President Obama goes on the offensive, prepares to slam Republicans

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I don't care who's president, if you can fix the economy and protect the country from conquest, then do it. Otherwise I don't want to hear about you




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackBauer
This is how the media had it planned all along. If the republicans don't agree to higher taxes, when the financial collapse comes the media literally has a bomb to drop on the GOP. They'll blame the situation on the fact that republicans didn't raise taxes and like the sheep people are, they'll believe it. A majority of the media in this country is pro-democrat.

The fiscal cliff is actually part of the solution. Everyone in washington talks about spending cuts but have we actually seen any? No. Printing money is not a get out of jail free card, it's just another way to default. Interest rates have to rise. If a bank fails, they have to fail. Right now i think republicans should just agree to a democratic plan and then duck for cover. At least they can say they agreed to a democratic plan and this is where it got you.
edit on 11/12/2012 by JackBauer because: (no reason given)


Exactly. Here's how the situation will play out.

There will be no consensus between the republicans and democrats. Tax cuts for the rich will expire, and tax increases for the middle and lower classes will take effect. This won't hurt the wealthy one bit. They have their tax shelters and off-shore accounts. No matter what legislation is passed or not passed, the rich will pay no more than they do now, but the middle and lower classes will pay more. Republicans and democrats will blame each other, telling their constituents that it's the other side's fault that they have to pay more in taxes and receive less in government services. Just more divide and conquer to keep the middle class at each others throats while they are being robbed to pay for the upcoming war with Iran.

It's a more elegant version of the austerity measures being implemented in Greece and Spain, designed so that the people will focus their anger on each other rather than the government that is taking their money.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm

Originally posted by muse7

REPORT: Obama Prepares To 'Barn-Storm' The Country, Slamming Republicans, If They Don't Cut A Fiscal cliff deal




One scenario the official discussed included the president barn-storming the country, telling the public that Democrats will put forward a bill to restore middle class tax cuts as soon as Congress convenes, and calling on them to pressure Republican congressional leaders to stop holding those tax cuts hostage in exchange for tax cuts for wealthier Americans.



So basically the deal is: Before January 1, Obama tries to get the GOP to freeze middle class taxes, and let upper-class (above $250K) taxes go back to pre-Bush levels. The GOP doesn't want to do this, and wants all the taxes to be held down together. This is a major sticking point. But they all go up on Jan. 1, and then the plan is for Obama to hector the GOP into just cutting middle class ones.


Source

Less than a week into his second term and Obama is already looking more aggressive than he ever was in his first term. Looks like he won't let Republicans have their way this time around, and he's prepared pressure Republicans into raising taxes on the wealthy.

Asking millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more is reasonable. In fact, it's horrible that they're fighting to avoid paying their fair share when the middle class is hurting--and when these same Republicans scream on and on about the horrors of the national debt.

Give those Republicans hell!
edit on 11/11/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)


The "wealthy" already pay more than their fair share.

When will the bottom 50% begin paying theirs?


I'm part of the bottom 50%, they take my 'fair share' out of my paycheck, then ask for more every April.

I don't see any fairness in making someone who is more successful give the government more of their earnings than someone who is less successful. That just further de-incentivizes people to work hard and strive for greatness. Why should I try to become part of the middle class when my tax situation will just get more bleak than it is already?

This taxation argument is just more partisan BS that keeps you from thinking about WHY THEY NEED YOUR MONEY.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I agree that middle class needs to be frozen and the wealthy should be taxed heavily, but not unfairly. And especially corporations, in addition, there should be appropriate monies added to those who think they can export jobs and companies overseas and rape third world economies. There should be no profits or rewards for doing such a thing.
edit on 12-11-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
It blows my mind how people earning less than $50,000/yr are actually complaining about those making a quarter mil or more annually to pay more in taxes. I suppose you'd like to make up the deficit with your own money? please send the IRS more then by all means!

Guy making $3 Billion/yr pays 15%
Working stiff making $50,000 pays 30%
Yeah, that's fair alright.

Charles Koch: " I want my fair share, which is all of it"
- overhead by employee concerning stealing oil from indian lands.
Those are the type of people who are fighting against the Pre-Bush tax rates.
ETA - at least under Clinton we had a balanced budget.
edit on 12-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: corrections



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by prostheticmind

I don't see any fairness in making someone who is more successful give the government more of their earnings than someone who is less successful.


By more do you mean more absolute, or a higher %?

so if you pay, say $5,000 in taxes on say $30,000, then should someone on say $60,000 pay $5,000 also (earning twice as much and pay exactly the same tax), or should they pay $10,000 (earning twice as much = pay twice as much tax)?


That just further de-incentivizes people to work hard and strive for greatness. Why should I try to become part of the middle class when my tax situation will just get more bleak than it is already?


I don't think this is a serious position - your tax position at $100k income is not "more bleak" than at $50k - you are still getting a lot more money in yuor hand each week - not twice as much under a progressive tax regime, but you'd have to be an idiot to refuse to work at a higher salary.

Also of course many of the very rich get income from investments, and these are taxed at a much LOWER rate than income tax - hence the richest end up witha lower % tax burden.

edit on 12-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by prostheticmind

I don't see any fairness in making someone who is more successful give the government more of their earnings than someone who is less successful.


By more do you mean more absolute, or a higher %?

so if you pay, say $5,000 in taxes on say $30,000, then should someone on say $60,000 pay $5,000 also (earning twice as much and pay exactly the same tax), or should they pay $10,000 (earning twice as much = pay twice as much tax)?


That just further de-incentivizes people to work hard and strive for greatness. Why should I try to become part of the middle class when my tax situation will just get more bleak than it is already?


I don't think this is a serious position - your tax position at $100k income is not "more bleak" than at $50k - you are still getting a lot more money in yuor hand each week - not twice as much under a progressive tax regime, but you'd have to be an idiot to refuse to work at a higher salary.

Also of course many of the very rich get income from investments, and these are taxed at a much LOWER rate than income tax - hence the richest end up witha lower % tax burden.

edit on 12-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


I'm speaking about percentages. When rich people are taxed at a higher rate, we can't seriously be surprised when they try to minimize their tax exposure or move their companies overseas.

Clearly if you are making more money, taxes will impact you less. The point is that if it is an issue of fairness, you cannot have different percentages for different incomes. As is, we are taxing success, and trying to tax it more. What happens when the very rich have had enough, and leave? I have a tough time arguing about this because I believe that income tax is ethically wrong, but if a government is going to tax everyone's income, it all needs to be assessed the same way. There is no 'more fair' or 'less fair,' there is only 'fair' or 'unfair.' The situation we have now is simply unfair.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Wow there's more dumb people on ATS than I thought. If you add up all the taxes the federal government tax us like property, sales, etc it's over 50%. When is it enough?? Is 100% enough?

The government only wants to tax us more money so they can turn that money into bailouts for the monopoly men. People who believe in more taxes are brainwashed. How do u expect to boost the economy with more taxes. You can argue Clinton all day, but back then people were making twice and sometimes triple the income so taxes did not hurt them like it would today. Plus, most people were working, and Clintons Community Reinvestment Act which cause the housing bubble brough in a lot of doe until it pop during Bush's years.

Most business are operating in a borderline survival. People profit margin is extremely low and barely can make ends meet. The government needs to work within it's means and stop spending more than they take in. If you allow them to raise taxing they will keep raising it until there is no more.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by amfirst1
 


Since when does the federal government collect property taxes? Or sales tax for that matter?

No one pays anywhere near 50% in taxes in America. I can afford to pay a little more if it helps the country...so can everyone making more than me.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Everybody needs listen up now....

The "Authorities" are speaking


Maxine Waters: Time For Rich To 'Ante Up'



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
I agree that middle class needs to be frozen and the wealthy should be taxed heavily, but not unfairly. And especially corporations, in addition, there should be appropriate monies added to those who think they can export jobs and companies overseas and rape third world economies. There should be no profits or rewards for doing such a thing.
edit on 12-11-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



Rape 3rd world economies? China and Mexico were 3rd world economies before americans invested. Now look at them. China is loaning us money!

You need to stop listening to and drop out of "Communist U".



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


RINO's? really?
if you don't like them, then kick them out of your party.
sorry, not all republicans are as wackadoos as tea partiers



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


they don't
but when the federal government passes down unfunded mandates, as bush was prone to do, state and local governments have to come up with the money somehow.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Obama has always bent over and let the republicans have what they want so why should this time be any different? Its all bluff and bluster, he's a pipsqueak trying to act like a tough guy. He's owned completely by the big moneyed interests and does nothing his masters don't tell him to do. face it, lots of people have lots of dirt on this empty suit and he's about as sharp as Duhbya Bush when it come sdown to it. Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Napalitano, Holder, these are not exactly intellectuals, either. Don't expect more than food stamps and minimum wage from Obama. Only with a guy like Ron paul did we have a chance at saving ourselves. Even Ralph Nader at least would have went after the money brokers, if nothing else.
The GOP is owned as much as the dems so whatever they'll do is already cooked up.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


I wish I could.
Not exactly my choice for within the GOP.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   


Guy making $3 Billion/yr pays 15%
Working stiff making $50,000 pays 30%
Yeah, that's fair alright.



Why does everyone have to exagurate so damn much??? NOONE making 50k/year is paying 15k in taxes (30%) unless you're counting a family health insurance package as "tax"

Also even if it were true:

so Rich example guy pays 450 million in taxes
Working stiff pays 15k in taxes. So 1 rich guy is paying taxes equivalent of 30,000 working stiffs.
#notfairwahh

for the record, I'm one of those "working stiffs". I'm against anyone giving this government another single dime, until they learn how to BUDGET AND STOP MISAPPROPRIATING ANYONE'S MONEY, RICH OR POOR.

If government wasn't so damn wasteful and inefficient, THEN we can talk about giving them more money.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Just a bit of facts for you since its painfully obvious you liberals arn't about facts but about attacks!!!!

You do realize Clinton was successful only because the republicans held both the senate and the house during his administration. I will give you what wiki has on the subject but its a fact, and i am sure you are intelligent enough to do your own research on the subject.

"The administration faced political opposition in 1994 when Republicans took control of both houses of Congress but Clinton was reelected in 1996, after a failed attempt at health care reform. The administration had a mixed record on taxes but produced the first federal budget surpluses since 1969, for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001,[1] leading to a decrease in the public debt. (though the gross federal debt continued to increase)"

en.wikipedia.org...

Imagine that, Republicans doing what the liberals simply wont do....balance a budget and do the right thing for the American citizens. One thing they should have done is take the surplus and pay some debt down but that would be to easy.

Now I fully expect you to bash me and call me names and try and argue I am wrong... All I have to say is, facts don't lie, Politicians do!!!!!!!!
edit on 17-11-2012 by geemony because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-11-2012 by geemony because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Maxine Waters....... LOL Shouldn't she be in jail with the rest of those DC demo-criminals......

got to star you my friend





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum