Surprise move on tax cuts by Obama

Didn't see this coming. Neither did many of Obama's congressional constituents....

Obama, GOP Reach Deal on Taxes - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704156304576003441518282986.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection)

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/08/11/GR2010081106717.gif

Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/08/11/GR2010081106717.html)

I'm a big fan of moderate Obama.

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

Gotta keep the wealthy happy :doh:

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

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

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

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.

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.


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.


- 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.

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.


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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

Federal spending was also held in check durn the Clinton years also.
Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing (http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-spending-per-household)

Also federal income has risen over the years so whats your point?
Federal Revenue, Taxes and Tax Rates: Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts (http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-revenue)

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.