Obama says ending tax breaks required to cut deficit

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman
No, just see the error in stat creation. I don't trust stats. I trust real world.
I know and remember the talk and pictures of gas lines under Carter. I know and remember how well things were during Reagan, Clinton, Bush's and Obama.
The tax rates, prices and interest rates speak for themselves.

That is just fantastic but I do not care about your irrelevant anecdotes. The data in the graph is job growth by decade. I simply ask that the job growth be explained with concurrent tax rates. You claim the graph is faulty so I am more than eager to read your refutation.

It is also nice to dismiss personal observations and situations as pure anecdote. So, I guess beholden to Govt stats, DOL output and everything else from the always truthful "Govt" is the way to go.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by mishigas
Exactly. Corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers do. So when people call for higher taxes on the rich, they are volunteering to pick up the tab.

GE got a $3.2 billion dollar tax refund.
Name the person(s) that refund was issued from the government to.

Anyone gonna take a shot at this?

I have a question for all the people that cry that raising taxes on business just raises the cost to consumers.
What did GE reduce the prices on because of their refund? Any of you get a check from GE? Anyone?

Originally posted by macman
It showed data within this, yes.
But it does not state that because of a tax increase that job creation was the result.

I never said it showed that.
This is why I am pointing out how important it can be to read what you are attempting to argue with.

Originally posted by macman
It is also nice to dismiss personal observations and situations as pure anecdote.

That is actually the definition of that word so...

So, I guess beholden to Govt stats, DOL output and everything else from the always truthful "Govt" is the way to go.

If any of it had anything to do with anything I was asking or saying it might have mattered more.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman
It is also nice to dismiss personal observations and situations as pure anecdote.

That is actually the definition of that word so...

So, I guess beholden to Govt stats, DOL output and everything else from the always truthful "Govt" is the way to go.

If any of it had anything to do with anything I was asking or saying it might have mattered more.

Ok, so you are just going back and twisting my statements,.
In a normal debate, this is done to buy time. Here, I am at a loss.

The graph shows what you want it to show, in regards to your arguing point. Big deal.

I hold more value in what has happened, and what I have seen then be swayed by a graph on the internet.

Do we now have job growth?
Did we have growth during Bush?
What was the job growth during Carter?
What was the growth during Clinton?


I can say that during Carter, millions were unemployed, gas was embargoed and supply was low. Interest rates were what, 18% on a home. Tax rates were high as well.
Bush's were basically the opposite.
Clinton was middle of the road as he was more in love with the idea of being president then doing anything.
Obama? Just look around.

Originally posted by macman
Ok, so you are just going back and twisting my statements,.
In a normal debate, this is done to buy time. Here, I am at a loss.

If anything has been twisted that would be purely unintentional and I would not feel good about continuing until that is rectified. Please explain what you said and what I twisted it into so we can get back on even ground.

I keep reading that when we atheists become a majority, we can then be allowed to take God out of government. Well, I am in a majority. I am not rich. So, my majority opinion says tax the rich good. When the rich people become the majority, they can then untax themselves.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman
Ok, so you are just going back and twisting my statements,.
In a normal debate, this is done to buy time. Here, I am at a loss.

If anything has been twisted that would be purely unintentional and I would not feel good about continuing until that is rectified. Please explain what you said and what I twisted it into so we can get back on even ground.

I know what you are doing, and I am not biting.

We can continue this debate if you would like.

Originally posted by macman
The graph shows what you want it to show, in regards to your arguing point. Big deal.

I hold more value in what has happened, and what I have seen then be swayed by a graph on the internet.

For anyone that can read, my graph simply shows job growth by decade in empirical terms. I asked a very simple question 4 pages back.

Originally posted by Kitilani

When you finish laughing can you please explain the following given the relative tax rates at the times given?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e3e6b780ba8.jpg[/atsimg]
If you cannot answer it or read it or understand what the graph shows, probably just not responding is better than 4 pages of nonsense.

Originally posted by macman
I know what you are doing, and I am not biting.

We can continue this debate if you would like.

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

I am asking you to show me what you accused me of doing.
How else do I rectify it? If I am twisting your words then you must want me to get your real meaning so please tell me what you wrote and what I twisted it into.

Asking you to show me what you claim I did is not a trick question.

Originally posted by macman
Comparing the two is a way to fog the issue. My family can't print money, can't require my neighbor to subsidize me nor institute policy.

Printing money does not actually generate wealth. It just devalues the currency already in circulation. This is called "inflation."

Cutting spending by the Fed Govt is the best way out of this, not requiring more money to come in.

Again, cutting spending alone will not fill the hole. I think you're being intentionally obtuse on this now. I'm sorry that your politically fundamentalist fairyland is being shaken, buddy, but you need income to pay off a debt. Halting the accrual of debt still leaves you with the debt you have.

Some spending does need to be cut - like I said, the pure waste needs to go away. We just can't afford seven trillion in pointless wars, no matter how much we increase taxation, it's completely untenable; if we do not halt them and the runaway "defense" spending associated with them, then we can institute 100% taxes and still have a growing debt.

To increase taxes suggests that the spending must continue.

Yes, spending must continue; the role of government is to provide services for the governed. This, of course, costs money. A total spending freeze won't help the deficit and will just hurt Americans (not that you care, I imagine, since, hey, politically fundamentalist fairy land)

Originally posted by macman
The Govt should be run at a zero sum gain. No red, no black.

And Jimi Hendrix should still be making music, I think. I'm sorry, but you're asking for a logistic impossibility here. Even if doing so made sense. See, we need surplus. Call it an "emergency fund" if you prefer. See, nothing's worse than having your Wyoming Supervolcano finally go of, only to find that every cent in the treasury has already been spent. Yeah, emergency response costs money, too (quite a bit, in fact)

And no, once the money is taken from my paycheck, it is not the Govt's as the Govt did not earn it, nor produce anything from it. To run in the Black means they took too much and should be returned.

Your idealism, while amusing, does not actually mirror fact - again, this is because you live in a fairyland, I think. You pay your taxes., That money now belongs to the government. You can say "nuh uh!" and conjure up any cockamamie argument you want, all day long, doesn't change the fact that yuh-hu, that's the government's buck now.

Ideally, it is returned to you in the form of government services.Unfortunately some voters, who may or may not live in your mirror, have been deciding that they'd rather their tax dollars be spent on expendable military assets instead.

reply to post by David9176


I agree...the burden should be on the rich...they can afford it!

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman
I know what you are doing, and I am not biting.

We can continue this debate if you would like.

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

I am asking you to show me what you accused me of doing.
How else do I rectify it? If I am twisting your words then you must want me to get your real meaning so please tell me what you wrote and what I twisted it into.

Asking you to show me what you claim I did is not a trick question.

Moving on.




The graph does show a decline in GDP and household worth. It does show a decline. No problem.
The tax rates have fluctuated over the course of that graph you provided.
What is should also show in the Job rate, the amount of those on Fed Assistance and the general population of the US.

reply to post by Kitilani

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Kitilani


Originally posted by mishigas
Exactly. Corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers do. So when people call for higher taxes on the rich, they are volunteering to pick up the tab.

GE got a $3.2 billion dollar tax refund.
Name the person(s) that refund was issued from the government to.



That's just an example of how screwed up the tax code is.

You mean an example of how most of your posts are pretty much complete BS?
Either you can name the man or what you originally posted is flat out wrong. It is pretty black and white.

You're so interested, go do the research yourself. I'm not your daddy. This is the second time you've posted questions in this thread as if you had some secret knowledge when you just didn't know.

And you're very contentious and rude with your exchanges.

Google is your friend. Learn how to use it.

reply to post by macman


I appreciate that, but I seldom see people willing to concede a point, never mind I shouldn't get into it.

I have to wonder, Kit and mac, did you read the info I posted?

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

Actually I support a national sales tax, the so-called "Fair Tax". If you don't buy goods, you don't pay tax. If you do, you do. The wealthiest will still be taxed more than the poor (buying brand name versus buying generic), but everyone has some control over their portion. Don't feel like paying taxes this week? Don't buy that TV. Do you feel you really need to buy a shirt today? Pick the $10 shirt instead of the $15 one.

There are many pros, but it isn't perfect, and some cons need to be ironed out (if a final product takes 10 separate items to make it, are they taxed, thus adding significantly to the final cost?). But in its fairness to all, it's unequaled. Under the poverty level you even get a rebate, so not only does a national sales tax levy taxes on everyone fairly at the same percentage, it still fulfills the basic need of the Progressives to tax the haves more than the have-nots in real dollars.

Nobody goes out of a job, as the IRS will still be there (in a limited role) to govern it. Tax accountants will still have jobs to keep the books of businesses. But loopholes will be virtually non-existent: buy an item, pay the tax. Simple as that. There may be certain breaks for businesses that produce goods considered "for the common good", such as farm equipment, or oil drills, or some such (those are examples, not necessarily anything I agree with).

But for the most part loopholes will be at a minimum, corporations will pay their taxes, rich people will pay more than poor people if they so choose, and everyone will have 40 acres and a mule.

/TOA

reply to post by macman


What is humorous about this entire dialog is that Obama, regardless of what he does with respect to taxes is going to make the very rich much richer and that wealth will essentially be exempt from government confiscation.

Why? Because rich folks have cash. Ultimately based on the cash printing that Obama has engaged in interests rates will have to spike enormously to suck that excess supply of cash out of the market, a guaranteed result of Keynesian economics. The rich will take their cash and place it in government bonds, which the government will never allow to default and take their 10+ percent interest income sitting at the country club. Folks will take their cash and dump it into state tax free munis, which the government will have to back-stop at some level and net a nice 15% tax free interest on their California bond.

If folks don't think the rich got richer during the Carter years, they are kidding themselves. Well over 50% of home puchases today are 100% cash deals, particularily at the high end. Who is dumping $750K into a home? I'm guessing that the gent who is dumping 3/4 of a million in cash into a house is sitting on a multi-million stock portfolio. As interests rise, corporate earnings begin to deteriorate they will tax manage their assets from stocks to bonds.

Folks complain about the rich getting richer, yet at least during a period where there are open economic policies, the rich take risks with their money. When there are incompetent, socialist economic policies, the rich, still make a ton of dough, yet have to take no risk to do so. Are you going to take $5M and play the market where the historical returns are 5% or dump that $5M in 10% bond and call it good. By the way, who is the largest underwriter of bonds in the country? Goldman Sachs. They are quite happy when bonds are the best investments out there.

Hammer the rich all you want, they play the game. When markets liberalize they make a ton of cash. They work hard to manipulate the markets and they make a ton of cash. When the dial turns and you get an Obama/Carter they still make a ton of cash, they just don't have to work for it.

Which party does Wall Street support? The Democrat party. Why? Because why not support a party that is ultimately going to enable you to get richer without working for it.

Ironic. Comical and ironic.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You confuse, blur and complicate the matter to make it play how you want it to end.

Cut the budget and spending. If the Govt run at say $100, and it takes in $100 dollars, yet pays out $150, then there is a spending problem.
By increasing my income, it does not take away from your pocket.
When the Govt does, it is taken from both paychecks.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I was wrong earlier. Flat tax is on income.
Fair tax is on consumption. That was my mistake.

reply to post by Kitilani

I have a question for all the people that cry that raising taxes on business just raises the cost to consumers.
What did GE reduce the prices on because of their refund? Any of you get a check from GE? Anyone?

I don't remember anyone making such a claim. Just because a raise in tax = a raise in price does not mean a drop in tax = a drop in price. That would be stagnation, not growth.

You're very confused.