Obama digs in against GOP

[Dragonlady]

47% are paying nothing in federal income taxes....Why aren't you bitching about them not "paying their fair share"?

Because MOST of those people have incomes of less than $30,000 and they were given earned income credits to placate them over the huge tax cuts received by the wealthy, and to offset the fact that the minimum wage was frozen throughout Reagan's term of office, and through most of W's term of office as well.

Minimum wage workers saw the purchasing power of their pay erode by 29% from 1979 to 2003, so it's not like they could go out dancing on their tax savings. During the Reagan years, the minimum wage was $3.35 an hour or $134.00 a week for a 40 hour week before payroll taxes are deducted. Even in the 1980's you couldn't support a family on that amount of money.

The working poor still pay payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes and property taxes so they are paying taxes, just not federal income taxes. But large corporations are making record profits as they outsource American jobs and cut wages. Companies who pay poverty level wages while making record profits should be made to pay for the government programs their minimum wage workers are forced to rely upon to feed their families.

Corporate profits hit all-time high as wages drop to record low - Memphis Business Journal

The programs to provide medical care and food to low income workers have now become a subsidy to mega-corporations to pay the least amount possible. And then these same corporations complain that THEIR taxes should be cut (see Monsanto).

 

[P@triot]

47% are paying nothing in federal income taxes....Why aren't you bitching about them not "paying their fair share"?

Because MOST of those people have incomes of less than $30,000 and they were given earned income credits to placate them over the huge tax cuts received by the wealthy, and to offset the fact that the minimum wage was frozen throughout Reagan's term of office, and through most of W's term of office as well.

Minimum wage workers saw the purchasing power of their pay erode by 29% from 1979 to 2003, so it's not like they could go out dancing on their tax savings. During the Reagan years, the minimum wage was $3.35 an hour or $134.00 a week for a 40 hour week before payroll taxes are deducted. Even in the 1980's you couldn't support a family on that amount of money.

The working poor still pay payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes and property taxes so they are paying taxes, just not federal income taxes. But large corporations are making record profits as they outsource American jobs and cut wages. Companies who pay poverty level wages while making record profits should be made to pay for the government programs their minimum wage workers are forced to rely upon to feed their families.

Corporate profits hit all-time high as wages drop to record low - Memphis Business Journal

The programs to provide medical care and food to low income workers have now become a subsidy to mega-corporations to pay the least amount possible. And then these same corporations complain that THEIR taxes should be cut (see Monsanto).

So you admit the parasite class is not only not paying their "fair share", they are even to fuck'n lazy to earn their "fair share". First honest thing you've said....

 

[saveliberty]

Because MOST of those people have incomes of less than $30,000 and they were given earned income credits to placate them over the huge tax cuts received by the wealthy, and to offset the fact that the minimum wage was frozen throughout Reagan's term of office, and through most of W's term of office as well.

Minimum wage workers saw the purchasing power of their pay erode by 29% from 1979 to 2003, so it's not like they could go out dancing on their tax savings. During the Reagan years, the minimum wage was $3.35 an hour or $134.00 a week for a 40 hour week before payroll taxes are deducted. Even in the 1980's you couldn't support a family on that amount of money.

The working poor still pay payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes and property taxes so they are paying taxes, just not federal income taxes. But large corporations are making record profits as they outsource American jobs and cut wages. Companies who pay poverty level wages while making record profits should be made to pay for the government programs their minimum wage workers are forced to rely upon to feed their families.

Corporate profits hit all-time high as wages drop to record low - Memphis Business Journal

The programs to provide medical care and food to low income workers have now become a subsidy to mega-corporations to pay the least amount possible. And then these same corporations complain that THEIR taxes should be cut (see Monsanto).

Doubtful the working poor pay any income tax net of earned income credits. State taxes also offset in most places. If they are truly poor, they don't own a house so property taxes aren't being paid. More likely they are getting subsidized housing. Your argument is terrible.

As to corporations, Democrats vote these things in right along with Republicans. At least try to be honest enough to admit that.

 

[regent]

Are we now asking all those Republicans that pledged to Norquist that they would not raise taxes, to now ask those very Republicans to break their pledges? Do we realize what that would do to their campaign contributions? Bless Republicans that put their oaths ahead of nation.

 

[Oddball]

47% are paying nothing in federal income taxes....Why aren't you bitching about them not "paying their fair share"?

Because MOST of those people have incomes of less than $30,000 and they were given earned income credits to placate them over the huge tax cuts received by the wealthy, and to offset the fact that the minimum wage was frozen throughout Reagan's term of office, and through most of W's term of office as well.

Minimum wage workers saw the purchasing power of their pay erode by 29% from 1979 to 2003, so it's not like they could go out dancing on their tax savings. During the Reagan years, the minimum wage was $3.35 an hour or $134.00 a week for a 40 hour week before payroll taxes are deducted. Even in the 1980's you couldn't support a family on that amount of money.

The working poor still pay payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes and property taxes so they are paying taxes, just not federal income taxes. But large corporations are making record profits as they outsource American jobs and cut wages. Companies who pay poverty level wages while making record profits should be made to pay for the government programs their minimum wage workers are forced to rely upon to feed their families.

Corporate profits hit all-time high as wages drop to record low - Memphis Business Journal

The programs to provide medical care and food to low income workers have now become a subsidy to mega-corporations to pay the least amount possible. And then these same corporations complain that THEIR taxes should be cut (see Monsanto).

I knew you could come up with a cheap, albeit loquacious, rationalization for your poorly veiled class envy and rank covetousness.

Good job, comrade.

 

[saveliberty]

I like how Dragonlady wants the US to be Canada. No thanks.

 

[Oldguy]

Please name one real concession Obama made, that was not tied to something he really wanted.

Not tied to something he wanted? Well...duh! That's how you negotiate! To just toss something in without getting something in exchange isn't negotiating: that's surrendering.

Neither side has done that and isn't likely to.

And, by the way, we knew Obama put a lot of things on the table during last years "Grand Bargain" negotiations with Speaker Boehner, but a lot of it wasn't publicly known until recently. It included things like cuts to TRICARE, Social Security, Medicare. A whole list of things, in exchange for which Boehner agreed to increases in revenue.

But, the Tea Party members cut the Speakers legs out from under him on that last point. They wouldn't support any kind of revenue increase at all, so the deal broke down.

 

[saveliberty]

Please name one real concession Obama made, that was not tied to something he really wanted.

Not tied to something he wanted? Well...duh! That's how you negotiate! To just toss something in without getting something in exchange isn't negotiating: that's surrendering.

Neither side has done that and isn't likely to.

And, by the way, we knew Obama put a lot of things on the table during last years "Grand Bargain" negotiations with Speaker Boehner, but a lot of it wasn't publicly known until recently. It included things like cuts to TRICARE, Social Security, Medicare. A whole list of things, in exchange for which Boehner agreed to increases in revenue.

But, the Tea Party members cut the Speakers legs out from under him on that last point. They wouldn't support any kind of revenue increase at all, so the deal broke down.

Translation: Oldguy has nothing. Of course we already knew that. Still, its nice to have the confirmation.

 

[Oldguy]

What your chart shows is people start investing after a certain income level in meaningful ways. That investment helps maintain and create jobs.

If that's so, where are the jobs?

 

[saveliberty]

What your chart shows is people start investing after a certain income level in meaningful ways. That investment helps maintain and create jobs.

If that's so, where are the jobs?

I said maintain AND create. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the private sector has grown jobs in the last four years. Despite Obama's attempts to destroy the country.

 

[Oldguy]

Please name one real concession Obama made, that was not tied to something he really wanted.

Not tied to something he wanted? Well...duh! That's how you negotiate! To just toss something in without getting something in exchange isn't negotiating: that's surrendering.

Neither side has done that and isn't likely to.

And, by the way, we knew Obama put a lot of things on the table during last years "Grand Bargain" negotiations with Speaker Boehner, but a lot of it wasn't publicly known until recently. It included things like cuts to TRICARE, Social Security, Medicare. A whole list of things, in exchange for which Boehner agreed to increases in revenue.

But, the Tea Party members cut the Speakers legs out from under him on that last point. They wouldn't support any kind of revenue increase at all, so the deal broke down.

Translation: Oldguy has nothing. Of course we already knew that. Still, its nice to have the confirmation.

I don't have an example of something Obama just threw out on the table as a gift to the GOP because there isn't any. Neither have there been any gifts from the GOP. Why would anyone expect there would be?

When you go to buy a car, do you just drop a couple of thousand in front of them and say, "Here, you can have that. Now...let's start talking about a deal."

I'd hope you're not that dumb.

 

[KissMy]

Since tax rate means shit, and actual tax dollars mean everything, why don't you ignorant fucking assholes look at a real chart, from the bipartisan CBO (and not the radical marxist "American Progress" organization)?

According to the IRS - In 2007 the average Adjusted Gross Income over $10 million only paid 19% income tax while the average middle class AGI paid 24% income tax.

The rich don't pay federal Social Security tax, Unemployment Tax, Medicare Tax, Medicaid Tax, FICA tax, etc on amounts over $120k. That pushes the middle class tax rate even higher & the Rich's tax rates even lower. Then add in Federal use taxes, fuel taxes, State, County & City taxes that all smack the middle class even harder percentage wise.

Your chart is more fiction than fact.

 

[saveliberty]

Not tied to something he wanted? Well...duh! That's how you negotiate! To just toss something in without getting something in exchange isn't negotiating: that's surrendering.

Neither side has done that and isn't likely to.

And, by the way, we knew Obama put a lot of things on the table during last years "Grand Bargain" negotiations with Speaker Boehner, but a lot of it wasn't publicly known until recently. It included things like cuts to TRICARE, Social Security, Medicare. A whole list of things, in exchange for which Boehner agreed to increases in revenue.

But, the Tea Party members cut the Speakers legs out from under him on that last point. They wouldn't support any kind of revenue increase at all, so the deal broke down.

Translation: Oldguy has nothing. Of course we already knew that. Still, its nice to have the confirmation.

I don't have an example of something Obama just threw out on the table as a gift to the GOP because there isn't any. Neither have there been any gifts from the GOP. Why would anyone expect there would be?

When you go to buy a car, do you just drop a couple of thousand in front of them and say, "Here, you can have that. Now...let's start talking about a deal."

I'd hope you're not that dumb.

Obama used the term compromise. He gets to live with his words. A compromise is giving a concession. You couldn't come up with even one. I usually have multiple points of compromise I can offer in a car deal. Price is just one.

 

[Oldguy]

What your chart shows is people start investing after a certain income level in meaningful ways. That investment helps maintain and create jobs.

If that's so, where are the jobs?

I said maintain AND create. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the private sector has grown jobs in the last four years. Despite Obama's attempts to destroy the country.

I'll ignore that last comment.

Yes, the private sector has, indeed, created jobs for the past 4 years. (does Obama get credit for that?) But, they LOST all those jobs in the first place, WITH the Bush tax cuts.

Let me ask you this: If you owned a company which was already producing all the widgets it could sell, would a tax cut be used to expand production and hire more people to make widgets you have no market for? Of course not! Why should you? Why WOULD you?

That's essentially the con in the trickle down argument. INVESTMENT does not drive jobs UNLESS there is a market for the expanded production. And, there is no increased market UNLESS the customers have more discretionary income, money in their pockets to spend.

 

[saveliberty]

According to the IRS - In 2007 the average Adjusted Gross Income over $10 million only paid 19% income tax while the average middle class AGI paid 24% income tax.

The rich don't pay federal Social Security tax, Unemployment Tax, Medicare Tax, Medicaid Tax, FICA tax, etc on amounts over $120k. That pushes the middle class tax rate even higher & the Rich's tax rates even lower. Then add in Federal use taxes, fuel taxes, State, County & City taxes that all smack the middle class even harder percentage wise.

Your chart is more fiction than fact.

The rate is exactly the same for every American for Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment. Unemployment can vary by state on that level. Please point out where anyone is tax directly for Medicaid.

You're confusing rate with effective rate. Of course if you don't want the rich to get deductions for charity just say so. You simply can't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Socialism fails in every place it started.

 

[Oldguy]

Obama used the term compromise. He gets to live with his words. A compromise is giving a concession. You couldn't come up with even one. I usually have multiple points of compromise I can offer in a car deal. Price is just one.

I wasn't asked to provide an example of a compromise. I was asked for a concession not tied to something else. A concession given away freely isn't a concession at all. It's a gift.

A compromise, on the other hand, involves both parties and is a little give and take by both sides. The negotiations haven't gotten that far yet, but they will. Obama will compromise some things, and so will the GOP...OR...we'll go over that cliff.

I'm convinced neither side really wants that.

 

[Oldguy]

Obama sticking to his guns has had the desired effect. The GOP has now put their offer on the table.

Boehner, House GOP leaders offer ‘fiscal cliff’ counterproposal - The Washington Post

Like the President's, it doesn't offer much new and is their opening position.

Now...the REAL negotiations can begin.

Good job, Mr. President! You forced them out of their hole!

 

[saveliberty]

I'll ignore that last comment.

Yes, the private sector has, indeed, created jobs for the past 4 years. (does Obama get credit for that?) But, they LOST all those jobs in the first place, WITH the Bush tax cuts.

Let me ask you this: If you owned a company which was already producing all the widgets it could sell, would a tax cut be used to expand production and hire more people to make widgets you have no market for? Of course not! Why should you? Why WOULD you?

That's essentially the con in the trickle down argument. INVESTMENT does not drive jobs UNLESS there is a market for the expanded production. And, there is no increased market UNLESS the customers have more discretionary income, money in their pockets to spend.

The jobs were lost by the housing bubble, created for the most part by Barney Frank and company. Bush isn't even a close second.

If I'm producing all the widget I can sell, then I have reached capacity. Most likely there is still demand and I can expand. What part of that don't you understand?

Businesses that have saturated the market often use additional investment resources to diversify, which usually means more hiring. Several things are true. Government doesn't create private sector jobs and reallocating private investment through taxes is inefficient.

 

[saveliberty]

Obama sticking to his guns has had the desired effect. The GOP has now put their offer on the table.

Boehner, House GOP leaders offer ‘fiscal cliff’ counterproposal - The Washington Post

Like the President's, it doesn't offer much new and is their opening position.

Now...the REAL negotiations can begin.

Good job, Mr. President! You forced them out of their hole!

What part of Obama got nothing is giving you a hard time?

 

[Oldguy]

I'll ignore that last comment.

Yes, the private sector has, indeed, created jobs for the past 4 years. (does Obama get credit for that?) But, they LOST all those jobs in the first place, WITH the Bush tax cuts.

Let me ask you this: If you owned a company which was already producing all the widgets it could sell, would a tax cut be used to expand production and hire more people to make widgets you have no market for? Of course not! Why should you? Why WOULD you?

That's essentially the con in the trickle down argument. INVESTMENT does not drive jobs UNLESS there is a market for the expanded production. And, there is no increased market UNLESS the customers have more discretionary income, money in their pockets to spend.

The jobs were lost by the housing bubble, created for the most part by Barney Frank and company. Bush isn't even a close second.

If I'm producing all the widget I can sell, then I have reached capacity. Most likely there is still demand and I can expand. What part of that don't you understand?

Businesses that have saturated the market often use additional investment resources to diversify, which usually means more hiring. Several things are true. Government doesn't create private sector jobs and reallocating private investment through taxes is inefficient.

But, they're sitting on a pile of cash right now and not spending it to diversify or increase production. Why not? How will a tax cut make any difference?