Obama "Very Interested" In Raising Taxes Through Executive Action

[OnePercenter]

Their the ones that took their life savings and invested it in creating a business. If all it takes is starting a business and you will be rich why the fuck don't you just start one? Why doesn't every minimum wage worker like you simply start your own business and begin raking in the cash? You are after all the primary reason this lazy fuck of an owner is rich right? He didn't do anything it was all you. Quit your fucking job and start your own business, it should be easy and according to you it's not even earned.

They're the smart people that took OPM to create a platform for business. Using your life's saving isn't smart.

 

[OnePercenter]

They get paid millions because they are worth it. You get paid minimum wage because your entire skill set is "would you like fries with that".

If obie tries to EO tax law and we let that happen this country is truly fucked and heading for another civil war.

Not allowing me to deduct 100% of my NetJets ownership is going to create a civil war? Why would I fight, I'll still net millions?

Want to know a dirty little secret? If you tax a millionaire 50% of her/his income, they'll still be millionaires.

 

[The Rabbi]

They get paid millions because they are worth it. You get paid minimum wage because your entire skill set is "would you like fries with that".

If obie tries to EO tax law and we let that happen this country is truly fucked and heading for another civil war.

Not allowing me to deduct 100% of my NetJets ownership is going to create a civil war? Why would I fight, I'll still net millions?

Want to know a dirty little secret? If you tax a millionaire 50% of her/his income, they'll still be millionaires.

Are we still pretending here?

 

[OnePercenter]

Nobody from the Left has EVER defined "Living Wage".

Here ya go.

Living Wage Definition Investopedia

In my view and policy, a living wage encompasses all of the above plus for a married couple allows Mom or Dad to stay home and raise the kids, which is the way it used to be before Republicans/corporate America/wall street started their war of terror on the middle class.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Really? What limit do you see to our gov't's ability to print money? Either way - print or borrow - it is used to fund gov't OVERSPENDING.

Just answer this question: what funds any level of government spending? Our badass military? Hell your local police force? Highways?

There's is much more than that to federal gov't spending and when it exceeds tax revenues it is OVERSPENDING. You loony lefties can't even say the fuckin' word. Try it ... OVERSPENDING.

I don't understand why you aren't computing what I am saying lol. Yes you douche over spending is a problem but so is egregious tax cuts. Even without Bush and Obama's crazy defense spending, Bush's tax cuts added 4 trillion to our national debt. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm curious, how does decreasing tax income equate to increasing the national debt? I'd appreciate you explaining how that math works out. Thanks in advance.

You mean how does cutting revenue lead to more debt? Because revenue as a percentage of GDP is near the historic low. We already do not have sufficient revenue to pay the gov's bills. More cutting leads to more borrowing.

tax cuts ALWAYS result in more revenue to the federal government....That's a fact.
When people keep more of what they earn, they spend and invest more. This stimulates the economy and in turn increases revenue to the government. That's a fact...You can check for yourself. No blogs.
Here's another fact.....No nation in modern history has been able to tax itself into prosperity.
No....Government spends unwisely and in turn taxes the people to make up for its fiscal irresponsibility.
What is it that makes you believe government is entitled to dip even further into our pockets. And for what purpose?

 

[OnePercenter]

They own the business that their grandfather started and now they keep it operating at a profitable level while providing a shit load of people with your skill level employed.

How much do you pay the people that make you all of your money?

 

[thereisnospoon]

There's is much more than that to federal gov't spending and when it exceeds tax revenues it is OVERSPENDING. You loony lefties can't even say the fuckin' word. Try it ... OVERSPENDING.

I don't understand why you aren't computing what I am saying lol. Yes you douche over spending is a problem but so is egregious tax cuts. Even without Bush and Obama's crazy defense spending, Bush's tax cuts added 4 trillion to our national debt. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm curious, how does decreasing tax income equate to increasing the national debt? I'd appreciate you explaining how that math works out. Thanks in advance.

You mean how does cutting revenue lead to more debt? Because revenue as a percentage of GDP is near the historic low. We already do not have sufficient revenue to pay the gov's bills. More cutting leads to more borrowing.

Or, if we were smart, less spending.

No shit. How many fucking times do i have to say that I agree we have a spending problem? My point is we also have a serious revenue problem as well.

There is not a revenue problem....

 

[Staidhup]

Like all socialists it first begins with destruction of the very laws supporting the right to own and transfer property, then its taxation. Lets be honest, the bulk of wealth is held by the middle class not those in the 1-2 percentile, these individuals are the first and easiest targeted in the campaign to foster class warfare. Once he has everyone's attention and following he directs everyone's attention toward those "evil" large business then small "greedy and selfish" business enterprises. The final step is the expropriation and redistribution of wealth through asset taxation and extreme income taxation resulting in the expropriation of property. In order for the select elite left to obtain and retain power it requires total control of the economic engine driving the country, a population dependent on government services to survive , and no private ownership of property. Accumulation of property, assets, must be taxed to the point that accumulation is impossible, which results from extensive taxation and government control. The end result is a population serving a government powered by an elite party structure and not a government of the people. It has become more apparent over time that the success of this transformation is moving rather smoothly. The use, abuse, of executive power has circumvented the checks and balances designed to prohibit this from occurring however the courts have been carefully stacked to enable this to happen. For all intents and purposes its surprising this president has not abolished the congress and dismissed the supreme court and just take control by executive order. Worked for Adolph!

 

[OnePercenter]

tax cuts ALWAYS result in more revenue to the federal government....That's a fact.
When people keep more of what they earn, they spend and invest more. This stimulates the economy and in turn increases revenue to the government. That's a fact...You can check for yourself. No blogs.
Here's another fact.....No nation in modern history has been able to tax itself into prosperity.
No....Government spends unwisely and in turn taxes the people to make up for its fiscal irresponsibility.
What is it that makes you believe government is entitled to dip even further into our pockets. And for what purpose?

So you're arguing that increased government programs will require tax cuts in order to increase tax revenues?

You supply-siders are funny!

 

[Synthaholic]

That's not what Earnest said, liar.

The article writer added "in the idea of raising taxes", when Earnest actually talked about eliminating loopholes.

LOL, I posted exactly what he said,you are the liar here kid.

You're a liar. Here are all the Josh Earnest quotes from your wingnut article:

"The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,"

"Now I don't want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of," Earnest continued. "But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally," Earnest finished.​

That's it. So where does he talk about "raising taxes"? He doesn't, dope.

The problem is contained in the following phrase.....""to make progress on his goals"...
That in and of itself indicates Obama believes he can act unilaterally to achieve an agenda HE himself believes is best.....

I knew I would regret engaging with you again, knowing you're a dishonest piece of shit.

You left out the whole sentence:

"But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals."

Array. Authorities. Goals.

It's called reading between the lines. It's called examining and questioning the real meaning of words in a sentence. It's called challenging ideas.

It's called guessing, with your mind already made up that Obama Bad.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Really? What limit do you see to our gov't's ability to print money? Either way - print or borrow - it is used to fund gov't OVERSPENDING.

Just answer this question: what funds any level of government spending? Our badass military? Hell your local police force? Highways?

There's is much more than that to federal gov't spending and when it exceeds tax revenues it is OVERSPENDING. You loony lefties can't even say the fuckin' word. Try it ... OVERSPENDING.

I don't understand why you aren't computing what I am saying lol. Yes you douche over spending is a problem but so is egregious tax cuts. Even without Bush and Obama's crazy defense spending, Bush's tax cuts added 4 trillion to our national debt. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm curious, how does decreasing tax income equate to increasing the national debt? I'd appreciate you explaining how that math works out. Thanks in advance.

You mean how does cutting revenue lead to more debt? Because revenue as a percentage of GDP is near the historic low. We already do not have sufficient revenue to pay the gov's bills. More cutting leads to more borrowing.

Then lower the bills by cutting discretionary spending.
The problem that occurs when government bugle calls for more taxes is that the majority of people get the shaft. That reaches across all levels of income.
So instead of robbing the people. The government should be cutting the "gifts" and grants...For example...arts..why the hell should the federal government be in the business of funding art? Art includes motion pictures, TV and audio....Why should the federal government by subsidizing research that in the end, the private sector will not invest because there is no possible return on investment.......Why is the federal government spending money on public education? That should be a state and local matter. Same thing goes for housing. Let the private sector build and maintain housing.
Tell me, why should the taxpayers be saddled with the cost to rebuild beach houses blown away by storms? The owners should have had their properties insured. Same thing goes for mudslides and earthquakes. FEMA resources should be limited to public infrastructure and viability of communities. Not homes owned by individuals.
Why should the federal government be involved in bailing out failing or failed business? What is the federal government doing spending money on the auto industry? Why is the government giving hundreds of billions of dollars to otherwise ungrateful countries that do not act in the best interests of the US?
Why are the majority funding source for the UN?
Why are we not enforcing rules and regulations on social programs?
And finally, it snowed today in Washington DC...And once again, the taxpayers had to pay federal workers to NOT work....That's outrageous. Plow the fucking streets and get your ass to work...Just like everyone else.

 

[Synthaholic]

I posted exactly what Earnest said, take it up with him.

You're a liar.

 

[Synthaholic]

Where did the Bush administration get their authority to decide to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles?

Isn't that a States Rights issue?

That was one of his EOs.

*bump* for the gutless wingnuts who ignored it the first time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

tax cuts ALWAYS result in more revenue to the federal government....That's a fact.
When people keep more of what they earn, they spend and invest more. This stimulates the economy and in turn increases revenue to the government. That's a fact...You can check for yourself. No blogs.
Here's another fact.....No nation in modern history has been able to tax itself into prosperity.
No....Government spends unwisely and in turn taxes the people to make up for its fiscal irresponsibility.
What is it that makes you believe government is entitled to dip even further into our pockets. And for what purpose?

So you're arguing that increased government programs will require tax cuts in order to increase tax revenues?

You supply-siders are funny!

Yeah, right..That's exactly what I wrote.
The fact of the matter is our economy IS supply side,. And it works.
And of course you being a lib, completely evaded the issue of fiscal responsibility.
Oh, here's an idea..Limit the spending on those "programs"....
I'll go even one step further. Given that much of social spending is non discretionary which means each fiscal year the budget must be maintained and typically with baseline budgeting, there are mandated yearly increases that are independent of the actual amount spent, why not simply decrease the annual increase?
Look, for the sake of argument I will stipulate the situation is as dire as you claim.....so,instead of providing a virtual blank check, have independent auditors go through the books of these departments and cut the fat. Get rid of all unnecessary spending. Cut unproductive staff. And here's the easiest one. Cut expenses.
For example. Instead of having to fill out endless amounts of forms that go through multiple levels in a chain of command to buy a box of paper clips, send someone to the closest Walmart and buy them for one tenth the price?.....
The problem with government is that it is too full of itself.
We have a myriad of departments which are staffed by managers, supervisors, forepersons, team leaders all of which have assistants who report to other people. These people have to justify their employment. So the managers come up with policies and procedures that are triple and quadruple redundant.
You lefties bitch and moan about defense spending because 40 years ago you heard about $1200 toilet seats and $600 screwdrivers....Well here's a newsflash, Every single federal dept spends money in the same manner.
Don't come to me demanding more of my money until you buck up and demand your elected officials fix the above described problems.

 

[The Rabbi]

tax cuts ALWAYS result in more revenue to the federal government....That's a fact.
When people keep more of what they earn, they spend and invest more. This stimulates the economy and in turn increases revenue to the government. That's a fact...You can check for yourself. No blogs.
Here's another fact.....No nation in modern history has been able to tax itself into prosperity.
No....Government spends unwisely and in turn taxes the people to make up for its fiscal irresponsibility.
What is it that makes you believe government is entitled to dip even further into our pockets. And for what purpose?

So you're arguing that increased government programs will require tax cuts in order to increase tax revenues?

You supply-siders are funny!

Yeah, right..That's exactly what I wrote.
The fact of the matter is our economy IS supply side,. And it works.
And of course you being a lib, completely evaded the issue of fiscal responsibility.
Oh, here's an idea..Limit the spending on those "programs"....
I'll go even one step further. Given that much of social spending is non discretionary which means each fiscal year the budget must be maintained and typically with baseline budgeting, there are mandated yearly increases that are independent of the actual amount spent, why not simply decrease the annual increase?
Look, for the sake of argument I will stipulate the situation is as dire as you claim.....so,instead of providing a virtual blank check, have independent auditors go through the books of these departments and cut the fat. Get rid of all unnecessary spending. Cut unproductive staff. And here's the easiest one. Cut expenses.
For example. Instead of having to fill out endless amounts of forms that go through multiple levels in a chain of command to buy a box of paper clips, send someone to the closest Walmart and buy them for one tenth the price?.....
The problem with government is that it is too full of itself.
We have a myriad of departments which are staffed by managers, supervisors, forepersons, team leaders all of which have assistants who report to other people. These people have to justify their employment. So the managers come up with policies and procedures that are triple and quadruple redundant.
You lefties bitch and moan about defense spending because 40 years ago you heard about $1200 toilet seats and $600 screwdrivers....Well here's a newsflash, Every single federal dept spends money in the same manner.
Don't come to me demanding more of my money until you buck up and demand your elected officials fix the above described problems.

Libs arent interested in using the tax code to generate revenue. They're interested i using the tax code to punish people they feel deserve it, because they're more successful or whatever. Obama himself admitted this.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They own the business that their grandfather started and now they keep it operating at a profitable level while providing a shit load of people with your skill level employed.

How much do you pay the people that make you all of your money?

Most likely they are paid wages appropriate for their skill level in concert with the prevailing market rates...

 

[thereisnospoon]

LOL, I posted exactly what he said,you are the liar here kid.

You're a liar. Here are all the Josh Earnest quotes from your wingnut article:

"The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,"

"Now I don't want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of," Earnest continued. "But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally," Earnest finished.​

That's it. So where does he talk about "raising taxes"? He doesn't, dope.

The problem is contained in the following phrase.....""to make progress on his goals"...
That in and of itself indicates Obama believes he can act unilaterally to achieve an agenda HE himself believes is best.....

I knew I would regret engaging with you again, knowing you're a dishonest piece of shit.

You left out the whole sentence:

"But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals."

Array. Authorities. Goals.

It's called reading between the lines. It's called examining and questioning the real meaning of words in a sentence. It's called challenging ideas.

It's called guessing, with your mind already made up that Obama Bad.

Non responsive.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are there any liberals here who care about the fact that it would be ILLEGAL for Obama to raise taxes via executive order?

And WHY does Obama need to raise even more taxes, in addition to the numerous taxes he's already raised?

They only care about the law when there's a Republican president.

You only care about Executive Orders when there's a Democratic president.

Stop whining.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Barry's primary goal of crippling the American economy and system of government

Are you better off now than you were 6 years ago? Yes.

Based on MY efforts...Yes. In spite of Obama's failed policies.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The thing about that is many people are over skilled for their positions in life but they are kept their due to the controlling nature of things. Yes owners provide and deal with a lot of crap, but does it really entitle them to soooo much more worldly possessions and wealth that really do nothing more than create greed, envy, and criminalistics ways? Everyone works hard and most people choose where they want to be. Most people don't choose to fall into wealth and the ones who create it still don't work much harder than the average person. Granted they have more knowledge and understand things better but does that really make them more entitled?

On a day filled with whiny, sniveling loony leftist posts on this thread yours rings the bell as the silliest, and I mean that with all due respect. Those who are "over skilled" have the right and the opportunity to get a better job or, if they are up to the task, start their own business. Those who make good money have the right to enjoy it without your jealous eyeballs watching their wallets and I can't believe anyone could be so stupid as to claim "everyone works hard." Let me guess ... you're 14 years old, right?

Let me guess, you fail to observe the world around you.. I agree a lot of people do not work hard or at all but those who are over skill get kept in their place by higher authorities because they think they know best... Granted many people just don't want the higher responsibilities but that does not mean they can not do some of the more daunting tasks. In a world that screams survival of the fittest you cannot sit there and say many people don't get left behind because they got screwed over by someone over along the way. Take your demeaning comment for example. So quick to take a stab at someone before hearing anything else... So while they may have the right most have no chance in hell at having the right opportunities. Call it jealousy but jealousy can only be created by an unfair system. Say you drive by someone in your Bentley or are being chauffeured around in your limo, of course there is going to people wishing they could have stuff like that. Don't get me wrong, some just think they are more deserving as well when they could not handle what some of the wealthy go through. But does that mean they need to be slaves who can barley afford to get by while the wealth and all the fancy possessions are being rubbed in their face day in and day out? All of that is what really creates greed, envy, and war...

Granted many people just don't want the higher responsibilities

And there ya have it. No business owner is going to pay more to people who show no effort to improve their skill sets.