SayItAintSoJoe Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Lowering taxes on lower income individuals really increases the number of jobs created. Most of these were one time giveaways. Obama and the liberals wanted to increase taxes on entrepreneurs, but were told no buy the people. Eventually we are going to have to pay for all of the out of control spending done over the last two years, and that will necessitate a tax increase, all but the completely dim witted realize this. So in affect Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have raised future taxes, they've just left it to others to do. Additionally you can argue that all the new regulations that have been passed, as well as those that did not go through congress but were enacted by government agencies such as the EPA are a tax on businesses and business owners. If you don't think Obama is going to cause taxes to be raised then I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd love for you to come take a look at. So would an eventual tax increase have been necessary to pay for the 2 wars and the Bush tax cuts? Or is this eventual tax increase only necessary because of the spending initiated over the last 2 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So would an eventual tax increase have been necessary to pay for the 2 wars and the Bush tax cuts? Or is this eventual tax increase only necessary because of the spending initiated over the last 2 years? I was going to bring this up too. I'm an equal opportunity government hater. I don't think you can segrate Obama only for this mess. It probably starts with Bush I and continues through Obama. Repubs and Dems alike are both to blame because again, the Fed is the top of this pyramid. It does not matter who is president or who is in congress - they are all working for the same entity, the Fed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) So would an eventual tax increase have been necessary to pay for the 2 wars and the Bush tax cuts? Or is this eventual tax increase only necessary because of the spending initiated over the last 2 years? Both of the items you have mentioned are short term expenditures. The Stimulus has cost more than the wars to date, never mind the increased spending. Additionally when Obama campaigned he was going to pull all the troups out, why hasn't he done so? Have you ever thought there might actually be a reason for us being over there? Additionally an overwhelming bipartisan majority of congress as well as Bush's 2000 and 2004 presidential opponents agreed that we should go into those wars based on the information we had at the time not to mention the current Secretary of State. So saying that it's Bush's war is nothing more than a liberal talking point that ignores history. You can not say the same thing for the Stimulus, or Obamacare. Tax revenues went up under the bush tax cuts so I don't see that as a cost. You can't look at it in a vacuum. If you want to bag on Bush you should look at Medicare D, and his weak ass immigration policy, both of which I have bagged on him consistently for. The cost associated with Obamacare if not overturned, as well as the cost associated with all the regulations passed as well as implemented without congressional approval will have a continuing impact on the amount of money we get to keep. The democrat lead congress has also increase the federal budget consistently well above the rate of inflation since 2006. If you care to look you will note that the deficit under Bush was decrease up until the point Pelosi and Reid took over. Edited February 8, 2011 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Makes you wonder why folks are shouting about Obama putting taxes up, doesn't it? it's really f'ing simple, dude. federal spending as a percent of GDP. the bill, eventually, comes due, does it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 it's really f'ing simple, dude. federal spending as a percent of GDP. the bill, eventually, comes due, does it not? Not in liberal la la land. Well at least not on anyone but the top 5-10%. You know the people that actually create jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 it's really f'ing simple, dude. federal spending as a percent of GDP. the bill, eventually, comes due, does it not? Have taxes gone up or not? I ask that you refer to the several examples in the linked article in the first post before answering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Both of the items you have mentioned are short term expenditures. The Stimulus has cost more than the wars to date, never mind the increased spending. When the wars are finalized, they will cost north of three trillion dollars. Short term expenditures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Have taxes gone up or not? income taxes haven't yet, no. but that's kinda like going on a hugh spending binge in vegas and justifying it by saying, "hey my credit card minimum payment is still only $50 a month, my expenses haven't gone up at all" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 income taxes haven't yet, no. but that's kinda like going on a hugh spending binge in vegas and justifying it by saying, "hey my credit card minimum payment is still only $50 a month, my expenses haven't gone up at all" Spending is a major issue as anyone sensible has been saying for years. Taxes will almost certainly have to rise (though not necessarily income tax) to meet deficit and debt obligations but that is no excuse for the oft-repeated lie that taxes have gone up - they haven't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Once you understand the only reason we pay federal income tax in the first place is so we can pay the interest on the Federal Reserve Notes (which is debt) what the f' are you talking about? Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Spending is a major issue as anyone sensible has been saying for years. Taxes will almost certainly have to rise (though not necessarily income tax) to meet deficit and debt obligations but that is no excuse for the oft-repeated lie that taxes have gone up - they haven't. If the government is forcing me to have less money in my pocket than I did two year ago then taxes have gone up. I don't care if you call it income tax, regulation, etc.. but in reality anytime the government costs me more taxes have effectively gone up. Due to additional regulation alone taxes have gone up for those of us bright enough to see it. Why all the waivers on Obamacare? Why did GE get an EPA waiver? Call it what you will, but in the end we have less money in our pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 If the government is forcing me to have less money in my pocket than I did two year ago then taxes have gone up. Do you really think this? Seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Eventually we are going to have to pay for all of the out of control spending done over the last two years, Short term memory loss? I don't have to read another Perch post in this thread, because there is no sense in taking anything he says seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Do you really think this? Seriously? In some instances yes. If the government is forcing me to provide health care to my employees, or face fine, then basically it is taxing me. Implementing cumbersome regulations cost money. Money that could otherwise be used to either hire more employees, or pay our current employees more. Some regulations are nothing more than taxes on businesses and in some cases individuals. I wonder how much support the health care bill would have gotten had the federal government raised taxes to pay for these peoples health care rather than forcing the employers and states to take up that burden? Just because we don't call something an tax does not mean that it not in effect a tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 income taxes haven't yet, no. but that's kinda like going on a hugh spending binge in vegas and justifying it by saying, "hey my credit card minimum payment is still only $50 a month, my expenses haven't gone up at all" I see your point, and agree with it. But spending wasn't what the article was about. They are two sides of the same equation, for sure. But the focused point, which seems fairly indisputable, is that Obama hasn't "raised income taxes" relative to GWB. That's just an assessment of what "is" whereas everyone seems to be glossing over that and jumping to the various tangential subjects of what "ought to be." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Then Obama and the Democrats are not realists for not raising taxes....where do they think that deficit is going? It's not like they are cutting any real spending that makes any difference. I wish I could live in the fairyland they do. It's the main reason we should be marching on DC like they are in Egypt. If these morans aren't going to live in reality, then we need to. Edited February 8, 2011 by TimC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Once you understand the only reason we pay federal income tax in the first place is so we can pay the interest on the Federal Reserve Notes (which is debt) - then you wonder why we should pay this tax at all. what the f' are you talking about? Seriously. I’m talking about the truth, Mr. economics professor of Keynesian philosophy (a philosophy encouraged by our fabulous government). Here's the breakdown of the sham: -US Treasury borrows (that means the government owes interest on printed money) money by selling Treasury bonds in the open market (known as P.O.M.O.) -The FED buys the majority of these bonds from banks and financial institutions. BUT, there is no actual buying. The FED, by law, is allowed to fabricate a new checking account for the seller where the bonds (now owned/held by the FED) serve as assets or backing for this new, printed money. -The sellers (banks, financial institutions) of these bonds are now even, the FED owns the US backed bonds and the US Treasury has the 'new' money. - This new money has interest attached to it from its inception and that interest must be paid back by the US Treasury or more accurately known as the tax payers of this ‘great’ nation. So to summarize the above process - the government essentially created it's own bank account from nothing by monetizing debt. Each time this transaction occurs, new money is created. However, the new money does not create new value. The new money has value but only at the expense of a decrease in the value of 'older' dollars. So all older dollar holders (tax payers) have the same number of dollars but since there are more dollars in circulation, the older dollars have less purchasing power. It is important to realize this process legally shifts wealth from the dollar savers (earners) to the Fed and the US Treasury without the permission of the savers/earners (tax payers). And who pays for the interest on these ‘borrowed’ dollars? That’s right, the tax payer again. So we are getting doubly f*cked by this process. First by inflation (lower purchasing power of older dollars) and then by being taxed to pay the interest on these new dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Do you really think this? Seriously? there's more than one way to skin a cat. if the government imposes a new tax on, say, energy producers, obviously they pay for it by raising the rates they charge consumers. if the government decides it wants to expand health coverage by requiring more employers to insure their workers and requiring all individuals to carry coverage (talk about your "unfunded mandates"), it is again imposing new costs which are ultimately passed through to each and every one of us. pretending that the only costs that matter or should be counted as far as government imposing new costs on the citizenry are "income taxes" is to perpetuate a disingenuous shell game that is all too typical of the gutless washington chicanery that has become par for the course. is that Obama hasn't "raised income taxes" relative to GWB. who, exactly is saying that he has? with respect to income taxes specifically, he has tried to raise them, and failed. who exactly has said otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 there's more than one way to skin a cat. if the government imposes a new tax on, say, energy producers, obviously they pay for it by raising the rates they charge consumers. if the government decides it wants to expand health coverage by requiring more employers to insure their workers and requiring all individuals to carry coverage (talk about your "unfunded mandates"), it is again imposing new costs which are ultimately passed through to each and every one of us. pretending that the only costs that matter or should be counted as far as government imposing new costs on the citizenry are "income taxes" is to perpetuate a disingenuous shell game that is all too typical of the gutless washington chicanery that has become par for the course. who, exactly is saying that he has? with respect to income taxes specifically, he has tried to raise them, and failed. who exactly has said otherwise? These are the reasons I advocate abolishing all taxes as they currently exist and implementing one tax that everyone pays. One federal income tax at one flat rate. No deductions of any kind, but each worker gets their first $(Number to be determined, but call it 35,000 for the sake of argument) tax free. In a sense it's a graduated income tax because the farther away from that $$ number you get, the higher overall percentage of your income you pay. In design it's a flat tax with a deduction that everyone can take advantage of and that means more to lower income folks while being virtually meaningless to the wealthy. Stop the hidden taxes. Get the Gov'ts accounting in front of everyone so we know where we are paying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 there's more than one way to skin a cat. if the government imposes a new tax on, say, energy producers, obviously they pay for it by raising the rates they charge consumers. if the government decides it wants to expand health coverage by requiring more employers to insure their workers and requiring all individuals to carry coverage (talk about your "unfunded mandates"), it is again imposing new costs which are ultimately passed through to each and every one of us. pretending that the only costs that matter or should be counted as far as government imposing new costs on the citizenry are "income taxes" is to perpetuate a disingenuous shell game that is all too typical of the gutless washington chicanery that has become par for the course. who, exactly is saying that he has? with respect to income taxes specifically, he has tried to raise them, and failed. who exactly has said otherwise? Clearly income isn't the only taxation but the article really covered two things - the historic "lowness" of taxes in general versus the current size of the economy and the relative taxes paid (or not) on income by identical taxpaying units as compared between 2008 and 2010. So far as people saying Obama has raised taxes, simply turn your radio on, tune it to an AM talk show and wait a few minutes. Or watch Fox. Or attend a tea party rally / meeting. Or check out Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or any one of a number of other politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) who, exactly is saying that he has? with respect to income taxes specifically, he has tried to raise them, and failed. who exactly has said otherwise? Lots of people. It was not that long ago that many professed doom and gloom that Obama would raise taxes, if elected president. Edited February 8, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Clearly income isn't the only taxation but the article really covered two things - the historic "lowness" of taxes in general versus the current size of the economy and the relative taxes paid (or not) on income by identical taxpaying units as compared between 2008 and 2010. So far as people saying Obama has raised taxes, simply turn your radio on, tune it to an AM talk show and wait a few minutes. Or watch Fox. Or attend a tea party rally / meeting. Or check out Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or any one of a number of other politicians. I think all the talk about Obama raising taxes was before he extended the Bush tax cuts. Until he extended the cuts he was pretty vocal about NOT extending the cuts. That was only a month ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 "lots of people" well, I've heard "lots of people" talking about his attempts to raise income taxes (which as of recently have gone down in flames). I've heard lots of people talking about the non-"income tax" costs to the citizenry of a lot of his policies. and I've heard "lots of people" talking about the implicit need to eventually raise taxes to pay for this. but I have to confess, I haven't heard "lots of people" saying he HAS raised income taxes. but hey, if you guys insist that it's all you hear on talk radio, I'll just have to take your word for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 "lots of people" well, I've heard "lots of people" talking about his attempts to raise income taxes (which as of recently have gone down in flames). I've heard lots of people talking about the non-"income tax" costs to the citizenry of a lot of his policies. and I've heard "lots of people" talking about the implicit need to eventually raise taxes to pay for this. but I have to confess, I haven't heard "lots of people" saying he HAS raised income taxes. but hey, if you guys insist that it's all you hear on talk radio, I'll just have to take your word for it. What's up with all the angry sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 What's up with all the angry sarcasm. my kids are 3 years old, and 1 month old respectively Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.