Obama's Tax Policies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]100meters wrote:

buying a $1000 hammer.
when the hammer is a metaphor for so many things gone wrong over

the past 8 years…

tax cuts for the rich borrowed from china to stimulate the economy is such a hammer,

war in Iraq is such a hammer,

and of course all the hammers literally…

yes accountability of all sorts is needed, hence more and better democrats are needed, ala Obama.

[/quote]

If Obama will indeed have a new approach as he is spouting, I would support that. I would support whomever is willing to clean up the evil empire on the hill so it runs like it should and stops spending money like a drunken sailor. A major overhaul is needed.

However, typically the Dem’s only know how to take more money from hard-working Americans and have no clue to fiscal stewardship. But, maybe Obama is different, I don’t know. But history tells me that if he really was a reformer he would not be getting all the campaign contributions from the rich liberals. So it is doubtful that he will bring anything other than tax and spend to the situation.

42

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
To get elected, Obama (and many others, of course) spout: “We’re only going to tax the rich! They didn’t want a cut anyway!”

Then, there’s a revenue shortfall, and…just maybe…taxes go up for earners of 100K, then 75K, then…

Its the same old story: those who have not want to get from those who have, with a big heavy stick called ‘Government’. Will we ever learn?

I may actually vote Libertarian this year, since ‘None of the Above’ is not an option.

What happened to the conservitive Republican. Now they think it means tax cut, Rather than cut spending .
[/quote]

Spot on!

43

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
But I have the sneaky feeling that the taller,ever more photogenic Mr Obama will be the leader of the U.S. when all is said and done.

This fits with my previous post. Uneducated people don’t understand issues because of the level of awareness at which they function. Obama appeals to those who see a reasonably decent looking guy with a smooth voice and eloquent rhetoric. They vote for him and get conned — Obama would make a great used car salesman or bond merchant.

He’s very good at tricking people who function PERCEPTUALLY.

But you want to separate stupidity into a Black v. White issue,when in reality it is just a universal issue.[/quote]

No, just offering a possible explanation of why he receives such a high percentage of votes by black people. Our educational system is an abject failure, most urban schools being little more than holding pens. Of course, what should we expect for $32,000 to start and maybe $50,000 after 20 years? In high crime areas to boot…

Another problem is that Black English is more of a perceptual language than is standard English — “He be here later.”, for ex, illustrates a language that is present-oriented, not future (and hence conceptually) oriented.

44

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
But I have the sneaky feeling that the taller,ever more photogenic Mr Obama will be the leader of the U.S. when all is said and done.

This fits with my previous post. Uneducated people don’t understand issues because of the level of awareness at which they function. Obama appeals to those who see a reasonably decent looking guy with a smooth voice and eloquent rhetoric. They vote for him and get conned — Obama would make a great used car salesman or bond merchant.

He’s very good at tricking people who function PERCEPTUALLY.

But you want to separate stupidity into a Black v. White issue,when in reality it is just a universal issue.

No, just offering a possible explanation of why he receives such a high percentage of votes by black people. Our educational system is an abject failure, most urban schools being little more than holding pens. Of course, what should we expect for $32,000 to start and maybe $50,000 after 20 years? In high crime areas to boot…

Another problem is that Black English is more of a perceptual language than is standard English — “He be here later.”, for ex, illustrates a language that is present-oriented, not future (and hence conceptually) oriented.

[/quote]

But Black America constitutes,what,about 10% of the population?Please correct me if I’m wrong,that’s off the top of my head.

So even if they vote for him en mass just because they identify with his hue(just speaking hypothetically,they may of course vote for him for many other reasons),he would still require a substantial percentage of the rest of the population in order to win.

So what explains his allure to everyone else?

45

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
100meters wrote:
I guess you’re some kind of clown or something, but you’ll notice that no, it doesn’t really say anything about federal taxes

So “Bush tax cuts” referenced in the post isn’t referring to cuts on federal taxes? The tax increase referred to in the post wasn’t referring to an increase in federal taxes? I had no idea that Bush and Obama had control over state taxes! Thanks for clarifying!

100meters wrote:
but while you are apparently to stupid to realize that even before the “federal income tax” the federal govt. used (yikes!) “taxes” of all sorts to “raise revenue”.

Yep. You know what that means? It means that “the government needs revenues to run” is in fact, as I said before, either logically flawed or a non-sequitor.

If you’re trying to imply that a federal income tax increase (the subject of this thread) is justified “because the government needs revenue”, then it is flawed because our government could function without an income tax entirely, let alone a lower rate, if spending were managed.

And also because a higher rate (or lower rate) does not automatically lead to more revenue (or less).

If you’re just spouting “the government needs revenues to run” just to say it, then it is a non-sequitur because this post is referring to federal income taxes.

Starting to get a little clearer for you?

(And it’s “too”, not “to”. I usually don’t care about such things but it makes you look like an idiot when you misspell a three letter word while trying to insult someone’s intelligence.

100meters wrote:
They even “raised” them when they needed “additional revenue”. While I suppose we could dramatically raise the taxes on whiskey ala Hamilton, there are probably easier ways given today’s system.

Or maybe we could implement some smart carbon taxes, ala Hamilton. And maybe do that in combination with a drastic cut in spending.

Nope! Gotta increase the federal income tax rate, because “the government need revenue to run.”

100meters wrote:
But yes, we’ve run on “taxes” for a long time. Hilariously your “federal income tax” canard the actual non-sequitur.

I’ll ask again. What taxes are we talking about then if we are not talking about federal income taxes in this thread? State income tax? Did Bush lower the cigarette tax and that is what Obama is going to let lapse?

If you aren’t talking about federal income taxes, what source of revenue are you talking about?

[/quote]

To be clear while attacking me, you admit that since inception the Federal government has used taxes to raise revenue and has frequently raised them for additional revenue.

Second, you’ll see the thread is titled “Obama’s Tax Policies”. I know you see this but you keep saying Federal Income Tax is the subject of this thread. Yet the title says “Policies”.

Moron.

Third of course, morons aside most folks realize there is more to Obama’s “tax policies” than the federal income rate. There are how many corporate loopholes, capitol gains, etc.

You’re not really this stupid right?

46

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
But I have the sneaky feeling that the taller,ever more photogenic Mr Obama will be the leader of the U.S. when all is said and done.

This fits with my previous post. Uneducated people don’t understand issues because of the level of awareness at which they function. Obama appeals to those who see a reasonably decent looking guy with a smooth voice and eloquent rhetoric. They vote for him and get conned — Obama would make a great used car salesman or bond merchant.

He’s very good at tricking people who function PERCEPTUALLY.

But you want to separate stupidity into a Black v. White issue,when in reality it is just a universal issue.

No, just offering a possible explanation of why he receives such a high percentage of votes by black people. Our educational system is an abject failure, most urban schools being little more than holding pens. Of course, what should we expect for $32,000 to start and maybe $50,000 after 20 years? In high crime areas to boot…

Another problem is that Black English is more of a perceptual language than is standard English — “He be here later.”, for ex, illustrates a language that is present-oriented, not future (and hence conceptually) oriented.

But Black America constitutes,what,about 10% of the population?Please correct me if I’m wrong,that’s off the top of my head.

So even if they vote for him en mass just because they identify with his hue(just speaking hypothetically,they may of course vote for him for many other reasons),he would still require a substantial percentage of the rest of the population in order to win.

So what explains his allure to everyone else?[/quote]

They are apologists.

Also, it is the “in” thing to not like Bush. He is basing a large part of his campaign as a change from Bush.

47

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
100meters wrote:
100meters wrote:

My favorite line of stupidity:

“Has the federal government ever “run” without an income tax? How?”

apparently in Moriarty’s world (somewhere in the magical world of “candyland” I suppose) it ran on: “cutting spending”.

Hmmm…

Actually yeah, that is what I’m saying. I’m saying that government ran without an income tax because it was not a giant entitlement program (what you call “cutting spending”).

The very idea of a federal government that does not function as a massive, income-redistribution driven welfare program (which is was never designed to be) is so foreign to you that it is a “magical candyland”, I suppose.[/quote]

It’s hard to imagine that someone could be so stupid and unimaginative that they aren’t able to see the benefits brought by those taxes, as compared to pre-civil war. You really do live in candyland.

But to the point. We’ve always run on taxes. In one form or another. You somehow didn’t know that.

48

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
futurepharm wrote:
How do you explain the fact that the “Bush Tax Cuts” actually increased tax revenues?

But lower than had they not been raised. And of course they have to be paid for( double ouch!). But hey the stimulus they gave! 2.5% real GDP was soooo worth the longterm debt, that now has to be repaid!

Otherwise a good point!

Had they not been raised the economy would have been slower and the government would have raised a higher percentage of a smaller economy. [/quote]

Actually economies can grow without cutting taxes. This happens all the time. Economies can grow with higher taxes too.

In this case, the economy didn’t grow at all with round one. Grew very little with the second. Huge cost with no return.

49

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Okay one more time for those who are not quite up to date on this Obama character:

Obama has close ties to racists (Wright) and terrorists (Ayers). He has only been a senator for 3 years. He’s THE most liberal Senator in Washington. He’s quite young and inexperienced. And to top it all off he wants to raise taxes on everyone.

What an attractive candidate for President.

Who is stupid enough to vote for this jerk?[/quote]

OWWWWWWW!!! The stupid hurts!!!

50

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Some of these responses point out just how economically illiterate this country really is.

The Federal gov has far more money than it needs. Just look at the programs it wastes our money on. Go visit some gov offices in DC or anywhere for that matter. It is a joke. No business could run like that without going broke. And they want more money from me.

As far the 90’s let’s get something straight: the repub congress cut the cap gains tax - the dems were against it - Clinton reluctantly signed it. The repub cong eliminated cap gains on your primary residence up to 500k per spouse if you stay in it for 2 yrs. Again, the dems were against - Clinton reluctantly signed it.

As far as the Clinton economy remember this -
Th Dow lost nearly 30% and the Nasdaq lost 1/2 of its value in Clinton’s last year.

We were entering a recession.

The economy has been quite strong under Bush - the tax cuts indeed did help.

Remember, Bush came in at the beginning of the dot com bust, the corp scandals with restating earnings and then 9/11.

Those were 3 major things to contend with.

Economies go up, economies go down. It is called the business cycle.

When things are good - sometimes supply gets too far ahead and things must catch up.

Low tax rates across the board are a good thing for the economy. The more you tax capital the less capital formation you have. It is not too hard to understand.

This whole tax the rich is getting old. Let me ask you a question.

When was the last time a poor person ever gave you a job??
[/quote]

Too whom it may concern,

1.how does Bush’s REAL GDP compare to other presidents
2.now, define “strong”

Also dems have always brought in more tax revenues, either by raising or through collections, and yet have performed better in every single metric. Explain.

51

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
One more thing. All these democratic town hall meetings and all you hear is - jobs, jobs, jobs. All these midwest towns where the plants or factories have shut down the people they drag in are whining about no jobs in their town.

Hey, I have an idea - instead of whining to some politician - pack your bags and move to a place where there are jobs. There is no constitutional right to a job in your backyard. And Washington does not owe you one. They don’t owe you anything.[/quote]

How much lead paint did you eat?

52

[quote]100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
One more thing. All these democratic town hall meetings and all you hear is - jobs, jobs, jobs. All these midwest towns where the plants or factories have shut down the people they drag in are whining about no jobs in their town.

Hey, I have an idea - instead of whining to some politician - pack your bags and move to a place where there are jobs. There is no constitutional right to a job in your backyard. And Washington does not owe you one. They don’t owe you anything.

How much lead paint did you eat?[/quote]

You really are useless.

53

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
100meters wrote:

buying a $1000 hammer.
when the hammer is a metaphor for so many things gone wrong over

the past 8 years…

tax cuts for the rich borrowed from china to stimulate the economy is such a hammer,

war in Iraq is such a hammer,

and of course all the hammers literally…

yes accountability of all sorts is needed, hence more and better democrats are needed, ala Obama.

If Obama will indeed have a new approach as he is spouting, I would support that. I would support whomever is willing to clean up the evil empire on the hill so it runs like it should and stops spending money like a drunken sailor. A major overhaul is needed.

However, typically the Dem’s only know how to take more money from hard-working Americans and have no clue to fiscal stewardship. But, maybe Obama is different, I don’t know. But history tells me that if he really was a reformer he would not be getting all the campaign contributions from the rich liberals. So it is doubtful that he will bring anything other than tax and spend to the situation.

[/quote]

Dems better fiscal stewards historically.

And most of Obama’s donations (90%) smaller than a $100. They aren’t actually “rich” liberals.

And yes we may return to those tough, tough times know as the nineties.

54

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No, just offering a possible explanation of why he receives such a high percentage of votes by black people. Our educational system is an abject failure, most urban schools being little more than holding pens. Of course, what should we expect for $32,000 to start and maybe $50,000 after 20 years? In high crime areas to boot…

Another problem is that Black English is more of a perceptual language than is standard English — “He be here later.”, for ex, illustrates a language that is present-oriented, not future (and hence conceptually) oriented.

But Black America constitutes,what,about 10% of the population?Please correct me if I’m wrong,that’s off the top of my head.

So even if they vote for him en mass just because they identify with his hue(just speaking hypothetically,they may of course vote for him for many other reasons),he would still require a substantial percentage of the rest of the population in order to win.

So what explains his allure to everyone else?[/quote]

There’s no real ‘allure’ about it.

He and Hillary are fairly similar as candidates. Therefore, given the 2 choices, they should split the vote in a similar proportion (one reason they are so close in delegate count). Now, Obama typically gets around 90% of the black vote. This was enough to put him over the top and does implicate some sort of racism on the part of black voters. Since racism is a result of ignorance, that’s how I came up with my argument.

55

[quote]100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
One more thing. All these democratic town hall meetings and all you hear is - jobs, jobs, jobs. All these midwest towns where the plants or factories have shut down the people they drag in are whining about no jobs in their town.

Hey, I have an idea - instead of whining to some politician - pack your bags and move to a place where there are jobs. There is no constitutional right to a job in your backyard. And Washington does not owe you one. They don’t owe you anything.

How much lead paint did you eat?[/quote]

What’s wrong with moving to where there are more jobs?

56

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
One more thing. All these democratic town hall meetings and all you hear is - jobs, jobs, jobs. All these midwest towns where the plants or factories have shut down the people they drag in are whining about no jobs in their town.

Hey, I have an idea - instead of whining to some politician - pack your bags and move to a place where there are jobs. There is no constitutional right to a job in your backyard. And Washington does not owe you one. They don’t owe you anything.

How much lead paint did you eat?

What’s wrong with moving to where there are more jobs?

[/quote]

He hasn’t discovered the world isn’t going to be handed to him, don’t even bother.

57

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
One more thing. All these democratic town hall meetings and all you hear is - jobs, jobs, jobs. All these midwest towns where the plants or factories have shut down the people they drag in are whining about no jobs in their town.

Hey, I have an idea - instead of whining to some politician - pack your bags and move to a place where there are jobs. There is no constitutional right to a job in your backyard. And Washington does not owe you one. They don’t owe you anything.

How much lead paint did you eat?

What’s wrong with moving to where there are more jobs?

[/quote]

Right now the job market is suffering every where

58

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
One more thing. All these democratic town hall meetings and all you hear is - jobs, jobs, jobs. All these midwest towns where the plants or factories have shut down the people they drag in are whining about no jobs in their town.

Hey, I have an idea - instead of whining to some politician - pack your bags and move to a place where there are jobs. There is no constitutional right to a job in your backyard. And Washington does not owe you one. They don’t owe you anything.

How much lead paint did you eat?

What’s wrong with moving to where there are more jobs?

Right now the job market is suffering every where
[/quote]

That is not true. Unemployment is still very close to full employment. I am not saying that certain markets are not hurting - they are - but some sectors are doing quite well. A President has very little control over the economy, as I said before - we have this thing called the business cycle. The fed can tinker with rates to help growth or control inflation, but beyond that there is very little they can do outside of tax cuts. Accelerated depreciation on new equipment also helps and that was passed earlier in the year.

On another note, lower energy prices would also be nice to fuel growth in the economy. But there is a political party standing in the way of drilling. We are not allowed to drill off of the coasts or in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Not to mention ANWAR. We have more than enough oil and gas reserves to last us well over 200 yrs by conservative estimates. I am certain by that time new technologies will be developed. But they will not happen anytime soon.

Also, we have not been allowed to build any new refineries since the 70’s. BRILLIANT. This particular political party is also blocking nuclear energy. It is clean, safe and cheap. One nuclear plant has less of a carbon footprint than Al Gore’s house. When will we learn. Maybe when gas is 10/gallon.

We can drill without making a mess. China is already drilling 75 miles off the Florida coast, but we can’t. It is hard to take when you think about the idiots in Washington.

59

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No, just offering a possible explanation of why he receives such a high percentage of votes by black people. Our educational system is an abject failure, most urban schools being little more than holding pens. Of course, what should we expect for $32,000 to start and maybe $50,000 after 20 years? In high crime areas to boot…

Another problem is that Black English is more of a perceptual language than is standard English — “He be here later.”, for ex, illustrates a language that is present-oriented, not future (and hence conceptually) oriented.

But Black America constitutes,what,about 10% of the population?Please correct me if I’m wrong,that’s off the top of my head.

So even if they vote for him en mass just because they identify with his hue(just speaking hypothetically,they may of course vote for him for many other reasons),he would still require a substantial percentage of the rest of the population in order to win.

So what explains his allure to everyone else?

There’s no real ‘allure’ about it.

He and Hillary are fairly similar as candidates. Therefore, given the 2 choices, they should split the vote in a similar proportion (one reason they are so close in delegate count). Now, Obama typically gets around 90% of the black vote. This was enough to put him over the top and does implicate some sort of racism on the part of black voters. Since racism is a result of ignorance, that’s how I came up with my argument.

[/quote]

Uhmmm, yeah it’s not racism, you just made that up. In October 2/3’s of them supported Hillary and blacks have historically been voting for whites for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. Your premise is just dead wrong.

60

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No, just offering a possible explanation of why he receives such a high percentage of votes by black people. Our educational system is an abject failure, most urban schools being little more than holding pens. Of course, what should we expect for $32,000 to start and maybe $50,000 after 20 years? In high crime areas to boot…

Another problem is that Black English is more of a perceptual language than is standard English — “He be here later.”, for ex, illustrates a language that is present-oriented, not future (and hence conceptually) oriented.

But Black America constitutes,what,about 10% of the population?Please correct me if I’m wrong,that’s off the top of my head.

So even if they vote for him en mass just because they identify with his hue(just speaking hypothetically,they may of course vote for him for many other reasons),he would still require a substantial percentage of the rest of the population in order to win.

So what explains his allure to everyone else?

There’s no real ‘allure’ about it.

He and Hillary are fairly similar as candidates. Therefore, given the 2 choices, they should split the vote in a similar proportion (one reason they are so close in delegate count). Now, Obama typically gets around 90% of the black vote. This was enough to put him over the top and does implicate some sort of racism on the part of black voters. Since racism is a result of ignorance, that’s how I came up with my argument.

[/quote]

The same claim can be made for white voters who vote for white candidates against opponents of different ethnicity then,can it not?

That makes ignorance an all inclusive stupidity injection.

Racism covers all hues of the colour spectrum.