Obama Caves In - Page 2

Sorry but that's the rate they paid in previous years. Now you can say they paid less dollar wise and adjust for inflation but things cost less then also.

That's the fucking point! A dollar today is not the same as a dollar 10, 20, 30 or longer years ago!

$250,000 is not the the same as $250,000 today. And that 70% top marginal rate in 1980...that was on $215,400 nominal dollar income. Today's equivalent would be over $550,000.

6944694f74

The basic premise below is one that many multinationals have been asking me recently: why do the Republicans hate America and Americans so much?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/op...08wed1.html?hp

---

BTW, nice to drop in on AO after a while and see that little has changed.

Obama has caved in again, this time to Israel:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11943599

I hope the palestinians react accordingly and give up the idea of a two-state-solution and independence and instead seek full equal rights within Israel.

So, you judge the American people based on "what you've heard?" Now that's a scientific method!

Too bad he caved to the palestinians first. What demands were made of them?

The idiocy in that piece can be found in the first paragraph:


Oh...my...God. It's like we live in Orwellian times. "Redistributing wealth" is now defined as people keeping more of their OWN MONEY? Redistributing wealth has the exact opposite definition. Literally. And what's this? Job creation? How does the government taxing "the rich" (which includes thousands of job-creating small businesses) do ANYTHING to create jobs.

I have to agree with trump here: The American Left is sliding into psychosis. They have gone from representing the downtrodden and opposing wars to claiming that NOT confiscating people's money is immoral and reprehensible. It's freaking bizarro world, I tell you.

Better still, they are on the complete wrong side of issue politically. They are making an futile political argument. They are going scorched earth after their historic defeat. Give us confiscatory tax rates and and massive government, or give us death!

What reply?

True, true, the american left has become psychotic, but the right has as well. Every few years the regime changes and one phsychosis gets replaced by another one with a different flavor. The system is completely rotten with populism and lobbyism pulling strings one way or another, corruption and decadence running rampant and so deformed that it lets only the deformed through to its power-points.

Regarding the topic at hand: Taxes. I favour a real flat tax, taxing everyone who generates income with 10% from the little worker to the superrich with no exceptions at all. No wealth-tax, just a universal income tax that's flat at 10% for all incomes regardless if the income is from working, selling, trading at wallstreet, renting houses or just enjoying interests for money on bank, from everything that generates an income or profit 10% should go off.

I'm sure this will generate enough money to build schools, streets, to finance police and firesquads as well as the army to protect the nation from invaders... the basic things a federal government is supposed to do for the greater good, and if it happens that the flat-no-exceptions-for-every-sort-of-income-tax happen to bring up less than today's crazy tax-system than it's only for the better. A lot of problems stem from too much money for the federal government, and yet through debts more and more gets absorbed, it's a black hole, needing a coupe de grace.

I 100% agree with this post.

Psychosis is evident on both sides of the aisle. The 2 party system is corrupt to the core.

I wholeheartedly support a 10% flat tax across the board. Opponents of a flat tax would say that it hurts low-income earners, but have never been able to satisfactorily explain specifically how.

Suppose you make a modest $1000 a month. Why would it be unbearable to live on $900 of that?

Can we discuss other instances of Obama's cave-ins in this thread?

Congress deals death blow to Guantanamo closure


This was a promise I was actually hoping Obama would keep.

While I would have liked to see Guantanamo closed too, I believe fell into the trap that I think a lot of people did in my understanding of what "close Guantanamo" actually meant.

Most of us, I think, assumed that "close Guantanamo" meant stop doing what they have been doing at Guantanamo and don't do it anymore. But what it looks like it actually meant was they were going to close Guantanamo and stop doing what they were doing at Guantanamo at Guantanamo. Meaning that there were never any plans to actually stop what they were doing generally, only to stop it at Guantanamo (eliminate the iconic focal-point) and move it (disperse it) elsewhere.

Agreed. The promise Obama made on the campaign trail detailed none of that, of course. He gave the impression that we would stop doing what was being done at Gitmo.

In reality, Obama has proved to be as bad as Bush (probably worse) when it comes to ignoring the Constitution.

Also, I've been told that anyone who disagrees with Obama or criticizes him in any way is a racist.

Therefore, all those who disagree with Obama on his tax deal are racists.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

I have seen problems on both sides as well. When I investigated what made so many conservatives not live up to their own principles though, the reasoning because pretty clear, they were boomers. Jimmac loves to say it's just me blaiming my parents (who do happen to be boomers) but the reality is all this has happened on the watch of one generation and they happen to be the group who their entire lives have exempted themselves from the rules and made promises that cannot be kept. They are also the generation blinded more than any other by utopianism. Other generations wanted to survive and perhaps thrive. The boomer generation is the first that demands heaven on earth as a birthright.



A flat tax would solve many problems agreed.


Nice!

So if you are opposed to Obama's tax plan, does that mean you hope he fails?

If the Congressional Democrats plan to vote against or filibuster Obama's tax plan, does that mean they are the "Party of NO"?

If we did that, we'd have more money in revenue than we knew what to do with. We'd eliminate waste and bureaucracy. And we'd stop punishing hard work.

But it will never happen. First, as you point out, it would be opposed by entrenched lobbying establishment, from banks to CPAs to everyone who works for, with or against the IRS. Secondly, the progressives/liberals will never allow it. It will be viewed as punishing the poor. They will scream bloody murder about millionaires keeping 90% of what they earn, even though there would be more money to fund programs they want to fund. They would similarly flip out over a consumption tax replacing income and SS taxes.

Whether it could be done or not, I would favor this: Let's have a 10% flat tax, but exempt those who earn under the poverty line. We should do away with all deductions. Do away with the IRS as its constituted. Also, we need to remake the Social Security system. We should phase out the current system. Everyone over age 50 gets full benefits. Ages 40-50 get reduced benefits based on age at the time of the change. Everyone under 40 gets nothing, but they also get to put their money somewhere else. To fund it, replace payroll taxes with a 2-3% national sales tax. Social Security will no longer be a right. It will be for those that are unable to work. Every working American would get a 12% raise immediately as we switched to a sales tax.

Liberals Try to Prevent Pelosi From Bringing Tax Bill to the Floor

Yep. The "Party of NO".

Apparently, nothing.


Got that? The net impact on aggregate economic activity was zero.

"There are no shovel-ready jobs" - Obama


Not only did the "stimulus" fail to reduce unemployment, it's higher than it was forecast to be had the government done nothing. Millions of families have been economically devastated by months of unemployment, their skills growing less valuable with each passing day, diminishing their possibility of ever finding another job. Businesses not fortunate enough to leave the US for good have been permanently wiped out in bankruptcies and liquidations. Spending money we don't have has degraded our currency and our credit worthiness around the globe. It has enslaved future generations with the unsustainable burden of paying for it, while the specter of Obamacare hangs like a sword of Damocles over our future.

Until this month, Obama got everything he wished for in his first two years on office. Nearly everything he has done has resulted in misery. Such are the consequences of his actions. We are now experiencing our ninth straight month with unemployment above 9%. The Fed can print all the money Obama wants to fulfill his big-government fantasies, but it can't print jobs.

Bad enough? It gets worse. The housing market continues to be so bleak that states and municipalities are facing a revenue shortfall so unwieldly it now threatens the bond market. A bond market crash is now perceived as inevitable.

Treating this sick economy will take drastic action. Merely continuing the current tax structure is not enough - the income tax is inefficient, immoral, and has destroyed economic growth. It must be abolished. Spending must be cut in dramatic fashion, and no one will be spared its effects. A decade or two, or three, from now, the US may once again reclaim its status as a world leader. Maybe. Continuing our present course is certain to guarantee its destruction.

I wonder if it's "apocalyptic rhetoric" and the "politics of fear" when Obama is doing it:

This still sounds like smoke and mirrors. You adjusted the dollars for today. So people made less back then and things cost less back then. It's still a percentage that they pay. How exactly does your take make any difference? They paid more of a percent in the recent past. How does this really change anything? I'm sorry but it really doesn't seem like a valid point that changes the picture in the way you're implying.

It is important and relevant. I've earnestly tried to help you see this. At this point you seem stubbornly unwilling (or, perhaps, simply unable) to understand why this matters. Perhaps someone else can explain it better than I have. Perhaps I am assuming too much in my approach to explaining this to you. Whatever the issue, I'm done with it. \

Give up, dude. Put him on ignore and save yourself the trouble. I have 10 years of experience dealing with him. He's unreachable.

Look. What we were talking about was going back to pre Bush levels which would be a fraction of the historic percentages anyway! However I've talked to several people trying to see if I was missing something and they go " Huh? " " What's he talking about? They're percentages not dollar amounts anyway! ".

So in the end the wealthy used to pay higher taxes and could be doing it again.

How is anything you said meaningful ( in a way that would change the outcome ) to what's been stated?

I know you'd like to be done with this but you haven't really supported your statement or shown how it has meaningful value to this discussion.

SDW,


If make statements like this you must be prepared to face the following :

A. You're reading my posts which means you're not sticking to " Ignore ".

B. You had better be prepared to do a better job of showing what MJ was trying to say than he did.

There it is again. He doesn't realize all I see is this message: "This message is hidden because jimmac is on your ignore list"

LOVE IT!

I'm going to try one last time...


So you have some friends that are unable to understand this also. So?



What is relevant is how "wealthy" is defined. In the current context it appears to be anyone making $250k per year or more and, in particular those people paying the proposed higher rate as done during the Clinton years. This has been the argument for the tax increase all along: Look we are just going to raise the top bracket to 39.6% for "rich" people making $250K a year just like during the Clinton years. But, since dollars do not have a constant value, $250K during the Clinton years (and certainly the Reagan years) is not the same as $250K today.

In simplest terms a person making $250K in 1990 (or 1980) might have been considered "rich" but in 2010 much less so do to the devaluation of the dollar.

If you were making $250K a year in 1995 and you were making the exact same amount today, you would be poorer and, dare I say, not exactly "rich."

So what was being proposed was to raise the top bracket to 39.6% on someone today who is making the equivalent of something like $170K in the Clinton years (or maybe $130K in the Reagan years.) The point is that "rich" in Obama-speak/Democrat-speak has not been adjusted for inflation.

Yes "rich" people did pay higher tax rates in the past. Of course reducing those (effective) tax rates improved the economy from recession (look at the mid-80's and early 90's) which puts a damper on the "things were alright" argument. But what level of income defines "rich" isn't constant.



In your opinion, based on your apparently limited understanding.

How about he was reading your posts quoted in the replies from MJ1970 as option 3? It is not wholly out of the realm of reason at all...

Total arbitrary numbers just to make things easy: Let's say the tax rate for the 0-$40,000 range is 30% and the $40,000 and up range is 35%.

Some idiots will believe that if they start to earn more than $40,000, suddenly their taxes jump from 30% to 35%. This is not true. Here's how it really works:

If someone is making, say $50,000...

The first $40,000 is taxed at 30%. The next $10,000 is taxed at 35%. It is NOT 35% of the whole $50,000.

I really wasn't even doing that. All I see is that he replies right after I do. I see the message about being on the ignore list. It's quite magical not to even see the content of his posts.

Which idiots are those?

SDW

Everyone knows all you have to do is log out.


I learned that when you put someone on ignore the only thing that matters is if you have the will power not to comment back no matter what someone says. Your buddies like trumpy and MJ here taught me that one ( payback's a bitch ain't it? ).




Uh huh.

However the list I lnked to didn't define " Rich " as $250,000! I believe they were just considered wealthy in adjusted dollars. You'd have a point if they only looked at things the way you were assuming but I'm thinking as values change the definition of wealthy does also. I've looked at that list and I don't see any mention of $250,000! It just says the highest marginal income rates.

Oh look!
I believe they adjusted things as well :
High Income: effective tax rates, tax return details, and the top Adjusted Gross Incomes http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...fm?topic2id=48

Did you even look at the list? http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

And reducing the rates helped things? I seem to remember a really nice recession at the end of the 80's. You must remember? The one that got Clinton elected.

You just love thinking of yourself as superior in thinking ability don't you? Meanwhile the rich just think of new ways to suck up money from the middleclass and make it sound reasonable.

Perhaps this book could help you. http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statis.../dp/0393310728

Have a nice day!

Look for an easy explanation in my reply to SDW!

Keep trying! I'm sure you'll get a good one on me one of these years!

Well the republicans don't like it either! As a matter of fact the The Tea baggers don't like any of it. If the republicans hold out until after Jan. and everyone's taxes go up who do you think the voters will blame for this mess? I don't think it'll be the Democrats. And I don't think they'll go running to a third party either ( especially since the only close to viable on right now is the Tea baggers and they don't like any of the plan!

Somebody had better do something soon or there's going to be a lot of angry voters out there and I think I know who they'll blame Hint : It won't be Obama with egg on his face ( he tried to settle this before this happened ).

No, but the entire context of this discussion is Obama and the Democrats (and his economically illiterate supporters) has been the top marginal tax rate for the "richest" in America (those making over $250,000. To deny this context is disingenuous (at best) and dishonest (at worst).



Yes and an important piece of information, the income where it applies, is missing. You simply thrown out some percentages without any concern or regard for the context of them, and thinOK you've made some point.



Yes. And here's the same list with some additional information.



Yes.