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

[Wiseacre]

I have heard stupid before, but have to admit, you are good at it. The size of the government was increasing then. Fast. So was the economy. Companies were doing extremely well. So, the point was a simple one. See if you can follow. Can you point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped the economy. The fact that tax rates were high in the 50's and 60's was meant to point out a simple point. High tax rates do not necessarily mean the economy is being hurt.

I try to stay on the point of the thread being discussed. So, the intent of the thread is, in my opinion, to show that increasing taxes on the wealthy are detrimental to the economy and the people in general.
If you think I am wrong, let me know why. Seems pretty simple to me. So, I have no interest in discussing the size of the gov or the welfare programs, or any other issue at this point. Just the tax increase coming up. If you want to discuss the other issues, find someone else. Or start a new thread and I will be happy to give you my two cents worth. But there, not here.

Wow, what a load of crap.


What do you think taxes pay for, Skippy?

Government.

Therefore, the size of government is germane to a discussion of taxes. Unquestionably.

So the answer is: No you can't point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped?


I can, how about the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts? Or the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. What about the Kennedy tax cuts back in the early 60s, after he died I think.


I mean without the name-calling debate-stoppers, you haven't explained your position. I'd really like to hear an answer to this question for once.

Duiring the debates and the campaign, Obama said again and again how he cut taxes like 18 times or whatever. And he did say that a tax hike when the economy was bad wasn't a good idea (paraphrasing). 'Course, he said that back in 2008 or 2009. Clinton said it too. Tax cuts are actually a form of stimulus, I thought you guys were all over that.

 

[Avorysuds]

I say the Republicans step out of the way and let wonderboy Obama do what he wants with taxes... Maybe he will drive the economy even more into the ground and keep raising the deficit.

 

[oldernwiser]

Wow, what a load of crap.


What do you think taxes pay for, Skippy?

Government.

Therefore, the size of government is germane to a discussion of taxes. Unquestionably.

So the answer is: No you can't point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped?


I can, how about the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts? Or the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. What about the Kennedy tax cuts back in the early 60s, after he died I think.


I mean without the name-calling debate-stoppers, you haven't explained your position. I'd really like to hear an answer to this question for once.

Duiring the debates and the campaign, Obama said again and again how he cut taxes like 18 times or whatever. And he did say that a tax hike when the economy was bad wasn't a good idea (paraphrasing). 'Course, he said that back in 2008 or 2009. Clinton said it too. Tax cuts are actually a form of stimulus, I thought you guys were all over that.

Short term, tax cuts are supposed to redirect the economy. It kinda worked this time and probably would have if Greece hadn't picked that exact period to tank. But for every tax cut is an equal and opposite tax hike, because spending like a mad man when there's no money coming in results in downgraded credit ratings (as we saw when the last Bush cut taxes and then declared war on both Afghanistan and Iraq).

 

[oldernwiser]

So the answer is: No you can't point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped?


I can, how about the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts? Or the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. What about the Kennedy tax cuts back in the early 60s, after he died I think.


I mean without the name-calling debate-stoppers, you haven't explained your position. I'd really like to hear an answer to this question for once.

Duiring the debates and the campaign, Obama said again and again how he cut taxes like 18 times or whatever. And he did say that a tax hike when the economy was bad wasn't a good idea (paraphrasing). 'Course, he said that back in 2008 or 2009. Clinton said it too. Tax cuts are actually a form of stimulus, I thought you guys were all over that.

Short term, tax cuts are supposed to redirect the economy. It kinda worked this time and probably would have if Greece hadn't picked that exact period to tank. But for every tax cut is an equal and opposite tax hike, because spending like a mad man when there's no money coming in results in downgraded credit ratings (as we saw when the last Bush cut taxes and then declared war on both Afghanistan and Iraq).

Sorry to double post like this, but the 2003 cut was where Bush bought the country a beer - sending Clinton's surplus back to us. The deficit continued to climb regardless. Reagan's cuts back in the 80s went only to the top 10% - by the time it trickled down to the middle class, he had rescinded that cut because the deficit began to jump, and the GDP wasn't keeping up with it.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Ya...just like. Man you are one dumb ass individual...

 

[oldfart]

Of course they do. It's just like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Did you just admit to being a sheep?

No, I'm not an Obama voter.

Nor am I rich -- yet. Obama keeps lowering the definition of wealthy. I may be "rich" in a couple of years.

My apology; my Irish grandfather always said, "Never pass up an opportunity for a really good cheap shot." I hope all of us achieve less wealth than we hope for but more than we deserve. If you are not familiar with the Irish proverb, that's the formula for happiness.

 

[Wiseacre]

So the answer is: No you can't point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped?


I can, how about the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts? Or the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. What about the Kennedy tax cuts back in the early 60s, after he died I think.


I mean without the name-calling debate-stoppers, you haven't explained your position. I'd really like to hear an answer to this question for once.

Duiring the debates and the campaign, Obama said again and again how he cut taxes like 18 times or whatever. And he did say that a tax hike when the economy was bad wasn't a good idea (paraphrasing). 'Course, he said that back in 2008 or 2009. Clinton said it too. Tax cuts are actually a form of stimulus, I thought you guys were all over that.

Short term, tax cuts are supposed to redirect the economy. It kinda worked this time and probably would have if Greece hadn't picked that exact period to tank. But for every tax cut is an equal and opposite tax hike, because spending like a mad man when there's no money coming in results in downgraded credit ratings (as we saw when the last Bush cut taxes and then declared war on both Afghanistan and Iraq).

How come it's bad when Bush does it but not when Obama does it?

 

[Katzndogz]

Raising taxes during a bad economy was the course of action Japan took and is credited with the Japanese lost decade.

 

[Wiseacre]

Duiring the debates and the campaign, Obama said again and again how he cut taxes like 18 times or whatever. And he did say that a tax hike when the economy was bad wasn't a good idea (paraphrasing). 'Course, he said that back in 2008 or 2009. Clinton said it too. Tax cuts are actually a form of stimulus, I thought you guys were all over that.

Short term, tax cuts are supposed to redirect the economy. It kinda worked this time and probably would have if Greece hadn't picked that exact period to tank. But for every tax cut is an equal and opposite tax hike, because spending like a mad man when there's no money coming in results in downgraded credit ratings (as we saw when the last Bush cut taxes and then declared war on both Afghanistan and Iraq).

Sorry to double post like this, but the 2003 cut was where Bush bought the country a beer - sending Clinton's surplus back to us. The deficit continued to climb regardless. Reagan's cuts back in the 80s went only to the top 10% - by the time it trickled down to the middle class, he had rescinded that cut because the deficit began to jump, and the GDP wasn't keeping up with it.

That's because the Democrats promised Reagan they would cut spending if he raised taxes. So he raised taxes but they didn't cut spending; they lied, knew they were lying whn they made the deal.

About those 2003 tax cuts, some people think those cuts stimulated the economy; we had a nice spurt of economic growth from '03 up to the '08 recession.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Obama says everyone must pay their fair share. But he doesn't mean everyone he means the rich must pay more of their fair share and more of your fair share.

Let the cuts expire so we can all contribute. That's fair.

 

[edthecynic]

Short term, tax cuts are supposed to redirect the economy. It kinda worked this time and probably would have if Greece hadn't picked that exact period to tank. But for every tax cut is an equal and opposite tax hike, because spending like a mad man when there's no money coming in results in downgraded credit ratings (as we saw when the last Bush cut taxes and then declared war on both Afghanistan and Iraq).

Sorry to double post like this, but the 2003 cut was where Bush bought the country a beer - sending Clinton's surplus back to us. The deficit continued to climb regardless. Reagan's cuts back in the 80s went only to the top 10% - by the time it trickled down to the middle class, he had rescinded that cut because the deficit began to jump, and the GDP wasn't keeping up with it.

That's because the Democrats promised Reagan they would cut spending if he raised taxes. So he raised taxes but they didn't cut spending; they lied, knew they were lying whn they made the deal.

About those 2003 tax cuts, some people think those cuts stimulated the economy; we had a nice spurt of economic growth from '03 up to the '08 recession.

This GOP scripted lie, parroted by the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood, again. You lie, you knew you were lying when you made this post.

It was St Ronnie who nixed the tax/spending deal worked out by Tip O'Neill and Bob Dole because it made cuts to his Star Wars pork barrel boondoggle.

http://hnn.us/articles/120370.html
Reagan continued to rail against deficits while doing everything he could to protect his tax and defense programs that were their primary cause. In 1985 he adroitly outmaneuvered GOP Senate leader Bob Dole’s efforts to cut a deficit-reduction deal with House Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill that included tax increases and defense cuts in return for entitlement economies.

Reconcilable Differences? "d0e4234"
Dole accused Reagan of "surrendering to the deficit." "If the President can't support us, he ought to keep his mouth shut,"

 

[daveman]

I have heard stupid before, but have to admit, you are good at it. The size of the government was increasing then. Fast. So was the economy. Companies were doing extremely well. So, the point was a simple one. See if you can follow. Can you point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped the economy. The fact that tax rates were high in the 50's and 60's was meant to point out a simple point. High tax rates do not necessarily mean the economy is being hurt.

I try to stay on the point of the thread being discussed. So, the intent of the thread is, in my opinion, to show that increasing taxes on the wealthy are detrimental to the economy and the people in general.
If you think I am wrong, let me know why. Seems pretty simple to me. So, I have no interest in discussing the size of the gov or the welfare programs, or any other issue at this point. Just the tax increase coming up. If you want to discuss the other issues, find someone else. Or start a new thread and I will be happy to give you my two cents worth. But there, not here.

Wow, what a load of crap.


What do you think taxes pay for, Skippy?

Government.

Therefore, the size of government is germane to a discussion of taxes. Unquestionably.

So the answer is: No you can't point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped?

I mean without the name-calling debate-stoppers, you haven't explained your position. I'd really like to hear an answer to this question for once.

Not the point I was arguing, was it?

 

[syrenn]

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.

really... the only option?


the man has no imagination.

 

[daveman]

Wow, what a load of crap.


What do you think taxes pay for, Skippy?

Government.

Therefore, the size of government is germane to a discussion of taxes. Unquestionably.

So the answer is: No you can't point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped?


I can, how about the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts? Or the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. What about the Kennedy tax cuts back in the early 60s, after he died I think.


I mean without the name-calling debate-stoppers, you haven't explained your position. I'd really like to hear an answer to this question for once.

Duiring the debates and the campaign, Obama said again and again how he cut taxes like 18 times or whatever. And he did say that a tax hike when the economy was bad wasn't a good idea (paraphrasing). 'Course, he said that back in 2008 or 2009. Clinton said it too. Tax cuts are actually a form of stimulus, I thought you guys were all over that.

Tax cuts are an infinitely better form of stimulus than the Stimulus was.

People spend their own money better than the government can.

Progressives simply can't understand this.

 

[daveman]

I say the Republicans step out of the way and let wonderboy Obama do what he wants with taxes... Maybe he will drive the economy even more into the ground and keep raising the deficit.

And when he fails, he'll take responsibility.

 

[daveman]

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.

Ya...just like. Man you are one dumb ass individual...

I'm smart enough to know that a large group of people who aren't paying much in taxes just voted to raise taxes on a small group of people.

Need me to explain that to you, dumbass?

 

[daveman]

Did you just admit to being a sheep?

No, I'm not an Obama voter.

Nor am I rich -- yet. Obama keeps lowering the definition of wealthy. I may be "rich" in a couple of years.

My apology; my Irish grandfather always said, "Never pass up an opportunity for a really good cheap shot." I hope all of us achieve less wealth than we hope for but more than we deserve. If you are not familiar with the Irish proverb, that's the formula for happiness.

The Irish have a lot of wisdom. Much of it involves alcohol.

 

[daveman]

Raising taxes during a bad economy was the course of action Japan took and is credited with the Japanese lost decade.

Oh, but it'll be DIFFERENT when we do it! No, really!

/progressive

 

[Oldstyle]

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. ?

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?

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.

Ah yes, once again a progressive regales us with how the Clinton tax rates caused an economic boom! Too bad reality shows that to be completely and utterly untrue. The Dot Com Boom is what caused that economic surge...the Clinton tax rates were only possible BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom...not the other way around.

This all goes back to basic Keynesian economic theory, Rshermr...you know, the stuff that you know from teaching economics in college? You show me a Dot Com Boom on the horizon and I'll be more than happy to let you raise tax rates once it occurs. Until then? Take your silly nonsense and sit down, you're simply confusing the less intelligent among us.

 

[daveman]

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.

really... the only option?


the man has no imagination.

Not a lot, no. Progressives can't comprehend that spending on their special interest groups can be cut, too. Only defense, which benefits society not nearly as much as spending on failing alternative energy companies owned by big Dem donors, professional welfare cheats, and union pension bailouts.