5 reasons why Obama will hike middle-class taxes

Discussion in 'Politics' started by get_involved, Aug 5, 2009.

  1. get_involved
    Offline

    get_involved Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,036
    Thanks Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +565
    1) Obama knows the budget math doesn’t work. Put aside today’s budget mess. It’s gospel among center-left wonks (the kind of folks who give Obama economic advice) that structural government spending as a percentage of GDP is headed sharply higher over the long term because of entitlements — and there’s little that can be done about it. The ratio has been around 20 percent or so the past few decades, and number crunchers forecast a sharp rise to 25 percent (best case scenario) to 30 percent (worst case) of GDP over the next few decades. Tax revenues typically hover around 18 percent of GDP. That gap — representing $500 billion to $1 trillion a year — will need to be closed or else cause economic chaos. The possible answers: a) less spending, b) higher tax revenues from higher growth, or c) higher tax revenues from higher rates on the non-wealthy. Oh, and the wonks are convinced “a” is a political impossibility and “b” an economic one. They’re wrong, but that’s what they think.

    [See if Obama's big economic gamble is paying off]

    2) Obama seems to prefer tax hikes to spending cuts. Reduced future healthcare spending needs to be a huge part of the budget solution, and ObamaCare doesn’t make the grade at this point. Right now the various Obamacrat plans actually make things worse by failing to “bend the curve.” What’s more, Obama has proposed nothing as president to make Social Security solvent. And during the campaign, his preferred fix was higher payroll taxes rather than commonsense measures like extending the retirement age or changing how benefits are calculated. Of course, Obama has also proposed raising income, investment, corporate and energy taxes. Cut spending or raise taxes – for Obama it’s an easy pick, unfortunately.

    3) Obama has already tried raising taxes. Let’s, for the sake of argument, ignore the increased federal cigarette tax that would certainly seem to be a violation of Obama’s tax pledge. Call it a misdemeanor offense. But what about his cap-and-trade proposal, a de facto energy tax on everyone? Before the plan was modified in the House, the White House expected the plan to bring in some $80 billion a year from 2012 to 2019 by auctioning off carbon emission permits (probably to pay for healthcare reform). And making energy more costly is as about as broad-based a tax as you can get.

    [Find out how healthcare taxes would affect you]

    4) Obama’s advisers are for higher taxes. Let’s review, for example, what White House economic adviser and guru Larry Summers said on Sunday about tax hikes: “There is a lot that can happen over time. It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what.” Indeed, Summers won’t rule it out because he thinks all the Bush tax cuts need to go, not just the ones for so-called rich folks. Here is Summers from earlier this year on Meet the Press when he put no qualifiers on letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010: “I don’t think there’s any question they have to be repealed. The country can’t afford them for the long run. … They can’t be, they can’t be part of the long-run budget picture.” Not for anyone, it seems.

    5) Obama doesn’t seem to think high taxes are harmful. Think about this: Not only was the top income tax rate a stratospheric 70 percent when President Reagan took office in1981, the tax code was not indexed to inflation. A lethal combo for economic growth. But here’s what Obama wrote about the Reagan tax cuts in The Audacity of Hope: “The high marginal tax rates that existed when Reagan took office may not have curbed incentives to work or invest, but they did distort investment decisions — and did lead to the wasteful industry of setting up tax shelters.” That’s it! Heavens, if Obama doesn’t think the pre-Reagan tax code wasn’t a disincentive to working, saving and investing, is there any tax system that he would find anti-growth?

    Bottom line: The belief in the need for higher, European-style taxes (like a VAT) fills the policy cloud that surrounds Obama. It’s hard to overstate this. It’s right up there with global warming. Obama knows he faces a looming fiscal crisis and higher taxes will be his weapon of choice. To paraphrase Mondale, “Obama will raise middle-class taxes. He won’t tell you (yet). I just did.



    James Pethokoukis » Blog Archive » 5 reasons why Obama will hike middle-class taxes | Blogs |

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Fatality
    Offline

    Fatality SunCrackedSoul

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,475
    Thanks Received:
    280
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +280
    1 hes a prick

    2 hes an asshole

    3 hes a greedy socialist piece of shit

    4 he is a retarded product of evolution

    5 he is all of the above.
     
  3. ba1614
    Offline

    ba1614 Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    3,812
    Thanks Received:
    875
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Deep in the Northern Woods
    Ratings:
    +876
    He only needs one reason, it's Bush's fault. Blame Bush!!
    Can't you already hear it?
    "We don't want to raise taxes on the middle class but we inherited such an unexpected mess that we have no choice!".:eusa_liar:
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    If history be our guide then:

    Democrats will bring us higher taxes to pay for social services

    Republicans will bring us higher national debts to pay for programs that don't serve the public much, but which make wealthy suppliers to the government much much richer.

    They trade off power every once in a while, but essantially either way, the government spends more and returns less to the public every year.
     
  5. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,639
    Thanks Received:
    4,475
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,003
    And I'll add that as the government gets bigger and more expensive, it necessarily lessens our liberties which is the only reason that all new spending needs to be opposed and the government must be made to run within a very narrowly defined budget that cannot exceed 20% of GDP.
     
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    How about in times of all out war... like for example WWII?

    Do you think that we should limit government to 20% of GDP, then?

    Look, I have no problem reducing government, either.

    Where I suspect you and I disagree is what needs be cut -- not if cuts need to happen, merely what things ought to be cut.

    Whgat I'm telling you is that there is no written in stone formula for what we need from government.

    The role of government changes becasue our world changes.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2009
  7. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,281
    We don't need a military that costs us as much as everyone else's military combined.

    We do need to see that our children are the best educated in the world.

    We do need a health care system at least the equal of Costa Rica's.

    We do need an energy infrastructure that does not leave completely vulneble to other nations will.

    We do need a manufacturing base that is up to date, and here in this nation.

    We do need to look at National Security in terms other than just military. Not having the ability to manufacture vacines is a major risk to our nation. Regarding the inevitable impacts of global warming as a political football, rather than a National Security risk is insane. Stated as such, even by military studies.

    We need to realize that we are a nation of individuals, that all depend on each other. If the social construct breaks down, we all lose. The day of the little independent cabin in the woods is gone, and never was in the first place.
     
  9. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,906
    Thanks Received:
    5,107
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,702
    1. He's a tax and spend liberal Democrat. He can't help himself.

    2. Nancy Pelosi tells him constantly that he needs to do this.

    3. Page 16, paragraph 4(a) of the Official Liberal Democrat Handbook says it is mandatory.

    4. President Bush gave us tax cuts so he feels obligated to give us a tax hike because he feels it is more "Presidential" to do so.

    5. Doesn't want the middle class to have any excess money to donate to the Republican candidate in the next Presidential election.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,281
    Damn, people. Little Bush put us in debt to the tune of 3 trillion dollars on an unneccessary war, and kept the figures off of the books. He ignored an economic tsunami that even the fellows on the factory floor could see coming. Someone has to pay for these mistakes. Now just who in the hell did you think was going to pay when you were cheering for the fellow?

    The nation incurred this debt through the actions of an administration that you supported. Why should you not be happy to help pay for the damage? I did not support the incompetant. But I support my nation, and would pay the neccessary taxes were I going to be part of the working force for the next 30 years. But I am retiring, and you yahoos who supported the policies that created the present situation will have to pay for it. And, through the SS taxes, for my retirement for the next 30 or more years.

    Work real hard, wingnuts, your government has to pay off your debt, and I will need my monthly for my enjoyment.:lol:
     

Share This Page