Obama says ending tax breaks required to cut deficit

Originally posted by buster2010

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!

Unless your being paid in potatoes it is his money. All currency is government issue.

Are you for real man?
Unless it's from Barry Obama's own personal bank account it ISN'T his money at all.

Originally posted by DemonicAngelZero
Little Charles is receiving health & welfare and has a low income job. He pays no taxes what so ever,

This lie has been repeated and repeatedly debunked already. Maybe you have a new source? No one pays no taxes.

reply to post by billyjack

reply to post by macman


Sad deflections aside, thanks for responding even though the answer is clearly no, neither of you can explain it. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by inforeal
As for the tax increases of the rich under the second Bush, after that the economy tanked.

Under Bill Clinton, when he raised taxes on the rich, the economy blossomed so much so that he left office with a surplus in the budget that Bush destroyed with his tax cuts for the rich and other bad republican policies.

So many posters in this thread claiming you are wrong and not one of them can even begin to explain the reality you just highlighted that no one with eyes can deny.

reply to post by Kitilani


Ok then, Grand Wizard of Economics and All Knowledge. Enlighten the idiots.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by inforeal
As for the tax increases of the rich under the second Bush, after that the economy tanked.

Under Bill Clinton, when he raised taxes on the rich, the economy blossomed so much so that he left office with a surplus in the budget that Bush destroyed with his tax cuts for the rich and other bad republican policies.

So many posters in this thread claiming you are wrong and not one of them can even begin to explain the reality you just highlighted that no one with eyes can deny.

The surplus was Tax money. Last I checked, it is not the Govt's money, but belonged to the individual. There should have never been a surplus, as the Govt is not supposed to be run that way.
There are many many many reports and stats that suggest that Clinton's 'surplus' was manufactured many different ways, including creative accounting.

Oh yeah, some of the first teachings in Statistics is how to put them together to fit the study.
Stats can be shown that green skinned people in the arctic love the snow, yet hate ice.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Sigh. Do you have a checking account, or do you live off an allowance? We're talking about basic finances here. Remedial classes, even.

If you are in debt, you will not close that debt by ceasing your spending. You might stop the debt from getting any bigger, but that still leaves you in debt. To close the debt you need to bring in more money.

This is why "Austerity measures" have completely failed in every nation they have been imposed on. Ukraine, South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Haiti, Jamaica, South Korea, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and you watch, Greece next.

Some spending does need to be cut, sure. In particular, pure waste like the Defense Budget (I'm sorry to all the armchair warriors, but spending millions on a missile, doomed to blow up, is wasteful) needs to be slashed like mad. But this will not deal with hte budget problems already at hand. for that you need income.

That income is best delivered by repealing the goddamned ludicrous tax cuts that the Bush Administration threw out there. "I'm going to ramp up spending tenfold and then cut taxes by the same amount!" was not a secure financial maneuver.

reply to post by macman


This is like saying that the money in the till of a business belongs to the customers who shop there.

i.e., that's a really stupid thing to say.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Ok then, Grand Wizard of Economics and All Knowledge. Enlighten the idiots.

That is your go to cop-out? I believe I asked you to explain it to me. Why would I do that? Maybe because I am just an ignorant little girl in awe of your vast knowledge and intellect. Here I come grovelling at your feet, merely begging to be enlightened and you blow me off then toss derision at me? High praise from Caesar indeed.

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by Misoir

 

But then we also have the comparison of the Clinton tax increases which spurred economic growth (albeit a false growth) and the Bush tax cuts which did nothing to improve the economy or revenue.

I may be off base, but wasn't it during the Clinton administration that the Glass Steagal act was wrecked? It allowed the banks to go on their dot-com frenzy and crawl into investing and other questionable prcatices. Clinton was able to grow the economy by allowing over-leveraging and jumping into derivatives and Credit Default Swaps. It also seemed like there was a great deal of financial 'restructuring' during the Bush admin. Lehman fell, but we threw over $130B at AIG. Freddie and Fannie are now govt run but we jumped to save BofA and Citicorp. The whole global economy is held together with string and gum, and maybe some duct tape

Burning down the house
How Democrats sparked the Great Recession

Read more: www.nypost.com...


The louder they talked about the disadvantaged, the more money they made. And the more the financial system tottered.

Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon
www.amazon.com...

"Gretchen Morgenson and Josh Rosner show us how, over the last fifteen years, the mortgage lending industry used money and political influence to escape regulation, enrich itself, and create a catastrophe. Particularly in its dissection of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and their enablers, this book is unmatched in its depth and invaluable to anyone interested in the causes and lessons of the financial crisis."—Charles Ferguson,

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act pressured banks to relax lending standards to dispense mortgages more broadly across communities. In 1992, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston purported to identify racial discrimination in the application of traditional lending standards to those, Morgenson and Rosner write, “whose incomes, assets, or abilities to pay fell far below the traditional homeowner spectrum.”

In 1994, Bill Clinton proposed increasing homeownership through a “partnership” between government and the private sector, principally orchestrated by Fannie Mae, a “government-sponsored enterprise” (GSE). It became a perfect specimen of what such “partnerships” (e.g., General Motors) usually involve: Profits are private, losses are socialized.

There was a torrent of compassion-speak: “Special care should be taken to ensure that standards are appropriate to the economic culture of urban, lower-income, and nontraditional consumers.” “Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor.” Government having decided to dictate behavior that markets discouraged, the traditional relationship between borrowers and lenders was revised. Lenders promoted reckless borrowing, knowing they could offload risk to purchasers of bundled loans, and especially to Fannie Mae. In 1994, subprime lending was $40 billion. In 1995, almost one in five mortgages was subprime. Four years later such lending totaled $160 billion.

Under Johnson, an important Democratic operative, Fannie Mae became, Morgenson and Rosner say, “the largest and most powerful financial institution in the world.” Its power derived from the unstated certainty that the government would be ultimately liable for Fannie’s obligations. This assumption and other perquisites were subsidies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worth an estimated $7 billion a year. They retained about a third of this.

Morgenson and Rosner report that in 1998, when Fannie Mae’s lending hit $1 trillion, its top officials began manipulating the company’s results to generate bonuses for themselves. That year Johnson’s $1.9 million bonus brought his compensation to $21 million. In nine years, Johnson received $100 million.

Fannie Mae’s political machine dispensed campaign contributions, gave jobs to friends and relatives of legislators, hired armies of lobbyists (even paying lobbyists not to lobby against it), paid academics who wrote papers validating the homeownership mania, and spread “charitable” contributions to housing advocates across the congressional map.

By 2003, the government was involved in financing almost half — $3.4 trillion — of the home-loan market. Not coincidentally, by summer 2005, almost 40% of new subprime loans were for amounts larger than the value of the properties.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by David9176


First intelligent thing I heard from him thus far! And for all who say other wise.... well just look at history when the tax cuts were ended in the past our economy DID NOT go in the crapper, actually if you know history it's exactly the tax cuts that sent us into the crapper!

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by inforeal
As for the tax increases of the rich under the second Bush, after that the economy tanked.

Under Bill Clinton, when he raised taxes on the rich, the economy blossomed so much so that he left office with a surplus in the budget that Bush destroyed with his tax cuts for the rich and other bad republican policies.

So many posters in this thread claiming you are wrong and not one of them can even begin to explain the reality you just highlighted that no one with eyes can deny.

The surplus was Tax money. Last I checked, it is not the Govt's money, but belonged to the individual. There should have never been a surplus, as the Govt is not supposed to be run that way.

And there was. "Was" being the key word.

There are many many many reports and stats that suggest that Clinton's 'surplus' was manufactured many different ways, including creative accounting.

And many more that point out the destruction imposed by the tax cuts implemented after Clinton. How can anyone over the age of 18 not look outside and see the state of the economy post Bush tax cuts as opposed to pre? What color morning glories are we eating here?

Oh yeah, some of the first teachings in Statistics is how to put them together to fit the study.
Stats can be shown that green skinned people in the arctic love the snow, yet hate ice.

Yes stats can be fun and quite malleable. I do not believe I ever suggested otherwise.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

How about asking "the poor" to pay ANY taxes. Currently almost half of the electorate pays no income taxes at all.

Everyone pays taxes. You have any kind of proof to go with your amazing claim?

My parents didn't make enough money to pay taxes for the last 10 years of their lives as wage-earners, yet they earned taxable income. They weren't even required to file a return. There does exist a lower minimum whereby taxes are not taken from you. If the rich have to pay "their fair share" why don't the poor? Or are we supposed to just suck it up and give our portion, we the middle- and upper-class, to them out of some humanitarian mission? They don't pay into the system, yet they benefit from it. How is that fair to us?

The argument being made here appears to be that everyone must be equal and must pay equally. Are you "tax the rich" champions of freedom advocating an unequal taxation system against one class of people? If not, you need to state your case more clearly. If so, you're complete hypocrites.

/TOA

reply to post by macman


Since Kitilani does not wish do do so, I will.

Charles, like everyone else on welfare, does in fact pay taxes. Like everyone else on welfare, he actually does have a job (or at least tries to, in today's market). Perhaps it's a minimum-wage job, which would explain why he's on welfare at the same time, since minimum wage is totally unlivable these days. Every paycheck, he loses about 30% of his income to taxes. Income taxes, SSI taxes, medicare taxes, etc.

Since this is already a tiny income, and inflation is ever-rising, he's actually losing a larger portion of his income to taxes than you probably do (since of course, all tax-bitchers on ATS are self-employed and make six figures annually).

When it comes time to do his taxes, he probably does miss out on property taxes and the like. odds are, he does in fact get a return (unless he's like me and makes a clerical error that takes months to get fixed... ). However this only returns a portion of his income tax. All the money paid toward other taxes is gone. And that once-a-year return of, on average, $800 is not going to help him much when he's still living paycheck-to-paycheck, each of which gives him only 66% of his earned income.

He's correct. A massive part of the deficit spending each year is on tax breaks for wealthiest Americans.

People are paying the lowest income taxes right now since the 1950's, and not surprisingly, there is a revenue problem.

However, spending on defense and entitlement programs also has to be reduced across the board.

The fastest way to settle the budget deficit is to move tax rates and spending back to whatever those levels were the last time the budget was balanced.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by DemonicAngelZero
Little Charles is receiving health & welfare and has a low income job. He pays no taxes what so ever,

This lie has been repeated and repeatedly debunked already. Maybe you have a new source? No one pays no taxes.

Does little Charles count? He's an actual person I know, unfortunately he's my sisters longtime boyfriend. His names not really Charles, but he was who I was thinking of when I typed that. He gets social security, food stamps, and makes about $10,000 a year (including what he gets from the government). His apartment is even government subsidized housing. As for him paying taxes, all I know is that he was bragging about it when I was complaining about not being able to find my paperwork to file Income Tax. He was laughing and saying he "don't even have to pay taxes".

No, I didn't do extensive homework. Yes, I can easily be wrong. Yes, he could just be an idiot (which, you know... he is) No, I'm certainly not going to argue over it because it's pointless to do so. My post was just an offhand remark after reading some of the comments that made me chuckle and some that made me cringe. I starred you anyways, even though your reply felt a bit excited

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by macman

 

This is like saying that the money in the till of a business belongs to the customers who shop there.

i.e., that's a really stupid thing to say.

The Govt, but design is not a business. I do believe that there are govt run this way. Look across the oceans.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Ok then, Grand Wizard of Economics and All Knowledge. Enlighten the idiots.

That is your go to cop-out? I believe I asked you to explain it to me. Why would I do that? Maybe because I am just an ignorant little girl in awe of your vast knowledge and intellect. Here I come grovelling at your feet, merely begging to be enlightened and you blow me off then toss derision at me? High praise from Caesar indeed.

Cop-out?
No, Please explain.

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

Originally posted by The Old American
The argument being made here appears to be that everyone must be equal and must pay equally. Are you "tax the rich" champions of freedom advocating an unequal taxation system against one class of people? If not, you need to state your case more clearly. If so, you're complete hypocrites.

Of course, a "flat tax" - which if I'm not mistaken is what you seem to support - is a deeply unequal tax. The reason being that prices do not fluctuate according to the personal wealth of the customer. Say you advocate a flat 12% taxation rate or something. 12% of an annual income of $16,000 is a pretty large loss of financial security for that poor schmuck working the drive through window, while 12% of $320,000 annual income doesn't impact that person's financial security much at all. So in effect, the flat tax is a greater burden for those with less to spare.

So we use progressive taxation instead; those who make more money pay a larger percentage. This is actually fair, especially when compared to the flat tax and its problems. More so because, despite the constant whinging from people like you about the ~$600 - $800 monthly stipend granted to people on assistance programs, it is in fact the wealthy and semi-wealthy who make the greatest use of government resources and infrastructures, and it is big businesses that tend to impose the largest costs on their communities.

Basically the wealthier you are, then a) the more wear and tear you put on "the system" and b) the less your functional income is actually impacted by taxation.

if you've got a seven-figure income, taxes aren't going to put you on the street, or make you lose your house, or any of this other stuff. If you only make five figures, well... it might be a possibility

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by macman

 

Since Kitilani does not wish do do so, I will.

Charles, like everyone else on welfare, does in fact pay taxes. Like everyone else on welfare, he actually does have a job (or at least tries to, in today's market). Perhaps it's a minimum-wage job, which would explain why he's on welfare at the same time, since minimum wage is totally unlivable these days. Every paycheck, he loses about 30% of his income to taxes. Income taxes, SSI taxes, medicare taxes, etc.

Since this is already a tiny income, and inflation is ever-rising, he's actually losing a larger portion of his income to taxes than you probably do (since of course, all tax-bitchers on ATS are self-employed and make six figures annually).

When it comes time to do his taxes, he probably does miss out on property taxes and the like. odds are, he does in fact get a return (unless he's like me and makes a clerical error that takes months to get fixed...

). However this only returns a portion of his income tax. All the money paid toward other taxes is gone. And that once-a-year return of, on average, $800 is not going to help him much when he's still living paycheck-to-paycheck, each of which gives him only 66% of his earned income.

edit on 3/7/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

But wait, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid is not a tax. So, those don't count.

But, Charles may have money taken out of the pay. And when he files his return, he will get the entirety back, and then-some.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by The Old American
The argument being made here appears to be that everyone must be equal and must pay equally. Are you "tax the rich" champions of freedom advocating an unequal taxation system against one class of people? If not, you need to state your case more clearly. If so, you're complete hypocrites.

Of course, a "flat tax" - which if I'm not mistaken is what you seem to support - is a deeply unequal tax. The reason being that prices do not fluctuate according to the personal wealth of the customer. Say you advocate a flat 12% taxation rate or something. 12% of an annual income of $16,000 is a pretty large loss of financial security for that poor schmuck working the drive through window, while 12% of $320,000 annual income doesn't impact that person's financial security much at all. So in effect, the flat tax is a greater burden for those with less to spare.

So we use progressive taxation instead; those who make more money pay a larger percentage. This is actually fair, especially when compared to the flat tax and its problems. More so because, despite the constant whinging from people like you about the ~$600 - $800 monthly stipend granted to people on assistance programs, it is in fact the wealthy and semi-wealthy who make the greatest use of government resources and infrastructures, and it is big businesses that tend to impose the largest costs on their communities.

Basically the wealthier you are, then a) the more wear and tear you put on "the system" and b) the less your functional income is actually impacted by taxation.

if you've got a seven-figure income, taxes aren't going to put you on the street, or make you lose your house, or any of this other stuff. If you only make five figures, well... it might be a possibility

Wrong again. The flat tax is based on a consumption tax.