President Obama claims Mandate on Taxes

[Ausm]

See Rightists this Election clearly was a mandate by the American people.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/14/15166384-obama-claims-mandate-on-taxes?lite

 

[xj0hnx]

See Rightists this Election clearly was a mandate by the American people.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/14/15166384-obama-claims-mandate-on-taxes?lite

It's all a dog and pony show anyway, you could take 100% off the wealthiest Americans money and still not make a dent in this administrations spending. It's nothing more than class warfare for political points, and you are lapping it up like a good puppy.

 

[Ausm]

It's all a dog and pony show anyway, you could take 100% off the wealthiest Americans money and still not make a dent in this administrations spending. It's nothing more than class warfare for political points, and you are lapping it up like a good puppy.

So your're against any revenue then going to the debt or just certain revenue of your liking?

 

[Thump553]

Given the fact that this was a central issue of the campaign and one of the issues where there was a bright line difference between Obama and Romney, rational minds would have to agree with him.

 

[techs]

Democrats go the most votes for President, for the Senate and for the House of Representitives. Sounds like a mandate to me.

 

[Tom]

It's all a dog and pony show anyway, you could take 100% off the wealthiest Americans money and still not make a dent in this administrations spending. It's nothing more than class warfare for political points, and you are lapping it up like a good puppy.

A trillion dollars isn't a dent ?

And that's going from 35% to 39%, over $250k income, not close to 100%.

 

[xj0hnx]

So your're against any revenue then going to the debt or just certain revenue of your liking?

Honestly, I don't care if they get taxed more or not, it's just ridiculous trying to make people believe it's going to make any kind of real difference, maybe ten, or twelve years ago it could have, but now it's nothing more than bs class warfare.

 

[Ausm]

A trillion dollars isn't a dent ?

And that's going from 35% to 39%, over $250k income, not close to 100%.

Yeah that's a head scratcher but I see many Rightists on the forum with the same talking point...maybe they want the revenue to come all from one place for ease of book keeping?

 

[xj0hnx]

A trillion dollars isn't a dent ?

And that's going from 35% to 39%, over $250k income, not close to 100%.

Spread out over what? Ten years, and against ever growing spending? No, it's a pipe dream.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Honestly, I don't care if they get taxed more or not, it's just ridiculous trying to make people believe it's going to make any kind of real difference, maybe ten, or twelve years ago it could have, but now it's nothing more than bs class warfare.

You really need to stop listening to Conservative Talk.

 

[xj0hnx]

You really need to stop listening to Conservative Talk.

You really need to stop sticking cucumbers in your ass and pretending it's a pony.

 

[Steeplerot]

You really need to stop sticking cucumbers in your ass and pretending it's a pony.

And you just show your childishness and lack of insight on topics even further.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You really need to stop sticking cucumbers in your ass and pretending it's a pony.

At least I don't talk about my sexual proclivities. You just can't shut up about how you guzzle conservative commentator cum.

 

[Tom]

Spread out over what? Ten years, and against ever growing spending? No, it's a pipe dream.

The same thing was said about Clinton's tax hikes.

What really happened is a few years later the budget was balanced. Those small tax hikes were part of the reason.

Getting rid of the Bush tax cuts is a big step in deficit reduction. The projected effect of going from 35% to 39% tax rate on income over $250k is about $850 billion over ten years. And many many trillions more going forward.

And the projected amount over 10 years is possibly much lower than what will actually happen, if the economy performs as it always does.

It isn't enough by itself. But is that an argument for not doing it ? Makes no sense.

 

[rudder]

Spread out over what? Ten years, and against ever growing spending? No, it's a pipe dream.

A dollar of extra tax is a dollar taken out of the economy. Sure some of it will eventually make it back... but not at anywhere near the same efficiency as if it were left in the economy. You are right, these tax increases will do nothing since they will be drowned out by increased spending. These fools are relying on spending cuts that will be overseen by people who may not even be in congress yet or will be up for re-election when the cuts have to be enacted.

Maybe the voting public is really that stupid... who knows.... who cares... I just want my government bennies.

 

[Ausm]

A dollar of extra tax is a dollar taken out of the economy. Sure some of it will eventually make it back... but not at anywhere near the same efficiency as if it were left in the economy. You are right, these tax increases will do nothing since they will be drowned out by increased spending. These fools are relying on spending cuts that will be overseen by people who may not even be in congress yet or will be up for re-election when the cuts have to be enacted.

Maybe the voting public is really that stupid... who knows.... who cares... I just want my government bennies.

Oh yeah we're up to our ass in Gubermint benefits! WTF does collecting more Revenue to pay for 2 unfunded wars and 14 years of unpaid tax cuts have to do with "bennies"?

 

[Tom]

A dollar of extra tax is a dollar taken out of the economy. Sure some of it will eventually make it back... but not at anywhere near the same efficiency as if it were left in the economy. You are right, these tax increases will do nothing since they will be drowned out by increased spending. These fools are relying on spending cuts that will be overseen by people who may not even be in congress yet or will be up for re-election when the cuts have to be enacted.

Maybe the voting public is really that stupid... who knows.... who cares... I just want my government bennies.

a dollar used to fund someone's education, to stop illness, to build a bridge, to pay to defend our country, isn't a dollar taken out of the economy.

I guess you think giving a $100 million dollars to a lady who promotes wrestling, so she can give it to a bunch of tv stations to run ads so she can lose an election, is a better use of money ?

Maybe if she had paid $5m more in taxes and only thrown away $95m, a few thousand more kids could go to college.

 

[Zargon]

The same thing was said about Clinton's tax hikes.

What really happened is a few years later the budget was balanced. Those small tax hikes were part of the reason.

Getting rid of the Bush tax cuts is a big step in deficit reduction. The projected effect of going from 35% to 39% tax rate on income over $250k is about $850 billion over ten years. And many many trillions more going forward.

And the projected amount over 10 years is possibly much lower than what will actually happen, if the economy performs as it always does.

It isn't enough by itself. But is that an argument for not doing it ? Makes no sense.

he also made a fair amount of cuts I think(I was in middle and high school so YMMV) but a lot of military bases shut down in the 90's

 

[quest55720]

I don't know if he has a mandate but the president holds all the cards. The GOP needs to play this long term. If the GOP holds to no taxes on the rich and loses big time in the mid terms by letting everyones taxes go up. Letting Obama control congress for 2 years were he can really go to town. Or agree to modest tax increases for the rich which would happen anyways but gain seats in the mid terms and be set up better for 2016.

It is all about playing the long game IMO if the GOP is smart.

 

[ichy]

It's all a dog and pony show anyway, you could take 100% off the wealthiest Americans money and still not make a dent in this administrations spending.

It's not "this administration's spending" that's the problem. Social Security and Medicare are what are going to bankrupt this country in the long run and those are problems that have been kicked down the road since long before Obama was in office.

Now that he's won re-election I hope he has the guts to piss off both the left and the right and combine entitlement reform with some tax increases. NPR had an interview with some union idiot (SEIU head I think) yesterday and she said that they're against the Simpson-Bowles plan's recommendations for entitlement cuts. If Obama is at all serious about fiscal sanity he needs to ignore the extreme liberal idiots, they're just as bad as the Teahadists.

 

[ichy]

he also made a fair amount of cuts I think(I was in middle and high school so YMMV) but a lot of military bases shut down in the 90's

There was also welfare reform. IMO the term "bi-partisan" has turned into an overhyped buzzword, but the welfare changes of the 1990s were one of the few actual great pieces of bi-partisan cooperation.

 

[Generator]

It's all a dog and pony show anyway, you could take 100% off the wealthiest Americans money and still not make a dent in this administrations spending.

We can and we will thank you very much! We will tax the rich year after year after year. Oh you thought this was going to be one and done? All of the ill gotten gains will be reclaimed. The days of you brushing your lord's dancing horse are over.

 

[Matt1970]

A trillion dollars isn't a dent ?

And that's going from 35% to 39%, over $250k income, not close to 100%.

Over 10 years is $100 Billion a year when we are corrently over $1 Trillion in deficit spending. How long are we going to battle over 10% of the problem?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Democrats go the most votes for President, for the Senate and for the House of Representitives. Sounds like a mandate to me.

Did the voters provide a majority to the House?

Compromise will still be required; if Obama is the leader; let him lead

 

[nehalem256]

The Republicans are stupid if the hold out for tax cuts on the rich. There inability to compromise on this and get 90%+ of what they wanted is what cost them the 2012 election.