Debates
26 Nov 12
26 Nov 12
Obama sends a letter to Congress, telling the Chamber that Republicans are going to ruin Christmas. Wow. All they have to do, he says, is let tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 annually expire.
The amount of money he is willing to go to war over, to throw the country over the fiscal cliff over, runs the government for 45 days.
Again - stupidity itself.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/26/obama-warns-republican-rejecting-his-tax-offer-will-spoil-christmas-for/
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou think it's reasonable to jepardize the country's future (in terms of another likely credit downgrade and the resultant consequences) over an amount of money that runs the government for six weeks?
Seems reasonable to me and to most Americans.
Most Americans think it's reasonable because it doesn't affect them. The tax increases Obama wants do not begin to address the real problems we're facing - Social Security and entitlement reform. Total confiscation of the wealth of the top 2%'s wealth does not even make a dent.
Why should I want to pay higher taxes when the real problems we're facing are not being addressed, and show no signs of being addressed in any meaningful way, because of an ideologically extreme party more bent on winning then on doing what's right for America?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIndeed, those having incremental income above $250,000 have done incredibly well (largest percentage gains in income of any group), and will continue to do very well if the tax rate on that incremental income goes from 35% to 37% or even 39% the rate pre-Bush and during the incredible economic expansion of Clinton years.
Seems reasonable to me and to most Americans.
Moreover, objective non-partisan organizations such as the CBO have said that not extending the temporary tax cuts on rich incremental income, such a return to the Reagan/Clinton tax rates on that high end incremental income is one of the lowest in the world, and will not have a negative effect on the economy.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Cute way of spinning it: the additional revenue will "only" pay to run the government for 45 days.
The amount of money he is willing to go to war over, to throw the country over the fiscal cliff over, runs the government for 45 days.
Of course, that's 45 days per year.
That's 12.3% of the total federal budget.
12.3% of the 2011 federal budget would amount to about $283 billion!
It's over 40% of the annual military budget!
It's over 25% of the annual budget deficit!
What a ridiculous talking point.
Go to this link to see the ridiculous claims by Fauz News. http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/09/fox-echoes-gops-bogus-claim-that-taxes-on-wealt/191319
Fox Echoes GOP's Bogus Claim That Taxes On Wealthiest Will Hurt Economy, Jobs
Fox News guests have repeated House Speaker John Boehner's claim that raising taxes would slow down the economy and hurt job creation. In fact, independent research shows that raising tax rates on the wealthy would have little to no impact on the economy and would decrease the deficit, while lowering taxes for the rich does not boost the economy or create jobs. . . .
Originally posted by sasquatch672Obama was given a second term by a clear majority of voters. That gives his proposals the greater degree of legitimacy. Moreover, polls show people are in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those earning more that $250,000.
Obama sends a letter to Congress, telling the Chamber that Republicans are going to ruin Christmas. Wow. All they have to do, he says, is let tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 annually expire.
The amount of money he is willing to go to war over, to throw the country over the fiscal cliff over, runs the government for 45 days.
...[text shortened]... com/politics/2012/11/26/obama-warns-republican-rejecting-his-tax-offer-will-spoil-christmas-for/
Republican obstructionism and extortion tactics last year were what led to the creation of the "fiscal cliff," because Republicans were betting they could make Obama a one-term president and then call all the shots when the cliff was imminent. They played a game of chicken with the White House and they lost (causing the country's credit rating to fall in the process).
"Revenue enhancement" is coming to your town, chief. Have a spare pair of knickers handy.
29 Nov 12
Originally posted by SoothfastLet me ask you a question. What do you think is fair? How much should the "rich" pay?
Obama was given a second term by a clear majority of voters. That gives his proposals the greater degree of legitimacy. Moreover, polls show people are in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those earning more that $250,000.
Republican obstructionism and extortion tactics last year were what led to the creation of the "fiscal cliff," becau ...[text shortened]...
"Revenue enhancement" is coming to your town, chief. Have a spare pair of knickers handy.
The same people that receive government benefits voted for Obama. This "clear majority" is made up of an awful lot of the unsuccessful part of America. They are resentful of success and approve of a policy that doesn't affect them. "I think the rich should pay more taxes". Pretty easy to get behind a policy that doesn't affect you, isn't it? Well I think that the people who think I should pay more taxes should work harder, like I did, to make themselves successful.
29 Nov 12
Originally posted by moon1969Let me ask you this: If the Clinton tax rates were so great why not let the whole Bush tax cut expire, not just for the top 2%?
Indeed, those having incremental income above $250,000 have done incredibly well (largest percentage gains in income of any group), and will continue to do very well if the tax rate on that incremental income goes from 35% to 37% or even 39% the rate pre-Bush and during the incredible economic expansion of Clinton years.
Moreover, objective non-partisa ...[text shortened]... al income is one of the lowest in the world, and will not have a negative effect on the economy.
Originally posted by sh76True, that we had incredible economic expansion and job growth during the Clinton years and Clinton tax rates. As for now, however, and in response to your question, it can be about fairness to those suffering the most.
Let me ask you this: If the Clinton tax rates were so great why not let the whole Bush tax cut expire, not just for the top 2%?
Yet,also nothing to do with fairness but with job growth so slow and lagging in the recovery more than usual, I personally think in our consumer-driven economy that extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class would help job growth.
But, again, I agree with the CBO that extending the tax cuts for the top 2% of incremental income (and with many of the wealthy hoarding cash or only buying Persian rugs or Italian yachts) will not help job growth and would hurt deficit reduction with no return on growth. Moreover, keep in mind that all would get the tax cut extension on the first $250,000.
Originally posted by sasquatch672I've asked that question over and over -- they can't answer it.
Let me ask you a question. What do you think is fair? How much should the "rich" pay?
The same people that receive government benefits voted for Obama. This "clear majority" is made up of an awful lot of the unsuccessful part of America. They are resentful of success and approve of a policy that doesn't affect them. "I think the rich should pa ...[text shortened]... I should pay more taxes should work harder, like I did, to make themselves successful.
The rich should pay "more". "How much more?" I ask. "More!" they shout.
"How about if we all pay an equal percentage?" I propose. "NO!" they scream. "The rich MUST pay more!!!!"
We never get a firm definition of rich (it has varied wildly over the years). And we never get a firm definition of "more".
29 Nov 12
Originally posted by sh76Personally, I would have no problem with that at all.
Let me ask you this: If the Clinton tax rates were so great why not let the whole Bush tax cut expire, not just for the top 2%?
The problem is the whining that somehow it's such a terrible burden to the top 2%.
29 Nov 12
Originally posted by PsychoPawnBy letting the whole tax cut expire, you make more people across the spectrum pay income tax, increasing their skin in the game and invite wider participation in the marketplace of ideas for what government ought to spend $$ on.
Personally, I would have no problem with that at all.
The problem is the whining that somehow it's such a terrible burden to the top 2%.
I thought the Bush tax cuts were bad in the first place and I'm all for letting them all expire, especially the transfer tax cuts.
Here's the point: If a government expenditure is not important enough to draw it from substantially all of the people who can afford to pay for it, then it's probably not worth doing.
29 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358I think the Clinton rates would be a good starting point for answering that question. I'd also add a 44.6% bracket for incomes above, say, $1,000,000 and maybe a 49.6% bracket for incomes above, say, $5,000,000.
I've asked that question over and over -- they can't answer it.
The rich should pay "more". "How much more?" I ask. "More!" they shout.
"How about if we all pay an equal percentage?" I propose. "NO!" they scream. "The rich MUST pay more!!!!"
We never get a firm definition of rich (it has varied wildly over the years). And we never get a firm definition of "more".