Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

Beans,

The tax rate in the 1993-2003 period was 39.6% hardly an archaic sample, that is what I propose we go back to.

Yes I know that my rate remains the same, that is because my MFJ income is not high enough to hit the next bracket, would it somehow be a more acceptable point if I lied and said my rates were going up? You should know that if we only talk about things that directly impact us you would be very limited in scope of conversation.

My investment income took a hit as well as everyone else, my wifes TIAA-CREF took a beating as well, my kids’ college money is just fine but I know people that will struggle to send their kids to school if things don’t turn around. I don’t WANT to pay more in taxes, but I think we NEED to.

By the way Allen West is still a fucking loon. When I was in the Army I was lucky enough to never have to deal with a jackass like him, however if I did I would have been thrilled to see him pulled from command. On a side note the most people I was ever in charge of in the Army was four and it was more than enough for me thank you.

582

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
It’s also possible, given the GOP base that a bunch of the 2008 voters just got old and died, had their meth labs blow up or were killed in hunting accidents.[/quote]

So you are throwing in the towel on the West bashing and moving on to childish stereotypes?

Still waiting on your explanation of what “fair share” shakes out to be numbers wise.[/quote]

BEANS,

Regarding “Childish Stereotypes”, people that refuse to hold their own side up to the same standards that they expect from others don’t really have any credibility (I’m looking at you).
As far as the West bashing, what did I say that is actually untrue? He was kicked out of the Army for being a nutcase, he was voted out of congress for the same thing, his actions, accusations and bizarre threats label him as either a lunatic or an idiot (I vote for crazy simply because I don’t like to think that a moron would have advanced that far in his career, although after my experiences in the Army I would say it’s very possible that he is just not very bright).
With regards to the “fair share” tax argument, that seems to be one that you are making for me. I told you what i would like to see, and despite you constantly saying “Taxation without representation” for no reason whatsoever (I don’t think it applies) I was pretty pleased with my suggestions (which is why I made them). I have not formulated an exact % plan, since my access to the CBO, the exact needs of each Federal Agency and the incomes of all Americans is limited. But I agree that a return to the Clinton Era tax rates wouldn’t be bad for a start, jumping the top rate to 39.6%, and the 2nd highest from 35% to 36% both seem acceptable (yes I know I am in the 28% bracket for MFJ so it doesn’t impact me), I would also like to see investment income taxed at about a 5% higher clip, if the rich feel oppressed they are free to be poor.[/quote]

West wasn’t, “kicked out,” of the Army for being a nutcase. He was NJP’d, which effectively ended his career. The military gets political the hire up you go. Also the fact that he was NJP’s vs. Court Martialed is a huge indicator that his career warranted leniency.

Honest question, do you believe forcing a % of the population to give $4 out of every $10
they make to the government fair?

Also how do you think the economy will react if you:

  1. Take more $ out of it via higher taxes?
  2. Reduce $'s invested because
    a. Take home pay is now lower, &
    b. IF you make money off the investment more will be given to Uncle Sam.

How do you justify making a risky investment if the return is now taxed an additional 5%? Won’t that hurt the economy at a time when the economy is pretty fragile?
[/quote]

USMC,

Despite the fact that West was allowed to retire from the military with full benefits, the initial punishment ordered by Major General Raymond Odierno was either immediate resignation (three days before his pension eligible date) or face a court martial, they eventually agreed on a $5k fine and retirement with bennies, rather than garner the bad press this issue could have brought in 2003-4 (when a lot of similarly disturbing shit was happening).

  1. Yes I think 4 out of 10 is fair, especially since it worked before. Any idea what the tax rate was during during our “golden years” of the 50’s? From 1941 (81%) to 1982 (50%) our tax rates went as high as 94%. Guess what? We survived and even flourished at times. The idea that people will simply stop making money because they don’t want to pay taxes is ludicrous.

  2. Rates on investment income have been as high as 39.9% (1977) and as low as 15% (today), but the rate of investment over those years has remained pretty consistent regardless of the tax consequences. Would a smart businessman walk away from a good product/asset/idea because they don’t want to pay 5% extra in taxes on the profit from their investment? I don’t think so.[/quote]

  3. I don’t think you understand how the military works. He didn’t walk in to some Generals office and have a cup of tea while deciding how to handle the situation. They didn’t, “Agree,” on anything. He went through Article 15 of the UCMJ, that’s not a joke.

Please try and put yourself in his shoes before calling him a nutcase, please.

  1. The fact that we survived or even flourished has nothing to do with fair. That is the Presidents favorite word, correct? We flourished when we had slaves, do you suggest we re-instate slavery? That would alleviate most of our labor issues, no? 4/10 dollars is not fair when a large % of the country pays 0/10 dollars.

It’s not ludacris, and you are missing the point. People will, at the very least, reduce investing in risky investments when there is less to gain. If I can make a wage, that is basically guaranteed, and I pay 25% in taxes or invest in a stock (with money I’ve already paid tax on mind you) that might see a gain, but also might = zero in a year and pay 20% on any gain that might occur, which would you pick. Seems like a no brainer to me.

This also hurts the economy, especially with banks being very selective over loaning money. Now how do you suppose new technology is created or new jobs will be created if raising capital becomes even more difficult and getting a loan is difficult talready o say the least?

The only other option is the gov re-investing tax dollars, no thanks!

  1. A business might walk away even if it’s a good product, if that 5% makes their breakeven point unattainable. The economy is very competitive.

Lowering taxes only helps the rich, sure I can kind of see the argument. Raising taxes hurts everyone. It hurts innovation, job creation, and cost the consumer money. It’s not like if you lower taxes somehow the poor get less, hell they get money back that isn’t even there’s as it is, how do you justify that?

583

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Beans,

The tax rate in the 1993-2003 period was 39.6% hardly an archaic sample, that is what I propose we go back to.[/quote]

No, that is what you propose other people go back to, not yourself. The Bush era taxes rates reduced taxes for everyone. You only want to increase them back to Clinton era rates on some people.

There is no “we” here, and that is a major part of my issue.

If taxes go back to Clinton rates, they go back for everyone. Not just who you pick and choose for them to go back to.

The point is flying right over your head.

You are fine, in fact in favor of asking others to do something you aren’t willing to do yourself, which is pay more taxes.

No again. You think other people need to. You’ve said twice now your rates won’t go up. That isn’t “we” unless English changed in the last 20 mins.

Stating opinion, over and over, doesn’t make it fact.

584

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

By the way Allen West is still a fucking loon. When I was in the Army I was lucky enough to never have to deal with a jackass like him, however if I did I would have been thrilled to see him pulled from command. On a side note the most people I was ever in charge of in the Army was four and it was more than enough for me thank you.[/quote]

How can you say this based solely on the news. You were in the Army? No offense, but seriously you’re going to throw a guy that dedicated his life to the Army under the bus based off media clippings?

585

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Lowering taxes only helps the rich, sure I can kind of see the argument. [/quote]

That argument holds no water.

586

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Lowering taxes only helps the rich, sure I can kind of see the argument. [/quote]

That argument holds no water.

[/quote]

What I mean is that, if you pay $0 in taxes, a cut doesn’t help you from a monetary stand poitn only. Where as if you pay 39% and you’re rate is cut or additional exemptions are allowed you pay less; therefore, monetarily you gain.

Believe me, I am all for reducing taxes on the rich. I believe the intangible benefits extend to everyone.

587

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Lowering taxes only helps the rich, sure I can kind of see the argument. [/quote]

That argument holds no water.

[/quote]

What I mean is that, if you pay $0 in taxes, a cut doesn’t help you from a monetary stand poitn only. Where as if you pay 39% and you’re rate is cut or additional exemptions are allowed you pay less; therefore, monetarily you gain.

Believe me, I am all for reducing taxes on the rich. I believe the intangible benefits extend to everyone. [/quote]

But the rich are not paying their fair share! The top 10% only pay 70% of all taxes. Obummer says we have to tax the rich even more, that way we can take their money and hand it to people who have not earned it and do not deserve it. Wait…not completely true. The government only redistributes a portion of the money stolen from the wealthy. Part of that money also goes to making the government larger. So now we have two things going on that are negative to the long term economic health of our nation.

Also, once the money leaves the hands of the wealthy they are unable to invest it and create jobs which would help the economy far greater in the long-term

So absolutely let’s tax the rich they must be evil anyway because…they have money.

It all makes sense. (in bizarro land)

588

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Also, once the money leaves the hands of the wealthy they are unable to invest it and create jobs which would help the economy far greater in the long-term

[/quote]

Even though I think the “job creator” rhetoric is a bit over blown, it has some basis of truth.

A 5% increase to the taxes paid by business owners will translate into 5% less money in an employees raise, machine purchases, less quality materials, etc etc etc.

If the economy was growing at 4-5%, an additional tax of 5% wouldn’t be that crazy, and in some ways perfectly fine. Given the state of our economy any slowing of the velocity of money is foolish. People with high incomes are the ones who move the most money…

Also, the Global marketplace isn’t the same as it was in the 90’s let alone the 60’s and 70’s. Higher taxes not only give encentive for people to invest in foreign markets, but it slows the flow of foreign capital here.

And yes, the talk of raising taxes ignores that fact that without broad sweeping spending cuts, it is all moot. Obam’s fleece the wealthy class warfare tax rates are a piss in the bucket, he knows it, I know it, you know it. But his voters don’t get it.

589

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

And yes, the talk of raising taxes ignores that fact that without broad sweeping spending cuts, it is all moot. Obam’s fleece the wealthy class warfare tax rates are a piss in the bucket, he knows it, I know it, you know it. But his voters don’t get it.[/quote]

Oh…but they will get it. Small business employees will be the first to get it when their pay is either reduced, or there are no raises.

And customers nation wide will also get it when business owners raise their prices to make up for the tax hikes. Does the left really think that small business will take this sitting down? How naive…just like their President.

The simple simon’s like Briaaan don’t understand how we are all dependent on each other. Class warfare by the left wing scums works well to get them elected but ends up harming the very people they claim to want to help.

In two years time about 1/3rd of the Obama voters will have deep regrets regarding their Presidential vote. Unfortunately by then it will be too late. They will be paying the price for putting that naive left wing hack back into office.

590

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Also, once the money leaves the hands of the wealthy they are unable to invest it and create jobs which would help the economy far greater in the long-term

[/quote]

Even though I think the “job creator” rhetoric is a bit over blown, it has some basis of truth.

A 5% increase to the taxes paid by business owners will translate into 5% less money in an employees raise, machine purchases, less quality materials, etc etc etc.

If the economy was growing at 4-5%, an additional tax of 5% wouldn’t be that crazy, and in some ways perfectly fine. Given the state of our economy any slowing of the velocity of money is foolish. People with high incomes are the ones who move the most money…

Also, the Global marketplace isn’t the same as it was in the 90’s let alone the 60’s and 70’s. Higher taxes not only give encentive for people to invest in foreign markets, but it slows the flow of foreign capital here.

And yes, the talk of raising taxes ignores that fact that without broad sweeping spending cuts, it is all moot. Obam’s fleece the wealthy class warfare tax rates are a piss in the bucket, he knows it, I know it, you know it. But his voters don’t get it.[/quote]

Great post, I agree with almost everything in here.

591

Maybe its time to consider a general sales tax. If 47% of the population is not paying federal income tax. It will broaden the tax base. But at the same time give deductions to corporations in regards to that sales tax.

592

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Maybe its time to consider a general sales tax. If 47% of the population is not paying federal income tax. It will broaden the tax base. But at the same time give deductions to corporations in regards to that sales tax.[/quote]

Sales tax is just as easy to abuse than an income tax. (I mean government abusing it here for social engineering.)

Thing is, I don’t have a problem with the 47% figure as much. There are plenty of people that shouldn’t be paying more than they do, if anything at all.

I do however have a problem with anyone in that 47% that feels they have a right to tell me I have to pay more.

I’m fairly certian that 47% figure only includes those who file taxes as well. The actual figure there is higher than 47%.

593

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Maybe its time to consider a general sales tax. If 47% of the population is not paying federal income tax. It will broaden the tax base. But at the same time give deductions to corporations in regards to that sales tax.[/quote]

Better than a sales tax would be a flat tax. That would be fair to all citizens. Let’s say a flat 20% with no loopholes for anyone. And everyone making 35-k or more per year pays it. That would put more people back on the tax roles and stop the very wealthy from cheating with various loopholes.

But…that will never happen in America as long as the democrats can make hay by attacking the wealthy. They will always win when there is division among the people, sort of like how they win when they create racism where none exists.

By the way they would also reject a sales tax for the same reasons.

And back the purpose of my thread…that’s one reason Obama won.

594

The big shift necessary in both sides that won’t occur is the recognition that truly long term profit is mostly if not entirely illusionary. Pushing policies that create an immense amount of profit for a few short term. Largely mortgages this on future generations.
Higher taxes are likely necessary. Everyone should have something in the game. Corporatism which both current parties engage in needs to go away.

Drastic cuts are needed too but where they are found is in places like the military.
None of this will occur.
So vote for whatever pig you want, he will remember you until he starts sucking slop from the special interest trough.
The right can console themselves with the fact they will have great reward in paradise.

The left can find solace in the eventual revolution that will occur when all illusion of equality of opportunity goes away and the erfs rise and kill their fuedal lords.

595

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Maybe its time to consider a general sales tax. If 47% of the population is not paying federal income tax. It will broaden the tax base. But at the same time give deductions to corporations in regards to that sales tax.[/quote]

Better than a sales tax would be a flat tax. That would be fair to all citizens. Let’s say a flat 20% with no loopholes for anyone. And everyone making 35-k or more per year pays it. That would put more people back on the tax roles and stop the very wealthy from cheating with various loopholes.

But…that will never happen in America as long as the democrats can make hay by attacking the wealthy. They will always win when there is division among the people, sort of like how they win when they create racism where none exists.

By the way they would also reject a sales tax for the same reasons.

And back the purpose of my thread…that’s one reason Obama won.

[/quote]

The problem with this is that seven thousand dollars means infinitely more to someone who makes thirty-five thousand per year than does seven million to someone who makes thirty-five million.

I’m in favor of a slightly progressive tax with a fairly low but loophole-invincible top rate. Agree or not, that isn’t class warfare.

596

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree or not, that isn’t class warfare.[/quote]

No it isn’t. I don’t like the flat tax, and prefer a progressive tax system myself. Class warfare comes into play when people are calling for other’s heads and less and less have skin in the game.

Thing is, if the economy hadn’t shit the bed, no one would be complaning. Only reason this is an issue is because we’ve over extended our spending the last 30 years listening to the likes of Krugman. If the economy was bumping we would keep floating along and yelling at each other 32oz sodas.

(HAHA got a little Paul bashing in)

597

[quote]groo wrote:
is the recognition that truly long term profit is mostly if not entirely illusionary. [/quote]

This isn’t true. Just because short term is important too, doesn’t mean people don’t think long term. Silly.

Very much agree. The cronyism is a huge problem, but giving the government more power and more of our money is not the way to fix this.

You can cut defense to 0 and still run a deficit. We need to trim everything.

I know you are being flippant, but there never was nor shoudl there be this illusion. Their is equality of liberty. Liberty to be the most you can be to the best of your ability. Life it self doesn’t give everyone the same opportunity, otherwise I’d be Gronk right now instead of a desk jockey.

Life isn’t fair. It never was, and it never will be. Life isn’t easy, it never was and it never will be. We cannot manufacture these things either. They fly in the face of nature. No this does not mean let people starve in the street. But it doesn’t mean you can pull down one to give rise to another. It doesn’t work like that.

599

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
is the recognition that truly long term profit is mostly if not entirely illusionary. [/quote]

This isn’t true. Just because short term is important too, doesn’t mean people don’t think long term. Silly.

Very much agree. The cronyism is a huge problem, but giving the government more power and more of our money is not the way to fix this.

You can cut defense to 0 and still run a deficit. We need to trim everything.

I know you are being flippant, but there never was nor shoudl there be this illusion. Their is equality of liberty. Liberty to be the most you can be to the best of your ability. Life it self doesn’t give everyone the same opportunity, otherwise I’d be Gronk right now instead of a desk jockey.

Life isn’t fair. It never was, and it never will be. Life isn’t easy, it never was and it never will be. We cannot manufacture these things either. They fly in the face of nature. No this does not mean let people starve in the street. But it doesn’t mean you can pull down one to give rise to another. It doesn’t work like that.[/quote]

I do think opportunity should be made as equal as possible not condition.
If we cut defense to 0 we could run a surplus but im not advocating that. There just cannot be someone advocating austerity on social programs then willing to maintain or increase defense spending and have that person be considereed fiscally respondinle.
And I do assert that there is no long term profit.
I also say that libertarianism as envisioned by its internet advocates is a farce. And the pursestrings behind it always support cronyism.

600

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Maybe its time to consider a general sales tax. If 47% of the population is not paying federal income tax. It will broaden the tax base. But at the same time give deductions to corporations in regards to that sales tax.[/quote]

Better than a sales tax would be a flat tax. That would be fair to all citizens. Let’s say a flat 20% with no loopholes for anyone. And everyone making 35-k or more per year pays it. That would put more people back on the tax roles and stop the very wealthy from cheating with various loopholes.

But…that will never happen in America as long as the democrats can make hay by attacking the wealthy. They will always win when there is division among the people, sort of like how they win when they create racism where none exists.

By the way they would also reject a sales tax for the same reasons.

And back the purpose of my thread…that’s one reason Obama won.

[/quote]

The problem with this is that seven thousand dollars means infinitely more to someone who makes thirty-five thousand per year than does seven million to someone who makes thirty-five million.

I’m in favor of a slightly progressive tax with a fairly low but loophole-invincible top rate. Agree or not, that isn’t class warfare.[/quote]

That is totally irrelevant. AND that’s where liberals get in trouble with what I call economic logic. They want to add the word “fairness” to everything. And that is quite arbitrary.

Keep in mind we should not have a tax system to punish those who have done well. In fact, if we were smart we could work this so that those making 35-k would want to make more and pay less taxes. A sort of incentive tax program, not unlike a sales incentive program. The more widgets you sell the more commission that you make the less you sell the less you make.

Oh wait…hold on…that makes far too much sense. Iy might encourage people to actually make more then we’d have less people dependent on government. And we’d have an economy that’s on the move…so forget it.

Yeah…let’s keep punishing those who have succeeded. It’s the only thing that democrats will go for.