No matter who you are, Obama wants you to pay

[JustRalph]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-government-fees-pepper-apf-4120540659.html?x=0&.v=2

[Tom]

The dud is a broken record - no ideas, just rhetoric for the base.
Better we put this fool on the street - let him go organizes some community somewhere.

As a leader, he has no skills.
36 senators from both sides showed a willingness to work together last week and come up with viable solutions...then Bozo the Kenyan comes back with his class warfare smears. The guy is a dispstick.

[NJ Stinks]

Yea, it's always a bad idea to try to pay your bills and get out of debt.

We need GWB back to show us how to avoid paying for anything. :rolleyes:

[rastajenk]

"your bills?" Whose bills?

[Tom]

Who is paying the bills?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm



The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.



I would say if we should fall to our kness and thank them for paying their fair share and a whole lot of other people's fair share as well. We got a an awful lot of freeloaders here who leech of those who carry the country. I like to call them democrats. Anchors. What is a fair share, NJ......50%????

Where did you get your immunity to facts anyway?

[newtothegame]

Yea, it's always a bad idea to try to pay your bills and get out of debt.

We need GWB back to show us how to avoid paying for anything. :rolleyes:

Wait wait wait.....that's similiar to a "budget" and fiscal responsibility. That's exactly what we are asking our government to do. Pay bills and get out of debt. Instead, the want more more to creat more bills......:bang:
Who's side are you really on NJ??? :lol:

[Robert Goren]

I am going repeat my challenge to all you budget hawks. Show me one case where cutting government spending ever help the unemployment numbers. I have put this challenge up on this forum several times. Never got one example. Clinton raised taxes and the ecomony boomed. I thought conservatives like things that have been to work, these days they are mad sciencists saying if tinkering with this crazy idea that has never worked a little, everything will be fine. I say this is not the time for trying crazy ideas that have never worked, but the time for trying things that have worked at least once before.

[DJofSD]

I am going repeat my challenge to all you budget hawks. Show me one case where cutting government spending ever help the unemployment numbers. I have put this challenge up on this forum several times. Never got one example. Clinton raised taxes and the ecomony boomed. I thought conservatives like things that have been to work, these days they are mad sciencists saying if tinkering with this crazy idea that has never worked a little, everything will be fine. I say this is not the time for trying crazy ideas that have never worked, but the time for trying things that have worked at least once before.
Who said that cutting goverment spending was going to raise employment?

If you want to see employment, get government out of every single iota of business, and, life in general. IOW, get out of the way.

Next, stop changing the rules and laws every single time Barney and Harry fart. You can not run a government or a business when you don't know what is going to happen next.

[Tom]

I am going repeat my challenge to all you budget hawks. Show me one case where cutting government spending ever help the unemployment numbers. I have put this challenge up on this forum several times. Never got one example. Clinton raised taxes and the ecomony boomed. I thought conservatives like things that have been to work, these days they are mad sciencists saying if tinkering with this crazy idea that has never worked a little, everything will be fine. I say this is not the time for trying crazy ideas that have never worked, but the time for trying things that have worked at least once before.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/how-did-the-reagan-tax-cuts-and-bush-tax-cuts-affect-unemployment/



What did change, however, was the rate of economic growth, which was more than 50 percent higher for the seven years after the Reagan tax cuts compared with the previous seven years. This increase in economic growth, plus some reductions in tax credits and deductions, almost entirely offset the effect of the rate reductions.


The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.

[Tom]

Let's look at Buffet's lie and slight of hand game he is playing.
First of all, he is not paying the same kind of taxes as his secretary. She is paying income tax, he is paying capital gains. Not the same. At some point, he paid income taxes on the money he invested to get the capital gains, so he is paying double taxes.

Want to put the brakes on the economy? Raise capital gains taxes. Go ahead, big mouth Obama, raise them ans see what happens.

If his secretary is paying less than he is, you know the damn taxes are too high! :D

[The Judge]

"But unlike Obama's tax proposals, the new fees aren't necessarily dead on arrival with Republicans"

"Many of Obama's proposals are retreads from earlier budget proposals, including those submitted by his PREDECESSORS. Most have been rejected year after year."

Now who might his "predecessors" be?

[The Judge]

Do You think WARREN BUFFET does not know that? He points it out,and he says that the rich should pay more non-the -less.

He and we know what capital gains and payroll taxes are.

Thanks anyway.

[DJofSD]

Screw Warren. Just another unelected opinion mudding the waters. He can speak for himself and his companies. When it comes to the rest of us and other companies, he can STFU.

[Valuist]

Screw Warren. Just another unelected opinion mudding the waters. He can speak for himself and his companies. When it comes to the rest of us and other companies, he can STFU.

Buffett is losing it. That "great" deal he cut with Goldman....all those warrants with a strike price of $115. Nearly three years later and they are still underwater by $10.

[Tom]

Do You think WARREN BUFFET does not know that? He points it out,and he says that the rich should pay more non-the -less.

He and we know what capital gains and payroll taxes are.

Thanks anyway.

Tell that to Obama - he is the one trying to confuse the issue.

[The Judge]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BRK-A

One share of stock $105,000. 52 Week high $131,500 a share.

The man that all capitalist point to as the ideal, the man that has played by the rules and made common people rich. Now he says raise taxes on his own kind, "Mulit- Millionaires and Billionaires and he becomes a crack-pot.

How about letting some of the wealthy attack him maybe they will put a few bucks into advertising.

Ever stop to think the man knows what he is talking about.

[DJofSD]

It does not make him an expert on the economy.

[The Judge]

if its not Buffet, who.

Buffet isn't trying to be an Economic expert Buffet is trying to get the wealthy to step-up to the plate "times are tough we are to old to fight, kick in some money." He does not say this will set the course straight.

It's good for the wealthy not bad. Buffet knows what he is doing. He wants prosperity he wants his stock price higher not lower he has skin in the game.

He knows what he saying and what he is doing and its good for the wealthy.

[BenDiesel26]

I am going repeat my challenge to all you budget hawks. Show me one case where cutting government spending ever help the unemployment numbers. I have put this challenge up on this forum several times. Never got one example. Clinton raised taxes and the ecomony boomed. I thought conservatives like things that have been to work, these days they are mad sciencists saying if tinkering with this crazy idea that has never worked a little, everything will be fine. I say this is not the time for trying crazy ideas that have never worked, but the time for trying things that have worked at least once before.

Not sure if you know this Robert, but Bill Clinton cut spending. During Clinton's years with the Republican congress, expenditures went from 22% GDP down to almost 18% of GDP. Obama has been as high as 25% and is still hovering above 22%. All anybody has to do when Obama keeps bumbling, is ask him if he's also willing to cut spending down to 18% of GDP. Clinton also signed into law in 1997 the largest tax cut since Reagan in 1983.

[Robert Goren]

Who said that cutting goverment spending was going to raise employment?

If you want to see employment, get government out of every single iota of business, and, life in general. IOW, get out of the way.

Next, stop changing the rules and laws every single time Barney and Harry fart. You can not run a government or a business when you don't know what is going to happen next.There are places like that. Maybe should move to one although I doubt that you would like it much.

[BenDiesel26]

There are places like that. Maybe should move to one although I doubt that you would like it much.

Where?

[Robert Goren]

Not sure if you know this Robert, but Bill Clinton cut spending. During Clinton's years with the Republican congress, expenditures went from 22% GDP down to almost 18% of GDP. Obama has been as high as 25% and is still hovering above 22%. All anybody has to do when Obama keeps bumbling, is ask him if he's also willing to cut spending down to 18% of GDP. Clinton also signed into law in 1997 the largest tax cut since Reagan in 1983.You have to do some fancy foot work with numbers to say that Clinton cut spending. The economy grew so much under Clinton that tax became less as part of the GNP. If look at actual dollars even adjusted for inflation , Tax revenues went up. Tax rates basically stayed the same except for corporate loopholes which ballooned under Clinton and the republican congress. Newt and his gang undid everything that Reagan had tried to by closing the loopholes. Thats the problem with "close the loopholes and cut the rate" argument. The loopholes all will back in ten years or so.
I am not to quick to give all the credit to Clinton for the 90s boom. I think it would happen no matter who was president because the internet became widely available.

[Robert Goren]

Where?There are parts of Mexico and a lot of places in Africa where their governments have little or no control. Like I said I doubt you would want live there. Now it your turn, name a decent place where they little or government.

[Tom]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_successful_clinton_economy.html



Reasonable people of all political persuasions will acknowledge that tax cuts worked for Democratic President John Kennedy and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan oversaw significant reductions of confiscatory tax rates on high earners and taxpayers generally. In both cases, records show that Treasury revenues increased with the rate of investment of the freed assets......

.....In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom) that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

[boxcar]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BRK-A

One share of stock $105,000. 52 Week high $131,500 a share.

The man that all capitalist point to as the ideal, the man that has played by the rules and made common people rich. Now he says raise taxes on his own kind, "Mulit- Millionaires and Billionaires and he becomes a crack-pot.

How about letting some of the wealthy attack him maybe they will put a few bucks into advertising.

Ever stop to think the man knows what he is talking about.

Once he opened up his yap and told the world that his secretary pays a higher rate of taxes than he does, he lost all credibility. He's clueless. But I suppose he's allowed since no one has elected him. Plus everyone has a right to make a fool of himself. But the Buffoon-in-Chief in the WH -- now that's something else again because he's supposed to know better to do his homework before buying into drivel just because it tickles his ears. Obama has, after all, virtually unlimited resources at his disposal. And he is an elected official; therefore, unlike Buffet, he owes it to Americans to get it right.

Even the liberal media is jumping ship like drowning rats on this tax issue. Read and weep what AP has to say -- AP of all news organizations who are, typically, so in the tank for BO:

AP fact check: Secretaries don’t pay more taxes than their bosses

Let’s hope that Warren Buffet is better at managing funds than he is at tax policy. After Buffett complained that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, Barack Obama decided to call his new class-warfare taxes “the Buffett Rule” and emphasize that he wants to make taxes more “fair.” But was Buffett right? According to an AP fact check — and just about every ounce of common sense that exists outside of the class-warfare fever swamps of the White House these days — not at all:

Read the rest here and weep:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/20/ap-fact-check-secretaries-dont-pay-more-taxes-than-their-bosses/

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Regarding the Buffet claim about not paying the same taxes as his secretary, he's right. He was refering to a marginal tax rate.

[DJofSD]

There are places like that. Maybe should move to one although I doubt that you would like it much.
Maybe you should move. The USSR used to be more like what you seem to want.

[BenDiesel26]

You have to do some fancy foot work with numbers to say that Clinton cut spending. The economy grew so much under Clinton that tax became less as part of the GNP. If look at actual dollars even adjusted for inflation , Tax revenues went up. Tax rates basically stayed the same except for corporate loopholes which ballooned under Clinton and the republican congress. Newt and his gang undid everything that Reagan had tried to by closing the loopholes. Thats the problem with "close the loopholes and cut the rate" argument. The loopholes all will back in ten years or so.
I am not to quick to give all the credit to Clinton for the 90s boom. I think it would happen no matter who was president because the internet became widely available.

Robert, no fancy numbers here bud. Spending went from 22% to 18% of GDP, fact. Those are government expenditures. We are hovering above 22% of GDP right now. Clinton signed into law in 1997 the largest tax cut since Reagan in 1983, fact. Also, after signing into law this tax cut, Clinton saw tax receipts after 1997 increase to his largest amount as a percent of GDP of his whole presidency, fact. No dancing, just presenting the facts.

[ArlJim78]

like Rush just said, our problem is with the people managing our tax money. Our problem is not that they don't have enough money to work with. Increasing revenue to the government solves nothing, in fact it will just dig the hole deeper.

[Tom]

Giving more money to the government is like giving crack to a doper.

[ArlJim78]

this chart illustrates the inconsequential amount of money that would come to the treasury as a result of this so called Buffett rule. it's being sold nonstop by the left as some kind of wondrous panacea. the reality is that its campaign agitprop.

class warfare is a red herring, a tool used by the left to wip their constituents up into a lather, to pit them against the wealthy and businesses which are characterized as not paying their fair share which is another canard. unfortunately many of them don't question what they're told and fall in line to bash the wealthy, when the real culprits have a "D", or in some cases an "R" after their names.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/chart-of-the-day-buffett-rule-wouldnt-bring-in-much-revenue/245404/

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/buffett%20rule.png

[Tom]

It is easier to demonize people than discuss ideas.
Libs have no legs to stand on when it comes to national defense, fiscal stuff, social stuff, or anything that matters, so they are always the first to attack and lie. Their followers, not the brightest people around, buy the schtick.

The key to democrat success is ignorance in the electorate.
As demonstrated here daily. :bang:

[NJ Stinks]

Who is paying the bills?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm


Quote:
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.






I would say if we should fall to our kness and thank them for paying their fair share and a whole lot of other people's fair share as well. We got a an awful lot of freeloaders here who leech of those who carry the country. I like to call them democrats. Anchors. What is a fair share, NJ......50%????

Where did you get your immunity to facts anyway?

Here's some facts for you:

The Wealth Distribution


In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
__________

More facts:

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
_______

Here's the link:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

You can get off your knees now, Tom.

Let me see if this gets through to you. Do you know why the parents - with 5 kids - pay the electric bill in full and the kids don't pay any money toward the electric bill even though the kids use a lot of electricity? Because the kids don't earn any money and don't have the means to pay the electric bill themselves. Got it? I doubt it.

[bigmack]

Let me see if this gets through to you. Do you know why the parents - with 5 kids - pay the electric bill in full and the kids don't pay any money toward the electric bill even though the kids use a lot of electricity? Because the kids don't earn any money and don't have the means to pay the electric bill themselves. Got it? I doubt it.
See how bright he is, Tom? Before long he might even convince you that we should have a sliding scale for energy costs. People with more loot should pay a higher kWh rate because "the children" can't afford it. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

See how bright he is, Tom? Before long he might even convince you that we should have a sliding scale for energy costs. People with more loot should pay a higher kWh rate because "the children" can't afford it. :rolleyes:

Don't laugh. It's coming! Why do you think all the electric companies are installing "smart" meters on people's homes? And it's not because we have a bright future. (Bad pun intended.)

Boxcar

[Tom]

NJ, I almost fell off my chair laughing - that reply was so funny!
Let me remind you, those paying the electric bill had an option you libs always defend - ABORTION.

Do I have that option with the anchors in our society?

If you ever find a point, be sure to let us all know about it.

[Mike at A+]

NJ, I almost fell off my chair laughing - that reply was so funny!
Let me remind you, those paying the electric bill had an option you libs always defend - ABORTION.

Do I have that option with the anchors in our society?

If you ever find a point, be sure to let us all know about it.
If you can't feed them, don't breed them!

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Mike at A+]

Here's some facts for you:

The Wealth Distribution


In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).
Did it ever occur to you that THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO:
TOOK THEIR EDUCATION SERIOUSLY
DEVELOPED A WORK ETHIC
EMBRACED THE MOTIVATION NECESSARY TO BE SUCCESSFUL
DIDN'T JOIN GANGS

[boxcar]

Did it ever occur to you that THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO:
TOOK THEIR EDUCATION SERIOUSLY
DEVELOPED A WORK ETHIC
EMBRACED THE MOTIVATION NECESSARY TO BE SUCCESSFUL
DIDN'T JOIN GANGS

And didn't feel the world owed them a living. And didn't allow themselves to succumb to a victimization mentality.

Boxcar