Democrats criticize Obama's proposed tax cuts

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Jhhnn,

That's pretty funny. Of all the analysis of the bubble never has it been mentioned that lower capital gains was in any way responsible. And of course I'm against any increases at "the top" - I'm the top according to Obama and I ain't rich. There is no single way better to fix our economic mess than "bold and swift" action, and that action is across the board cuts for all. NOT handouts.

Your ideology is a failure for the vast majority of americans, spidey, including you, even if you can't figure that out. There's no down in trickle down, only up, and the very definition fo a bubble is too much liquidity chasing too few assets.

How do you think investors ended up with all that liquidity, anyway? They earned it, the old fashioned way, buying taxcuts from republicans...

 

[cumhail]

Funny... I see the whole issue of Democrats being willing to criticize Obama in a far more positive light. A Democrat-controlled congress showing that it is willing to voice disagreement with a Democrat President is how it should work.

Even if it's partly (or even all) "for show," maybe the Republicans should consider taking some notes.

 

[spidey07]

Looks like Democrats are getting even more critical. Apparently it doesn't RAISE taxes enough. Yep, that's what you need when production is low and consumers aren't spending - raise operating costs by taxing more and steal more of their money.

? Even before Obama?s plan was formally unveiled, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made plain her displeasure with parts of Obama?s emerging fiscal plan, which she believes does not move fast enough to raise taxes. ?I couldn't be more clear,? she said Thursday at her weekly news conference. ?Put me down as one in favor of repeal [of the Bush tax cuts] as soon as possible.?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politi...0109/pl_politico/17268

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: [/i]cumhail[/i]
Funny... I see the whole issue of Democrats being willing to criticize Obama in a far mroe positive light. A Democrat-controlled congress showing that it is willing to voice disagreement with a Democrat President is how it should work.

This.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gee, spidey, you act like raising taxes at the top will affect you personally, which seems highly unlikely.

People at the top aren't investing atm, anyway, other than in govt bonds or figuratively stuffing it into their mattresses. Cutting their taxes won't stimulate anything other than bigger deficits. And it's not like they need the money- they've done rather handsomely in recent years-

http://www.visualizingeconomic...category/pitkettysaez/

The Bush taxcuts will likely be allowed to expire, and some compensating changes made for middle class earners. The standard repub ploy of cutting revenue while increasing spending helped put us into this mess- your heroes dealt this hand, so read 'em and weep. The only tears they'll shed will be of the crocodile kind...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gee, spidey, you act like raising taxes at the top will affect you personally, which seems highly unlikely.

People at the top aren't investing atm, anyway, other than in govt bonds or figuratively stuffing it into their mattresses. Cutting their taxes won't stimulate anything other than bigger deficits. And it's not like they need the money- they've done rather handsomely in recent years-

http://www.visualizingeconomic...category/pitkettysaez/

The Bush taxcuts will likely be allowed to expire, and some compensating changes made for middle class earners. The standard repub ploy of cutting revenue while increasing spending helped put us into this mess- your heroes dealt this hand, so read 'em and weep. The only tears they'll shed will be of the crocodile kind...

Obama wants to cut revenue while increasing spending.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, winnar, every one of the people who received aid because of Katrina blew it on booze... every last dime.

If you believe that, you'll believe any sort of tripe offered up by the pundits of the Right Fringe.

And spidey07's contentions aren't really any better. Today's capital gains rates are the lowest they've been in the whole postwar period, and have been that way since 2001- which led us into this whole bubble mess in the first place. More of the same will merely yield more of the same, not less.

The reason that the rightwing opposes taxcuts for the middle class is that such will necessitate tax increases at the top, cut into the mega-incomes of those who formulate and promulgate rightwing economic concepts. Billionaire greed obviously knows no bounds, otherwise they wouldn't be billionaires, after all...

The problem is that what works well for them doesn't work well for the rest of us, which has become obvious, given that they've never done better even as the rest of us have to cut back. Not that their raving fanbois have the slightest chance of figuring that out- all they have to do is believe, not think.

Well to be honest even if they did truly blow it all on booze then it went right back into the local economy. Last time I checked poor aren't really big on hording cash and then shipping it overseas. Then again these tax cuts are aimed at people who have jobs so Spidey is kind of a elitist or someone who didn't read his own article don't you think?

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gee, spidey, you act like raising taxes at the top will affect you personally, which seems highly unlikely.

People at the top aren't investing atm, anyway, other than in govt bonds or figuratively stuffing it into their mattresses. Cutting their taxes won't stimulate anything other than bigger deficits. And it's not like they need the money- they've done rather handsomely in recent years-

http://www.visualizingeconomic...category/pitkettysaez/

The Bush taxcuts will likely be allowed to expire, and some compensating changes made for middle class earners. The standard repub ploy of cutting revenue while increasing spending helped put us into this mess- your heroes dealt this hand, so read 'em and weep. The only tears they'll shed will be of the crocodile kind...

Obama wants to cut revenue while increasing spending.

Citation needed, sport. Obama's position has been to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them at the top.

I'm not sure the former is really desirable from a fiscal pov, but the latter is a good idea for a variety of reasons.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gee, spidey, you act like raising taxes at the top will affect you personally, which seems highly unlikely.

People at the top aren't investing atm, anyway, other than in govt bonds or figuratively stuffing it into their mattresses. Cutting their taxes won't stimulate anything other than bigger deficits. And it's not like they need the money- they've done rather handsomely in recent years-

http://www.visualizingeconomic...category/pitkettysaez/

The Bush taxcuts will likely be allowed to expire, and some compensating changes made for middle class earners. The standard repub ploy of cutting revenue while increasing spending helped put us into this mess- your heroes dealt this hand, so read 'em and weep. The only tears they'll shed will be of the crocodile kind...

Obama wants to cut revenue while increasing spending.

Citation needed, sport. Obama's position has been to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them at the top.

I'm not sure the former is really desirable from a fiscal pov, but the latter is a good idea for a variety of reasons.

You stated

The standard repub ploy of cutting revenue while increasing spending helped put us into this mess- your heroes dealt this hand, so read 'em and weep. The only tears they'll shed will be of the crocodile kind.

Which is what he is planning to do. Secondly his stimulus package is an infrastructure package. Meaning big money going to big business with the expectation they will create jobs and filter the money down. What exactly is the difference between giving the money via a govt project or giving the same company a tax break? The same base idea is there, the money filters down. He isnt giving 1 trillion to the poor. It is going to the rich.

 

[Jhhnn]

Merely restating your original assertion is not a citation, Genx87.

And even if that's what happens, it's classic Keynsian economics, unlike the repub approach of Keynsian stimulus when times are supposedly good...

What's the difference between giving a company a project and giving them a tax break? Get real. in order to get paid for the project, they have to hire people and deliver the goods- in order to get a tax break, all they have to do is stuff the money into their mattresses...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gee, spidey, you act like raising taxes at the top will affect you personally, which seems highly unlikely.

People at the top aren't investing atm, anyway, other than in govt bonds or figuratively stuffing it into their mattresses. Cutting their taxes won't stimulate anything other than bigger deficits. And it's not like they need the money- they've done rather handsomely in recent years-

http://www.visualizingeconomic...category/pitkettysaez/

The Bush taxcuts will likely be allowed to expire, and some compensating changes made for middle class earners. The standard repub ploy of cutting revenue while increasing spending helped put us into this mess- your heroes dealt this hand, so read 'em and weep. The only tears they'll shed will be of the crocodile kind...

Typical dribble. "they make enough already, let's bleed them dry!!!"

And you need to get your facts straight. Every single one of my peers are investing out the wazoo because of low prices and we're considered "rich" if you look at the income marker Obama and other liberals seem to think is "too much".

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice bit of false attribution, spidey. Wealthy people weren't exactly hurting prior to Reagan, and they definitely weren't being abused prior to GWB, either.

The vast majority of Americans would gladly pay big taxes on big money, because it's the bottom line that counts. Any other perspective is one of pure greed, where the missing ingredient in "enlightened self interest" is the enlightenment part.

And, uhh, I take it you're claiming an income of over $600K, which is what it would take to "suffer" under Obama's tax plan-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/ST2008060900950.html

But, of course, I'm sure that you won't let actual analysis interfere with the formulation of your opinions, such as they are...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice bit of false attribution, spidey. Wealthy people weren't exactly hurting prior to Reagan, and they definitely weren't being abused prior to GWB, either.

The vast majority of Americans would gladly pay big taxes on big money, because it's the bottom line that counts. Any other perspective is one of pure greed, where the missing ingredient in "enlightened self interest" is the enlightenment part.

And, uhh, I take it you're claiming an income of over $600K, which is what it would take to "suffer" under Obama's tax plan-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/ST2008060900950.html

But, of course, I'm sure that you won't let actual analysis interfere with the formulation of your opinions, such as they are...

Every American would suffer under Obama's raise taxes plan because he will raise taxes for all (let the President Bush tax cuts expire). He's already failed before even taking office, a new first but he'll outpace Carter soon.

I already pointed out the support for even MORE RAISE TAXES of the speaker of the house, that bitch.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hogwash, spidey. Your thinking processes are obviously warped, poisoned, damaged by entirely too much talk radio and outrage addiction.

Here's a more detailed analysis, which clearly indicates that Obama intends to keep the provisions of the 2001 taxcuts most advantageous to middle class families...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...tion_issues_matrix.cfm

You won't even look at it, anyway- might burn your eyes out, right?

I notice you shied away form your claim wrt Obama's tax plan affecting you personally.. is it possible you were in error? that maybe your gullibility for all things rightwing might have led you to believe something that's not true, at all? Nah. Rush, Hannity Coulter and the rest are always right- I forgot.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Hogwash, spidey. Your thinking processes are obviously warped, poisoned, damaged by entirely too much talk radio and outrage addiction.

Here's a more detailed analysis, which clearly indicates that Obama intends to keep the provisions of the 2001 taxcuts most advantageous to middle class families...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...tion_issues_matrix.cfm

You won't even look at it, anyway- might burn your eyes out, right?

I notice you shied away form your claim wrt Obama's tax plan affecting you personally.. is it possible you were in error? that maybe your gullibility for all things rightwing might have led you to believe something that's not true, at all? Nah. Rush, Hannity Coulter and the rest are always right- I forgot.

The only way we can settle our disagreement is over a good 40 dollar wine and a nice steak. I'm a Levin and Elder fan, don't listen to the guys you mentioned.

Does it not concern you that the house speaker says the plan doesn't raise taxes enough?

-edit-
No, I won't read the link you provided or the other one. I read them months ago and completely understand Obama stealing my money and giving it to people that don't pay taxes. That fucker.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice bit of false attribution, spidey. Wealthy people weren't exactly hurting prior to Reagan, and they definitely weren't being abused prior to GWB, either.

The vast majority of Americans would gladly pay big taxes on big money, because it's the bottom line that counts. Any other perspective is one of pure greed, where the missing ingredient in "enlightened self interest" is the enlightenment part.

And, uhh, I take it you're claiming an income of over $600K, which is what it would take to "suffer" under Obama's tax plan-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/ST2008060900950.html

But, of course, I'm sure that you won't let actual analysis interfere with the formulation of your opinions, such as they are...

Every American would suffer under Obama's raise taxes plan because he will raise taxes for all (let the President Bush tax cuts expire). He's already failed before even taking office, a new first but he'll outpace Carter soon.

I already pointed out the support for even MORE RAISE TAXES of the speaker of the house, that bitch.

Spidey, what you are saying is simply factually false. It is completely unhinged from reality. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it is badly distorted and it is rendering you incapable of rationally examining the facts in front of you.

You don't have to hate Obama all the time, it's really okay.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Spidey, what you are saying is simply factually false. It is completely unhinged from reality. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it is badly distorted and it is rendering you incapable of rationally examining the facts in front of you.

You don't have to hate Obama all the time, it's really okay.

Funny, because I think you are the one that needs a dose of reality and fact. You live in some kind of non-reality world. Take your medication please because your mind is too far gone.

-edit-
I guess that makes us both insane, with me being only slightly less insane than you. Just barely. But it's 01:00 saturday morning so here's to you my friend..
:wine:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Spidey, what you are saying is simply factually false. It is completely unhinged from reality. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it is badly distorted and it is rendering you incapable of rationally examining the facts in front of you.

You don't have to hate Obama all the time, it's really okay.

Funny, because I think you are the one that needs a dose of reality and fact. You live in some kind of non-reality world. Take your medication please because your mind is too far gone.

-edit-
I guess that makes us both insane, with me being only slightly less insane than you. Just barely. But it's 01:00 saturday morning so here's to you my friend..
:wine:

No, seriously. You're saying he's raising taxes for all Americans when he's cutting taxes for almost all Americans. You are objectively wrong.

 

[Vic]

Political hackery is more or less defined by criticizing a political opponent for doing something that aligns with your own political ideology.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, seriously. You're saying he's raising taxes for all Americans when he's cutting taxes for almost all Americans. You are objectively wrong.

Seriously - you don't realize that the Bush Tax Cuts were for all Americans.

I say again - because my point and thread was quickly locked. Record your tax liability for CY 2008 and compare to CY2009.

You are going to get bent over and you (you plural) are rooting for it.

 

[umbrella39]

Wow, a party that doesn't blindly endorse their fearless leader's plans is indeed newsworthy. Thanks for bringing to our attention OP.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, seriously. You're saying he's raising taxes for all Americans when he's cutting taxes for almost all Americans. You are objectively wrong.

Seriously - you don't realize that the Bush Tax Cuts were for all Americans.

I say again - because my point and thread was quickly locked. Record your tax liability for CY 2008 and compare to CY2009.

You are going to get bent over and you (you plural) are rooting for it.

Seriously, you need to stop listening to talk radio and start looking at the facts. You'll look less stupid.