Obama says ending tax breaks required to cut deficit

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
The wealth of America is controlled by a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. Corporations and the rich are not pulling their weight.




posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas


I will totally agree that we have no business being in Libya. But the size of govt is enormous and we have to feed the behemoth somehow. We're not getting many donations from Europe or the mideast so I guess it'll have to be taxes, eh?


I'm trying hard to follow the logic here. We have to raise taxes because Europe and the mideast don't give us 'donations' any more? What sorts of 'donations' are you referring to? And how does either of that relate to Libya?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
compared to the taxes here, american taxes are nothin

i bet that if americans were still making the same as they are and had to buy canadian prices they would not have alot of money from their pay



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
duplicate post removed


edit on Thu Jul 7 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
edit on 3-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
It boils down to; "We (the government) want more of your money."
They will use every excuse to take more. They will mix lies with the truth, obfuscate, blur reality. But in the end, they will want more. Because they want to grow and spend more.

Now the proponents will parrot what the government tells them. They will espouse more taxes so they can get more "free" stuff. Although, they themselves, will not want to pay more. They don't want to spend their money. Just other peoples money.

The rich, who hire and pay most people are the targets of the proponents and the governmment, because they have more money that can be taken for "free" stuff and useless government programs.
The kicker here is, is that if companies get taxed more, they will defray that additional expediture onto us, by raising the prices of what they provide.

So in the end, a tax on the rich will cost us more, causing many more to rely on government services which will enable the government to justify raising taxes even further.

QED
edit on 3-7-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


Actually the Rich don't employ all that many people, unless you count all the illegals working for them as maids/servants/gardeners.

The problem is that most taxes targeting the rich end up either nuking the upper middle class or the lower upper class(the people who actually employ American's). Like the death tax. Originally meant for the super rich, it has driven many small to medium size family businesses into extinction. While the super rich like Warren Buffet profit enormously off the backs of hard working business owners whose inheritors(that often helped them start or worked at the business their entire life) couldn't afford to pay the obscene taxes.

-----
Is it just me or does trickle down economics seem similar to feudalism?
edit on 3-7-2011 by korathin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by beezzer
It boils down to; "We (the government) want more of your money."
They will use every excuse to take more. They will mix lies with the truth, obfuscate, blur reality. But in the end, they will want more. Because they want to grow and spend more.

Now the proponents will parrot what the government tells them. They will espouse more taxes so they can get more "free" stuff. Although, they themselves, will not want to pay more. They don't want to spend their money. Just other peoples money.

The rich, who hire and pay most people are the targets of the proponents and the governmment, because they have more money that can be taken for "free" stuff and useless government programs.
The kicker here is, is that if companies get taxed more, they will defray that additional expediture onto us, by raising the prices of what they provide.

So in the end, a tax on the rich will cost us more, causing many more to rely on government services which will enable the government to justify raising taxes even further.

QED
edit on 3-7-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


Actually the Rich don't employ all that many people, unless you count all the illegals working for them as maids/servants/gardeners.

The problem is that most taxes targeting the rich end up either nuking the upper middle class or the lower upper class(the people who actually employ American's). Like the death tax. Originally meant for the super rich, it has driven many small to medium size family businesses into extinction. While the super rich like Warren Buffet profit enormously off the backs of hard working business owners whose inheritors(that often helped them start or worked at the business their entire life) couldn't afford to pay the obscene taxes.

-----
Is it just me or does trickle down economics seem similar to feudalism?
edit on 3-7-2011 by korathin because: (no reason given)


Could you source you supposition on the wealthy just hiring illegals?
And any raise in taxes is a tax on success.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
The problem with taxing the rich, banks. and oil companies is that they will never pay the tax.
they will just pass the tax on to the public and it will end up paying as a hidden tax.

And with the oil companies if it comes out to say a 10% new tax they will add 14% just to make more profits and blame the price of gas on the congress



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by David9176
 


"Now, it would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can't afford them,"


Right there, from the OP's quote. We can't afford them? It's NOT THEIR MONEY!!!
Obama seems to think that it is HIS money.
Wrong.

It's my money. It's you and you and you and your money. It's not HIS!
He can't afford to take less?

It is not his money.
He is taking all of our money.
And he is building a case where he needs to take more because he can't afford not to.

Unbelievable!

Also from OP'S quote:


Originally posted by David9176

"Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help - then we'll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else."


Complaining about Obama taking your and everyone elses money only works if he's actually doing it.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 





The problem is that most taxes targeting the rich end up either nuking the upper middle class or the lower upper class(the people who actually employ American's).....


YOU are correct.

The "Tax the rich" manta NEVER is really about taxing THE RICH, it is ALWAYS about raising taxes on US and wiping out the competition - small business. The politicians can not say "We want to raise taxes on the middle class" it is not good PR so the politicians piously claim they are going to raise taxes on the "Rich" HOWEVER the rich are the ones who OWN congress so loop holes for the rich are always embedded into the tax code. ALWAYS! You aren't going to bite the hand who pays you.

An example of the rich "BUYING Congress and the White house"

Andreas commands much respect among Washington politicians for his largesse. As part of the investigations surrounding illegal campaign fundraising linked to the Watergate scandal, Andreas was charged with (but acquitted of) illegally contributing $100,000 to Hubert Humphrey's 1968 presidential campaign. In 1972 Andreas unlawfully contributed $25,000 to President Nixon's re-election campaign via Watergate burglar Bernard Barker. Other recipients of Andreas's "tithing" — as he puts it — have included George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, and Jack Kemp.

According to Mother Jones magazine:


“ During the 1992 election, Andreas gave more than $1.4 million in soft money and $345,000 to individual candidates, using multiple donors in his company and family members (including wife Inez) to circumvent contribution limits.”

en.wikipedia.org...



From Monsanto:

House
Total to Democrats: $108,499
Total to Republicans: $91,500

Senate
Total to Democrats: $38,000
Total to Republicans: $67,750
www.opensecrets.org...


This is the money we KNOW about. There is a darn good reason politicians write books.... buy the books by the case or hire them as a "Speaker" and you can legally transfer a whopping big wad of cash, for Al Gore, $100,000 a pop.

And then there is the other "AFTER POLITICS PAY-OFF" the government-industry revolving door

Here is a really good example of how a SOCIALIST is paid-off by the BANKSTERS!!!!

Tony Blair will earn around £2 million a year in his part-time role as adviser to the Wall Street bank JP Morgan without ever having to go into the office,... The salary - far higher than reported so far - is proof that Mr Blair is well on course to becoming the richest former prime minister in history.

Last night rumours were growing that he is also increasingly keen on landing the job as the first fully fledged president of the European Union - meaning he would be mixing part-time posts advising businesses with one of the most powerful positions in world politics.... www.telegraph.co.uk...


Before Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was Chairman of the Fabian Society.


Britannica.com
Fabian socialism

As the anarcho-communists argued for a form of socialism so decentralized that it required the abolition of the state, a milder and markedly centralist version of socialism, Fabianism, emerged in Britain. Fabian Socialism was so called because the members of the Fabian Society admired the tactics of the Roman general Fabius Cunctator (Fabius the Delayer), who avoided pitched battles and gradually wore down Hannibal’s forces. Instead of revolution, the Fabians favoured “gradualism” as the way to bring about socialism. Their notion of socialism, like Saint-Simon’s, entailed social control of property through an effectively and impartially administered state—a government.


Here in the USA we call the Fabians "Progressives"
And look who they are in bed with... THE BANKSTERS!!! Of course the Banksters like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers were part of it from the beginning.

The Federal Reserve and other banks OWN almost half the US Federal Debt.. This is debt they ran up by swapping made out of thin air fiat money for a Federal IOU. Now they want YOU to pay them money earned through your labor, swapping this counterfeited debt for real wealth. AND the Progressives are right there helping the Banksters run up the debt and making sure the Banksters get a large chunk of YOUR LIFE!

Can you say free range slavery??? A gradual return to Feudalism with the Banksters and corporations as our new lords???



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to by crimvelvet
 

Laughable... Conservatives first gutted American industry with the hostel takeover
Campaign in the 80's, then they set the stage for NAFTA (care to post the votes of that?)
Hint: conservatives voted overwhelmingly for it, then Gramm Leach Blily which set the stage
For the worldwide bank fraud... The defense of wealth, which includes the elite and banksters
Is a conservative crusade, look in the mirror, you guys would fight to protect their wealth, just read
The thread
you are the corporatized best friends, citizens united
tort reform. Liberals
Are accused of being against the Producers and for them, that is double speak, double thought.
It just pisses out your fingers without regard to the logic of even basic sentiment expressed or manifested.
How can I punish people for being successful and advocate the agenda of the successful in regards to finance?
Conservatives approach is let the banks create whatever they want and buy government and the electoral system

reallyAgainst the banks a?

I am against banks,"don't punish them for being successful !"

I am against the banks" protect a COMPANIES first amendment rights"

I am against the banks" they need to be free to create banking regulations,
Stop government interference!( you mean laws???)



Come on, put the piss buckets down and join the people!
edit on 4-7-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
any and all 'tax breaks' need to expire

i'm sure that the tax breaks for the Rich, passed under Bush a decade or more ago... are whats being touted the most...
well here's a stinker thats wrapped up in the Rich guys tax breaks.... the Estate Tax
or how about the tax exemption on selling a primary residence


those are two tax 'breaks' that will affect even the poor because 'they' become temporarily 'Rich'
when suddenly when the beneficiary inherets Million$+ or the sellers low standard of living accomodation
is worth $10,000 a square foot because it sits at the heart of the proposed sports complex to be built

now... our hearts would say that the tax breaks would be just... in their special circumstance....
but that kind of thinking just allows the land & money Moguls to keep their special perks too.


flat tax , for every worker and legal entity-- no exclusions or exceptions



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Cop-out?
No, Please explain.

No praise needed.
But, render unto to Cesar is more like how you want the Govt run.


Nothing personal but that is a pretty funny gaffe. She did not say ''render unto." She said "high praise from."
What does "Praise from Casear is Praise indeed" mean?

It means that caesar is such a high and mighty dude and thinks that he is best so if he gives you a compliment then he must really mean it . So its better than any other compliment .


It was sarcasm. She was calling you arrogant.

I think I see why too. Reading through this I see a lot of "key phrases" that I hear all the time. The basic formula is smug "you people do not understand" coupled with worn out talking points such as "when is the last time a poor person gave you a job."
I have never been given a job by a rich person. That vast majority of my clients are actually on the lower end of the middle class scale. That last person I negotiated with of considerable personal wealth finally decided to export thier US dollars to another country to save a few bucks. Turns out their wealth gave them access. My business comes from struggling Americans and I keep the money in country.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
The problem with taxing the rich, banks. and oil companies is that they will never pay the tax.
they will just pass the tax on to the public and it will end up paying as a hidden tax.

And with the oil companies if it comes out to say a 10% new tax they will add 14% just to make more profits and blame the price of gas on the congress


If we give them all huge tax refunds then imagine how cheap their products would be. Abolish the EPA and any regulations, imagine how cheap things will be. Allow more lead in the toys and imagine how cheap the products would be. Lower minimum wage to 5 cents and hour and imagine how cheap things will get.

Why do some of you preach in favor of the people with their neck on you? "Dont tax them, they will step down harder ahhhhhh!" How defeatest. Just another empty talking point that falls apart under scrutiny.

Henry Ford understood it but I bet he is consdier a commie by the likes of Michale Weiner or Mark Levin because I see their words in this thread more than anything original. It is sad to watch a website like this be flooded with advocates for the rich like Paris Hilton who make their money from their money and not from helping the American workforce in any way.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I welcome total control of billionaires over the population.

The more they make the less we will make and I'm ok with that because they know best.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 





The wealth of America is controlled by a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. Corporations and the rich are not pulling their weight.


They should not have to. It's their right to maximize profits and pay workers as little as possible. This is free markets at its finest.

We should blow up minimum wage laws as well and pay the lazy bums at the bottom what they really deserve. This is just more government regulation which equals a tax if you think about it.

We should let them pay pennies an hour, it's their right.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Youmakemewonder

Originally posted by macman
Cop-out?
No, Please explain.

No praise needed.
But, render unto to Cesar is more like how you want the Govt run.


Nothing personal but that is a pretty funny gaffe. She did not say ''render unto." She said "high praise from."
What does "Praise from Casear is Praise indeed" mean?

It means that caesar is such a high and mighty dude and thinks that he is best so if he gives you a compliment then he must really mean it . So its better than any other compliment .


It was sarcasm. She was calling you arrogant.

I think I see why too. Reading through this I see a lot of "key phrases" that I hear all the time. The basic formula is smug "you people do not understand" coupled with worn out talking points such as "when is the last time a poor person gave you a job."
I have never been given a job by a rich person. That vast majority of my clients are actually on the lower end of the middle class scale. That last person I negotiated with of considerable personal wealth finally decided to export thier US dollars to another country to save a few bucks. Turns out their wealth gave them access. My business comes from struggling Americans and I keep the money in country.


You are late to the prom. It has already been addressed.
But thanks anyways.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 

How much "extra" did you pay in taxes? If raising taxes would solve all our ills, then why not have all the progresive liberals put their money where their mouth is and PAY more to prove that you are right?

Simple really.

I mean, they raised taxes in Illinois, Michigan, California and we all see how the liberal model for taxes and economy is working.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 





It's about damn time!!!! I don't know how this can even be so difficult to stand for when the majority of Americans think the wealthy should pay more in taxes, especially in a time of record corporate profits and exploding wealth disparity. To expect the working middle class, the poor, and unemployed to take all the pain is ridiculous.


You do understand that the top 2% richest in the US, pay the most in taxes annually right? Its the same argument over and over again. Let's make the richest, who are already paying the most pay more? Thats just asinine!


The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.


www.american.com...


In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent.


www.heritage.org...

Shall I break down the math for you?

Obama claims we need to cut the deficit by removing tax cuts? How is that sound? ( Hint : its not ) If he truly wanted to cut the deficit, lets start at cutting the military complex by 40%, how bout cutting all Unconstitutional welfare programs out of the needless expenditure as well?

How bout we cut all foreign aid out of the loop as well. That in itself, is the biggest burden on the Tax payer. Giving away billions annually, to countries that don't even utilize the assistance...except for filling their corrupt pockets?!

I think reading up a bit would do you loads of good.....believe it or not, not everything you hear on the MSM is the truth....but there lies the problem, you listening to them to begin with!





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join