outraged, and rightfully so.

If you are planning to provide a point-by-point rebuttal to any of the stories, that's great. But for people like Kotter to simply dismiss it in the manner that he did is intellectually lazy. I thought the guy was supposed to be a teacher. Is this how he teaches his classes?

Brainiac
09-21-2010, 07:09 AM
The law RIGHT NOW is that the tax will be X as of Y date. To vote to lower that tax as of Y date is a tax cut. That is one legitimate way of looking at it. Yes, it's semantics by the Democrats, but semantics and how you describe something is how you try to control the argument, right? So spare me the false outrage.



Thsi same thinking, applied eleventy billion times to other "minor expenditures" of a billion here and a billion there, is how we're $11 trillion or whatever in debt. "A billion here and a billion there and soon you're talking about real money." :shake:



Usually numbers above 5 round up to the next increment. Also, governmental estimates are usually off, and usually to the government's disfavor. Besides, you just said (paragraph above) that a few billion dollar is an insignificant sum compared to the overall deficit/debt, but now you're outraged by rounding the number 679.6 to 700? WTF?!? Finally, the usual way the government does estimates is over a 10 year period. THAT'S WHY THESE TAX BREAKS SUNSETTED AFTER 9 YEARS OR WHATEVER, because the government could HIDE THE TRUE COST of the tax breaks because having them reset to the higher number resulted in a disingenously lower number in the estimates made back in 2001.

So again, spare me the bullshit.

Yeah, that's enough. Again, no time for this.
Seriously? This is your rebuttal? That keeping the same tax rates that we have today is a tax cut?

And you wonder why people get outraged at the doublespeak. Your rebuttal is just as much bullshit as the original bullshit that the OP called out.

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 07:17 AM
Seriously? This is your rebuttal? That keeping the same tax rates that we have today is a tax cut?

And you wonder why people get outraged at the doublespeak. Your rebuttal is just as much bullshit as the original bullshit that the OP called out.

I wouldn't call it a tax cut either, but that's just me.

But it's a vote to lower taxes from what the law is currently calling for. If you can get the tax cut passed only because you played with the 10 year projections by having the tax cut sunset, and then scream and shout as if it's some kind of betrayal of the American dream when the AGREED UPON SUNSET ACTUALLY HAPPENS, I don't really see why Democrats can't frame the argument their way here too.

Besides, give me a break. This kind of playing games with language is what both parties do all the freaking time.

And way to ignore the rest of my post. :D

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 07:22 AM
Another way to look at this -- the existing lower tax rate was TEMPORARY. What is a vote to make something temporary permanent? REpublicans are screaming that this is a tax hike. I suppose inaction could be an action. It's certainly a choice. But the Bush cuts were temporary. Now the falsity of the numbers that Republicans relied on in 2001 to get these cuts passed is proven out -- as if there was ever any doubt -- by this massive effort to UNDO the agreement to have the tax rate go back to where it was.

And you wonder why we have this deficit? Games JUST LIKE THIS FOR FIFTY YEARS.

That moral highground you think you're standing on? It ain't so high.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.operations.mod.uk/garron/images/well_shaft.jpg

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 07:28 AM
Here's a nice find -- a WSJ article from 2003, after the second round of cuts.

"If Bush wins 2004 and remains in office, and the Republicans keep control in Congress, it's very likely they'll fight not just to re-enact these tax cuts but to expand them," says Mark Luscombe, principal tax analyst for CCH Inc., a publisher in Riverwoods, Ill. "But as the Clinton administration said, 'It's the economy, stupid.' If the economy doesn't rebound strongly to pay for all these cuts, and the deficit soars, these tax breaks won't be sustainable."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB105352218142992800.html


(must get out of this thread. Must get off CP!! :banghead: )

mlyonsd
09-21-2010, 07:31 AM
The democrats have proven their only answer to any economic issue is class warfare. I have no problem with Fox news spitting that into the airwaves over and over and over.

Chief Henry
09-21-2010, 07:38 AM
It's telling that that you made no absolutely no attempt to say that anything posted was factually incorrect. You simply trotted out the tired old "Fox is Republican" argument.

THAT'S what is stupid.

He is afraid he'll learn sumthun.

Brainiac
09-21-2010, 07:44 AM
And way to ignore the rest of my post. :D
I ignored the rest of your post because I essentially agreed with it. It's more fun to criticize the parts I disagree with.

ROYC75
09-21-2010, 07:49 AM
You can blow it up point by point, but that takes time and effort. I'll do it in cursory fashion, but don't have time for this now. Suffice to say that Faux News is always spinning things their way because it's a politicized organization with a specific agenda.


Blow it up, just like the WH is doing on the economy claiming it ended and things are looking in the right direction. At the rate we are printing money , borrowing to cover it, the rate the economy is climbing we will NEVER recover with his failed economic recovery.

Just today ...... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100921/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fed_interest_rates

Now the Feds need to jump start the economy when last week we added another 30 billion to the economic infrastructure plan.

Just your usual failed Tax and Spend methods by the Liberals.

Brainiac
09-21-2010, 07:55 AM
Another way to look at this -- the existing lower tax rate was TEMPORARY. What is a vote to make something temporary permanent? REpublicans are screaming that this is a tax hike. I suppose inaction could be an action. It's certainly a choice. But the Bush cuts were temporary. Now the falsity of the numbers that Republicans relied on in 2001 to get these cuts passed is proven out -- as if there was ever any doubt -- by this massive effort to UNDO the agreement to have the tax rate go back to where it was.

And you wonder why we have this deficit? Games JUST LIKE THIS FOR FIFTY YEARS.

That moral high ground you think you're standing on? It ain't so high.

This has nothing to do with moral high ground. Raising taxes in an economy where unemployment is at 10% is insanity. That's Econ 101. Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats are more interested in sticking it to the upper income people than righting the economic ship.

This is not about giving a windfall to a bunch of millionaires like the Democrats would have us believe. It's about providing an incentive for people to invest in small businesses so that we can expand the economy and reduce unemployment. When you take away the incentive to produce and replace it with an incentive to sit on your ass and collect a check from the government (like 50% of the households now do), it's a recipe for economic disaster.

Democracy fails once the plebes discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses.

Chief Henry
09-21-2010, 07:57 AM
Another way to look at this -- the existing lower tax rate was TEMPORARY. What is a vote to make something temporary permanent? REpublicans are screaming that this is a tax hike. I suppose inaction could be an action. It's certainly a choice. But the Bush cuts were temporary. Now the falsity of the numbers that Republicans relied on in 2001 to get these cuts passed is proven out -- as if there was ever any doubt -- by this massive effort to UNDO the agreement to have the tax rate go back to where it was.

And you wonder why we have this deficit? Games JUST LIKE THIS FOR FIFTY YEARS.

That moral highground you think you're standing on? It ain't so high.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.operations.mod.uk/garron/images/well_shaft.jpg




With post like this, I'll be expecting to see you at the local TEA Party rally :hmmm:

ROYC75
09-21-2010, 07:57 AM
Here's a nice find -- a WSJ article from 2003, after the second round of cuts.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB105352218142992800.html


(must get out of this thread. Must get off CP!! :banghead: )

Give me a break! After 9/11, did the economy tank as many said it would. NO!

Did Bush try to get Congress to address Fannie & Freddie during and after 2006 ? Yes, a total of 11 times. Our Democratic controlled Congress & Barney Frank said everything was OK. But yet there were signs that they were in trouble.

Did Bush ask Dodd to change some of the way the Financial market was going in due to Fannie & Freddie ? Yes,But Our Democratic controlled Congress & Chris Dodd said everything was OK. Again there were serious signs that they were in trouble.

The economy and jobs prospered until 2007.

Now, were do we want to start looking for trouble at ? We can start with Congress and go from there if you like.

Let's get to the real meat of the order.

ROYC75
09-21-2010, 08:14 AM
It would appear that Amnorix wants to tax everybody the way he is sprouting off about taxes.

OK, why not, let's tax everybody, stop printing money. Tell everybody to button it up, things will get tough for a while, but we will get though this in time......... Which is about what Obama campaigned on.

Let's tax and spend on everybody, tax the Rich more , a progressive tax like the Progressives / Liberals want. Let's hammer away at the deficit..........Right !

NO ....... moonbats, Obots, etc. We have to stop SPENDING too. It's not enough to tax and spend. You have to cut spending too.

Why don't you Liberals get a new slogan ........ " TAX EVERYBODY AND CUT SPENDING FOR A CHANGE OF HOPE !"

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 10:15 AM
It would appear that Amnorix wants to tax everybody the way he is sprouting off about taxes.

OK, why not, let's tax everybody, stop printing money. Tell everybody to button it up, things will get tough for a while, but we will get though this in time......... Which is about what Obama campaigned on.

Let's tax and spend on everybody, tax the Rich more , a progressive tax like the Progressives / Liberals want. Let's hammer away at the deficit..........Right !

NO ....... moonbats, Obots, etc. We have to stop SPENDING too. It's not enough to tax and spend. You have to cut spending too.

Why don't you Liberals get a new slogan ........ " TAX EVERYBODY AND CUT SPENDING FOR A CHANGE OF HOPE !"


Consider seeking medical attention.

mlyonsd
09-21-2010, 10:20 AM
Here's a nice find -- a WSJ article from 2003, after the second round of cuts.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB105352218142992800.html


(must get out of this thread. Must get off CP!! :banghead: )

You do acknowledge that particular reference is talking about tax cuts as a whole, not just the rich.

Obama is a snake oil salesman for even pretending 700 billion over 10 years will work to eliminate the deficit. If he was serious about the debt he'd push to let all tax cuts expire, which is 3.7 trillion over the same 10 years.

Obama is proving to be a failed leader. He has either chosen to put his political career ahead of the country's best interests, or he's just plain stupid.

ROYC75
09-21-2010, 11:29 AM
Consider seeking medical attention.

What, ObamaCare ?

No Thanks, you Obots got the 1st injections of that and we see how that has worked out.

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 12:46 PM
You do acknowledge that particular reference is talking about tax cuts as a whole, not just the rich.

Yeah, saying that the whole set of tax cuts wouldn't be sustainable. So you'd prefer that taxes be completely restored to 2000 levels? Is that what you're arguing.

Obama is a snake oil salesman for even pretending 700 billion over 10 years will work to eliminate the deficit. If he was serious about the debt he'd push to let all tax cuts expire, which is 3.7 trillion over the same 10 years.

I believe the applicable phrase is "half a loaf is better than none."

I also would cite to my other posts regarding the increasing concentration of wealth in this country, which is in part due to the Bush tax cuts.

Obama is proving to be a failed leader. He has either chosen to put his political career ahead of the country's best interests, or he's just plain stupid.

You sound remarkably like all those on the left talking about Bush and his favoritism for oil and tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. ad infinitum.

Suffice to say we have a deep, serious political divide in this country. There's a newsflash...

mlyonsd
09-21-2010, 01:08 PM
Can't stay out of here can you?

Yeah, saying that the whole set of tax cuts wouldn't be sustainable. So you'd prefer that taxes be completely restored to 2000 levels? Is that what you're arguing.

I believe the applicable phrase is "half a loaf is better than none."

No, I'm pointing out the fact if Obama really was worried about the deficit he'd start speaking the truth about it. Just taxing the rich more isn't going to do it. He's playing election year politics and I'm calling him out.

I also would cite to my other posts regarding the increasing concentration of wealth in this country, which is in part due to the Bush tax cuts.

I see this as a result of sending well paying jobs overseas. Our middle class has been sold out by both parties and their wonderful 'global economy'.

You sound remarkably like all those on the left talking about Bush and his favoritism for oil and tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. ad infinitum.

As I remember it the Bush tax cuts were across the board.

Suffice to say we have a deep, serious political divide in this country. There's a newsflash...Right. And it won't get any better playing class warfare politics. If we all had the same tax rate maybe we'd all be paying attention on what is going on in Washington instead of just depending on the other guy paying for it.

ROYC75
09-21-2010, 01:33 PM
What Would Kennedy, Reagan and Kemp Do?

By Lawrence A. Hunter & Ph.D.

Published September 21, 2010

In 2001 and 2003, President Bush and the Republican Congress cut taxes for everyone. Like the Reagan tax cuts and the Kennedy tax cuts before them, the Bush tax cuts are historical events that help define today’s tax reality.

Changing that reality by raising current tax rates is not a tax cut by any definition of the term; it is a tax increase. That is why today’s tax debate about “the Bush tax cuts” is yesterday’s mashed potatoes, unless that is, some delusional politician is willing to argue with a straight face that we need to raise taxes to revive economic growth, in which case he too will soon become yesterday’s mashed potatoes.

The current federal income tax system is a heavy burden on work, saving, investment and entrepreneurial risk taking, and therefore it is a positive hindrance to reviving the U.S. economy and creating new jobs. It should be scrapped.

A new federal tax system should be adopted based upon careful consideration of these fundamental questions: What should the federal government tax and at what rate should it be taxed; what is the least economically harmful way to tax American citizens; and what are optimal tax rates to raise revenue without discouraging work, saving, investment and entrepreneurial risk taking?

Of course, any serious discussion of taxes cannot take place in isolation from a larger debate over public spending; the reason government levies taxes to begin with. How much of the nation’s income should government confiscate for public spending? What programs should be cut and what programs, if any, should be expanded?

These tax and spending questions should structure the 2012 presidential election but we can’t wait for that debate before we take practical interim steps to revive the economy, something President Obama’s old-style Keynesian spend, spend, spend policies have failed to do. That is why the new Congress at a minimum should reduce tax rates across the board by a third on “taxable income” as it is currently defined and pay for any lost revenues not made up by higher economic growth with across-the-board spending reductions as the new Conservative British government and some American states are doing.

As a general proposition, history informs us that once marginal tax rates rise above 30 percent, they become demonstrably counterproductive. John Maynard Keynes thought any tax rate over 25 percent was counterproductive. Adding additional layers of taxation on top -- as we do currently with the corporate income tax (soon to have the highest corporate tax rate in the world), taxes on dividends and capital gains makes a bad situation economically intolerable. People work, save and invest less, and they take fewer entrepreneurial risks.

The economy suffers, and fewer jobs are created. The “rich” actually end up paying less of the overall tax burden as they resist excessively high tax rates by sheltering, diverting, hiding and under-reporting income.

When tax rates are lowered, the share of taxes paid by upper-income individuals and businesses rises as they bring their money back into productive activity, which benefits everyone.

In the 1920s, the top tax rate was brought down from 73 percent to 25 percent, and the share of taxes paid by the wealthy rose from 44.2 percent in 1921 to more than 78 percent in 1928.

In the 1960s, after the Kennedy tax rate reductions cut the top marginal tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, the share of taxes paid by those earning more than $50,000 rose from 11.6 to 15.1 percent.

In the 1980s, after Reagan's across-the-board tax rate reductions and tax reform brought the top marginal rate down to 28 percent, the share of taxes paid by the top one percent grew from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

By contrast, today’s top rate remains 35 percent. It is time to cut tax rates across the board once again. As Jack Kemp used to say, “If you want to ‘soak the rich,’ cut their tax rates.”

And, as Jack Kennedy used to put it:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

The new Congress should enact an immediate across-the-board tax rate reduction from today’s levels combined with an across-the-board cut in government spending and a reduction in the federal workforce, including contractors, along with a repeal of Obamacare, president Obama’s green subsidies and other unspent stimulus and TARP bailout funding before they sink their tentacles further into the U.S. Treasury.

Such action to revive economic growth would set the stage for a grand national debate in 2012 where serious long-term reforms could be put on the table, including entitlement reform, which would lower long-term spending and permanently eliminate deficits.

Getting the economy back on track now through across-the-board tax rate reductions and spending reductions would make possible long-term reforms, including personal accounts eventually expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, block granting Medicaid and all federal welfare programs back to the states, and transforming all of Medicare into a Medicare-Advantage-like program, where seniors could use their share of Medicare funding for private insurance of their choice.

Lawrence A. Hunter, Ph.D. is president of The Alliance for Retirement Prosperity Association. He is also president ofthe Social Security Institute, a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, where he does economic research and writes reports on a diverse range of public policy issues

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2010, 10:34 PM
Holy Crap....some people, it seems, believe all the demagoguerous crap they are fed by certain media folks. Wow. Just wow. :shake:

Brainiac
09-21-2010, 10:55 PM
Holy Crap....some people, it seems, believe all the demagoguerous crap they are fed by certain media folks. Wow. Just wow. :shake:
I'd like to be able to rebut what you just said, but you didn't say anything. All you did was make sure that we know you disagree with the previous post, but you offered nothing of substance.

Next time just say "Me no agree".

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 06:26 AM
Can't stay out of here can you?

Obviously not. ;)

No, I'm pointing out the fact if Obama really was worried about the deficit he'd start speaking the truth about it. Just taxing the rich more isn't going to do it. He's playing election year politics and I'm calling him out.

Playing election year politics? Shocking!

I see this as a result of sending well paying jobs overseas. Our middle class has been sold out by both parties and their wonderful 'global economy'.

Maybe. I think those jobs may have been headed overseas anyway, or else the US wouldn't have been competitive in the global marketplace.

As I remember it the Bush tax cuts were across the board.
Right. And it won't get any better playing class warfare politics. If we all had the same tax rate maybe we'd all be paying attention on what is going on in Washington instead of just depending on the other guy paying for it.

Across the board? Sure, everyone got some kind of break, but the breaks were heavily tilted towards the wealthy, and not just because they pay more to begin with.

Brainiac
09-22-2010, 07:13 AM
Across the board? Sure, everyone got some kind of break, but the breaks were heavily tilted towards the wealthy, and not just because they pay more to begin with.

Taxpayers in the top 50% pay virtually ALL of the taxes. The top 5% makes one-third of the income and pays one-half of the taxes. When taxes are raised, these are the groups who pay for the increase. When taxes are cut, these are the groups that SHOULD get the cuts.

But no, the liberals scream that it's UNFAIR to give the tax cuts to the people who actually pay the taxes. They want tax cuts for EVERYONE.

And they wonder why they get accused of engaging in class warfare.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 08:50 AM
Taxpayers in the top 50% pay virtually ALL of the taxes. The top 5% makes one-third of the income and pays one-half of the taxes. When taxes are raised, these are the groups who pay for the increase. When taxes are cut, these are the groups that SHOULD get the cuts.

But no, the liberals scream that it's UNFAIR to give the tax cuts to the people who actually pay the taxes. They want tax cuts for EVERYONE.

And they wonder why they get accused of engaging in class warfare.

Obviously on a dollar for dollar basis a tax cut gets those who pay more a bigger break. That's why I referred to it being disproportionate.

And I actually don't advocate for using the tax code to provide welfare, but that battle seems to be long since lost. The tax code isn't just for generating revenue, it's for all kinds of murky social engineering, some of which I might actually support though I'd like to find a way to do it outside of the tax code.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 08:53 AM
Just a bit of quick Googling got this, which I think (upon quick skim) is along the lines of what I'm talking about.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2116

Note also that the tax cuts resulted in substantial deficit increases. Surprise!

mlyonsd
09-22-2010, 12:15 PM
Playing election year politics? Shocking! Right, totally acceptable unless one was hoping for change. Just pointing out the obvious to our resident Bush bashers that were brainwashed into thinking Obama was something different.

Maybe. I think those jobs may have been headed overseas anyway, or else the US wouldn't have been competitive in the global marketplace. And that's probably where I stand apart from the two standard political parties. I think pushing a global economy was disastrous. And it's not going to get better.


Across the board? Sure, everyone got some kind of break, but the breaks were heavily tilted towards the wealthy, and not just because they pay more to begin with.Being lazy here, maybe you could shed some light on how you think tax breaks were tilted. My belief is all tax payers should be expected to clean up the mess we're in.

go bowe
09-22-2010, 12:32 PM
I'd like to be able to rebut what you just said, but you didn't say anything. All you did was make sure that we know you disagree with the previous post, but you offered nothing of substance.

Next time just say "Me no agree".ok, me no agree...

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 12:42 PM
Right, totally acceptable unless one was hoping for change. Just pointing out the obvious to our resident Bush bashers that were brainwashed into thinking Obama was something different.

Well, he's different from Bush, certain, on some policy matters. In others the differences aren't all that discernible really. But Bush also came to Washington on an anti-establishment, new-way-of-doing-business platform. That turned into the same old, same old, pretty quick.

The more things change....

And that's probably where I stand apart from the two standard political parties. I think pushing a global economy was disastrous. And it's not going to get better.

Possibly, but you can't pin that on either party as it was a Republicans in Congress / President Clinton team that got NAFTA through, for example. But, in reality, I'm not sure we could remain globally competitive if we hadn't gone fairly global. Maybe we're worse off in the short run, but I think in the longer run it should be better by, for example, holding down prices/inflation, etc. a bit better than a more insulated economy. It also makes our corporations more competitive globally.

Being lazy here, maybe you could shed some light on how you think tax breaks were tilted.

The cut on cap gains taxes help tilt it towards the wealthy pretty substantially. I don't remember the details of the tax cut, and don't have time to look them up, but I remember being very annoyed with Bush not because he was cutting taxes, but because he was selling it as a stimulus package because of the need to invigorate the economy in the post-dot-com environment, and it was really jsut a package of what Republicans wanted and had very little to do with stimulus.

Another thing that was annoying was that Bush was pushing tax cuts before he was elected because we were running surpluses and "we should return it to the taxpayer" (even though we had a MASSIVE debt already). Then, after it was clear the surpluses were gone, he wanted basically the same package to stimulate the economy. Then another round in 2003.

The goals were the same (TAX CUTS!), but the rationale had shifted (oops, no more surplus?!). Surplus or no surplus, he wanted those tax cuts come hell or highwater. Very irresponsible IMHO. The deficit/debt didn't mean a goddamn thing to him.

My belief is all tax payers should be expected to clean up the mess we're in.

I'm fine with that. Honestly I am. The issue is that we're in a very down economy. Or rather, just staggering out of a very down economy, and at risk for a double dip. Any tax hikes are dicey. Tax hikes on the middle class, which is already under pressure from all sides, are especially problematic because they can't afford it nearly as well.

My preference would have been to RAISE taxes during the good years of the Bush administration to dig out from the deficit/debt. But fat chance. Save for a rainy day? Please. Spend big when the times are good. Cut nothing when times are bad. That's our current mindset. It is just moronic as hell.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 12:47 PM
Another way to look at this -- the existing lower tax rate was TEMPORARY. What is a vote to make something temporary permanent? REpublicans are screaming that this is a tax hike. I suppose inaction could be an action. It's certainly a choice. But the Bush cuts were temporary. Now the falsity of the numbers that Republicans relied on in 2001 to get these cuts passed is proven out -- as if there was ever any doubt -- by this massive effort to UNDO the agreement to have the tax rate go back to where it was.

And you wonder why we have this deficit? Games JUST LIKE THIS FOR FIFTY YEARS.

That moral highground you think you're standing on? It ain't so high.



I see this is passing without comment. Facts. They are troublesome things sometimes.

|Zach|
09-22-2010, 12:48 PM
I see this is passing without comment. Facts. They are troublesome things sometimes.

:LOL:

ROYC75
09-22-2010, 01:06 PM
I'm fine with that. Honestly I am. The issue is that we're in a very down economy. Or rather, just staggering out of a very down economy, and at risk for a double dip. Any tax hikes are dicey. Tax hikes on the middle class, which is already under pressure from all sides, are especially problematic because they can't afford it nearly as well.

My preference would have been to RAISE taxes during the good years of the Bush administration to dig out from the deficit/debt. But fat chance. Save for a rainy day? Please. Spend big when the times are good. Cut nothing when times are bad. That's our current mindset. It is just moronic as hell.

You hit the nail on this part well. Now is not the time, we need to cut to increase job growth. When the economy recovers, we do need to raise taxes and continue to cut spending. WE ALL KNOW, that the only way out is to raise taxes slowly and cut the spending during the good economical years. When economy sputters again, drop it to spurn off job growth.

But do we ( the Government ) ever do this ? :shake:

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 01:45 PM
You hit the nail on this part well. Now is not the time, we need to cut to increase job growth. When the economy recovers, we do need to raise taxes and continue to cut spending. WE ALL KNOW, that the only way out is to raise taxes slowly and cut the spending during the good economical years. When economy sputters again, drop it to spurn off job growth.

But do we ( the Government ) ever do this ? :shake:


Clinton did it in 93/94. Bush didn't. The issue is that Bush41 got kicked out of office for going back on his No New Taxes pledge, even though that was clearly the right thing to do. And so now Republicans CANNOT RAISE TAXES EVER!!!! Or at least that's what they feel/think.

So you guys bitch about Democrats and endless entitlement programs, but that's only half the coin. The other half is 50% of the problem as well.

ROYC75
09-22-2010, 01:55 PM
Clinton did it in 93/94. Bush didn't. The issue is that Bush41 got kicked out of office for going back on his No New Taxes pledge, even though that was clearly the right thing to do. And so now Republicans CANNOT RAISE TAXES EVER!!!! Or at least that's what they feel/think.

So you guys bitch about Democrats and endless entitlement programs, but that's only half the coin. The other half is 50% of the problem as well.

There is a time to tax and a time not to tax. I agree the mainstream Republicans are always against taxes. But BIG GOVERNMENT has made them this way, of which most of that came from the Democrats. Currently, we have a nightmare POTUS that has taken that to an ALL TIME HIGH..

How else are the American people to feel?

It will take a very long time to pay off his mortgage of America.

Food for thought ....... Since all of this campaign reform, finances are out of whack, On a side note ( it will never pass ) what about for ever dollar spent to campaign a candidate, 1/2 of that goes to National Deficit. Seriously, the millions, billions spent every election cycle is just plain crazy.

Jenson71
09-22-2010, 03:15 PM
Food for thought ....... Since all of this campaign reform, finances are out of whack, On a side note ( it will never pass ) what about for ever dollar spent to campaign a candidate, 1/2 of that goes to National Deficit. Seriously, the millions, billions spent every election cycle is just plain crazy.

Where would the other millions, billions come from?

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 03:21 PM
Here's an idea, if you can't pay for it, don't buy it and cut the program. Sell off some government entities to the private sector. Liquidation time. The scam has been brought to light, time for them to come clean and start fixing the problems.

Jenson71
09-22-2010, 03:25 PM
Here's an idea, if you can't pay for it, don't buy it and cut the program. Sell off some government entities to the private sector. Liquidation time. The scam has been brought to light, time for them to come clean and start fixing the problems.

Well, what is it we can't pay for? The military? Are we to cut the Department of Defense? What specifically can't we pay for?

It comes down to mostly our own personal choices of what we feel is most necessary or desired. And budgets fluctuate, and that fluctuating is determined by what we value. Isn't it?

ROYC75
09-22-2010, 03:25 PM
Where would the other millions, billions come from?

I don't mean for it to be the only way to reduce it, you still have tax dollars to use.

But to curb some of this out of control campaign finance, why not. You want to throw a cool million at a party, make it 2 or suffer for 500 K.

Jenson71
09-22-2010, 03:29 PM
I don't mean for it to be the only way to reduce it, you still have tax dollars to use.

But to curb some of this out of control campaign finance, why not. You want to throw a cool million at a party, make it 2 or suffer for 500 K.

So if I'm to understand you, if one would like to donate $1000 to the Obama campaign, one could do that, and then $500 would then automatically be put into a fund that reduces the federal deficit or debt.

Norman Einstein
09-22-2010, 03:31 PM
So if I'm to understand you, if one would like to donate $1000 to the Obama campaign, one could do that, and then $500 would then automatically be put into a fund that reduces the federal deficit or debt.

Still have a raging case of crainial rectumitus I see.

ROYC75
09-22-2010, 03:34 PM
So if I'm to understand you, if one would like to donate $1000 to the Obama campaign, one could do that, and then $500 would then automatically be put into a fund that reduces the federal deficit or debt.

Yep, that's it. Instead of throwing all this money towards candidates or parties, 1/2 of it goes towards out National Debt.

Then cut out all earmarks, stop wasteful spending and eventually we will be able to balance the books again ..... shorter than if we sit on our thumbs.

FD
09-22-2010, 03:37 PM
Yep, that's it. Instead of throwing all this money towards candidates or parties, 1/2 of it goes towards out National Debt.

Then cut out all earmarks, stop wasteful spending and eventually we will be able to balance the books again ..... shorter than if we sit on our thumbs.

This is wishful thinking. The long-term deficit is almost entirely a function of Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget. Everything else is peanuts.

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 03:45 PM
Well, what is it we can't pay for? The military? Are we to cut the Department of Defense? What specifically can't we pay for?

It comes down to mostly our own personal choices of what we feel is most necessary or desired. And budgets fluctuate, and that fluctuating is determined by what we value. Isn't it?

Fannie and Freddie would be a start. They are money pits.

Department of Education is another.

I'd even attempt to get rid of SS long-term, make a deal for the current people who have paid in and immediately STOP, those that haven't contributed, yet. That program will be defunct in my vision long-term, but it would have to run it's course since so many are in line to receive their proceeds. They paid in, they deserve it.

Remove the troops and pass the baton to the officials of said countries. We need some closure. Time to stop the bleeding and the excessive money drain.

Reduce military spending.

Reduce government function at the federal level across the board. No more executive PRIVILEDGE. They should be honored to live in the White House and have a tax free existence and the PRIVLEDGE to SERVE your country.

Huge FINES and jail time for all corporations found employing illegals. There's a right way and a wrong way and if they are here illegally, it's the wrong way.

Remove all federal insurance programs.


These would be the immediate things I would do, with other longer term goals, but that's the change I was looking for, not more of the same.

mlyonsd
09-22-2010, 04:36 PM
My preference would have been to RAISE taxes during the good years of the Bush administration to dig out from the deficit/debt. But fat chance. Save for a rainy day? Please. Spend big when the times are good. Cut nothing when times are bad. That's our current mindset. It is just moronic as hell.

We're pretty close on this issue.

But I still think if you shield part of the electorate from a tax increase they'll continue to stick their head in the sand instead of waking them up to the real issues we face.

ROYC75
09-23-2010, 08:22 AM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39109 :rolleyes: