Obama: Raise Taxes, Penalize Business

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Carbo
Topic Title: Obama: Raise Taxes, Penalize Business

Good

Your free ride should be over

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Or, to be more accurate, taxing capital gains equitably with earned income will have a minuscule impact on a huge chunk of the middle class (wage earners) and a significant impact on the very wealthy.

because certainly the middle class doesn't have 401(k)s!

He didn't say that, he said that the wealthy will be affected > than middle class, which = correct.

 

[Vic]

Taxes are going up regardless of which party gets elected. The debt and deficit are simply too high to support our continued level of borrowing.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Sounds like socialist values to me. Why not just cut government back Obama? Is it really that hard? :disgust:

Apparently it is, given that the current "small government" party administration has increased spending by more than 40% during its time in office.

 

[StageLeft]

I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly so they wouldnt have to keep raising taxes or praying for super economic growth to overcome the deficits while borrowing out the ass.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Or, to be more accurate, taxing capital gains equitably with earned income will have a minuscule impact on a huge chunk of the middle class (wage earners) and a significant impact on the very wealthy.

because certainly the middle class doesn't have 401(k)s!

He didn't say that, he said that the wealthy will be affected > than middle class, which = correct.

Actually, that's probably incorrect. The wealthy have a lower incentive to realize their wealth for income. The 'middle class' has to realize a disproportionately higher % of wealth. Since capital gains only taxes REALIZED wealth, the 'wealthy' usually roll their gains back into additional wealth-generating vehicles while the 'middle class' does not.

This also ignores the fact that the 'wealthy' are better able to navigate the unnecessarily complex American tax laws than the 'middle class', which causes them to pay an even more disproportionately small % of wealth.

However, if you think that raising rates will even out the proportion, I have this friend in Nigeria who needs some help sending money to the US......

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Increasing CGT is stupid. That discourages saving, investing, and wealth building. That is the LAST thing we should be discouraging. That is made even more relevant since our benevolent government, no matter which party was "in control", has never proven to be able to allocate increased tax revenue to paying down debt. Instead, it has an almost-perfect history of allocating the new revenue to more unnecessary programs and expenditures. Increasing the CGT has all of the drawbacks of reduced savings AND all of the drawbacks of increased spending, with none of the benefits of increased revenue.

+1

Best post in this thread so far. Agree 100%

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

 

[Lemon law]

How quickly we forget the biggest threat to business. Which is what happens when the one thing business relies on is no longer there, and that is the customer. When the customer
can no longer buy the output of business, the entire food chain collapses as Hubert Hoover rapidly learned.

And that in a nutshell what GWB&co has been promoting all these years, aiding business while it attacks the very consumer as the wealth gets overly concentrated in too few hands.

And all the GWB policies will do is to concentrate a smaller and smaller net output in fewer and fewer hands. Obama is right here and trickle down does not work, Instead what trickle down ends up meaning is spend and borrow, and that is a policy time delimited and again exhausted. If we do not chance out tax policies to better distriburute wealth, we are looking at a major depression and not the recession we are already in.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Carbo
Penalize Big Oil

Wow for supposedly being so smart. That is one dumbass idea.
The only people who will actually feel that are American drivers when the cost is passed along at the pump.

That doesn't make sense. Companies raise prices to offset costs, not regain profit lost through taxation.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly so they wouldnt have to keep raising taxes or praying for super economic growth to overcome the deficits while borrowing out the ass.

Finally....something that we can agree on.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

Agreed. Saw that article this afternoon on cnnfn.com and was like wtf?? Another stimulus check, you must be joking. I'm pissed that GWB actually thought that the first one was a good idea.

You want targeted stimulus? Cut taxes, which will have a more permanent impact on future behavior. I don't qualify for a check but if I did, I wouldn't be spending squat in this recessionary environment. It would go right into my pocket (rainy day fund).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

Yes it would. Not lets stop passing spending bills and bring them home.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

Yes it would. Now lets stop passing spending bills and bring them home.

😎

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

Agreed. Saw that article this afternoon on cnnfn.com and was like wtf?? Another stimulus check, you must be joking. I'm pissed that GWB actually thought that the first one was a good idea.

You want targeted stimulus? Cut taxes, which will have a more permanent impact on future behavior. I don't qualify for a check but if I did, I wouldn't be spending squat in this recessionary environment. It would go right into my pocket (rainy day fund).

Unfortunately, the Tax Cut scheme has been overdone already. Any kind of Stimulus should be in Infrastrucure Investment, not Tax Cuts or Stimulus Cheques. Even that is difficult when what is really needed is Deficit Elimination.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly so they wouldnt have to keep raising taxes or praying for super economic growth to overcome the deficits while borrowing out the ass.

I don't think many people dispute this. The problem IMO is agreeing on what cuts to be made, with the Republican "conservatives" stubbornly clinging to the one thing that most obviously should be cut, the War and Nation Building in Iraq, while at the same clamoring that the cuts should be in the last place they should be made at this time, which is in domestic public and infrastructure re-investment. America should be working, not fighting. As long as we keep fighting that needless war, taxes will go up, borrowing will go up, inflation will go up, interest rates will go up, and the economy will continue to slow as wealth leaves the economy that should have been used domestically.

So... um... please don't feed me the "serious about stimulating the economy" rhetoric.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

Yes it would. Now lets stop passing spending bills and bring them home.

Now we're talking. Bringing our troops home would create a massive economic stimulus to the domestic economy. And not simply from the reduction in foreign and defense spending, but from the productivity of getting those soldiers back here working and spending at home.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

Broad generalization here: Those most against action in Iraq are "liberal". "Liberals" are most supportive of welfare and income-redistribution for humanitarian reasons.

So, why would "liberals" me so supportive of abandoning the Iraqi people?

Not trying to hijack the thread, just pointing out that Iraq is not NEARLY as simple as "Bring 'em home!" at this stage in the game. Abandoning that country and its people is the exact opposite of what many supporters of that ideal propose we do here at home. There appears to be a philosophical disconnect (or dare we say, hypocrisy) in the general public when it comes to Americans and Iraqis and what our obligations are.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal".....

or

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all AMERICANS are created equal".....

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

Yes it would. Now lets stop passing spending bills and bring them home.

Now we're talking. Bringing our troops home would create a massive economic stimulus to the domestic economy. And not simply from the reduction in foreign and defense spending, but from the productivity of getting those soldiers back here working and spending at home.

It also has the added benefit of being totally unrealistic. You cannot simply pull all the troops out of Iraq as if they were never there. The civil war/chaos that would ensue would further destabilize the region and only make matters worse when it comes to the price of oil.

 

[yllus]

You folks should be happy that you're actually getting a presidential candidate who's not feeding you utter BS on the fiscal front. It would be oh-so-easy for him to promise to keep the cuts in place - to hell with the future, he wants to get elected and maintain a high popularity rating. He would not have been the first or last president to have done so.

I'm not big on a capital gains tax, nor a oil profits windfall tax. But everyone is going to end up paying for the excesses of the last eight years either starting immediately or relatively soon as debt/interest on debt starts playing a bigger role in your federal budget. DHS, I imagine, is too much a third rail for him to dare risk cutting within. No easy answers for what lies ahead.

Originally posted by: shinerburke
It also has the added benefit of being totally unrealistic. You cannot simply pull all the troops out of Iraq as if they were never there. The civil war/chaos that would ensue would further destabilize the region and only make matters worse when it comes to the price of oil.

A possible compromise might be taking them out of frontline roles starting in 2010 or so. Let them be on call for the regular Iraqi army, but based away from populated areas. Ideally the Iraqis would get more time, but reality dictates that Americans back home aren't going to tolerate this situation for much longer.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: yllus
You folks should be happy that you're actually getting a presidential candidate who's not feeding you utter BS on the fiscal front. It would be oh-so-easy for him to promise to keep the cuts in place - to hell with the future, he wants to get elected and maintain a high popularity rating. He would not have been the first or last president to have done so.

I'm not big on a capital gains tax, nor a oil profits windfall tax. But everyone is going to end up paying for the excesses of the last eight years either starting immediately or relatively soon as debt/interest on debt starts playing a bigger role in your federal budget. DHS, I imagine, is too much a third rail for him to dare risk cutting within. No easy answers for what lies ahead.

Originally posted by: shinerburke
It also has the added benefit of being totally unrealistic. You cannot simply pull all the troops out of Iraq as if they were never there. The civil war/chaos that would ensue would further destabilize the region and only make matters worse when it comes to the price of oil.

A possible compromise might be taking them out of frontline roles starting in 2010 or so. Let them be on call for the regular Iraqi army, but based away from populated areas. Ideally the Iraqis would get more time, but reality dictates that Americans back home aren't going to tolerate this situation for much longer.

Yep. A staggered withdrawal is the only way we can get out of there and not totally destabilize the country.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

Yes it would. Now lets stop passing spending bills and bring them home.

Now we're talking. Bringing our troops home would create a massive economic stimulus to the domestic economy. And not simply from the reduction in foreign and defense spending, but from the productivity of getting those soldiers back here working and spending at home.

It also has the added benefit of being totally unrealistic. You cannot simply pull all the troops out of Iraq as if they were never there. The civil war/chaos that would ensue would further destabilize the region and only make matters worse when it comes to the price of oil.

No one is talking about a sudden pull-out that would destabilize the region, but thanks for the straw man.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

Yes it would. Now lets stop passing spending bills and bring them home.

Now we're talking. Bringing our troops home would create a massive economic stimulus to the domestic economy. And not simply from the reduction in foreign and defense spending, but from the productivity of getting those soldiers back here working and spending at home.

It also has the added benefit of being totally unrealistic. You cannot simply pull all the troops out of Iraq as if they were never there. The civil war/chaos that would ensue would further destabilize the region and only make matters worse when it comes to the price of oil.

No one is talking about a sudden pull-out that would destabilize the region, but thanks for the straw man.

They may not have said it, but it was implied. Pulling the troops out immediately would be the only way to end the cost of the war people in this thread were advocating.

And they prefer to be called Dried Stalk-Americans.

 

[XMan]

Obama's proposition to raise taxes is ludicrous. The Federal government has no shortage of money - April's tax collections were among the highest of all time. They're still collecting taxes for supposed programs that have long done what they were supposed to do. Checked your electric bill lately? There's a tax on there that funds the Rural Electrification Act . . . which became law in 1936 . . . to run power to people in rural areas without power. So why do we still pay for it? The Universal Service Tax on your phone bill . . . to make sure everyone has access to a telephone . . . hmm, gosh, don't think that's a problem anymore, so why are we still paying for it on our phone bills? (I have yet to figure out why its on my cell phone bill considering wireless telecom wasn't under the original purview of Original Service).

Mr. Obama, I believe, supported Warner-Lieberman, which would have taxed energy created by coal, natural gas, and heating oil. There goes my electric bill and gas bill . . .

Neither political party is in a position to fix this mess; they both are pigs at the trough, trying to bribe us into voting for them with money they've picked from all of our pockets.

How humanitarian is someone if they put a roof over your head with extorted money?

It's all about the spending. If anything they should freeze federal expenditures at the current level, mandate 10% budget cuts in all departments (institute a hiring freeze and don't replace retirees? Just an idea) and use the 10% reduction in cost to address our debt.

I once heard a comment from a woman who worked for the Department of Treasury . . . "If it's springtime, that must mean new carpet and paint in the office." Well, you know what, if times are so bad, why can't Uncle Sam tighten his belt, too? Ordinary folks are doing without luxuries, there's no reason why the government can't do the same.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yllus
You folks should be happy that you're actually getting a presidential candidate who's not feeding you utter BS on the fiscal front. It would be oh-so-easy for him to promise to keep the cuts in place - to hell with the future, he wants to get elected and maintain a high popularity rating. He would not have been the first or last president to have done so.

Being fed utter BS on the fiscal front is what the Republicans always want. A conservative with even a basic understanding of economics is known as a libertarian.

I'm not big on a capital gains tax, nor a oil profits windfall tax. But everyone is going to end up paying for the excesses of the last eight years either starting immediately or relatively soon as debt/interest on debt starts playing a bigger role in your federal budget. DHS, I imagine, is too much a third rail for him to dare risk cutting within. No easy answers for what lies ahead.

Exactly. I liken this situation to when GHW Bush had to break his "Read my lips" campaign promise. He had no choice because of the fiscal excesses of the Reagan administration. Likewise, the next President will have no choice due to the irresponsibility of GW Bush's administration.

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: shinerburke
It also has the added benefit of being totally unrealistic. You cannot simply pull all the troops out of Iraq as if they were never there. The civil war/chaos that would ensue would further destabilize the region and only make matters worse when it comes to the price of oil.

A possible compromise might be taking them out of frontline roles starting in 2010 or so. Let them be on call for the regular Iraqi army, but based away from populated areas. Ideally the Iraqis would get more time, but reality dictates that Americans back home aren't going to tolerate this situation for much longer.

Shiner was just spewing straw man. I didn't see anyone here argue for immediate withdrawal from the region for exactly this reason that we have to clean up the mess first.
The Obama timeline on withdrawing from Iraq has always been 18 months, coinciding with a redeployment into Afghanistan.