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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uoE_NicaMY

That is why you only raise it on the rich!

That is why you only raise it on the rich!



Originally Posted by WTF

Exactly, because everyone knows the rich don't hire people. If you want a job a ask a poor person! Obama's Buffett tax (millionaire's tax) would theoretically raise 47 billion over ten years. The projected spending for the next ten years is ONE THOUSAND TIMES that; it's meaningless. It's like a salesman offering you a one dollar discount on a thousand dollar television; you'd laugh in his face. This is just a class warfare gimic for Obama. If we are ever going to balance the budget we've got to cut spending. Raising taxes won't get it done.

That is why you only raise it on the rich!



Originally Posted by WTF

Of course, that wouldn't raise more than a couple of pennies of every deficit dollar, but it sure would make some of you guys feel good!

he said recession,

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

Of course, that wouldn't raise more than a couple of pennies of every deficit dollar, but it sure would make some of you guys feel good! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You know me captain I just like to yank the chain

actually, the lost revenue from the bush tax cuts and the two wars in the mid east are deficit devistating .. no chain yank.

The devastation Bush caused to this country is incredible.

The elective war in Iraq was as moronic as anything could be.

The Bush tax cuts only hurt the country even more.

However, in a recent article, Bush says he "wishes they would not refer to the tax cuts, as "The Bush Tax Cuts".

WTF should we call them then?

After the enormous damage he caused the country, he doesn't want his name associated with it either!

. . . Apparently, he is more concerned with the tarnish on his image from his bad policies than on the good of the country!

actually, the lost revenue from the bush tax cuts and the two wars in the mid east are deficit devistating .. no chain yank. Originally Posted by CJ7

And Obama is only making it worse.

Of course, that wouldn't raise more than a couple of pennies of every deficit dollar, but it sure would make some of you guys feel good! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

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.

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

does that comment solidify the devistation tax cuts represent to the deficit?

not that Im for tax hikes, but sooner or later tax cuts have to be paid for one way or the other. Letting the tax cuts sunset for ALL and replace revenue without creating new policy called Buffett or anything else is by far the most viable solution to the problem.

I don't oppose that, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it will even make a small dent in the deficit. Congress MUST quit spending!

does that comment solidify the devistation tax cuts represent to the deficit?

not that Im for tax hikes, but sooner or later tax cuts have to be paid for one way or the other. Letting the tax cuts sunset for ALL and replace revenue without creating new policy called Buffett or anything else is by far the most viable solution to the problem. Originally Posted by CJ7

Reagan cut the top marginal income tax rates dramatically and revenue to the government doubled. Tax decreases don't always increase revenue, the way they did for Reagan, but to assume that a one percent tax cut necessarily reduces revenue by one percent is simplistic. In a recession the when economy needs stimulating a one percent tax reduction may increase revenue two percent.

Liberals use what economists call a "static model" when they estimate income produced from tax increases. That means that they assume that increasing taxes will not slow the economy. They also assume that a tax decrease will not grow the economy. It's not a legitimate way to calculate the effect on revenue of increasing or decreasing taxes but it plays well with the public because it's simple; it's also demagoguery.

Just think. If we had a simple tax system that people could understand, tax policy would be much more open and effective. The system we have now is a disaster, and works only for those who know how to work the system and lobby Congress for tax breaks that only certain tax lawyers (like those that work for the company hiring the lobbyist) can find. It is an insult, and I think it is a crime against humanity.

Just think. If we had a simple tax system that people could understand, tax policy would be much more open and effective. The system we have now is a disaster, and works only for those who know how to work the system and lobby Congress for tax breaks that only certain tax lawyers (like those that work for the company hiring the lobbyist) can find. It is an insult, and I think it is a crime against humanity. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

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.