Obama States 'You Don't Raise Taxes' in a Bad Economy

And the demagoguery against the alternatives, and the fiction that they get a "refund", and the fact that Congress won't give up the power, and so on, and so on. A simple tax system does not lend itself to the control of the population.

Actually, it's far less than that. Two pennies is two percent. Two percent of the yearly deficit (1.3 trillion) is 26 billion. The Buffett tax is projected to raise 4.7 billion per year. The Buffett tax would have to raise five and one half times as much in order to equal two pennies of every deficit dollar. Politicians know that people don't grasp large numbers, and consequently, are easily fooled by them. When Obama says the Buffett tax will raise 47 billion dollars people think great, that should take care of the problem. It's classic demagoguery. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Speaking of classic demagoguery, on Fox News this morning the big thing was some government group went to Vegas and soent like 800k.

Why is 800k such a big deal to Fox viewers but raising 200 Billion on the buffet rule not even worth the effort!

Riddle me that

. I think the real reason that the income tax isn't replaced by a national sales tax is that half the country doesn't care about the problem because they don't pay any income tax. Originally Posted by joe bloe

why do you people always lie about half the country not paying taxes?

They do not pay Federal Income Tax but they pay Sales Taxes and the like.

Quit lying about this if it is so simplistic.

For the simpletons...the rich basically pay for the Federal Government and the middle class pay for state and local government.

The state and local taxes are regressive taxes and the Federal taxes are progressive.

So as of now, the rich have not paid for the shit they want, which is mostly Defense related expenses.

State and local budgets for the most part have to be balanced, though default at the local level could be another huge problem for this country.

Thank you, Mr. Obvious. The discussion was about Federal taxes. Everyone here except you knew that. And when the agency responsible for managing the government's money responsibly is irresponsible, it's important. And now the guy that set it up is pleading the Fifth Amendment before Congress. That's his right, of course, but it makes the scandal look that much worse.

Thank you, Mr. Obvious. The discussion was about Federal taxes. Everyone here except you knew that. And when the agency responsible for managing the government's money responsibly is irresponsible, it's important. And now the guy that set it up is pleading the Fifth Amendment before Congress. That's his right, of course, but it makes the scandal look that much worse. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

he said recession, RECESSION NOT POOR ECONOMY ... big difference

during which time nobody ask for or wanted the tax policy changed ... the 01 03 tax cuts were extended were they not?


did obama lie and really let the tax cuts sunset while nobody was looking?

sure he did

No. He lied when he said he would let the tax cuts sunset, and then didn't.

You know me captain I just like to yank the chain Originally Posted by WTF

Yeah, I know! Sometimes I like to yank back just to try to keep some of you guys honest!

But, WTF, I know from our previous discussions that although you support tax increases on the wealthy, you fully realize that it really isn't going to make a lot of difference -- and that taxes are going to have to go up on the middle class, too, and by a lot.

Actually, it's far less than that. Two pennies is two percent. Two percent of the yearly deficit (1.3 trillion) is 26 billion. The Buffett tax is projected to raise 4.7 billion per year. The Buffett tax would have to raise five and one half times as much in order to equal two pennies of every deficit dollar. Politicians know that people don't grasp large numbers, and consequently, are easily fooled by them. When Obama says the Buffett tax will raise 47 billion dollars people think great, that should take care of the problem. It's classic demagoguery. Originally Posted by joe bloe

You're right with regards to the imposition of what some envision as the "Buffett Rule", if you limit tax increases on the wealthy to that, and do not consider the desired rescission of the Bush-era tax cuts only on those earning over $250K. Since the latter course is desired by Obama and virtually all Democrats, I would suggest that it falls under the domain of this thread's subject.

If you were to simply rescind the Bush tax cuts for all households with AGI above $250K, you would raise additional revenue of about $60-70 billion annually according to static analysis. But in the real world, you'd see a lot of that expected revenue pull a disappearing act. That's why I said that a couple of pennies for every deficit dollar might be a fairer estimate.

The "Buffett Rule" itself is not a policy proposal; it's merely disingenuous demagoguery designed to appeal to simpletons. Policymakers should instead simply say what they want to do with rates, exclusions, etc., and put some meat on the bones. If they want to push the capital gains tax rate to much higher levels, they ought to say so clearly and go for it. But then they shouldn't be surprised when people notice a couple of years down the road that the anticipated additional revenue never materialized.

And Obama is only making it worse. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, indeed.

Some of the blind partisanship you see around here is just hilarious!

People (justifiably) slam the extreme fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration and Tom DeLay's corrupt congress, but offer nary a whimper of complaint when Obama and Pelosi's congress takes fiscal recklessness to new heights.

The cold, hard truth is that taxes are going to have to go up, and by a lot. The popular attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy never work as advertised. In the post-Nixon era, backlash against the wealthy caused politicians to raise the capital gains tax to extremely high levels (about 39%). That backfired. Even thought the Democrats had a large majority in congress, they passed a cut (to 28%) in 1978, and the president signed it. Note that the president at that time was Jimmy Carter, not Reagan. But reality is reality. Even the clueless Carter realized that the high rate wasn't working.

I think deep down inside, everybody knows what's coming within the next five years or so. Higher tax rates on the affluent will probably come first, as no politician dares to tax the under-$250K majority (98% of households) without exhausting that course first. But even rescinding the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers would probably bring in "only" about $300-350 billion annually.

That still leaves a trillion-dollar gap.

No. He lied when he said he would let the tax cuts sunset, and then didn't. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

cant do that during a recession

especially with the new tea party/ republican congressmen not even sworn in yet who vowed to cut spending lie faster than obama was

Yeah, I know! Sometimes I like to yank back just to try to keep some of you guys honest!

But, WTF, I know from our previous discussions that although you support tax increases on the wealthy, you fully realize that it really isn't going to make a lot of difference -- and that taxes are going to have to go up on the middle class, too, and by a lot.



. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Yes but nobody can get elected running on raise all your taxes!

Reagan did his shit in '86, his second term.

Is Mitt willing to be a one term President? I highly doubt it. Obama can raise them in his second term because he is not running for shit.

I think deep down inside, everybody knows what's coming within the next five years or so. Higher tax rates on the affluent come first, as no politician dares to tax the under-$250K without exhausting that course first. But even rescininding the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers would probably bring in "only" about $300-350 billion annually.

That still leaves a trillion-dollar gap. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Yes then you have to curb Defense spending and Tweek SS age and benifits. Only a lame duck President can do that or the country will have to be faced with some Europe like crisis.

So yes the Buffet rule is politics as is Fox News acting like 800k is more than 30-40 Billion that the Buffet rule would take in.

cant do that during a recession

especially with the new tea party/ republican congressmen not even sworn in yet who vowed to cut spending lie faster than obama was


Originally Posted by CJ7

Tea Party. What a joke they turned out to be.

Tea Party. What a joke they turned out to be. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

On that we can agree...

I felt like I was an extra in Blazzing Saddles!

Tea Party. What a joke they turned out to be. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Turned out?


LOL

So yes the Buffet rule is politics as is Fox News acting like 800k is more than 30-40 Billion that the Buffet rule would take in. Originally Posted by WTF

????

(Have no idea where the $800K came from.)

Is anyone really acting like $800K is more than $40 billion? I know that a lot of people suffer from serious cases of innumeracy, and that our educational system has gone to hell, but geeeeez!

Is Mitt willing to be a one term President? I highly doubt it. Originally Posted by WTF

I doubt it, too (in the unlikely event that he gets elected.)

Mitt's platform is very simple: It's about Mitt being president! And should he become president, it will be all about him remaining president. So he'll pander and pay off any constituency he feels can help him. (Of course, the same is true of Obama as well.)

Obama can raise them in his second term because he is not running for shit. Originally Posted by WTF

Obama will undoubtedly try to raise taxes, but only within the framework of maintaining his 2008 campaign promise of avoiding tax increases on everyone making below $250K per year. But I think he'll have trouble even doing that. Republicans have locked themselves in with Norquist's anti-tax pledge, so they'll expend all their political capital to block any such attempt.

Yes then you have to curb Defense spending and Tweek SS age and benifits. Only a lame duck President can do that or the country will have to be faced with some Europe like crisis. Originally Posted by WTF

Yes, but I think you're leaving out the biggest gorilla of all -- namely, Medicare. If we don't reform the system and do something about the trajectory of health care cost increases, this monster will devour us all.

I don't believe for a minute that anyone in either of our free-lunch parties is going to do anything before the onset of the next crisis, which I believe is likely to be very ugly. That's why for years now I've advised investors to exercise great caution.

why do you people always lie about half the country not paying taxes?

They do not pay Federal Income Tax but they pay Sales Taxes and the like.

Quit lying about this if it is so simplistic.

For the simpletons...the rich basically pay for the Federal Government and the middle class pay for state and local government.

The state and local taxes are regressive taxes and the Federal taxes are progressive.

So as of now, the rich have not paid for the shit they want, which is mostly Defense related expenses.

State and local budgets for the most part have to be balanced, though default at the local level could be another huge problem for this country. Originally Posted by WTF

Are dyslexic? What part of "don't pay any INCOME TAX" do you not get?

You're right that very often right wingers say that half the country doesn't pay any tax; as you say that's incorrect and they shouldn't do it.

It's in the nature of partisan rhetoric that people are tempted to fudge the facts. There's an old saying that in every war the truth is always the first casualty. Arguments between the left and right turn into blood fueds. The left fudges the facts, so the right feels like it's obligated to retaliate with the same tactics. It's like being in fight and the other guy kicks you in the nuts, you're probably going to do the same to him.

Another trick that the right constantly does lately is to quote part of what Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare: "We have to pass the healthcare bill so that we can find out what's in it" What she actually said was: "We have to pass the healthcare bill so that we can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy"

The right also has said for many years that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. He never claimed that. He said that "he took the initiative in creating the internet". He was talking about participating in funding programs that helped promote technology, education and improve the environment.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that conservatives are far more honest than liberals, but both sides are imperfect.

I'm for a national sales tax to replace the income tax (after we repeal the sixteenth amendment). Either that or a flat tax; I think Steve Forbes had a good plan a few years ago. Like you said our current system is a disaster. I think the Fair Tax people calculate that the money spent just to comply with the paperwork for the income tax is several hundred billion dollars per year. I think the real reason that the income tax isn't replaced by a national sales tax is that half the country doesn't care about the problem because they don't pay any income tax. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Well, that and the fact that a sales tax is inherently regressive.