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

[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.

 

[daveman]

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).

 

[Rshermr]

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.

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

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???

 

[Leweman]

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.

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

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???

Nobody like a flat tax across the board aye? capital gains, corporate, income? What's wrong with that?

 

[Oddball]

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?

 

[Dante]

Latest Right Wing Talking Point/Issue? Bush Tax Cuts: Threads Galore

The Sheeple Speak!!!

 

[Rshermr]

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.

 

[Dante]

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.

He's angry, resentful, and feeling bad

 

[Oddball]

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.

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.

 

[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?

 

[Mad Scientist]

As Daveman said, you can confiscate all the wealth but it still won't pay for all the gov't you want. And The Fed printing money to pay for it will only destroy the currency.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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

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???

I see you simply have no concept of the scale involved. Not at all surprising.

What Obama's proposing won't do squat. Period. The deficit and the debt are too massive.

However, Obama told you that the eeeevil rich need to pay "their fair share", even though they already do, and your share as well.

Besides, there's nothing preventing you from sending in more money to the Treasury. Why don't you do that instead of being generous with other people's money?

Oh, yeah -- because you're a liberal.

 

[Oddball]

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.

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.

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.

Well, big gubmint is a drag on the economy too...And if you're such a stupid shit that you're going to use the tax rates of the 1950s (a decade in which America was about the only nation on the planet manufacturing anything because the industrial capacity of every other industrial nation was next to nil) to try and prove a point, then you can also have yourself reminded that there wasn't anywhere near the federal behemoth we have today sucking those taxes dry.

You've met the stupid shit and he is you, pal.

 

[daveman]

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.

 

[daveman]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Wiseacre]

I have yet to hear or see a lib/dem tell me how the 80 billion a year you get from the tax hike Obama wants on the rich will resolve a trillion dollar plus deficit.

 

[daveman]

I have yet to hear or see a lib/dem tell me how the 80 billion a year you get from the tax hike Obama wants on the rich will resolve a trillion dollar plus deficit.

Obama will proclaim it so. He has the power to alter reality with his words.

...or so the left seems to believe.

 

[edthecynic]

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?

A deal if we can go back to the number of people too.

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

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.