Didn't know Obama lowered your taxes? Thought he raised them? You're not alone.

LOL, yeah Obama is wonderful! He's not even legal to be our President and he's a banker puppet that licks the boots of the owners of the private bank Federal Reserve. But he's lowered most of our taxes - yeah right!

First as the first poster pointed out, the Bush tax cuts are going to expire because Obama thinks that he knows how to spend your money bettter than you do. Secondly, his unconstitutional ObamaCare nightmare has already raised my Blue Cross health insurance by 25% I'm sure everybody else has already seen their health care go up and yet the liar in chief said it would save us money!

And since Obama has destroyed the US dollar dramatically since he's been in office, everybody has had their net worth destroyed. Look at the price of Gold! Gold isn't going up, the value of the US dollar is going down the toilet!

Oh and don't forget Obama promised to end the wars and instead he just lied and said Iraq was over when in fact he just changed the names of the forces there and put more into the foolish Afghanistan war.

And finally, Obama let BP get away with literal MURDER in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is STILL spraying deadly Corexit in the Gulf and our lamestream media hasn't reported it once! BP caused well over a TRILLION $ of damage to the environment and people of the Gulf and have paid out a paltry $450 million. lol

Obama is a total new world order piece of garbage and is dead set on destroying ALL the middle class in this country and eventually taking even your guns away. Obama is a puppet or front man for the satanic new world order. If you don't get that yet, then you are a fool or else working for the new world order.

reply to post by GlennCanady


There are more than a handful of errors in your post. I am not going to bother to list all of them, but I would recommend you take a look at historical prices of the US Dollar Index and the adjusted for inflation price of gold.

It is more than obvious you are cutting and pasting remarks from the latest "spin" website. While you may fool the few that are ill-informed on this message board there are still many that can see through this.

By the way, I didn't vote for him, nor would I have voted Republican.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Well to avoid the rhetoric I ask again, How do you expect to pay for everything the government has done ie., healthcare and this ten year war?

There's only one answer, and that answer is taxes. The common sense thing we've forgotten or just refuse to admit, is that taxes are necessary.

The common sense thing is to cut government spending on things that the people don't want, never asked for and vehemently oppose. I'm guessing your answer to this is that there are different kinds of common sense?

~Namaste

reply to post by Dance4Life


Well I certainly blame Bush for not making them perm, but I do in fact blame Obama for raising them. I'm blaming him because he has the choice. It is totally within his power to extend them or allow them to expire. Should he take no action, the increase is on him, not Bush.

Does it matter what the income tax rate is when the hidden tax of quantitative easing has wiped out most of the wealth? He could lower the tax to 0% but as long as he continues to go along with the Federal Reserve to print and devalue the currency it won't matter. Your $1000 in 2008 is worth about $811 in 2010. That is a hidden tax on every single person regardless of age, not just taxpayers, and does not include the indebtedness that has been added totaling over 3,000,000,000,000.00 (that we know of).

These types of tax arguments are silly. There is a reason that both parents in a family must now work just to live paycheck to paycheck and why many are pushing their children to work to support the family as well. There is a reason that there are more people on unemployment, more people that have dropped off the work force rolls, and more people on food stamps than ever before in history.

Obama cut my taxes - pft. There is an ignorance gap and its among people like you. Get your head out of the textbooks and recognize the economic slavery that is all around you.

Excellent post. Star for you, and quoted so that people can re-read what you wrote. It is, in my opinion, one of the most on point posts in this thread and probably worthy of its own thread.

Well done!

~Namaste

reply to post by dolphinfan


They were meant to expire. I just don't understand your logic, that is all. I can't say I agree or disagree because there are pro's and con's to each side.

In reality we should cut spending in all areas, but that isn't going to happen and never will happen most likely. There could be countless things we should do, but won't because of one thing or another. Unless you are getting taxed at 55% like the ultra high net worth population in this country I personally don't see a reason to bitch.

Originally posted by Dance4Life
reply to post by GlennCanady

 

There are more than a handful of errors in your post. I am not going to bother to list all of them, but I would recommend you take a look at historical prices of the US Dollar Index and the adjusted for inflation price of gold.

The fact is that $100,000 in gold in 2002 would be worth about $450,000 in 2010. If gold is the refuge for declining currencies then reverse that - if you made $100,000 in 2002 and 2010 - the actual value of your income in 2010 would be $22,000. If you made less than $100,000 then you've likely experienced unemployment. The dollar index is a measure of the performance of the US dollar against a basket of other currencies. Its nigh impossible for it to tank due to the other countries being pegged to the dollar. The dollar gains when Canada, Europe, and Japan tank and tanks when those countries rebound. What we're seeing is a steady diagonal decline of all economies across the world but staying nearly equal with one another such that the ratios stay roughly the same.

A steady ratio doesn't mean anything unless you understand the factors behind it (employment, GDP, average income, etc) which have all been in decline.

reply to post by ararisq


Nothing of what you are saying is making sense.

Currency is valued against other currencies. The price of coke didn't go up six percent because the dollar index is down 6% over the past few months.

Let me ask you, what is the difference between today and 3 months ago when the dollar was 6% stronger?

The answer is nothing unless you take the weekends off to fly to Europe in your lear jet. Your gas is also about 8 cents per gallon more expensive. Otherwise, the only difference is the major markets in the USA are up close to 15% and the gains in your 401k more than handily make up for any dollar deterioration.

You cannot win this argument / debate.

By the way, I don't dispute that most people have paid less in tax. Afterall, I will be paying nearly HALF (50%) of what I paid previously. I don't exactly think Obama would want to take credit for that though since it was just due to being unemployed for 6 months and making less money than I did when I did find a job. That story has been repeat millions upon millions of times in the past 2 years thanks to the economic disaster that this president and congress have been. He might be a puppet but he doesn't have to be - he chooses to be.

Originally posted by Dance4Life
Let me ask you, what is the difference between today and 3 months ago when the dollar was 6% stronger?
You cannot win this argument / debate.

If you change the price of an upstream material it takes a significant amount of time for the price increase to work its way through the system. The same is true of the economic policies followed by this government / Federal Reserve. The inflation of the money supply does not have an immediate consequence - it works its way through the system but the consequence is only delayed. The buying power of most Americans has already been reduced despite what you believe. The buying power will further erode (significantly) in the months to come. Why does the US government pay interest on the money that it loans from the Federal Reserve? Where does the interest come from to pay the interest owed?

reply to post by ararisq


I like how you are changing where this conversation is going. Unfortunately, I do not have time to sit and debate how evil Ben Bernanke and his circus is. Otherwise, I am sure you could go to the Federal Reserve website or wikipedia to see how much money the Fed has given back to the US Treasury y/y.

Anyway, back to my only point, which is off topic from the OP, is that you are wealthier right now than you were 3 months ago if you have investment savings which the majority does in this country. If you are not in that category you are just in the same position as you always have been. Which unfortunately is not that great.

Have a good afternoon

Originally posted by Dance4Life
reply to post by ararisq

 

I like how you are changing where this conversation is going. Unfortunately, I do not have time to sit and debate how evil Ben Bernanke and his circus is. Otherwise, I am sure you could go to the Federal Reserve website or wikipedia to see how much money the Fed has given back to the US Treasury y/y.

Anyway, back to my only point, which is off topic from the OP, is that you are wealthier right now than you were 3 months ago if you have investment savings which the majority does in this country. If you are not in that category you are just in the same position as you always have been. Which unfortunately is not that great.

Have a good afternoon

Seriously? You want to judge Obama on the last 3 months of performance in the stock market? If that is your only qualification then close your eyes and squint so you don't see the sledge hammer coming at you when the consequences of the devaluation work their way through the system. Actually, you probably will never notice since you've failed to noticed that the money in your pockets have been steadily shrinking in value already.

something to note. lowering withholding rates is not lowering taxes. the way the tax system is set up, for an individual with a W-2 and no other income and a standard deduction, if the person selects single, 0 for withholding they will, most likely, be overpaid on their federal income tax return. by reducing the amount withheld, they get a slightly larger paycheck each week but, when they file their taxes, they also get a reduced refund. the taxes remain the same but they had a few dollars more in the paycheck.

Second, and this is something that needs to be considered. If nothing is done to the tax code as it stands, Bush's tax cuts expire. Obama is not, technically, raising taxes. Understanding this is key because, when the cuts expire and the taxes go up, Obama's stance is going to be "I didn't raise taxes, these are hikes resulting from the prior, Republican, administration's tax tinkering."

Obama can do two things. Overhaul the tax system and raise taxes all over the place or do nothing, let the cuts expire and pin the blame on the republicans. A president as unpopular as Obama, midway through his first term, is going to do whatever he can to avoid being disliked more and, therefore, he won't raise taxes, he also won't freeze the cuts. This way he can say it wasn't him, blame someone else.

Lastly, and this is a factor that many american taxpayers should, by now, be well aware of. Bush's tax cuts were, on paper, a great move. The problem was, he cut the tax rates but he didn't adjust the alternative minimum tax accordingly. What this did was cause an increase in the number of taxpayers being tagged with this "alternative" tax. Prior to his cuts, about 4% of the population was paying the alternative minimum tax. From what I've read, around 40% of filers will be paying it this year. For those unfamiliar with this nasty little bugger, it is, basically, a means of taxing you at a higher rate based on a very convoluted calculation that takes your deductions and reduced tax rate items into effect. So, while my tax rate might be 30%, I might still wind up paying 33%. For anyone living in NYC, earning $150k a year (salaried), the withholding tax alone triggers the alt min tax.
Now, with a reversal on the cuts, the alternative minimum tax should, in theory, become less of an issue and, while the rate might go up, the lack of the alt min tax will mean itemized deductions will, once again, matter and, therefore, our rates might drop down to an appropriate level.

Regardless of what Obama does, or does not do, we're going to see major changes so expect him to do as little as possible in an effort to retain some glimmer of hope that he'll get reelected.

reply to post by Dance4Life
Tourism is not the only tie between the US and other countries.

It is a world economy, and when we rely on so many imported items, the dollars value abroad means a lot more than you are stating.

IMO

reply to post by Dance4Life


Actually, this debate is quite winnable from the opposition to your views. Inflation is a picture of purchasing power related to the dollar in its current form. It is not only gas that has suffered as the result of "quantitative easing". All commodities skyrocket in the face of inflation. This includes metals for building, grains and all food, oil (which is used to create anything from plastics to asphalt to gas). You may not see the impact within the supermarket immediately. However, you will see the impact eventually. First, you will see the impact hit manufacturers. Once the manufacturing sector starts to acquire the increase in the price of commodities (after they run out of their stock and forced to buy at the higher prices) you will see price increases in all sectors across the board. People won't be able to purchase as much, while at the same time manufacturers will have increased costs. This will hamper recovery of these businesses. It will cause further unemployment. This is the worst possible thing we could do at this point in time. With your argument and flawed perspective we should push inflation to the moon and continue to pump not billions, but even trillions into the market so it could just skyrocket and our 401Ks could see the heavens. Such flawed logic. Zimbabwe anyone? Look how their markets rose with their inflation.

Also, your premise is wrong when you correlate the purpose of inflation with increasing the market. This is simply a byproduct of inflation. The real purpose of Ben and his cronies in throwing money into the market is to firstly and foremost monetize the debt. In other words he is making the debt worth less by making the dollar worthless. I hate to say it, but the second purpose is to make the markets look good for the election .

Basically, Benny is sending the message to us that it's game over. This is the last resort. If it doesn't work it's the end. Tens of billions of dollars being pumped artificially into the market by the federal reserve of money that we don't have is not a good thing no matter how you look at it. It is the end game. It is a tax of insane proportions.

I think that the old slogan "No Taxation, without Representation" might fit here. There are some that will argue over this because technically by a legal standpoint we are represented in congress and the house however the ideal behind it is what actually fits. In reality we are NOT represented because of the motivations, and blackmailing that goes on in the political world. Everyone always gets it wrong. It's not entirely that the taxes are too high or too low or whatever the case is. The real issue is that there is frivolous spending in areas that we one know nothing about and two have no say in. The government should be charging taxes enough to cover the basic upkeep of the country and to defend it and that's it. We pay through the nose on a medley of organizations that while they may provide employment are virtually useless or redundant at best. Don't even get me started on the mockery of economics that a national deficit is. We have provided aid unfunded to other countries countless times but that goes unnoticed and we eat the cost but that is for another thread.

All the Americans want is the same thing we've wanted for a couple hundred years. Tax us with just enough to get by and let us handle the rest. If something is worth investing in trust me it will get funding otherwise stop trying to shove meaningless motive down our throats and stay out of our wallets.

You present this as if the Tea Party candidates are not suggesting lowering taxes even more than that - in addition to massive spending cuts, which would put us on the road to recovery.

Your Obama defense is foolishness.

reply to post by ararisq


I never said that. Where are you drawing those conclusions?

If you want to judge him by the stock markets performance go back to January 2009. Nasdaq up about 100%. Not that he had anything to do with that.

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by Dance4Life

 

Actually, this debate is quite winnable from the opposition to your views. Inflation is a picture of purchasing power related to the dollar in its current form. It is not only gas that has suffered as the result of "quantitative easing". All commodities skyrocket in the face of inflation. This includes metals for building, grains and all food, oil (which is used to create anything from plastics to asphalt to gas). You may not see the impact within the supermarket immediately. However, you will see the impact eventually. First, you will see the impact hit manufacturers. Once the manufacturing sector starts to acquire the increase in the price of commodities (after they run out of their stock and forced to buy at the higher prices) you will see price increases in all sectors across the board. People won't be able to purchase as much, while at the same time manufacturers will have increased costs. This will hamper recovery of these businesses. It will cause further unemployment. This is the worst possible thing we could do at this point in time. With your argument and flawed perspective we should push inflation to the moon and continue to pump not billions, but even trillions into the market so it could just skyrocket and our 401Ks could see the heavens. Such flawed logic. Zimbabwe anyone? Look how their markets rose with their inflation.

Also, your premise is wrong when you correlate the purpose of inflation with increasing the market. This is simply a byproduct of inflation. The real purpose of Ben and his cronies in throwing money into the market is to firstly and foremost monetize the debt. In other words he is making the debt worth less by making the dollar worthless. I hate to say it, but the second purpose is to make the markets look good for the election .

Basically, Benny is sending the message to us that it's game over. This is the last resort. If it doesn't work it's the end. Tens of billions of dollars being pumped artificially into the market by the federal reserve of money that we don't have is not a good thing no matter how you look at it. It is the end game. It is a tax of insane proportions.

edit on 20-10-2010 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)

Yeah, it's the end. Game over. How many times have I heard this since the market bottom? How often do people enjoy being wrong?

I also love the Zimbabwe reference. They were such a global superpower at the time, I can't believe it fell apart. These are all talking points of poor investing class and Econ 101 lecture at the local community college. Unfortunately, none of these things are going to happen with our reserve currency status.

I am sure the next one I am going to hear is the $ is going to lose status. Yeah, I've been hearing this since the early 90's. Anyway..