- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Have they hurt our economy or are you just parroting Obama?
Why should they? They have hurt our economy and the great majority of Americans don't support them.
Have you forgotten, or were you ever aware, that the Bush tax cuts were temporary.
Why should they? They have hurt our economy and the great majority of Americans don't support them.
Why should they? They have hurt our economy and the great majority of Americans don't support them.
So are you admitting that the majority of the American People aren't currently living in reality?
On CBS, Cheesecake Factory CEO Warns ObamaCare Will Be 'Very Costly' | NewsBusters.org
Do you understand how Economics works? If you raise taxes on the evil rich and small businesses, do you REALLY believe they are just going to eat those additional costs?
I am aware no such thing happened neither during the 90's before the Bush tax cuts, nor when they were much higher for the wealthy from the 1940's to the 1980's. Apparently, the majority of American public is more resistant to BS than are some.
I am aware no such thing happened neither during the 90's before the Bush tax cuts, nor when they were much higher for the wealthy from the 1940's to the 1980's. Apparently, the majority of American public is more resistant to BS than are some.
I wonder if all those middle class people think their tax rates for the last ten years were temporary and are ready to give them up? I bet on both the answer is no.
I repeat, the Democrat have already acted to continue the tax cuts for the middle class. The Republicans have not.
Have they hurt our economy or are you just parroting Obama?
You don't think the National Debt affects the economy?
Don't you want economic growth? Don't you want a repeat of the boom times we had with trickle-down economics under Reagan?
I repeat, the Democrat have already acted to continue the tax cuts for the middle class. The Republicans have not.
The Romney-Ryan plan carries absolutely no weight now but if crying makes you feel better, knock yourself out!
"Boehner argued that it doesn’t matter whether new revenue comes from the wealthy or the middle class.
Listen, what is this difference where the money comes from? We put $800 billion worth of revenue, which is what he is asking for, out of eliminating the top two tax rates. But, here’s the problem, Chris, when you go and increase tax rates, you make it more difficult for our economy to grow, after that income, the small business income, it is going to get taxed at a higher rate and as a result we’re gonna see slower economic growth, we can’t cut our way out of this problem, nor can we grow our way out of the problem, we have to have a balanced approach and what the president wants to do will slow or economy at a time when he says he wants the economy to grow and create jobs.
Boehner is wrong on two points. First, there is no reason to believe that restoring Clinton-era tax rates on incomes over $250,000 will prevent the economy from growing; on the contrary, rate increases on the wealthy in 1992 and 1994 were followed by a tremendous economic boom. Second, it clearly matters where the revenue comes from; as Boehner and the Republicans’ own rhetoric acknowledges, the middle class needs fiscal relief — not an increased burden.
The full interview between Boehner and Wallace can be seen here; the exchange on tax rates begins at the 5:33 mark.
Perhaps Boehner doesn’t care where new revenue comes from because he hasn’t yet figured it out. When Wallace pressed Boehner to name specific loopholes and deductions that he’d be willing to eliminate in order to make up the revenue lost by extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Boehner declined — as Romney and Paul Ryan did repeatedly during the campaign – telling Wallace, “I’m not going to debate this or negotiate this with you.”
The National Memo » Boehner: No Difference Between Raising Revenue From Middle Class Or Wealthy
You really need to study up if you want to attempt to debate me on this
Nobody paid those rates back then. There were so many loopholes and deductions, nobody paid them. You're just bleeting some useless talking point you read on Daily Kos.
When Reagan lowered the marginal rates from 70% to 28% he eliminated many of those loopholes and deductions. The result was MASSIVE Economic Growth as high as 9.3% GDP in one quarter with a million jobs created in one month.
So let's get deeper into this. If we raise taxes on small business and the evil rich, what do you predict GDP Growth will be
Have you forgotten, or were you ever aware, that the Bush tax cuts were temporary.
REpublicans were unwaivering in their opposition to health care reform and they are currently enthralled to Grover Norquist - the guy who calls all the shots for the Republicans. They like playing hardball - and I think they've finally gotten the President to play the game too. The President doesn't have to run for re-election and he doesn't have a master like Norquist to whom he must answer. It should be a very interesting game. My money is on Obama.
Obama and the Democrats have enacted the largest tax increase on the poor and middle class in History
Try again
Ryan is a member of Congress. Last I heard, the Constitution still required the Congress to pass laws. Sucks that the left hasn't figured out how to do it by Executive Order, but that is their lot in life. The Speaker has offered revenues. Where are Obama's new cuts? As someone else pointed out, the Fiscal Cliff is the bi-partisan plan. Obama agreed to it. If he is not willing to play the game, so be it. He is the one who signed the Cliff into existence. The House has a 7% approval rating--they do not have a "mandate" to fix the problem. As the left tries to point out, Obama does. It does not mean he gets what he wants, it just means he has more to lose politically than the GOP. It isn't like our "What are you going to do for me now" electorate will give a tinker's darn about this in 2 years let alone 4.
Ryan is a member of Congress. Last I heard, the Constitution still required the Congress to pass laws. Sucks that the left hasn't figured out how to do it by Executive Order, but that is their lot in life. The Speaker has offered revenues. Where are Obama's new cuts? As someone else pointed out, the Fiscal Cliff is the bi-partisan plan. Obama agreed to it. If he is not willing to play the game, so be it. He is the one who signed the Cliff into existence. The House has a 7% approval rating--they do not have a "mandate" to fix the problem. As the left tries to point out, Obama does. It does not mean he gets what he wants, it just means he has more to lose politically than the GOP. It isn't like our "What are you going to do for me now" electorate will give a tinker's darn about this in 2 years let alone 4.
True. According to law they expire in 29 days in bipartisan fashion. Isn't compromise wonderful!
Your opinion does not interest me.
"For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.
For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.
For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.
Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004."
PolitiFact | Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers
And, 98% of small businesses will not be affected if the tax rate goes up for those making more than $250,000.
Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not. The Obama administration's budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues.
Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."
Dodge noted
Look at you running to the left wing Politifact to bail you out. Unfortunately it doesn't refute the points I've made.
The Federal Government didn't have a blank check back then where it was spending 3.8T a year like it is now. Finally, and it's the most important fact you keep ignoring, NOBODY paid those rates because of all the loopholes and deductions. So again, instead of you googling Politifact with some hack piece defending Obama, tell me what you believe GDP Growth will be when we raise taxes on small businesses and the evil rich? Again, you're just tossing out garbage in a vacuum without any context.
Federal Spending as a % of GDP after WW2 went down as much as 40%. In contrast it's going up 35% a year since 2010.
Let's look at CA, which is the blueprint for your utopia. 1/3 of all welfare recipients in the nation live in CA, despite the fact they only make up 1/8th of the Population. The effective STATE INCOME TAX RATE IN CA is 10.3% and it's set to increase to 13.3% within 7 years. Another fact you are not adding within your equation is that when the rates were higher, state taxes were nowhere near where they are now. The bottom 50% pay zero income taxes, yet benefit from Government subsidies and hand outs.
We need Economic growth. It's not rocket science. Unfortunately we have to deal with class warfare rhetoric Collectivists who want to divide and demonize.
W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com
Notice the increase in revenue after the evil Bush Tax cuts. We have a spending problem. Not a revenue problem. Have a nice day.
:2wave:
OK, so they've finally gotten off the pot. The White House liked their suggestion just about as much as they liked his. Now what? I think the White House is perfectly willing to let the Republicans take us over the financial 'cliff' because they don't want their millionaire buddies taxed at a higher rate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?