What if Obama gets his tax hike on the rich?

[shintao]

As always, scored statically.

Tax increases never -read: NEVER- bring in what they claim to when proposed.

I agree, stuff happens that change the equation, so do we sit on our hands and cry about it? Doing nothing, like Bush tax cuts certainly did nothing.

Oh, so debunking your bullshit static calculations is now equated with "doing nothing".

God, you socialist twerps are a hoot!

Is doing nothing, doing nothing? Maybe you got thin air to weigh? Gawwd you cons are doing looey loops today.

 

[Rozman]

I don't know is we can ever recover from the Pelosi,Reid,Obama Triple play of doom!

 

[Truthmatters]

90% was a top tax rate for some time.

The country did fine.

wake up and smell the facts.

You lost becuase you REFUSE to deal in facts

I doubt that a 90% tax rate would make many Dems happy!
That just doesn't make sense to them....
Why just stop at 90% when there is still 10% for them to take.

see how redicules you are?


No one is suggesting a 90% rate.

This is history and it happened.

What it proves is going back to the Clinton rate of 38% will NOT cause any economic disaster.


that is a republican lie

 

[auditor0007]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

Any tax increase on the wealthy or even everyone must come with spending cuts. This is why it is important to keep the House Republican. The problem is that if the Republicans refuse to deal and continue to oppose all tax increases, then they may lose the House. If the Dems get control of everything, I do not trust them to cut spending. Of course if the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, I wouldn't trust them to cut spending either based on their track record.

Getting people back to work is the biggest issue. If we can get people back to work, revenues will go up and spending on many social safety net programs will go down as many of those people will come off the dole once they start working again. The problem is that we have companies sitting on close to $3 trillion in cash that they refuse to spend on their own expansion. Based on that knowledge, we know that more tax cuts are not going to drive further growth. What I would like to see is to have the corporate tax rate reduced a little bit, to satisfy all of you who think it is too high, even though the effective rate is obviously too low, but close off all the loopholes so these companies must start actually paying taxes. Allow their only out to be through investing into their own future by investing in growth. I have no problem with companies paying zero corporate taxes if most of their earnings are being reinvested back into their own growth, because that is what needs to happen to get the economy growing again.

We can't continue cutting taxes thinking that will increase consumer spending and drive growth. That can work when taxes are too high to begin with, but it only creates larger government deficits when tax rates are already too low. That means that growth in our economy must come from businesses expanding first and hiring more employees. Once they expand and hire more employees, those people will then have the money to spend and the economy starts growing. We really need to start looking at this in reverse versus what we have tried over the last decade.

The tax rate increases and spending cuts are already baked into the sequester.

If you were half as clever as you believe yourself to be, you'd be asking why it is there's all of this kerfuffle going on if the vaunted "balanced approach" is already part of the sequester (I'm sorry, I mean "fiscal cliff"), and everyone is re-fighting the battle today.

None of those spending cuts address long term cost overruns from SS and Medicare, our two biggest long term issues. But keep believing that you are smarter than everyone else here with your stupid one liners.

 

[Too Tall]

The Bush tax cuts are in effect now? Are they working to create jobs?

Taking money away from people makes them more prosperous.

Right?

I noticed you didn't answer my question. So are the bush tax cuts creating jobs now or not?


And good thing no one is proposing taking money away from people who need help reaching prosperity.

The became the Obama tax cuts two years ago.

 

[Sactowndog]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

Wiseacre the American people aren't stupid. Most want spending cuts and a little more in taxes on the Rich. With a Republican Congress and a Democratic President that is exactly what they will get. It really is the best combination for deficit reduction.

Obama will keep the Republicans from giving away the store on tax reductions counting on mythical dynamic scoring. The Republican house will keep spending down except in defense and again Obama will act as a counterweight. If we are going to reduce the deficit then all will have to participate.

 

[Too Tall]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

My guess is nobody will ever ask Obama to explain

When he said he could increase investment in Infrastructure, And Lower the Deficit all by just "asking the rich to Pay a little more" nobody in the Media did their jobs. Not one Mainstream Media person said wait a Min, that math does not add up, raising taxes on the Rich by a little does not even come close to making a Dent in the Deficit, let alone paying for more Investments in Infrastructure.

Nope if we give him his Tax Increases, and the Deficit is still massive, and Jobs are still not growing fast enough, The Press will find a way to blame the GOP for Obama's Ideas not working.

They always do.

The CBO says it's 1 Trillion. I ask, is that a dent? This isn't instant coco, it is going to take years to recover from the Bush economy.

Obama adding over a trillion dollars a year to the debt sure won't make it any easier will it?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

how's your track record of predictions? Just wondering.

100 percent in 8 and 10. 30 percent in 12.

lol.

You asked. I didn't lie. But you're batting a thousand? Lol.

 

[Truthmatters]

raising taxes on the top tier will help alot

 

[RDD_1210]

Taking money away from people makes them more prosperous.

Right?

I noticed you didn't answer my question. So are the bush tax cuts creating jobs now or not?


And good thing no one is proposing taking money away from people who need help reaching prosperity.

The became the Obama tax cuts two years ago.

Yet another who doesn't answer the question. It's blatant ignorance such as this that got you the election results you saw last week. Keep it up though, it's doing a lot of good for you.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Shoving California into the Pacific could help too.

 

[RDD_1210]

100 percent in 8 and 10. 30 percent in 12.

lol.

You asked. I didn't lie. But you're batting a thousand? Lol.

That fact that you answered is the funny part. With an answer I'm sure you intended to be taken seriously. LOL.

 

[Oddball]

Any tax increase on the wealthy or even everyone must come with spending cuts. This is why it is important to keep the House Republican. The problem is that if the Republicans refuse to deal and continue to oppose all tax increases, then they may lose the House. If the Dems get control of everything, I do not trust them to cut spending. Of course if the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, I wouldn't trust them to cut spending either based on their track record.

Getting people back to work is the biggest issue. If we can get people back to work, revenues will go up and spending on many social safety net programs will go down as many of those people will come off the dole once they start working again. The problem is that we have companies sitting on close to $3 trillion in cash that they refuse to spend on their own expansion. Based on that knowledge, we know that more tax cuts are not going to drive further growth. What I would like to see is to have the corporate tax rate reduced a little bit, to satisfy all of you who think it is too high, even though the effective rate is obviously too low, but close off all the loopholes so these companies must start actually paying taxes. Allow their only out to be through investing into their own future by investing in growth. I have no problem with companies paying zero corporate taxes if most of their earnings are being reinvested back into their own growth, because that is what needs to happen to get the economy growing again.

We can't continue cutting taxes thinking that will increase consumer spending and drive growth. That can work when taxes are too high to begin with, but it only creates larger government deficits when tax rates are already too low. That means that growth in our economy must come from businesses expanding first and hiring more employees. Once they expand and hire more employees, those people will then have the money to spend and the economy starts growing. We really need to start looking at this in reverse versus what we have tried over the last decade.

The tax rate increases and spending cuts are already baked into the sequester.

If you were half as clever as you believe yourself to be, you'd be asking why it is there's all of this kerfuffle going on if the vaunted "balanced approach" is already part of the sequester (I'm sorry, I mean "fiscal cliff"), and everyone is re-fighting the battle today.

None of those spending cuts address long term cost overruns from SS and Medicare, our two biggest long term issues. But keep believing that you are smarter than everyone else here with your stupid one liners.

That wasn't the point and you know it.

The sequester took the "balanced approach" that all you fake moderates claim to be the best way to address just about anything and everything.

Now, just like everything else with lolberals, what you got isn't good enough for you.

Well TFB...This is what you get when you abdicate the responsibility to make the tough decisions yourself and kick the can to the super-duper committee.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Obamination won the election either fair or by cheating, but that doesn't matter since it can't be proven now.

The GOP now needs to let him ruin the country more then point out he made it worse in the 2014 and 2016 elections. The economy is going to get worse with or without the tax hikes, so let him take the fall holding the money bag.

If the GOP fights him these next 2 years, he will just claim the GOP didn't let him fix things and the idiot voters will believe him.

Let him dig his own political grave by giving him a tax hike that will put a bullseye on his forehead that even the media can't hide.

People need to suffer to realize what they did....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

lol.

You asked. I didn't lie. But you're batting a thousand? Lol.

That fact that you answered is the funny part. With an answer I'm sure you intended to be taken seriously. LOL.

Actually, I was trying to be cordial. I picked who would win congress, the senate, prez in 08, congress and senate in 10, and only the house on tuesday. I guess I could have lied and said Im never wrong huh?

 

[shintao]

My guess is nobody will ever ask Obama to explain

When he said he could increase investment in Infrastructure, And Lower the Deficit all by just "asking the rich to Pay a little more" nobody in the Media did their jobs. Not one Mainstream Media person said wait a Min, that math does not add up, raising taxes on the Rich by a little does not even come close to making a Dent in the Deficit, let alone paying for more Investments in Infrastructure.

Nope if we give him his Tax Increases, and the Deficit is still massive, and Jobs are still not growing fast enough, The Press will find a way to blame the GOP for Obama's Ideas not working.

They always do.

The CBO says it's 1 Trillion. I ask, is that a dent? This isn't instant coco, it is going to take years to recover from the Bush economy.

Obama adding over a trillion dollars a year to the debt sure won't make it any easier will it?

Having a welfare military doesn't do any good either, does it? But, that is NOT the question being asked in the OP, which I gave, and apparently the conservatives here don't like reducing the deficit. They want instant coco to happen, and it is not going to happen that way.

 

[Wiseacre]

The CBO says it's 1 Trillion. I ask, is that a dent? This isn't instant coco, it is going to take years to recover from the Bush economy.

Obama adding over a trillion dollars a year to the debt sure won't make it any easier will it?

Having a welfare military doesn't do any good either, does it? But, that is NOT the question being asked in the OP, which I gave, and apparently the conservatives here don't like reducing the deficit. They want instant coco to happen, and it is not going to happen that way.

Really? Which post was that, I can't find it. Welfare military, that's a really stupid thing to say. How many jobs are there associated with the military? How many will be lost if guys like you get the cuts in military spending you want? Why do you think Obama wanted to delay the layoff notices from defense contractors to laidoff employees until AFTER the election? In direct contradiction to his own law I might add. It's because there were enough of them to hurt his chances of re-election, that's why.

About your remark about reducing the deficit, most conservatives DO want less spending; it's the ******* lib/dems who won't reduce the deficits. They scream like stuck pigs over any cuts other than defense. Can't touch the entitlements, oh no. It's the biggest portion of the spending and everyone knows it's out of control and will go bankrupt, but the dems won't even discuss it. And idiots like you want to paint the repubs as the ones who are against reducing deficits. What an ideological moron.

 

[Too Tall]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

Wiseacre the American people aren't stupid. Most want spending cuts and a little more in taxes on the Rich. With a Republican Congress and a Democratic President that is exactly what they will get. It really is the best combination for deficit reduction.

Obama will keep the Republicans from giving away the store on tax reductions counting on mythical dynamic scoring. The Republican house will keep spending down except in defense and again Obama will act as a counterweight. If we are going to reduce the deficit then all will have to participate.

The Americans that want to raise taxes and then watch the promised spending cuts never happen are the only stupid ones. That has always been what the Democrats do.

 

[FA_Q2]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

My guess is nobody will ever ask Obama to explain

When he said he could increase investment in Infrastructure, And Lower the Deficit all by just "asking the rich to Pay a little more" nobody in the Media did their jobs. Not one Mainstream Media person said wait a Min, that math does not add up, raising taxes on the Rich by a little does not even come close to making a Dent in the Deficit, let alone paying for more Investments in Infrastructure.

Nope if we give him his Tax Increases, and the Deficit is still massive, and Jobs are still not growing fast enough, The Press will find a way to blame the GOP for Obama's Ideas not working.

They always do.

The CBO says it's 1 Trillion. I ask, is that a dent? This isn't instant coco, it is going to take years to recover from the Bush economy.

The CBO says its one trillion OVER TEN YEARS. Yes, ten years. No, it really is not even much of a dent if you take the total debt that we are going to obtain over that same ten years. Filter everything down to similar terms:
The Budget | The White House
2.47T in receipts
3.8T in outlays
1.33T deficit
IF the CBO breaks their record of always being incorrect and the Bush (really Obama after it was re-enacted) tax cuts bring in 1 trillion over the next 10 years we are looking at .2T a year. IOW, you're new deficit is STILL:
1.13T

Yea, what a big difference.
Now, we could cut some of that defense spending. Let's go extreme - eliminate the military. Completely and totally. Let's see what we save:
.7T
!!!!!!!!
So, without a military at all, no Bush tax cuts then we are STILL running a deficit of:
430 Billion!

What is REALLY interesting is that if you take the total government receipts of 2.47T and completely eliminate all discretionary spending so that the government essentially does not exist except to establish safety nets you end up with 2.4T in outlays. IOW, you are left with a whopping 70 billion to run the ENTIRE COUNTRY. Essentially, nothing is left. And that, of course, does not take into effect that these programs are growing faster and faster without any actual end in sight.


Basically, if you think that the Bush tax cuts are what is causing the deficits, then you are smoking some serious hackery weed and need a breath of reality. They are not the problem. The entire scope of what we expect the government to do now is the problems and you are NOT going to fix anything without taking on the entire cake.

 

[shintao]

Obamination won the election either fair or by cheating, but that doesn't matter since it can't be proven now.

The GOP now needs to let him ruin the country more then point out he made it worse in the 2014 and 2016 elections. The economy is going to get worse with or without the tax hikes, so let him take the fall holding the money bag.

If the GOP fights him these next 2 years, he will just claim the GOP didn't let him fix things and the idiot voters will believe him.

Let him dig his own political grave by giving him a tax hike that will put a bullseye on his forehead that even the media can't hide.

People need to suffer to realize what they did....

Yes, people who are suffering decided to vote for Obama, so you can continue the obstruction in congress, which people in America also decided that is what they want to continue. That is America for you.