President Barack Obama says more taxes on rich only option on deficit

Discussion in 'Economy' started by daveman, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    President Barack Obama says more taxes on rich only option on deficit
    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, laying down his marker for grueling "fiscal cliff" negotiations, said Friday he won't accept any approach to federal deficit reduction that doesn't ask the wealthy to pay more in taxes.

    "This was a central question during the election," Obama said in his first postelection comments on the economy. "The majority of Americans agree with my approach."​
    Of course they do. It's just like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
     
  2. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    Meanwhile, in reality, the 400 richest Americans have a combined net worth of around $2.4 trillion.

    Currently, the deficit is $1.1 trillion. Obama could confiscate all the wealth of the 400 richest Americans and it would wipe out the deficit for about 2 years.

    However, the debt is $16 trillion...and it wouldn't be touched. And those 400 richest Americans who had everything taken away from them wouldn't hang around to be robbed again.

    And Obama isn't proposing to take everything, just a percentage.

    So it will effectively do nothing. It will, however, give his base a woody. They loves them some "economic justice" (leftyspeak for theft).
     
  3. Rshermr
    Offline

    Rshermr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,804
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Location:
    LaConner, WA
    Ratings:
    +855
    Yup, daveman, you are a con, and cons believe what they are told to believe. so you would believe that taxing the wealthy in this bad economy will do bad things. Care to try to show us where that has EVER been the case?
    And it is a massive tax increase. Almost 4% on the margin over $250K. Of taxable income, that is. Wow. Can they afford it? Back to Clinton era rates. Look at all the bad things that happened with that increase. Unemployment dropped like a rock. Booming economy. And an actual deficit, kind of like the repub presidents had. Like, well, ......... Actually, there were no deficits under any repub administrations during this past 60+ years.

    Maybe we should go back to the good old days. Like the 1950's and 1960's. You know, daveman, when men were men and the wealthy paid low taxes. Lets see..... Uh oh, guise I was wrong. The highest marginal tax rates were between 70% and 90%. Not these measly 38% rates cons are so afraid of. And the economy grew like crazy. Damn.
    Maybe we should examine lower rates. You know. Like those of W. Lowered the rates by that same amount that we are now talking about raising them. Economy must have been great. Well, damn. Another mistake. Poor to no employment growth. Worst economic decline since the great depression. Damn, daveman, what is true about what you believe???
     
  4. Leweman
    Offline

    Leweman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    Thanks Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +737
    Nobody like a flat tax across the board aye? capital gains, corporate, income? What's wrong with that?
     
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Then we should go back to the size of the federal budgets and eliminate every bureaucracy, agency and welfare program that didn't exist back then, too.

    Deal or no deal?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Latest Right Wing Talking Point/Issue? Bush Tax Cuts: Threads Galore

    The Sheeple Speak!!!


    :lol:
     
  7. Rshermr
    Offline

    Rshermr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,804
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Location:
    LaConner, WA
    Ratings:
    +855
    Trying to avoid the subject, eh, oddball. The subject was tax increases. Not whether you think that the us does or does not need agencies and programs that you do not like. That is why we have elections. And why we have yet to appoint you emperor.
    think you can actually stay on track, or is it too difficult.
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    He's angry, resentful, and feeling bad
     
  9. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    No, the subject was you claiming that America worked just fine with the tax rates back in the 1950s...Well, they also had a federal gubmint that was about 1/4 the size that is today back then, to feed off those taxes.

    It cuts both ways, comrade.
     
  10. oldfart
    Offline

    oldfart Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,354
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera
    Ratings:
    +527
    Did you just admit to being a sheep?
     

Share This Page