Obama and the Bush Tax Cuts

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
If you think… then you wouldn’t talk about “fairness” and the like.

I must not have been clear enough, I was using the term as some others do, that supposedly (for example) raising capital gains taxes to 30% even granting that it will reduce revenues to the government is, because it takes money away from “the rich,” “more fair.”

I was not referring to whether I view such as “fair.” I was stating only that, for example, Obama calls that "fair.

I really don’t believe that is what he was arguing. If you have a link to the video, I’ll try to watch. I tried to explain what I’m guessing he said, based on what you wrote, above.
[/quote]

I didn’t see it on the computer. Btw, why would you not believe he said this? It’s entirely in character.

What he said, after Gibson had very plainly explained how two cuts (one of the current Administration and the other of a previous one) had raised revenues while an increase in the same general relatively-recent time frame decreased revenues, was, “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said was, I would look at increasing capital gains taxes, for purposes of fairness.”

Then he went on how the 50 (if I recall correctly) most-profit-making investors had made so much money in the stock market and that wasn’t fair.

So yes, of course he said what I said he said with the same intent that I said he said :slight_smile:

He isn’t deterred by the fact that revenues would be less: it’s more important to be “fair” even though the only effect is people and the US Treasury winding up with less money at the end due to his concept of “fairness.”

62

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Although, thinking about it. Most economists disagree with me. Most that I know do recommend simply giving money out. They feel that when programs are created more money is lost.
[/quote]

Incorrect. They feel you should just take less money from them in the first place.

63

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
<<< He isn’t deterred by the fact that revenues would be less: it’s more important to be “fair” even though the only effect is people and the US Treasury winding up with less money at the end due to his concept of “fairness.”
[/quote]

He’s not interested in fairness. He’s interested in expanding the cycle of class warfare and it’s corresponding cycle of dependency because it makes people like him necessary in the minds of his victims.

64

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Although, thinking about it. Most economists disagree with me. Most that I know do recommend simply giving money out. They feel that when programs are created more money is lost.

Incorrect. They feel you should just take less money from them in the first place.[/quote]

Beowolf - this poser is nothing but college kid. Unlike you, he tries to hide that fact and act like he knows a fucking economist he doesn’t call professor.

65

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Although, thinking about it. Most economists disagree with me. Most that I know do recommend simply giving money out. They feel that when programs are created more money is lost.

Incorrect. They feel you should just take less money from them in the first place.[/quote]

Step 2 and all. But you knew that already.

66

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Although, thinking about it. Most economists disagree with me. Most that I know do recommend simply giving money out. They feel that when programs are created more money is lost.

Incorrect. They feel you should just take less money from them in the first place.

Beowolf - this poser is nothing but college kid. Unlike you, he tries to hide that fact and act like he knows a fucking economist he doesn’t call professor.

[/quote]

LMAO!!

67

[quote]The Mage wrote:

Plus we are adding people to the economy. New low paid employees who have no experience are being added to the economy, and these raw numbers never takes this into account. These “classes” are not the same people they were before.[/quote]

ORLY? (as they say on the internet)

68

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The Mage wrote:

Plus we are adding people to the economy. New low paid employees who have no experience are being added to the economy, and these raw numbers never takes this into account. These “classes” are not the same people they were before.

ORLY? (as they say on the internet) [/quote]

Well, the prostitutes might be giving it orally. (My wife sure as hell ain’t.)

69

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Although, thinking about it. Most economists disagree with me. Most that I know do recommend simply giving money out. They feel that when programs are created more money is lost.

Incorrect. They feel you should just take less money from them in the first place.

Beowolf - this poser is nothing but college kid. Unlike you, he tries to hide that fact and act like he knows a fucking economist he doesn’t call professor.

[/quote]

I don’t know any economists. Including professors. My High School eco teach was just a very honest dude about what economists thought. Even though he was a Democrat, he was the guy who probably turned me into an economic-conservative.

He gave us all the facts and let us decide for ourselves. I chose the path that had the government taking less of my money just to spend it to give it back to me -_-.

It was college level MicroEconomics… not high school level. And I do read The Economist on occasion as well as the Journal (do economists contribute to the Journal?).

Yeah.

70

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

I don’t know any economists. Including professors. My High School eco teach was just a very honest dude about what economists thought. Even though he was a Democrat, he was the guy who probably turned me into an economic-conservative.

He gave us all the facts and let us decide for ourselves. I chose the path that had the government taking less of my money just to spend it to give it back to me -_-.

It was college level MicroEconomics… not high school level. And I do read The Economist on occasion as well as the Journal (do economists contribute to the Journal?).

Yeah.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I thought you were trying to be cocky in your other post (hence my previous reply).

The question is one of goals. If growth is your only goal, you pursue one policy, if you have other goals, you use other policies. Essentially it’s a question of what the role of government is and/or should be.

IMO growth first, but after that threshold is passed, it’s time to look at other options for a lot of reasons.

71

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
No, that’s not what I would consider spreading growth, I would prefer if that money were used in other ways. Got a link to the video by chance? If I’ve a min tomorrow I’ll try to see what it’s about.
[/quote]

I don’t. I was watching TV. CBS is Katy right?

[quote]
Although, thinking about it. Most economists disagree with me. Most that I know do recommend simply giving money out. They feel that when programs are created more money is lost.
[/quote] what economist think that giving money out is a good idea? where is it coming from?

[quote]
You live in MN, right? Look around. There are a hell of a lot of hard workers out there. These types have never stopped working hard. But recently they’ve found themselves worse off than they were 10 years ago. Even McCain admitted this in that commercial of his.

Should those who are lazy make more money? no. Are the millions of hard working mothers and fathers of this country share in the countries economic expansion? Yes. [/quote]

I don’t know a single person that is worse of than they were 10 years ago. I am in sales and know a lot of people.

Nobody is being black listed. If making more money is important to you, go do it. Don’t ask for a handout from those that make sacrifices or take risks you chose not to.

When I didn’t think I was getting paid enough, I got another job. When I had to spend too much time away from my familiy, i got anohter job. There are people that absolutly refuse to do this. My wife was one.

She had the same level of education as I did but chose to stay in the same job at the same salary while I tripled my salary. She would bitch about here salarly but she liked what she was doing and who she was working with.

I tolerate what I am doing and who I work with on a daily basis. If I were more interested in taking it easy, or doing a job I really enjoyed, or was too scared or lazy to make a change, I would still be stuck at a much lower salary. If you make this choice, more power to you. Be happy with your decision and don’t expect any handouts.

72

I believe in the O’reily interview Obama talks about being the idea of his tax program is to be “neighborly”. The rich have the money to spare and need to help out the “waitress working hard to make ends meet in small town America”.

I’m recalling these numbers from memory, but they should be pretty accurate. His wife and him had a combined income of about $500,000 a few yrs ago and gave 1% to charity. After he made $4million from his autobiography him and his wife upped it to 5%.

I have seen some reports that estimate he is going to raise the marginal tax rate anywhere from 5-20% or even higher, on some people. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like he is a lot more neighborly with my money than he has been with his own.

The left is full of hypocrisy. This is pretty similar to Gore blah blah blahing about global warming while his house (2nd house he doesn’t live in) is taking up 1/2 the power on the east coast while Bush’s ranch in TX ran almost on entirely on renewable energy.

Obama goes on and on about this stuff, but when its his money he is pretty stingy. And McCain’s charitable donation has been about 20% of his income forever.

The day Obama tells me why at $500K he only gives $5,000 to charity but wants to take more than that from other peoples paycheck will be the start of me putting any weight behind any pretty word that comes out of his mouth.

73

The specific figures on that:

Your general point is correct but the specifics differ a little: both sometimes being even worse, and sometimes being a little better, but still quite stingy with his own money by most standards.

Many, many, very ordinary people with 1/10th the income that Obama had in, say, 2001 and 2002 routinely give twice as much total money as he could find in himself to do.

As a stretch, to be completely accurate these are the amounts of tax-deductible giving. I personally think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of people that give only 0.4% of their income to charitable causes that are tax-deductible – including their own church – aren’t giving big sums to non-deductible charities.

If stingy for the one far-more-common type, almost undoubtedly stingy for the less-common type as well.

But it’s certainly conceivable there could have been some non-tax-deductible giving. So the total may be slightly better, but unless non-tax-deductible was many, many times greater than tax-deductible, despite his claim about how he can afford to be generous when he’s doing well, in practice his track record shows one stingy dude. (With his own money that is.)

74

Thanks Bill. Got a link and said my argument much better.

75

Unless a politician sent more of their own money than the IRS required for at least the last 4 years to Washington, they shouldn’t be allowed to request a tax increase.