389 replies to this topic

[squishyx]

Obama has been campaigning for 6 months now. Do you think the American Jobs Act was really serious legislation. He didn't even have full democratic support for it. Yet he just goes around the country demonizing congress for not getting Stimulus V3 passed.

Obama's jobs bill act is polling really well and congress wont act on it, why shouldn't he take his case to the American people? This is a democracy, if those in congress won't pass popular legislation, then he has an obligation to point that out so that the people can choose if they want to elect people who will or vote for a president with a different plan.

What was stimulus v2?

[devilsfan26]

Your statement seems to contradict itself in that Paul is polling well despite "lack of media coverage". I'm not sure if I agree with that but I'm not sure you really prove your point with this example.

So you don't think he would be doing better if he got the same attention Romney, Perry, and Bachmann are getting?

[squishyx]

So you don't think he would be doing better if he got the same attention Romney, Perry, and Bachmann are getting?

Not really no. If anything the trend I am seeing is whichever Republican grabs the mantle gets too much media scrutiny and begins to falter. If Paul were a newer candidate, like Christie then maybe more attention would be better but as it is he has been around so long that a lot more people know what he stands for, and have already formed an opinion on him.

[devilsfan26]

Not really no. If anything the trend I am seeing is whichever Republican grabs the mantle gets too much media scrutiny and begins to falter. If Paul were a newer candidate, like Christie then maybe more attention would be better but as it is he has been around so long that a lot more people know what he stands for, and have already formed an opinion on him.

Makes sense, but on the other hand they keep hammering into people's heads who the top contenders are and Paul never seems to be mentioned in that group. I guess as you pointed out it could go either way, but their reasons for giving him minimal coverage are self-serving.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Obama's jobs bill act is polling really well and congress wont act on it, why shouldn't he take his case to the American people? This is a democracy, if those in congress won't pass popular legislation, then he has an obligation to point that out so that the people can choose if they want to elect people who will or vote for a president with a different plan.

What was stimulus v2?

There is no "Jobs Bill" It is strictly a tax hike. The mythical nonexistent bill would kill any hope of any jobs being created. Thank GOD that he's saved millions of jobs already !!!

[squishyx]

There is no "Jobs Bill" It is strictly a tax hike. The mythical nonexistent bill would kill any hope of any jobs being created. Thank GOD that he's saved millions of jobs already !!!

Current tax revenues are at about 14-15% of GDP which would have been unsustainable under any president in modern history, Bush, Clinton Reagan, whomever. You can't cut enough spending to get from point A to B so while I would disagree that the jobs bill is "strictly a tax hike", you have to be burying your head in the sand if you don't think this country needs to increase it's tax revenues to get back to par.

[Jimmy Leeds]

We have to cut taxes, period. Flat tax or a consumption tax. That way , we ALL pay.

[squishyx]

We have to cut taxes, period. Flat tax or a consumption tax. That way , we ALL pay.

Taxes and tax revenues are at historical lows for this country and almost ever single person in this country, legal or illegal, black, white, hispanic, old, young, rich, poor, democrat, republican, socialist, capitalist, OWS, tea party member etc etc pay taxes.

Federal income tax is just one tax, the Republicans fixation on this is a little baffling (actually it's not, obviously they are just grand standing and posturing), since it has always been around 40% dating back to when Reagan cut taxes.

In theory I am ok with a flat tax (consumption is regressive so I wouldn't agree there) but in practice it can't be done (the poor don't have anything else for you to tax). So because we live in reality I support realistic measures that can help steer the collective boat on the right course.

Edit: Just watched last nights daily show and it happened to have Clinton on and I thought he gave a great talk on how we got to where we are today and how to get out

Part 1: http://www.thedailys...?xrs=share_copy
Part 2: http://www.thedailys...?xrs=share_copy

Edited by squishyx, 09 November 2011 - 11:24 AM.

[Daniel]

Taxes and tax revenues are at historical lows for this country and almost ever single person in this country, legal or illegal, black, white, hispanic, old, young, rich, poor, democrat, republican, socialist, capitalist, OWS, tea party member etc etc pay taxes.

Actually, you're wrong about tax revenues being at all time lows (compared to what by the way), if you actually look at the correct figure (which is total revenues as a percentage of gdp.)





See also My link

And actually, US corporate taxes are the highest in the developed world, which you can thank Ronald Reagan for (and which, by the way is the reason that US corporations set up revenue collecting entities overseas).

ADDENDUM: The dip in 2010 might be attributable to estate tax being reduced to zero, and going back up again to something like 50% for every dollar above $1 million if I recall correctly. FWIW, I think there should be an estate tax, but ONLY for the purpose of raising revenue in the fairest and most optimal means possible (as I believe should be the case with all taxes) and not as a vehicle to redistribute wealth or punish the Paris Hiltons of the world. Something like a 15 to 20 percent tax for every dollar above $5 million, excepting assets from family business and the like. (I don't like tax pinches).

Edited by Daniel, 09 November 2011 - 12:29 PM.

[squishyx]

Actually, you're wrong about tax revenues being at all time lows (compared to what by the way), if you actually look at the correct figure (which is total revenues as a percentage of gdp.)





See also My link

And actually, US corporate taxes are the highest in the developed world, which you can thank Ronald Reagan for (and which, by the way is the reason that US corporations set up revenue collecting entities overseas).

Your chart basically confirms my statement. It is currently 2011 and if you look at your chart our tax revenues as a % of GDP are at historic lows. I don't know how accurate those projections for the future are, they are certainly comforting but could they be taking into the expired tax breaks that likely wont come to pass?

Also, I have stated before I am in favor of outright eliminating corporate taxes or at least lowering them to much more competitive with other developed nations. My beef is basically with personal income tax and capital gains tax.

Edit #2: Your link itself also supports my premise

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Edited by squishyx, 09 November 2011 - 12:34 PM.

[squishyx]

ADDENDUM: The dip in 2010 might be attributable to estate tax being reduced to zero, and going back up again to something like 50% for every dollar above $1 million if I recall correctly. FWIW, I think there should be an estate tax, but ONLY for the purpose of raising revenue in the fairest and most optimal means possible (as I believe should be the case with all taxes) and not as a vehicle to redistribute wealth or punish the Paris Hiltons of the world. Something like a 15 to 20 percent tax for every dollar above $5 million, excepting assets from family business and the like. (I don't like tax pinches).

I don't wanna get caught up in an edit war so I hope you don't mind me quoting you twice just wanted to add my 2 cents to this:

I think you might just be missing the obvious here, we had a recession, the amount of revenue people made dropped so we collected less taxes. On top of that Obama did cut taxes for 95% of the country, just because he didn't cut everyone a check like Bush doesn't mean it was any less real or substantial.

[Jimmy Leeds]

People got an average of like $14 a month in Obama's "cuts". Then everything
else went up.

[squishyx]

People got an average of like $14 a month in Obama's "cuts". Then everything
else went up.

Obama's basically getting dinged here for using a faster and more efficient distribution method. A spades a spade and the fact is 95% of working people got a $400 tax cut. You can break it down into pennies per hour if you'd like doesn't change the end sum.

[Jimmy Leeds]

........and people who pay no income tax manage to still get refunds.

[Jerrydevil]

This $400 tax cut/credit ... it's for employed people, correct? What good does that do for an economy with at least 9% unemployment? The idea is to create an environment where businesses want to invest. Giving employees a tax refund ain't the way.

[Beetlebum]

People got an average of like $14 a month in Obama's "cuts". Then everything
else went up.

Proof? You do realize all the stimulus packages were massive temporary tax cuts, right?

The only Republican tax plan that has a semblance of reality is John Huntsman who won't be nominated because he is actually articulate and believes in climate change. Perry and Cain plan would lessen taxable income while not reducing expenditures causing our debt to balloon. Taxes need to be raised Nixon did it, Reagan did it (his plan was chastised as voodoo economics by his eventual VP George Bush), and the first Bush did it. Which begs the question why are Republicans so anathema to the idea.

As for taxes being raised right now in this environment I'd say no. It would unleash inflation while economy puts along with anemic growth causing stagflation. If i was Obama I would unleash one last stimulus plan specifically tailored towards public works projects trains, roads, bridges, sewers, and the like. Projects like these would buttress our small and big businesses and put people back to work.

[squishyx]

This $400 tax cut/credit ... it's for employed people, correct? What good does that do for an economy with at least 9% unemployment? The idea is to create an environment where businesses want to invest. Giving employees a tax refund ain't the way.

I forget if the unemployed qualified or not, but I like how you are summarily dismissing his tax cut because 9% of the nation was unemployed. I guess tax cuts are only worth praising when the country is at it's usual 5-6% unemployment.

Who said anything about the tax cut creating an environment to encourage business investment? As if any measure Obama supported, supports or will support is somehow supposed to be entirely related to every problem he has, is or will face in the future? give me a break.

[Jerrydevil]

Who said anything about the tax cut creating an environment to encourage business investment?

Isn't that what we should be aiming for? Isn't this where jobs come from?

The Bush rebate checks after 9/11 didn't work either.

[Jerrydevil]

Which begs the question why are Republicans so anathema to the idea.

Because the federal government has grown so massive that feeding it with more money is a waste.

[Beetlebum]

Because the federal government has grown so massive that feeding it with more money is a waste.

So what would you cut?