So Then Increase All Taxes....
- Thread starter SPK145
- Start date
The public supports raising taxes for the wealthy because they recognize that in our most prosperous times as a country, the tax rates for the wealthy have been higher.
The "trickle down" theory doesn't/hasn't worked. The Bush tax cuts haven't created jobs... they have only made the wealthy wealthier and the middle class trending towards poor. There is a balance, and taking away more money from the part of the country that is currently paying no taxes isn't it.
60% of the people paying no federal taxes make less than $20,000. As you know... you are not taxed on that (and a whole lot more) portion of your income either. Losing your deductions would tickle... The poor paying 20% would cripple an entire class of people. Not gonna happen, nor should it.
Lower corporate rates, close loopholes, let the bush tax cuts expire, phase out special interest deductions, greatly reduce federal spending including military and entitlements. That is what needs to happen.
The "trickle down" theory doesn't/hasn't worked. The Bush tax cuts haven't created jobs... they have only made the wealthy wealthier and the middle class trending towards poor. There is a balance, and taking away more money from the part of the country that is currently paying no taxes isn't it.
60% of the people paying no federal taxes make less than $20,000. As you know... you are not taxed on that (and a whole lot more) portion of your income either. Losing your deductions would tickle... The poor paying 20% would cripple an entire class of people. Not gonna happen, nor should it.
Lower corporate rates, close loopholes, let the bush tax cuts expire, phase out special interest deductions, greatly reduce federal spending including military and entitlements. That is what needs to happen.
First, the Bush tax cuts led to the wealthy paying even more of a share of the total income taxes. Second, tax receipts increased dramatically after the Bush tax cuts (and are headed way back to these levels in 2011). Third, the unemployment rate sunk to 4.4% from 6.3% after the full Bush tax cuts took effect until the crash of 2008.
Why raise ANY taxes if you are getting rid of special interest deductions, which are ALL the deductions? Typical divisive, crushing class warfare.
This kind of divisive rhetoric from Washington is a major reason why corporations are staying on the sidelines and not hiring more workers.
For a President that sold himself on his ability to bring America together; he has acted with more partisanship and divisiveness than anyone before him.
Where exactly has his leadership been on the debt ceiling...he keeps harping on the same message and gets nothing done.
Where exactly has his leadership been on the debt ceiling...he keeps harping on the same message and gets nothing done.
There are plenty of statistics that would support my position as well such as real revenue per capita. I don't think an argument about the wealthy paying a higher share because the middle class turned poor really helps you though.
Raising taxes and cutting entitlements needs to happen because of the position we are in(although I would probably not be in favor of cutting as much as you would)
I have trouble identifying with both parties because the republicans don't know when to start helping people and the democrats don't know when to stop.
btw I am not in favor of getting rid of all deductions... I do think it is a good idea to encourage certain activities personally.
lol... really? It is Obama's unwillingness and NOT the guys on the other side who are unwilling to compromise?
He has taken leadership, and is leading by saying that he will not agree to a short term fix and it is time to come together and find a long term solution. Republicans are starting to realize that Obama has public support on this which is why I am confident that they will get a deal done.
Have you been in the meetings? Again, he is looking for compromise that pissed off his own party. To me, that is leadership. Recognize where opportunity is and getting it done. That is how he got the healthcare bill through, no matter your opinion on the topic.
You are right that he has not wasted his time putting a bill forwards that the right will (at best) ignore.
Right. Have his congressional leaders write a bill that no one reads, then twist every arm to make sure it passes and rewrite 16% of the economy this way. Then lose 63 house seats because of it. That is why he was elected.
Then propose a budget in January that is so pathetic that it does not even pretend to reduce the budget deficit. That budget went down in a close vote of 97-0 in the US Senate. Also his party which still controls the Senate has not passed a budget in OVER 800 days (more than 2 years. Ted Kennedy was still alive when that happened.)
The Republicans put forward their plan, the Ryan plan, and it passed the House. The President put forward a speech in April where he basically redid his January budget. Except he had no concrete ideas. The CBO responded simply, ,"We don't score speeches."
Meanwhile 14 million still unemployed, 16% underemployed, and more than 6 million unemployed for more than 6 months. And the President laughs at the term "shovel ready jobs."
That is Change You Can Believe in and the greatest Leadership of any US President since Teddy Roosevelt decided to put new toilet seats in the White House.
Then propose a budget in January that is so pathetic that it does not even pretend to reduce the budget deficit. That budget went down in a close vote of 97-0 in the US Senate. Also his party which still controls the Senate has not passed a budget in OVER 800 days (more than 2 years. Ted Kennedy was still alive when that happened.)
The Republicans put forward their plan, the Ryan plan, and it passed the House. The President put forward a speech in April where he basically redid his January budget. Except he had no concrete ideas. The CBO responded simply, ,"We don't score speeches."
Meanwhile 14 million still unemployed, 16% underemployed, and more than 6 million unemployed for more than 6 months. And the President laughs at the term "shovel ready jobs."
That is Change You Can Believe in and the greatest Leadership of any US President since Teddy Roosevelt decided to put new toilet seats in the White House.
If 60% of the public is supposedly behind him on this matter, why not publically propose your budget and use that public support to pressure Congress to move on it? Seems pretty simple to me.
If putting a bill forward is wasting time, exactly what is he doing now???
Interesting that in our own backyard, we have a Governor that has demonstrated the ability to show leadership in compromising with the other party (pension reform) but also the willingness (and leadership) to make the tough decision without their support(budget), and the heat that goes along with it, because its the right thing to do. But than again, Christie had more experience before being elected as Governor that Obama did before being elected President.
If putting a bill forward is wasting time, exactly what is he doing now???
Interesting that in our own backyard, we have a Governor that has demonstrated the ability to show leadership in compromising with the other party (pension reform) but also the willingness (and leadership) to make the tough decision without their support(budget), and the heat that goes along with it, because its the right thing to do. But than again, Christie had more experience before being elected as Governor that Obama did before being elected President.
Christie was able to get it done because he sat in a room with the people he needed to work with and found the ways to work out the budget.
Obama is doing the same thing, and by having the conversations with the right and agreeing to large spending cuts as a bigger long term solution he is building public support for what he wants. The right has yet to budge...
Your CEO gives you direction, and you deny every single step he makes. You know what that makes you? Fired.
If the right wants spending cuts, they need to increase revenue. It is a simple compromise, and their leadership (if we can call it that) is all over the place right now.
Actually the first job of the president is to preserve, protect, and uphold the Constitution. That Constitution says that the president executes the laws as passed by congress. He is NOT supposed to be part of the lawmaking process. But we the sheeple have allowed presidents to acquire more and more power throughout the years, ending up with terrible presidents and situations that we see now.
Conversely, Christie has a more willing group of people to do what is necessary even if it is not something they want to do.
The right needs to budge. Every day more and more people agree with that.
Obama is saying we need to increase revenues which is something that is traditionally very unpopular, and you think he is just trying to win an election.
I may be biased in my views.. but come on...
Christie is a leader when he proposes something that is unpopular but necessary, and Obama isn't?
Merge, I think the point is that Obama can't even get his own party much less the Republicans on the same page. And I would agree Congress (on both sides of the aisle still don't get it), but the President, even though he might be trying, is not getting it done.
I don't agree with you on public support. I'm not sure if the public can tell you what his position is.
I don't agree with you on public support. I'm not sure if the public can tell you what his position is.
The very fact that Obama is suggesting we do things that piss off both sides suggests leadership to me especially since "both sides of the aisle still don't get it".
Again, cuts and revenue increases need to happen. Unwavering and not giving into republican demands to deny revenue increases shows leadership.
Even Fox News reported that 73% of the country supports increasing taxes.
The republicans need to budge.
The problem is that both partys keep nominating and electing ideologues who see everything in black and white terms. None of them seem to understand is that politics involves the art of compromize. Unfortunately bipartisanship is dead.
Tom K
Tom K
None of us are in the room. Someone can claim they are trying to get people to compromise, but if you don't have the skills or ability to do it that's another story. I do agree both sides of Congress are a mess, but Obama's lack of experience in handling these situations isn't helping.
You also ignore the fact that Boehner has less control over the Tea Party representatives that the President does of the Dem left wingers. My feeling is that if it was just between the President & the Speaker a deal would have already been in place.
Tom K
Tom K
My feeling is that neither would do what is right for America.
Where were either in 2006? Exact opposite to whete they are now. This is nothing more than a partisan game of political football with the requisite scare tactics from both sides.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
Where were either in 2006? Exact opposite to whete they are now. This is nothing more than a partisan game of political football with the requisite scare tactics from both sides.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
You are wrong.
Following the Clinton tax increases, revenue grew
1995 + 7.4%
1996 + 7.6%
1997 + 8.7%
1998 + 9%
1999 + 6%
2000 + 12%
After the Bush cuts in 2001 and 2003
2002 -7%
2003 - 3.8%
2004 + 5.5%
2005 + 14%
2006 + 11%
2007 +6.7%
2008 -1.7%
2009 - 16.6%
Solid steady growth under a tax increase. The 2001 decrease lowered revenue without question.
2003, the cut to capital gains (which should have been gradually implemented) fueled rapid growth which over inflated the market which contributed to our historic decline.
Which economic model do you really want to follow?
It took till 2005 to get to where we were in 2000. 2010 was just above where we were in 2000. Real revenue per capita went up after clinton increased taxes and went down drastically when we lowered taxes.
Well let's see, there was the recession that Bush inherited, followed up by 9/11, and the 2003 cuts were the tax cuts that fueled growth. Care to look at your numbers again?
>
Really? In order for there to be capital gains/capital gains taxes, there must be a lot of profit taking. Wouldn't this caused the market to go down or not increase as much? It sure didn't in 2003 and 2004. Seems like a lot of the bloat was due to artificial bubbles. (Internet stocks in the 90's, real estate in the 2000's). And capital gains taxes in their best year accounts for less than 5% of federal revenues.
>
Really? In order for there to be capital gains/capital gains taxes, there must be a lot of profit taking. Wouldn't this caused the market to go down or not increase as much? It sure didn't in 2003 and 2004. Seems like a lot of the bloat was due to artificial bubbles. (Internet stocks in the 90's, real estate in the 2000's). And capital gains taxes in their best year accounts for less than 5% of federal revenues.
