Obama's New Tax Hikes Aid the Middle Class?

[Luddly Neddite]

He wants to raise taxes of the 1$ back to where they were under Reagan and lower taxes for the working class.

But of course, the RWs know that already.

Meanwhile, the Rs continue to do nothing except pose for photo-ops on fox and take vacations.

 

[initforme]

Any attempt to help the idle class will never become law anyway, the GOP doesn't want to see that... its socialism. Perhaps the GOP cold try to raise taxes on the middle class by 20 percent and lower the 1 percent fat cats by 20 percent. I will bet everything I own there are some who believe this would create jobs or something.

 

[alan1]

Pretty insulting to hear my President tell me that the only way I can succeed is if he takes some of that success away from someone else

That would be true if all those in the "someone else" category earned their incomes without resorting to bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies. Obama is rolling back capital gains tax rates to about where they were under Reagan. What could be more Fair?

How about if he rolled the top marginal income tax rate to what it was at the same time (under Reagan)? 28%

 

[Iceweasel]

No, we can get rid of the socialists in government and prosper once again

"Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1%"
Would you care to name the "socialists" responsible for that level of inequality?
Some 95 of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1 - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The main problem is that you can't read, everything is run through your anti-capitalist filters. I said "in government". The top 1% aren't in government but they benefit from the policies. The less free a market is, the greater the disparity.

 

[georgephillip]

The main problem is that you can't read, everything is run through your anti-capitalist filters. I said "in government". The top 1% aren't in government but they benefit from the policies. The less free a market is, the greater the disparity.

I suspect we both suffer from ideological filters; maybe there's common ground to be found if we start by defining terms. When you think about a "free" market, do you mean a market free from government (democratic) regulations or a market free of undue influence from the richest individuals and corporations?

 

[Iceweasel]

The main problem is that you can't read, everything is run through your anti-capitalist filters. I said "in government". The top 1% aren't in government but they benefit from the policies. The less free a market is, the greater the disparity.

I suspect we both suffer from ideological filters; maybe there's common ground to be found if we start by defining terms. When you think about a "free" market, do you mean a market free from government (democratic) regulations or a market free of undue influence from the richest individuals and corporations?

Free market is relative like every other term that uses the word free. Nothing is totally free or pure. Our regulations aren't democratic they are representative form of democratic, a republic. The problem is that government is like business in the sense that the natural directive is one of growth. The more government we have the more we seem to need.

The government cannot manage an economy, too many moving parts moving too quickly with too many outside variables. The housing market crash is a lesson learned many times, government meant well, imposed all kinds of regulations and programs and it all blew up. A free market economy would be one that has necessary safeguards by government without a lot in interference.

There are things only government can do and that's really what they need to focus on. Are there people that would poison a lake in order to make a buck? Or pollute the food for profit? Sure. But we don't need government picking winners and losers. And a lot of those winners are in bed with government, make no mistake about it.

 

[Freemason9]

Pubs are dedicated to lower taxes for all taxpayers.

There's room for bipartisan agreement.

Republicans are NOT "dedicated to lower taxes for all taxpayers." When they lower taxes for upper-income brackets and for that "special" capital gains income category, one of two things happen: (1) the taxes shift to others (often by shifting funding to states through state and local taxes), or (2) it artificially drives up the deficit, thereby increasing future liabilities among taxpayers.

There's a reason why wealth has concentrated since Reagan brought on the onslaught of wealth patronization in the 80's.

 

[Stephanie]

Any attempt to help the idle class will never become law anyway, the GOP doesn't want to see that... its socialism. Perhaps the GOP cold try to raise taxes on the middle class by 20 percent and lower the 1 percent fat cats by 20 percent. I will bet everything I own there are some who believe this would create jobs or something.

the idle class huh? Just who was in control for the last six years and why is there AN idle class? you do have the talking points down pat

 

[Iceweasel]

Pubs are dedicated to lower taxes for all taxpayers.

There's room for bipartisan agreement.

Republicans are NOT "dedicated to lower taxes for all taxpayers." When they lower taxes for upper-income brackets and for that "special" capital gains income category, one of two things happen: (1) the taxes shift to others (often by shifting funding to states through state and local taxes), or (2) it artificially drives up the deficit, thereby increasing future liabilities among taxpayers.

There's a reason why wealth has concentrated since Reagan brought on the onslaught of wealth patronization in the 80's.

LOL, how stupid. So if Republicans lower taxes on all, it shifts the burden to the states to tax more so Republicans don't really want to lower taxes?
RETARD!

 

[Dad2three]

Why doesn't He just keep printing $58 billion/month to pay for middle-class benefits?

Oh wait- that money's already accounted for...

Stops at 2011??? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Pretty insulting to hear my President tell me that the only way I can succeed is if he takes some of that success away from someone else

Yeah, BECAUSE the pie has more than 100% right? lol

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

 

[Dad2three]

Pretty insulting to hear my President tell me that the only way I can succeed is if he takes some of that success away from someone else

That would be true if all those in the "someone else" category earned their incomes without resorting to bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies. Obama is rolling back capital gains tax rates to about where they were under Reagan. What could be more Fair?

How about if he rolled the top marginal income tax rate to what it was at the same time (under Reagan)? 28%

You mean GUT federal revenues again? Even AFTER Ronnie raised taxes 11 times to make up for the 50% tax rate he had for his first six years???

 

[Dad2three]

No, we can get rid of the socialists in government and prosper once again

"Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1%"
Would you care to name the "socialists" responsible for that level of inequality?
Some 95 of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1 - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The main problem is that you can't read, everything is run through your anti-capitalist filters. I said "in government". The top 1% aren't in government but they benefit from the policies. The less free a market is, the greater the disparity.

Got ANY examples to push your false narrative? lol

 

[Dad2three]

The main problem is that you can't read, everything is run through your anti-capitalist filters. I said "in government". The top 1% aren't in government but they benefit from the policies. The less free a market is, the greater the disparity.

I suspect we both suffer from ideological filters; maybe there's common ground to be found if we start by defining terms. When you think about a "free" market, do you mean a market free from government (democratic) regulations or a market free of undue influence from the richest individuals and corporations?

Free market is relative like every other term that uses the word free. Nothing is totally free or pure. Our regulations aren't democratic they are representative form of democratic, a republic. The problem is that government is like business in the sense that the natural directive is one of growth. The more government we have the more we seem to need.

The government cannot manage an economy, too many moving parts moving too quickly with too many outside variables. The housing market crash is a lesson learned many times, government meant well, imposed all kinds of regulations and programs and it all blew up. A free market economy would be one that has necessary safeguards by government without a lot in interference.

There are things only government can do and that's really what they need to focus on. Are there people that would poison a lake in order to make a buck? Or pollute the food for profit? Sure. But we don't need government picking winners and losers. And a lot of those winners are in bed with government, make no mistake about it.

"The housing market crash is a lesson learned many times, government meant well, imposed all kinds of regulations and programs and it all blew up. A free market economy would be one that has necessary safeguards by government without a lot in interference."




COMPLETE BULLSHIT

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

When an economy booms or busts, money gets misspent, assets rise in prices, fortunes are made. Out of all that comes a set of easy-to-discern facts.

Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?



Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

 

[Dad2three]

The main problem is that you can't read, everything is run through your anti-capitalist filters. I said "in government". The top 1% aren't in government but they benefit from the policies. The less free a market is, the greater the disparity.

I suspect we both suffer from ideological filters; maybe there's common ground to be found if we start by defining terms. When you think about a "free" market, do you mean a market free from government (democratic) regulations or a market free of undue influence from the richest individuals and corporations?

Free market is relative like every other term that uses the word free. Nothing is totally free or pure. Our regulations aren't democratic they are representative form of democratic, a republic. The problem is that government is like business in the sense that the natural directive is one of growth. The more government we have the more we seem to need.

The government cannot manage an economy, too many moving parts moving too quickly with too many outside variables. The housing market crash is a lesson learned many times, government meant well, imposed all kinds of regulations and programs and it all blew up. A free market economy would be one that has necessary safeguards by government without a lot in interference.

There are things only government can do and that's really what they need to focus on. Are there people that would poison a lake in order to make a buck? Or pollute the food for profit? Sure. But we don't need government picking winners and losers. And a lot of those winners are in bed with government, make no mistake about it.

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis

The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed


Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

 

[Dad2three]

27 Facts That Show How The Middle Class Has Fared Under 6 Years Of Barack Obama

Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

During his State of the Union speech on Tuesday evening, Barack Obama is going to promise to make life better for middle class families. Of course he has also promised to do this during all of his other State of the Union addresses, but apparently he still believes that there are people out there that are buying what he is selling. Each January, he gets up there and tells us how the economy is “turning around” and to believe that much brighter days are right around the corner. And yet things just continue to get even worse for the middle class.

The numbers that you are about to see will not be included in Obama’s State of the Union speech. They don’t fit the “narrative” that Obama is trying to sell to the American people. But all of these statistics are accurate. They paint a picture of a middle class that is dying. Yes, the decline of the U.S. middle class is a phenomenon that has been playing out for decades. But without a doubt, our troubles have accelerated during the Obama years. When it comes to economics, he is completely and utterly clueless, and the policies that he has implemented are eating away at the foundations of our economy like a cancer.

The following are 27 facts that show how the middle class has fared under 6 years of Barack Obama…

27 Facts That Show How The Middle Class Has Fared Under 6 Years Of Barack Obama Zero Hedge

Yep, when Dubya/GOP dug a hole, they dug it wide AND deep

 

[hortysir]

Pretty insulting to hear my President tell me that the only way I can succeed is if he takes some of that success away from someone else

Yeah, BECAUSE the pie has more than 100% right? lol

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Oh, yay!
The tired argument that I can only get fat at the expense of the skinny.
Do you really believe there is a finite amount of wealth to be made?

 

[August West]

Pubs are dedicated to lower taxes for all taxpayers.

There's room for bipartisan agreement.

And the debt will be paid down by the tooth fairy?

 

[Dad2three]

Pretty insulting to hear my President tell me that the only way I can succeed is if he takes some of that success away from someone else

Yeah, BECAUSE the pie has more than 100% right? lol

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Oh, yay!
The tired argument that I can only get fat at the expense of the skinny.
Do you really believe there is a finite amount of wealth to be made?

Do you REALLY think there is more than 100% to the pie??

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do:

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[Dad2three]

Pubs are dedicated to lower taxes for all taxpayers.

There's room for bipartisan agreement.

And the debt will be paid down by the tooth fairy?

90%+ of current debt can be traced back to policy of Reagan, Bush and Bush

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia