or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama Caves In
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama Caves In

post #1 of 295
Thread Starter 
Why can't Obama have the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans once and for all.Not cave in all the time. Either he is for the middle class and poor people or for the rich and big corporations.Which is it Obama truthfully.?This decision on the tax cuts is going to be the downfall for Obama for 2012.
post #2 of 295
Obama is clearly for paying off Democratic constituets. This is why debt to GDP is going through the roof and trilions have been spent with little to show for it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Why can't Obama have the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans once and for all.Not cave in all the time.

This is how politics works. It is particularly how politics works when you and your Democratic cronies on Congress have spent the first two years of your administration fucking up. We have a government of checks and balances. We have divided government. The President isn't king (though often he acts and is treated like one). Congress has power also.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Either he is for the middle class and poor people or for the rich and big corporations.Which is it Obama truthfully.?

Nice false dilemma. Why must he be either for the middle class or for "rich" people and not both. Why must it be either or rather than both and? This reveals the essence of liberal thinking in which life is a zero-sum game and it is all about battles of one group against another. One must win and one must lose.

As I see it both groups got to have their tax rates continue as they currently are.

And, truthfully, Obama is for Obama.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

This decision on the tax cuts is going to be the downfall for Obama for 2012.

First, this is not a tax cut, it is a continuation of current tax rates. Second, it may be his downfall, but I suspect his downfall was sealed when a) he spent more time ramming through ObamaCare and a dubious "stimulus" bill and presided over another 3-4 million job losses all while going on about how great the trappings of his office are. He's a smug, arrogant out-of-touch "leader" who is currently failing to do what is best for the people of this once great country.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #4 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Why can't Obama have the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans once and for all.Not cave in all the time. Either he is for the middle class and poor people or for the rich and big corporations.Which is it Obama truthfully.?This decision on the tax cuts is going to be the downfall for Obama for 2012.

Look at it this way. At least he didn't let all of our taxes go up which is what would have happened had he not done this. The Republicans probably would have let that happen. Someone had to cave in and cut a deal. And you know they wouldn't have. That alone might have sealed his fate for 2012.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #5 of 295
Indeed, it appears as though the Republicans, in this particular case, stood up for all Americans regardless of their income level. Good for them. But that Obama was forced to "cave in" to do something for all Americans. Interesting that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Why can't Obama have the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans once and for all.Not cave in all the time. Either he is for the middle class and poor people or for the rich and big corporations.Which is it Obama truthfully.?This decision on the tax cuts is going to be the downfall for Obama for 2012.

The better question is: Why do Democrats hate tax cuts so much? The Left is going positively apoplectic over this. Look at what MoveOn has to say:

Quote:
It's terrible economic policy—and immoral—to pass a millionaire tax bailout while cutting off unemployment aid for families in need. So we're raising $200,000 to make members of Congress pay a steep political price at home if they vote to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich with doing nothing for the middle class.

Their homepage also has a "we want Obama back" message at the top.

We certainly have an interesting mix in the Democratic party these days. We have the true, committed progressives who view the nation as basically unfair. They want to institute punitive tax levels to "level the playing field" and address "economic inequality." Then we have the ones that are simply playing Class Warfare for what they think will be political gain. We also have Dems in Congress that are simply ignorant about how tax policy affects the economy...

I think some truly don't get that we're NOT JUST TALKING about tax rates on "millionaires." Thousands (if not tens or even hundreds of thousands) of small businesses report income on personal returns (S-corps). Imagine the impact that a 5% tax increase and changes to expensing rules have on a small business with 10-20 employees doing $5-10 million in business a year. It could cost them nearly half a million dollars. That could be 5 or even 10 new employees that they can't hire. Moreover, it's been shown that the "rich" and upper middle class are the people that you know....spend money on stuff. They create jobs by consuming, as our economy is based on over 2/3 consumer spending. Them keeping more of their money is good.

And while I'm at it..what constitutes "rich" these days? My wife and I make about $120,000 a year combined. Is that rich? I live well, but let me tell you...even living in a townhouse and supporting one child...things are pretty tight. Is $250,000 rich? That's two people making $125,000 a year each. It's a good living, but rich? That could be two school administrators, or even two teachers at the end of their careers, or a biochemist and teacher, or what have you. It's upper middle class, but it's not rich. These are the people who make the economy go, and the Dems seem to hate them.

Let me also address your post directly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Why can't Obama have the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans once and for all.

Why does it have to be about that? That's just partisan thinking.

Quote:
Not cave in all the time.

This is the first time I remember him "caving" on anything. Ever.

Quote:
Either he is for the middle class and poor people or for the rich and big corporations.Which is it

A ridiculous, completely false dilemma. The tax plan has little to do with "big corporations." It addresses all the drivers of the economy, from the middle and upper middle classes, to the so-called "rich," to small business that you apparently believe are part of the problem (despite the fact that small business creates 70% of new jobs).


Quote:
Obama truthfully.?This decision on the tax cuts is going to be the downfall for Obama for 2012.

Well now that I actually might agree with, but for different reasons than you might think. His mistake was only going for a two year deal. Now he has to fight this battle when he's up for reelection. The GOP will beat him over the head with it. They'll say that we can't raise taxes during an emerging recovery, and they'll be right. He'll be forced to the center or look hopelessly out of touch.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Indeed, it appears as though the Republicans, in this particular case, stood up for all Americans regardless of their income level. Good for them. But that Obama was forced to "cave in" to do something for all Americans. Interesting that.

As I've said Republican. The GOP probably would have let all of our taxes go up and not extend benifits for the unemployed rather than cave in.

Yeah that would have been standing up for All americans alright. Uh huh.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #8 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The better question is: Why do Democrats hate tax cuts so much? The Left is going positively apoplectic over this. Look at what MoveOn has to say:



Their homepage also has a "we want Obama back" message at the top.

We certainly have an interesting mix in the Democratic party these days. We have the true, committed progressives who view the nation as basically unfair. They want to institute punitive tax levels to "level the playing field" and address "economic inequality." Then we have the ones that are simply playing Class Warfare for what they think will be political gain. We also have Dems in Congress that are simply ignorant about how tax policy affects the economy...

I think some truly don't get that we're NOT JUST TALKING about tax rates on "millionaires." Thousands (if not tens or even hundreds of thousands) of small businesses report income on personal returns (S-corps). Imagine the impact that a 5% tax increase and changes to expensing rules have on a small business with 10-20 employees doing $5-10 million in business a year. It could cost them nearly half a million dollars. That could be 5 or even 10 new employees that they can't hire. Moreover, it's been shown that the "rich" and upper middle class are the people that you know....spend money on stuff. They create jobs by consuming, as our economy is based on over 2/3 consumer spending. Them keeping more of their money is good.

And while I'm at it..what constitutes "rich" these days? My wife and I make about $120,000 a year combined. Is that rich? I live well, but let me tell you...even living in a townhouse and supporting one child...things are pretty tight. Is $250,000 rich? That's two people making $125,000 a year each. It's a good living, but rich? That could be two school administrators, or even two teachers at the end of their careers, or a biochemist and teacher, or what have you. It's upper middle class, but it's not rich. These are the people who make the economy go, and the Dems seem to hate them.

Let me also address your post directly:



Why does it have to be about that? That's just partisan thinking.



This is the first time I remember him "caving" on anything. Ever.



A ridiculous, completely false dilemma. The tax plan has little to do with "big corporations." It addresses all the drivers of the economy, from the middle and upper middle classes, to the so-called "rich," to small business that you apparently believe are part of the problem (despite the fact that small business creates 70% of new jobs).




Well now that I actually might agree with, but for different reasons than you might think. His mistake was only going for a two year deal. Now he has to fight this battle when he's up for reelection. The GOP will beat him over the head with it. They'll say that we can't raise taxes during an emerging recovery, and they'll be right. He'll be forced to the center or look hopelessly out of touch.

Quote:
This is the first time I remember him "caving" on anything. Ever.

Healthcare seems to be in a different form than when originally proposed. Hmm? I wonder why that is?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #9 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Healthcare seems to be in a different form than when originally proposed. Hmm? I wonder why that is?

Because they had to bride, extort, cajole and beat other Democrats into submission in order to get it through?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

First, this is not a tax cut, it is a continuation of current tax rates.

Yes, but the 2% SS payroll tax reduction is real, though temporary, but unlike O's MWPC it's extended to everyone. Even "the rich" There is no arbitrary income threshold, except the one that already exists on SS taxes ($106,800).

It's now the Obama tax cuts. Expect him to take credit for the economic expansion that will certainly result.

It's not yet clear what happens to the $1000 per child tax credit.

Quote:
Second, it may be his downfall, but I suspect his downfall was sealed when a) he spent more time ramming through ObamaCare and a dubious "stimulus" bill and presided over another 3-4 million job losses all while going on about how great the trappings of his office are. He's a smug, arrogant out-of-touch "leader" who is currently failing to do what is best for the people of this once great country.

His downfall may indeed be sealed by Obamacare and the failed "stimulus", but by agreeing to this extension O has demonstrated his interest in reelection than what's best for the country. Extension of the Bush tax cuts increases his chances for reelection, since extension of current tax rates, the proposed 100% business investment tax credit, and payroll tax reductions will certainly result in business expansion and a reversal of the unemployment trend. Add significant changes to - if not repeal or judicial nullification of - Obamacare, and the US will begin a recovery that will simultaneously amaze and frustrate the libtard fringe.

If O had stayed true to his radical agenda, he had no chance for a second term. Zero. As I've written before, extension of the current tax structure raises that to about an even chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The Republicans probably would have let that happen.

This is a lame duck session. The composition of Congress is exactly the same as it was when Obamacare passed despite unanimous Republican opposition. If the donks wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire, they would have expired. It appears they want them extended. At present, Queen Nancy Pelosi is still Speaker, and Republicans are irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Their homepage also has a "we want Obama back" message at the top.

I agree. Take him back. Please.

Quote:
... Moreover, it's been shown that the "rich" and upper middle class are the people that you know....spend money on stuff. They create jobs by consuming, as our economy is based on over 2/3 consumer spending. Them keeping more of their money is good.

Keeping it out of the hands of government is the idea. You can "keep" money but that is the one activity certain to cause its loss. Government does not create wealth. The country was built on wealth creation, and is being destroyed by wealth confiscation.

Quote:
And while I'm at it..what constitutes "rich" these days? My wife and I make about $120,000 a year combined. Is that rich?

Who cares. Not only is it meaningless to discuss what "rich" is, it's distasteful and unproductive. It's no business of mine to determine who's "rich" and who's not. It's no business of anyone to know what I earn or how I invest. Unfortunately our tax structure makes this everyone's business. It's stupid. Restructure our revenue system - eliminate the income tax - and the problem goes away, along with legions of government parasites whose business is wealth confiscation.

Quote:
His mistake was only going for a two year deal. Now he has to fight this battle when he's up for reelection. The GOP will beat him over the head with it. They'll say that we can't raise taxes during an emerging recovery, and they'll be right. He'll be forced to the center or look hopelessly out of touch.

Agreed.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #11 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Yes, but the 2% SS payroll tax reduction is real, though temporary, but unlike O's MWPC it's extended to everyone. Even "the rich" There is no arbitrary income threshold, except the one that already exists on SS taxes ($106,800).

True. This is probably a good actual cut. Permanent would be better of course, but this is a start.

Of course keeping the capital gains tax rate low is good also.

I also think that also making the 100% write-off for capital expenditures permanent would be a great move.

Finally, spending needs to be seriously reigned in. The bullshit federal pay freezes are all well and fine, but they need to go after serious and long-lasting spending cuts.

In general they struck a decent deal. Yes, the Republicans had to bribe Obama with some more subsidization of unemployment (which is something that will mute some of the more positive effects of the deal), but overall it's the best we could realistically hope for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

It's now the Obama tax cuts. Expect him to take credit for the economic expansion that will certainly result.

Of course he will. Everyone will find something in this they can brag about as being the cause of economic growth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

His downfall may indeed be sealed by Obamacare and the failed "stimulus", but by agreeing to this extension O has demonstrated his interest in reelection than what's best for the country. Extension of the Bush tax cuts increases his chances for reelection, since extension of current tax rates, the proposed 100% business investment tax credit, and payroll tax reductions will certainly result in business expansion and a reversal of the unemployment trend. Add significant changes to - if not repeal or judicial nullification of - Obamacare, and the US will begin a recovery that will simultaneously amaze and frustrate the libtard fringe.

If O had stayed true to his radical agenda, he had no chance for a second term. Zero. As I've written before, extension of the current tax structure raises that to about an even chance.

You're probably right that he has slightly improved his re-election chances. You are also right that he's more concerned about getting re-elected than anything else. As I said Obama is for Obama. And, frankly, a second Obama term with a counter-party Congress...Republicans barely in full control of Congress) is probably the best combination. It worked reasonably well during the Clinton years.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In general they struck a decent deal. Yes, the Republicans had to bribe Obama with some more subsidization of unemployment (which is something that will mute some of the more positive effects of the deal), but overall it's the best we could realistically hope for.

As long as Ds hold Congress and the WH, Rs will be forced to negotiate. Effects of the unemployment insurance extension will be mitigated to some degree when unemployment rates decrease. This too will be "unexpected".

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And, frankly, a second Obama term with a counter-party Congress...Republicans barely in full control of Congress) is probably the best combination. It worked reasonably well during the Clinton years.

US works best when Washington works least.

Get the hell out of my way!
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #13 of 295
The problem is that the American public doesn't understand marginal tax rates in the first place.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #14 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The problem is that the American public doesn't understand marginal tax rates in the first place.

The problem is you and your friends on the fringe left think the American public doesn't understand much of anything.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #15 of 295
When you hear comments about not wanting to go to a higher tax bracket because they will make less money (and not in the lower middle class range when certain tax credits actually do get cut off), it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the system.

When you hear comments about the rich not getting to keep any tax cuts in the proposed plans, it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the system.

The rich DID get to keep their tax cuts...on everything they earn up to $250,000 or $1,000,000 (depending on which of the original proposals would have passed). Anything they would make BEYOND those points would be taxed at a slightly higher rate. OH WOE AS THEM!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

When you hear comments about not wanting to go to a higher tax bracket because they will make less money (and not in the lower middle class range when certain tax credits actually do get cut off), it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the system.

When you hear comments about the rich not getting to keep any tax cuts in the proposed plans, it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the system.

The rich DID get to keep their tax cuts...on everything they earn up to $250,000 or $1,000,000 (depending on which of the original proposals would have passed). Anything they would make BEYOND those points would be taxed at a slightly higher rate. OH WOE AS THEM!

This comment reflects a complete inability to comprehend RETURN ON INVESTMENT. When you take too much of a return, especially if the return is labor in exchange for salary, then the person stops making the investment.

This is true in all areas. If the government wants 20% of your stock profits, instead of 15%, it changes what level of risk to return you can engage in. If every dollar above a certain amount earned is taxed at a higher rate, you are inclined to earn less of them because your rate of pay as gone down dramatically.

It's very easy to understand with small numbers. If you are earning $10.00 an hour for your first forty hours of work, but will only get $7.50 an hour for each hour above 40, then some people will still be inclined to work, but more will not be than would have been at $10.00 an hour.

Why is it always woe as them and never woe as you BR? You're very good at chastizing other people for not doing what you fail to do. Live up to your own values before you point fingers.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The problem is that the American public doesn't understand marginal tax rates in the first place.

The problem is you and your friends on the fringe left think the American public doesn't understand much of anything.

The problem with a progressive income tax is that it taxes income, progressively.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #18 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Why can't Obama have the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans once and for all.Not cave in all the time. Either he is for the middle class and poor people or for the rich and big corporations.Which is it Obama truthfully.?This decision on the tax cuts is going to be the downfall for Obama for 2012.

Because he lost the mid terms in a big way?
post #19 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

The problem with a progressive income tax is that it taxes income, progressively.

The problem with an income tax is that it taxes income.


While I would claim that all taxes are evil and are, in effect, a form of theft, should we feel we "need" some level of taxation to pay for the essential services of government (protecting the basic natural rights of life, liberty and property of all the citizens within a country's geographical boundaries) this taxation should be:

- a low as possible
- as clear and visible as possible so everyone is clearly aware of how much they're being taxed with a minimum amount of mental calculation
- preserve the greatest amount of personal privacy
- cause the least amount of economic distortion as possible
- make it difficult for politicians to play one group (e.g., economic class) against another
- be minimized on the economic activities we least want to discourage (realizing that all taxes discourage and diminish the activity being taxed to some degree or another...based on the level of taxation.)
- applied to all people and activities equally

A secondary requirement would be that specific government services (should they be provided) ought to be paid for by direct user taxes. For example the roads are paid for by some tax that as directly as possible correlates to road usage. Gasoline taxes are a good example of this.

There are three basic types of taxes:

- taxes for earning something (income and capital gain taxes)...basically a tax on work (and/or investment)
- taxes for owning something (property taxes)
- taxes for buying something (sales and value-added taxes)

Arguably a single sales tax for all goods and services meets the above requirements better than the other types of taxes.

In my view, both morally and economically, the best tax regime a country could have would be:

- no property taxes
- no income, savings, dividend, interest, investment or capital gain taxes
- a small, single sales tax on the sale of goods and services

Granted, this assumes that government spending (at nearly all levels) is significantly (80-90%-ish) reduced. This should not be a real problem since the bulk of government spending has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the basic natural rights of life, liberty and property of all its citizens but is, instead, simply redistributive (just money taken from one group and given to another) in one way or another. This redistribution would be harder (not impossible) under this streamlined and simplified tax regime. However if the government can be kept to protecting the basic natural rights of life, liberty and property of all its citizens and not doing things like building sports stadiums, paying farmers to plant certain crops, subsidizing unemployment, etc. there should be far less redistribution going on.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #20 of 295
I say MJ1970 is elected mayor of the PO forum. That post was awesome.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #21 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I say MJ1970 is elected mayor of the PO forum. That post was awesome.

He's got my vote.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #22 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In my view, both morally and economically, the best tax regime an country could have would be:

- no property taxes
- no income, savings, dividend, interest, investment or capital gain taxes
- a small, single sales tax on the sale of goods and services

Interestingly, you just described - with one small exception - the tax structure of one of the world's wealthiest countries.

No it's not the United States. Its per capita GDP is much, much greater than the US.

Its government is a constitutionally limited, parliamentary representative democratic republic. It has a separate and independent judiciary. The treasury runs a surplus and unemployment is low. It has no debt. Its inhabitants enjoy one of the world's longest lifespans.

The one exception is a 5% tax on capital gains. There is a tax on corporate profits but the rate is roughly half that of the US.

Imagine the paradise the US would become with such a structure.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #23 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

He's got my vote.

Make it three.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #24 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Interestingly, you just described - with one small exception - the tax structure of one of the world's wealthiest countries.

No it's not the United States. Its per capita GDP is much, much greater than the US.

Its government is a constitutionally limited, parliamentary representative democratic republic. It has a separate and independent judiciary. The treasury runs a surplus and unemployment is low. It has no debt. Its inhabitants enjoy one of the world's longest lifespans.

The one exception is a 5% tax on capital gains. There is a tax on corporate profits but the rate is roughly half that of the US.

Imagine the paradise the US would become with such a structure.

Please don't keep us in suspense! I'm ready to pack my bags now. ;-)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 295
You guys are too kind. But "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." ;-)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You guys are too kind. But "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." ;-)

There is an ancient Klingon proverb:

"Great leaders do not seek power; it is thrust upon them."

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #27 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Please don't keep us in suspense! I'm ready to pack my bags now. ;-)

Its North Korea actually, Please Please send me a postcard.
post #28 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

- applied to all people and activities equally.

Lets start by taxing those dens of depravity....churches, synagogues.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

- no property taxes
- no income, savings, dividend, interest, investment or capital gain taxes
- a small, single sales tax on the sale of goods and services

Granted, this assumes that government spending (at nearly all levels) is significantly (80-90%-ish) reduced. This should not be a real problem .....

One wonders just how you will maintain decades of crusades...i mean wars on terror...i mean carpet bombing innocent civilians?.

Perhaps though we could enact this vision of Utopia™, no doubt by now a few rich elites would own and control everything, and justifibly the whole rabble of you rightwingers and everyone else would be paupers, destitute.

One wonders how you relatively slightly richer wingers would have made any money if it were not for leaching and parasiting off of those who are less fortunate at birth demographically than you? How exactly do you make money when no-one has any money to spend?

One also wonders, as there is this ridiculous notion that repeatedly lowering taxes raises tax revenues...one wonders what the optimum revenue tax rate actually is? And why infact does no government in the world actually tax at this rate...?

And if there was any truth in lowering taxes raises revenue, why dont we set the tax rate to zero to raise the maximum amount of tax?!!!

Bloody fools.
post #29 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The problem is that the American public doesn't understand marginal tax rates in the first place.

Oh, it's more than that!

Statements such as this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Thousands (if not tens or even hundreds of thousands) of small businesses report income on personal returns (S-corps). Imagine the impact that a 5% tax increase and changes to expensing rules have on a small business with 10-20 employees doing $5-10 million in business a year. It could cost them nearly half a million dollars.

show that they don't understand the difference between gross revenue and net taxable income, either.

Although I think it's more likely that they like to pretend they don't understand such basic concepts when they find it convenient to do so.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #30 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcUK™ View Post

Lets start by taxing those dens of depravity....churches, synagogues.....

In the scenario I outlined, then yes. In fact, more broadly, there would no need for something with a so-called "non-profit" status since this is merely a designation for (primarily) income tax purposes. Everyone would pay this (small) sales tax on all things they purchase.


Quote:
Originally Posted by marcUK™ View Post

One wonders just how you will maintain decades of crusades...i mean wars on terror...i mean carpet bombing innocent civilians?.

Hopefully you would not. In fact, I think that's one of the great benefits of this. Less funding for wars. It's interesting to note that the US has been involved with more wars in the (shorter) period of time since the enactment of both the income tax and The Fed (same year for both) than it was in its entire history before that. I looked into this once and it was like 6 wars in something like 130 to 140 years and 13 wars (starting with "The Great War"/"The War to End All Wars") in the 90-100 years since then. I, for one, don't consider this correlation merely coincidental.

EDIT: Correct the numbers posted above.

Excluding the revolutionary war since 1783 this country has been involved with what appears to be 16 wars (plus four additional "invasions/attacks"...Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Panama and Bosnia and Herzegovina which aren't counted in these tallies) and at war for a period of about 44-46 years. Running these up against my thesis:

From 1783 to 1913 (131 years), the US was at war 9 different times (average of 2 years per war, longest of years) for a total of 18 years (14% of the time.)

From 1914 to 2010 (97 years), the US was at war 7 different times (average of 5 years per war, longest 15 years) for a total of 38 years (39% of the time.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by marcUK™ View Post

Perhaps though we could enact this vision of Utopia™, no doubt by now a few rich elites would own and control everything, and justifibly the whole rabble of you rightwingers and everyone else would be paupers, destitute.

No doubt? No doubt at all that your dystopian view of the end results of such an approach would come about?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I, for one, don't consider this correlation merely coincidental.

Of course you don't because this absolutely unprovable statement supports your ridiculous platform. You're like the young-earth creationist of economics.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #32 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Of course you don't because this absolutely unprovable statement supports your ridiculous platform.

I expressed my opinion about the data. It's perfectly fine that you don't agree with me. You're even welcome to express you opinion about it. You could offered your logical, fact-based and reasoned explanation of these facts...

Or...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You're like the young-earth creationist of economics.



Is that the best you can do? I bet you were even giggling to yourself as you wrote it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The problem is you and your friends on the fringe left think the American public doesn't understand much of anything.

Now who's on the fringe jazzy?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I expressed my opinion about the data. It's perfectly fine that you don't agree with me. You're even welcome to express you opinion about it. You could offered your logical, fact-based and reasoned explanation of these facts...

Or...





Is that the best you can do? I bet you were even giggling to yourself as you wrote it.

Until recently you were trying to tell us that the Wealthy didn't pay more taxes in recent history.

And then you tried to cover that up with going back and quoting dollar differences from the 20's and 50's when a loaf of bread cost about the same as a gallon of gas ( 25 cents ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #35 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Until recently you were trying to tell us that the Wealthy didn't pay more taxes in recent history.

And then you tried to cover that up with going back and quoting dollar differences from the 20's and 50's when a loaf of bread cost about the same as a gallon of gas ( 25 cents ).

Please don't lie about the things I've said. It's rude.

First, I said no such thing as you have claimed ("the Wealthy didn't pay more taxes in recent history").

Second, I tried to point out some facts to you that are very relevant to the discussion about historical income taxes. First was that in the past the top marginal rate kicked in at higher income levels. Second was that those income levels must be adjusted for inflation in order to make fair comparisons.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #36 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Please don't lie about the things I've said. It's rude.

First :
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970

I'd say you're wrong. First, the "long time before historically" you're referring to is since about the 1920's and during the 1930's (and beyond). Second, arguably these higher income tax rates are part of the cause for the stagnation of the 1930's.

You need to think through what effect raising taxes will have. You can start some deductive reasoning from this point: When you subsidize something, you get more of it; when you tax something, you get less of it. In short though, raising taxes on the rich will result in less investment in wealth-creating activities. That will end badly.

Jimmac :
You really think I'm wrong?

You may want to look at this:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

Just comparing 1980 to 1987 is an eye opener.

Also you may want to look at this from someone who's wealthy :

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...pay_more_taxes




And then :

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Smoke and mirrors. Bottom line they paid more taxes no matter how you spin it.

MJ1970 :
No it's not "smoke and mirrors".

For example, in 1920, the top margin tax rate was 73% on incomes over $1,000,000. in 1950 it was 84% on incomes over $400,000. And there's a wide variety of that throughout the history.

Those numbers in today's dollars would be approximately: $10.M and $3.5M

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...113713&page=15
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #37 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

First :

And then :



http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...113713&page=15

I know what I posted. None of that lines up with the things you claim I said.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #38 of 295
As for the going back to the same top marginal rate as Clinton set (39.6%) for "those making more than $250,000" it is interesting to look at the numbers more carefully. The top marginal rate during the Clinton years was in fact 39.6% from 1993 to 2000. But where that rate kicks in is interesting. Here are the nominal numbers:

1993: $89,150
1994: $250,000
1995: $256,500
1996: $263,750
1997: $271,050
1998: $278,450
1999: $283,150
2000: $288,350

But these numbers are not adjusted for inflation, which we must in order to make a reasonable apples-to-apples comparison. Here are those numbers in 2009 dollars:

1993: $130,707
1994: $357,247
1995: $357,596
1996: $356,994
1997: $360,742
1998: $364,754
1999: $361,160
2000: $355,699

You'll notice that only in 1993 was the inflation adjusted top marginal bracket equal to or less than $250,000 in today's dollars. What happened in 1994 and beyond is actually effectively a tax cut for people making $130K to about $360K (the average top bracket in the Clinton years).

What these numbers tell us is that to be totally honest and equal, you would raise the top marginal tax rate to 39.6% on people only making about $360,000 (the average top bracket in the Clinton years) a year.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #39 of 295
Quote:
What these numbers tell us is that to be totally honest

So are these numbers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213


Quote:
1980 70.00%

Quote:
2010 35.00%
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #40 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So are these numbers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

But they don't tell the whole story. This is what I've been trying to explain to you. \

I spend the time to break down some tax rate and income level information from the Clinton years (would love to do it for all time, but don't have the time) and show another important aspect of these numbers and you respond with a link-slap. 6944694f74

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama Caves In