President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[conversationpc]

I think it's especially obvious with Limbaugh or Savage. On some shows, it's as if they're browsing the drudge report on a computer in front of them, and they free-riff from headline to headline. They just phone it in.

Savage is just weird. I rarely listen to him anymore and really only listened to his show for about a half hour a week previously anyway. He has anger issues.

Alot of talk radio is really bad. Beck was always worth a laugh or two with Moron Trivia, but now he's got this whole messianic complex thing going on. It's too self-serious and dramatic for me.

Yeah, I wish he would do something else once in a while at least. I still wish he'd drop that awful theme music. It's even worse now as they have a second version that sounds like something out of the Addams Family or the Munsters. Terrible.

[donnaplease]

I don't think she is anything like Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh types. You can just tell those guys wake up, look at the paper, and go, "how can I spin this against liberals to fill-up air time today?" Their one-note routine is stale and exhausting.

Sound reasoning there...Nice going.

Anyway, I agree on Hannity. I never listen to Limbaugh, so I can't comment there. Beck, on the other hand, is willing to look at more than just the token example of problems within the Republican party. That's one of the reasons I started listening to him in the first place.

I HATED Glenn Beck when I first started listening to him. He gradually grew on me, and I like his wit. I must admit I'd rather listen to him on the radio than watch his show, though.

On another note, I was listening to a show on XM today, something like Live from the Land of Hope (IDK exactly what it was, and my screen only showed Live from Land). Anyway, this guy was off his rocker! Somebody called in talking about entitlements. He said he lives off entitlements because he's disabled. He asked the host what 'they' (I guess conservatives) want him to do, go somewhere and die. The host responded, "yes, that's exactly what they want you to do!". This went on for several minutes talking about wiping out the part of our human race that is disabled, etc, because the conservatives don't want to pay for them. When a conservative called in to refute something that was said earlier, the host told him to shut the fuck up, and then said something else with "g-damned" in it (I missed exactly what he was saying because I was busy picking my chin up off the floor). Later in the program they were talking about Shirley Sherrod, and the classic race baiting commenced. It was pathetic. I've heard lots of stuff on talk radio that I thought was out of bounds, but never anything like this.

[Lula]

On another note, you do realize that the edited Sherrod video wasn't aired on Fox until AFTER she was forced to resign? That doesn't excuse O'Reilly and Hannity for airing it anyway but no one can claim with a straight face that Fox News had anything to do with her being ousted.

well maybe not the tv version of fox news, but the online fox nation was all over it immediately. blame lies on the admin for her firing tho.

[Lula]

i don't listen to satelite radio, but from what i enderstand it's an anything goes outlet. as for beck, he is just a friggin nut, plain and simple. his version of history is comical. rush is evil.

[Monker]

The tax cuts returned enough money to the people that enabled them to spend more, create more federal revenue.

There's no data to back this up. And the quotes aren't from Bruce Bartlett, they're collected from Bush administration economists, all who found that: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.”

What people do not want to admit is that if the rich want to go out and buy something, they can go out and buy something. If you have a $100,000,000 in savings, and you want a new car, you go buy a new car...there is nothing financially stopping you. Giving you a million dollar tax cut is not going to cause those people to spend more money. It just doesn't work like that. They should have a reasonable tax rate...and they do, and did before the Bush cuts...Changing it up or down a bit isn't going to affect them, or the economy, at all.

The middle class are the people who spend the money...but $1000/yr (or whatever it was) is really hardly any change at all. I remember looking at my check and it went up like $50/month. Give me a million dollars, and I will definitely spend more money...but $50? Yeah, right.

The entire Bush tax cuts were laughable, IMO.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The tax cuts returned enough money to the people that enabled them to spend more, create more federal revenue.

There's no data to back this up. And the quotes aren't from Bruce Bartlett, they're collected from Bush administration economists, all who found that: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that

.

Thats not true that there's no evidence that tax cuts cant dynamically increase revenue. Maybe not the Bush Tax cuts, but there are a couple of good examples out there:

1) A comparison of IRS tax receipts from 1980 (when the top marginal rate was 70%) and 1989 when the tax rate was 28%. Tax receipts in 1989 from the top two brackets were over five times the amount they were in 1980. ( Note: The fact that the deficit itself was much greater in the 80's had nothing to do with tax receipts, both Reagan and the congress were spending the extra income faster than it was coming in)

2) Growth in GDP during the 1990's and early 2000's and tax revenues in Ireland when copororate tax rates were slashed from the European high of 50%.

3) Growth and resuling rates in singapore and hong kong from lower marginal tax rates

Now not all tax cuts lead to revenue growth. If you cut taxes down to nothing from an already low rate you wont get an upside. Furthermore if you cut taxes that dont incentise investement - e.g you will only get a decrease in revenue with no dynamic upside.

As to Monkers statment of the rich always being able to buy something should they need it, look at the effect that the luxury tax on yachts (levied by Bush I had on the yacht industry in the NE of the US )

[The_Noble_Cause]

Thats not true that there's no evidence. There are a couple of good examples out there:

You've changed the subject. None of these examples look at the effects of the 2000 Bush tax cuts - which is what the topic was, and NOT whether tax cuts can be stimulative in general. You are making the case for a policy that was already tried and failed.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Thats not true that there's no evidence. There are a couple of good examples out there:

None of these old examples look at the effects of the 2000 Bush tax cuts - which is what the topic was, and NOT whether tax cuts can be stimulative in general. You are making the case for a policy that was already tried and failed.

No Im just pointing out that because the Bush tax cuts didn't create an increase in revenue (because they weren't they type of tax cuts that incentivise risk taking and investement) one shouldn't be misled into thinking that lower maginal tax rates don't spur growth, because they do and its been proven time and again. In a broader sense Im saying dont go judging the righness or wrongness of free market theories on the policies of that moronic big government conservative Bush. None of us austrian/free market libertarian theorists want anything to do with him or want to defend anything he ever did.

[RossValoryRocks]

I am violating my vow not to post...but the complete wrong information given by the liberals here is not just sickening its SCARY.

The Bush tax cuts don't just effect the wealthy...IN FACT, it will disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class.

The new lowest bracket will be 15%, it was 10%...so a 50% raise in tax levels on the least fortunate among us...

Capital gains goes from 15% to 20% this will KILL investment...

Qualified dividends go from 15% to regular tax rate...this will KILL investment...

Oh and the child tax credit drops from $1000 to $500...and the marriage penalty is back...

Quote ALL the economists or economic theories you like, but the MATH is simple...I am smack dab in the middle, of the middle class like most of you, I will lose about $5000 more per year to taxes...and you know what? I won't be able to afford to spend on things I wanted to do...like home improvement and other things...that would be have been given to small businesses in my area...$5000 multiplied by the entire middle class kills our economy...and don't tell me well the government needs it...they NEED TO CUT SPENDING.

STEP AWAY FROM THE PARTISAN POLITICS liberals...because I bet you are about to fucked hard too.

You should all read about the STEALTH tax increases in HEALTHCARE BILL! The new taxes on small business and the self-employeed.

Listen to this podcast I found if you want to hear it from a CPA who has been studying this: http://www.watchdogradio.org/podcasts/wdr-7-24-10.mp3

Killing the Bush tax cuts and passing these new tax laws will destroy our economy. PERIOD.

Now back to my exile.

[slucero]

I am violating my vow not to post...but the complete wrong information given by the liberals here is not just sickening its SCARY.

The Bush tax cuts don't just effect the wealthy...IN FACT, it will disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class.

The new lowest bracket will be 15%, it was 10%...so a 50% raise in tax levels on the least fortunate among us...

Capital gains goes from 15% to 20% this will KILL investment...

Qualified dividends go from 15% to regular tax rate...this will KILL investment...

Oh and the child tax credit drops from $1000 to $500...and the marriage penalty is back...

Quote ALL the economists or economic theories you like, but the MATH is simple...I am smack dab in the middle, of the middle class like most of you, I will lose about $5000 more per year to taxes...and you know what? I won't be able to afford to spend on things I wanted to do...like home improvement and other things...that would be have been given to small businesses in my area...$5000 multiplied by the entire middle class kills our economy...and don't tell me well the government needs it...they NEED TO CUT SPENDING.

STEP AWAY FROM THE PARTISAN POLITICS liberals...because I bet you are about to fucked hard too.

You should all read about the STEALTH tax increases in HEALTHCARE BILL! The new taxes on small business and the self-employeed.

Listen to this podcast I found if you want to hear it from a CPA who has been studying this: http://www.watchdogradio.org/podcasts/wdr-7-24-10.mp3

Killing the Bush tax cuts and passing these new tax laws will destroy our economy. PERIOD.

Now back to my exile.

stop it RVR - yer making too much sense..

[Memorex]

I am violating my vow not to post...but the complete wrong information given by the liberals here is not just sickening its SCARY.

The Bush tax cuts don't just effect the wealthy...IN FACT, it will disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class.

The new lowest bracket will be 15%, it was 10%...so a 50% raise in tax levels on the least fortunate among us...

Capital gains goes from 15% to 20% this will KILL investment...

Qualified dividends go from 15% to regular tax rate...this will KILL investment...

Oh and the child tax credit drops from $1000 to $500...and the marriage penalty is back...

Quote ALL the economists or economic theories you like, but the MATH is simple...I am smack dab in the middle, of the middle class like most of you, I will lose about $5000 more per year to taxes...and you know what? I won't be able to afford to spend on things I wanted to do...like home improvement and other things...that would be have been given to small businesses in my area...$5000 multiplied by the entire middle class kills our economy...and don't tell me well the government needs it...they NEED TO CUT SPENDING.

STEP AWAY FROM THE PARTISAN POLITICS liberals...because I bet you are about to fucked hard too.

You should all read about the STEALTH tax increases in HEALTHCARE BILL! The new taxes on small business and the self-employeed.

Listen to this podcast I found if you want to hear it from a CPA who has been studying this: http://www.watchdogradio.org/podcasts/wdr-7-24-10.mp3

Killing the Bush tax cuts and passing these new tax laws will destroy our economy. PERIOD.

Now back to my exile.

I am not sure if it will "destroy" things, but it certainly won't help. I make an OK living and have 6 kids. I am middle class, if that. The relief I have felt from the tax cuts has been great. I am already in a bit of panic mode for what I will face next year. It will be brutal by anyone's standards. That's just a simple fact. The child tax credit going down means another $3k a year I have to pay. The tax rate going up obviously hurts too.

Here's the thing. I do not mind at all paying my "fair share". Seriously - I know that's how life works. What I can't stand is paying a ton of money when SO MUCH is absolutely wasted. Or knowing that my taxes are higher because whether you want to admit it or not, people are fucking the system. So many people that get government assistance could actually get up and help themselves. That's my frustration. My thought is, don't raise my taxes if you have not done everything in your power to curb spending and fix the waste. Then, and only then, should you be entitled to take more from people. Having lived in California all my life, nothing irked me more than seeing all the absolute waste in that state and then they up my taxes - gas tax, car tax, income tax, etc. Yet my sister has 8 frickin kids and lives off welfare. We all know people that are taking from the system that should be helping themselves.

I don't care who marries who. I don't care what women want to choose in life. I don't give a rats ass about nearly any social issue. But damn, spend my money better please. That goes to any politician entrusted with spending my money - Dem or Republican. I need it for my family. And if I have to give it to someone else, it should be spent as efficiently as possible.

[Michigan Girl]

I am violating my vow not to post...but the complete wrong information given by the liberals here is not just sickening its SCARY.

The Bush tax cuts don't just effect the wealthy...IN FACT, it will disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class.

The new lowest bracket will be 15%, it was 10%...so a 50% raise in tax levels on the least fortunate among us...

Capital gains goes from 15% to 20% this will KILL investment...

Qualified dividends go from 15% to regular tax rate...this will KILL investment...

Oh and the child tax credit drops from $1000 to $500...and the marriage penalty is back...

Quote ALL the economists or economic theories you like, but the MATH is simple...I am smack dab in the middle, of the middle class like most of you, I will lose about $5000 more per year to taxes...and you know what? I won't be able to afford to spend on things I wanted to do...like home improvement and other things...that would be have been given to small businesses in my area...$5000 multiplied by the entire middle class kills our economy...and don't tell me well the government needs it...they NEED TO CUT SPENDING.

STEP AWAY FROM THE PARTISAN POLITICS liberals...because I bet you are about to fucked hard too.

You should all read about the STEALTH tax increases in HEALTHCARE BILL! The new taxes on small business and the self-employeed.

Listen to this podcast I found if you want to hear it from a CPA who has been studying this: http://www.watchdogradio.org/podcasts/wdr-7-24-10.mp3

Killing the Bush tax cuts and passing these new tax laws will destroy our economy. PERIOD.

Now back to my exile.

Thank you, Stu ...I don't mind telling you, I'm a little scared!!

[Rockindeano]

Gee, not a right wing nutjob post by Stu? Ohhh noo.

What garbage. I see you have taken on the party's SOP- Scare Tactics.

Nice work.

Dude, either stop hiding and being a complete pussy, or banish yourself. You want to be a sniper? Just come out, fie a shot and go back into hiding? Oh how fun.

You say the "Liberals" here are posting garbage. What the fuck have you just done? You cherry picked right from GOP Daily.

[donnaplease]

...spend my money better please. That goes to any politician entrusted with spending my money - Dem or Republican. I need it for my family. And if I have to give it to someone else, it should be spent as efficiently as possible.

This is perfect!

[conversationpc]

Gee, not a right wing nutjob post by Stu? Ohhh noo.

What garbage. I see you have taken on the party's SOP- Scare Tactics.

Nice work.

Dude, either stop hiding and being a complete pussy, or banish yourself. You want to be a sniper? Just come out, fie a shot and go back into hiding? Oh how fun.

You say the "Liberals" here are posting garbage. What the fuck have you just done? You cherry picked right from GOP Daily.

I can't vouch for Stu's assertions but how about a substantive counterpoint instead of just "You cherry picked right from GOP Daily"?

BTW...Cherry-picked should be hyphenated.

[Monker]

I am violating my vow not to post...but the complete wrong information given by the liberals here is not just sickening its SCARY.

The Bush tax cuts don't just effect the wealthy...IN FACT, it will disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class.

The new lowest bracket will be 15%, it was 10%...so a 50% raise in tax levels on the least fortunate among us...

Capital gains goes from 15% to 20% this will KILL investment...

Qualified dividends go from 15% to regular tax rate...this will KILL investment...

Oh and the child tax credit drops from $1000 to $500...and the marriage penalty is back...

Quote ALL the economists or economic theories you like, but the MATH is simple...I am smack dab in the middle, of the middle class like most of you, I will lose about $5000 more per year to taxes...and you know what? I won't be able to afford to spend on things I wanted to do...like home improvement and other things...that would be have been given to small businesses in my area...$5000 multiplied by the entire middle class kills our economy...and don't tell me well the government needs it...they NEED TO CUT SPENDING.

STEP AWAY FROM THE PARTISAN POLITICS liberals...because I bet you are about to fucked hard too.

You should all read about the STEALTH tax increases in HEALTHCARE BILL! The new taxes on small business and the self-employeed.

Listen to this podcast I found if you want to hear it from a CPA who has been studying this: http://www.watchdogradio.org/podcasts/wdr-7-24-10.mp3

Killing the Bush tax cuts and passing these new tax laws will destroy our economy. PERIOD.

Now back to my exile.

Stuie, I'd be all for a middle income tax cut. But, what Bush gave was just a hush-puppy.

The Capital Gains tax should be eliminated and be counted as income - because that is what it is. It shouldn't be raised because of the economy...but, it's also not going to be 'devastating' or affect investing much at all.

The child tax credit should remain because it helps a LOT of people.

And, it was just a few months ago that the hypocrite conservatives in this forum were complaining about people not paying their fair share. But, when it affects YOUR taxes, you cry like a baby. All of you should stop contradicting yourselves by whining about all of the tax credits available...and then not wanting them taken away or changed because of how it affects YOU. You can't have it both ways.

[Lula]

at the risk of getting slammed, piled on, called names.... whatever..... doesn't the non renewal of, letting expire, bush tax cuts put that upper income bracket back to the clinton era numbers? and isn't it for those making 250,000 and up that the child credit is changing?

[Memorex]

at the risk of getting slammed, piled on, called names.... whatever..... doesn't the non renewal of, letting expire, bush tax cuts put that upper income bracket back to the clinton era numbers? and isn't it for those making 250,000 and up that the child credit is changing?

If all the tax credits expire, it affects all levels of income. The Bush tax cuts were across the board cuts. I'm not saying that under normal circumstances those should not expire (even though I am a huge proponent of the lowest taxes possible). My concern is we are not in normal circumstances. We have 9.5% unemployment and a lot of people hurting. With Clinton, the economy was in great shape. We had a relatively shallow recession and the .com boom. But remember, after 94, he cut way back on spending. We are in the complete opposite trend right now (for better or worse). This cannot be compared to the Clinton era in that sense.

The other side of it is that there are a whole host of new taxes that will affect all levels of income - well, at least middle class and up.

And the most stressful thing to me - my boss has already told me he plans to either let go of most of his US staff or make us contractors because of the new taxes on the health plans. This means I will likely either have to find a new job or start paying self-employment taxes, which I cannot afford. Our company is borderline profitable. We bring in roughly 27 million a year and it is co-owned by two individuals. So they are considered wealthy and the new taxes on them will create a lot of problems for our company.

Again - I completely feel as though people should pay their fair share. But the waste and fraud have to be dealt with. And people do not pay their fair share at all. So many people pay no taxes at all.

Our health care plan now - it is considered a Cadillac plan under the new healthcare guidelines. I pay roughly $14,000 per year for my portion of it and my employer pays the rest. Now that plan is going to be taxed. Here's what pisses me off beyond what I can even think about. The unions get an exception to that tax for a number of years. So in my case, I will lose my coverage because my employer cannot afford the tax, but someone equivalent to me in a union slides. And for no other reason than votes. That's where I see a problem with things not being fair. I'm happy for you Lula in that you have some breaks because you are in a union. But we can both likely admit it's not very fair. And even worse still - If I did manage to keep my health care, the tax credit on premiums is going away. So now I will have to pay higher taxes on an additional $14k a year. I've never had to do that before.

It's ok to raise taxes. It's ok to be a proponent of raising taxes. But people have to at least be fair with the realities that brings. And my reality sucks next year and beyond. And I just don't see how my family is not going to be hurting. But we will get by. We always do. Hell, at one point in my life I was raising 4 kids working 2 jobs making about $9.50 an hour. I just would hate to go back to that.

[Rockindeano]

Gee, not a right wing nutjob post by Stu? Ohhh noo.

What garbage. I see you have taken on the party's SOP- Scare Tactics.

Nice work.

Dude, either stop hiding and being a complete pussy, or banish yourself. You want to be a sniper? Just come out, fie a shot and go back into hiding? Oh how fun.

You say the "Liberals" here are posting garbage. What the fuck have you just done? You cherry picked right from GOP Daily.

I can't vouch for Stu's assertions but how about a substantive counterpoint instead of just "You cherry picked right from GOP Daily"?

BTW...Cherry-picked should be hyphenated.

Right Dave. As soon as I make the argument that the Bush Tax cuts did nothing for the country, I will have 4-8 conservative articles thrown at me saying otherwise. It really doesn't matter what you Cons think. Geithner is in favor of eliminating the cuts...."the nation can take it. It's good policy." I agree.

The Bush tax cuts did nothing for the middle class. They did nothing for the economy.

[slucero]

Gee, not a right wing nutjob post by Stu? Ohhh noo.

What garbage. I see you have taken on the party's SOP- Scare Tactics.

Nice work.

Dude, either stop hiding and being a complete pussy, or banish yourself. You want to be a sniper? Just come out, fie a shot and go back into hiding? Oh how fun.

You say the "Liberals" here are posting garbage. What the fuck have you just done? You cherry picked right from GOP Daily.

I can't vouch for Stu's assertions but how about a substantive counterpoint instead of just "You cherry picked right from GOP Daily"?

BTW...Cherry-picked should be hyphenated.

Right Dave. As soon as I make the argument that the Bush Tax cuts did nothing for the country, I will have 4-8 conservative articles thrown at me saying otherwise. It really doesn't matter what you Cons think. Geithner is in favor of eliminating the cuts...."the nation can take it. It's good policy." I agree.

The Bush tax cuts did nothing for the middle class. They did nothing for the economy.

thats not good enough Deano.. put some facts on the table please...

[donnaplease]

This is a few years old, but I'm certain the message of it hasn't changed.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
Putting the Stereotypes to the Test

There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don't give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.


Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco
We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.


Rich vs. Poor
The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations.

But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.

Laurie Tanner is one of those people. She says, "I remember a time when honestly, I couldn't afford a gallon of milk for my son. And I had a good friend that stepped in and helped me, and I've never forgotten that."

The United Way helped Vincent Lau when he was a teenager. Now he donates to them. "I'm glad to help, " Lau says.

Workers at the meat packing plant where Lau works make on average around $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees here than anywhere else.

Another employee at the plant, B.J. Motley, has a wife and four kids to support, but he gives part of his paycheck to charity every week

"My mom always says 'it's always good to give,'" he says. "[I've] got a great family and I've been blessed."

And what about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, compared to the rich and the working poor, they give less. "The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor," says Brooks. "The middle class give the least."


The Church Connection
Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.

So how did our little test turn out? Tune into a special edition of "20/20," "Cheap in America," to find out.

[conversationpc]

The expiration of the across-the-board Bush tax cuts will hurt both lower income families and small business owners. Period. There's no way it cannot. Ask any small business owner if they expect the higher taxes to hurt them. Most of these folks have to file their business income on their personal tax return, hence they are considered rich even though many of them really aren't. Their taxes go up, it hurts their business. It hurts their business and it, in turn, hurts their employees, most of whom are the lower and middle class folks that Obama claims to want to help.

[ohsherrie]

Thats not true that there's no evidence. There are a couple of good examples out there:

You've changed the subject. None of these examples look at the effects of the 2000 Bush tax cuts - which is what the topic was, and NOT whether tax cuts can be stimulative in general. You are making the case for a policy that was already tried and failed.

http://www.1115.org/2010/07/14/delusion ... -tax-cuts/

"On July 31, 2008, the House Committee on the Budget reported (pdf):

To date, this Administration has created just 58,000 new jobs per month on average compared with 237,000 per month under President Clinton.

Man, those tax cuts really sent job creation through the roof, didn’t they? And it must be because of how the tax cuts paid for themselves (by creating that explosion of new jobs) that the national debt jumped by almost $5 trillion in the time of Bush."

[ohsherrie]

I think this sounds like an excellent idea:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/2 ... 60140.html


"DENVER — The federal government is rapidly expanding a program to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests, drawing opposition from local authorities and advocates who argue the initiative amounts to an excessive dragnet.

The program has gotten less attention than Arizona's new immigration law, but it may end up having a bigger impact because of its potential to round up and deport so many immigrants nationwide."

If they're fingerprinted for committing a crime why in the world wouldn't we want them deported?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Thats not true that there's no evidence. There are a couple of good examples out there:

You've changed the subject. None of these examples look at the effects of the 2000 Bush tax cuts - which is what the topic was, and NOT whether tax cuts can be stimulative in general. You are making the case for a policy that was already tried and failed.

http://www.1115.org/2010/07/14/delusion ... -tax-cuts/

"On July 31, 2008, the House Committee on the Budget reported (pdf):

To date, this Administration has created just 58,000 new jobs per month on average compared with 237,000 per month under President Clinton.

Man, those tax cuts really sent job creation through the roof, didn’t they? And it must be because of how the tax cuts paid for themselves (by creating that explosion of new jobs) that the national debt jumped by almost $5 trillion in the time of Bush."

No the Bush tax cuts didn't create growth , they were aenemic in their scope didn't seriously challenge the real incentive blockers in the US tax system. And accompanied by massive deficit spending. We would have had a much different growth story if tax rates were cut to Signapore/Hong Kong levels, we wernt blowing money right left and center on deficit spending, and weren't encouraging social experimentation with lending/risk and countless other controls of the economy.

[Memorex]

Thats not true that there's no evidence. There are a couple of good examples out there:

You've changed the subject. None of these examples look at the effects of the 2000 Bush tax cuts - which is what the topic was, and NOT whether tax cuts can be stimulative in general. You are making the case for a policy that was already tried and failed.

http://www.1115.org/2010/07/14/delusion ... -tax-cuts/

"On July 31, 2008, the House Committee on the Budget reported (pdf):

To date, this Administration has created just 58,000 new jobs per month on average compared with 237,000 per month under President Clinton.

Man, those tax cuts really sent job creation through the roof, didn’t they? And it must be because of how the tax cuts paid for themselves (by creating that explosion of new jobs) that the national debt jumped by almost $5 trillion in the time of Bush."

To be fair, there were a lot less jobs that needed to be added. Remember, the Bush tax cuts were in response to the mini-recession happening at the end of the Clinton era and in 2005, small businesses paid far more taxes than during the Clinton era. I mean, if you want to go to a more-equal comparison, let's look at how many jobs were added and at what rate after the Reagan tax cuts.

I don't think any sane person can argue whether tax cuts or increases affect jobs and people's bottom line. Raise taxes, less money in your pocket and combined with a bad economy, less jobs. Lower taxes and there's more money in your pocket and combined with a decent economy, more jobs. I don't think anyone disputes that.

It seems to me the argument has to be framed as this: Can the economy sustain a tax increase in order to help pay for the expansion of government, the desired social programs, and the national debt. Is the economy strong enough to withstand small businesses and individuals, as well as large businesses and wealthy individuals, paying more of their earnings in taxes.

Fact: If the cuts expire across the board, I will have less money. Based on the the Bush tax cuts alone, it will suck but I can withstand it. Fact: There are a host of new taxes next year that will affect my income bracket and my current situation. Those two combined have created fear in me about my future. If I had one or two kids, maybe not so much. But I have six and I don't think I will be able to live in the same house and may lose my job. Those are just hard facts.

Fact, the national debt and the deficit are way too high and something MUST be done. My feeling is that the country, under the current economic climate, cannot sustain the level of spending that is happening and I swear to God no one can blame only Democrats or only Republicans. Our government has become so incredibly irresponsible that it makes me angry that I may have to move and may lose my job. From my point of view, both parties are the same. Dems obviously do spend more and want to tax more, but Republicans are right up there with them.

I am middle class and I will be hurt by the tax increases and the expiration of the tax cuts. No way around that argument.

[SF-Dano]

Well said Memorex. And I can definitely understand where you are coming from.

[ohsherrie]

Thats not true that there's no evidence. There are a couple of good examples out there:

You've changed the subject. None of these examples look at the effects of the 2000 Bush tax cuts - which is what the topic was, and NOT whether tax cuts can be stimulative in general. You are making the case for a policy that was already tried and failed.

http://www.1115.org/2010/07/14/delusion ... -tax-cuts/

"On July 31, 2008, the House Committee on the Budget reported (pdf):

To date, this Administration has created just 58,000 new jobs per month on average compared with 237,000 per month under President Clinton.

Man, those tax cuts really sent job creation through the roof, didn’t they? And it must be because of how the tax cuts paid for themselves (by creating that explosion of new jobs) that the national debt jumped by almost $5 trillion in the time of Bush."

To be fair, there were a lot less jobs that needed to be added. Remember, the Bush tax cuts were in response to the mini-recession happening at the end of the Clinton era and in 2005, small businesses paid far more taxes than during the Clinton era. I mean, if you want to go to a more-equal comparison, let's look at how many jobs were added and at what rate after the Reagan tax cuts.

I don't think any sane person can argue whether tax cuts or increases affect jobs and people's bottom line. Raise taxes, less money in your pocket and combined with a bad economy, less jobs. Lower taxes and there's more money in your pocket and combined with a decent economy, more jobs. I don't think anyone disputes that.

It seems to me the argument has to be framed as this: Can the economy sustain a tax increase in order to help pay for the expansion of government, the desired social programs, and the national debt. Is the economy strong enough to withstand small businesses and individuals, as well as large businesses and wealthy individuals, paying more of their earnings in taxes.

Fact: If the cuts expire across the board, I will have less money. Based on the the Bush tax cuts alone, it will suck but I can withstand it. Fact: There are a host of new taxes next year that will affect my income bracket and my current situation. Those two combined have created fear in me about my future. If I had one or two kids, maybe not so much. But I have six and I don't think I will be able to live in the same house and may lose my job. Those are just hard facts.

Fact, the national debt and the deficit are way too high and something MUST be done. My feeling is that the country, under the current economic climate, cannot sustain the level of spending that is happening and I swear to God no one can blame only Democrats or only Republicans. Our government has become so incredibly irresponsible that it makes me angry that I may have to move and may lose my job. From my point of view, both parties are the same. Dems obviously do spend more and want to tax more, but Republicans are right up there with them.

I am middle class and I will be hurt by the tax increases and the expiration of the tax cuts. No way around that argument.

If the recession we're in right now isn't proof enough that your philosophy doesn't work then there is no hope for you to see the facts that are smacking most of this country right in the face.

If you're truly middle class then the Obama tax cuts did you more good than letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But even if you can't bring yourself to admit that, look at it this way, be patriotic about it, if the letting the Bush tax cuts expire are going to cut into so many pockets so deeply just think how much they are going to cut back on that deficit you're all so worried about all of a sudden (too bad you didn't worry about it when Bush was creating it).

[ohsherrie]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... sclose-act

Gee, I wonder why the rethugs would be so afraid of this bill? Oh yeah, that's right, swiftboating is their favorite sport.

[Memorex]

Thats not true that there's no evidence. There are a couple of good examples out there:

You've changed the subject. None of these examples look at the effects of the 2000 Bush tax cuts - which is what the topic was, and NOT whether tax cuts can be stimulative in general. You are making the case for a policy that was already tried and failed.

http://www.1115.org/2010/07/14/delusion ... -tax-cuts/

"On July 31, 2008, the House Committee on the Budget reported (pdf):

To date, this Administration has created just 58,000 new jobs per month on average compared with 237,000 per month under President Clinton.

Man, those tax cuts really sent job creation through the roof, didn’t they? And it must be because of how the tax cuts paid for themselves (by creating that explosion of new jobs) that the national debt jumped by almost $5 trillion in the time of Bush."

To be fair, there were a lot less jobs that needed to be added. Remember, the Bush tax cuts were in response to the mini-recession happening at the end of the Clinton era and in 2005, small businesses paid far more taxes than during the Clinton era. I mean, if you want to go to a more-equal comparison, let's look at how many jobs were added and at what rate after the Reagan tax cuts.

I don't think any sane person can argue whether tax cuts or increases affect jobs and people's bottom line. Raise taxes, less money in your pocket and combined with a bad economy, less jobs. Lower taxes and there's more money in your pocket and combined with a decent economy, more jobs. I don't think anyone disputes that.

It seems to me the argument has to be framed as this: Can the economy sustain a tax increase in order to help pay for the expansion of government, the desired social programs, and the national debt. Is the economy strong enough to withstand small businesses and individuals, as well as large businesses and wealthy individuals, paying more of their earnings in taxes.

Fact: If the cuts expire across the board, I will have less money. Based on the the Bush tax cuts alone, it will suck but I can withstand it. Fact: There are a host of new taxes next year that will affect my income bracket and my current situation. Those two combined have created fear in me about my future. If I had one or two kids, maybe not so much. But I have six and I don't think I will be able to live in the same house and may lose my job. Those are just hard facts.

Fact, the national debt and the deficit are way too high and something MUST be done. My feeling is that the country, under the current economic climate, cannot sustain the level of spending that is happening and I swear to God no one can blame only Democrats or only Republicans. Our government has become so incredibly irresponsible that it makes me angry that I may have to move and may lose my job. From my point of view, both parties are the same. Dems obviously do spend more and want to tax more, but Republicans are right up there with them.

I am middle class and I will be hurt by the tax increases and the expiration of the tax cuts. No way around that argument.

If the recession we're in right now isn't proof enough that your philosophy doesn't work then there is no hope for you to see the facts that are smacking most of this country right in the face.

If you're truly middle class then the Obama tax cuts did you more good than letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But even if you can't bring yourself to admit that, look at it this way, be patriotic about it, if the letting the Bush tax cuts expire are going to cut into so many pockets so deeply just think how much they are going to cut back on that deficit you're all so worried about all of a sudden (too bad you didn't worry about it when Bush was creating it).

You are treating me as a republican, which I am not. You state I didn't worry about it during the bush years, yet I think I was very clear that I see this as a problem on both sides. So it's weird you are projecting that on me.

What Obama tax cuts? I have not seen one. There was a tax credit that gave me an extra $28 a check or so (or maybe $14), but since it was a credit and not a cut, I had to pay it back at the end of the year. If there is a cut I am not aware of, I'm excited.

The Bush tax cuts were great for me. I also don't think anyone has blamed the economy failing on tax cuts. The economy failed over bad loans, housing bubble, etc... Now if you want to make a case for the government having less money and the deficit, etc, that's a different argument.

Again - the Bush tax cuts expiring on it's own - maybe it's time. I think it may hurt the economy, but they were temporary in the first place. Combine them with all the new taxes and I am screwed.