I have a serious question about the President and the negotiations going on in DC

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 12/10/2012 by CADoodlebug in NSBR Board
1 2 3 >
 

CADoodlebug
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy

PeaNut 178,445
November 2004
Posts: 18,132
Layouts: 0
Loc: Northern California

Posted: 12/10/2012 1:46:34 PM
I understand that President Obama is on the road
talking to various groups about the problems coming
up if there is no agreement between Congress. Is
there any benefit to his doing this or is it a good
photo op? Are the people he's talking to involved
in the decision making process at all? Maybe there
is a good reason and I just can't figure it out.


Joy

"I've reached an age where my train of thought often leaves the station without me!"



littlelambchop
PeaNut

PeaNut 350,195
December 2007
Posts: 460
Layouts: 10

Posted: 12/10/2012 2:20:43 PM
I think it is an attempt to get Congress to move. They havve history of ignoring critical deadlines for budgets, etc.


Lois

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/10/2012 2:26:14 PM
He is getting the public behind him. There are a couple of polls out showing if we go over the cliff it will be all the Republican's fault.

I was looking at a new poll this morning that shows 60% of Americans want higher taxes on the people making over $250,000. 64% want higher taxes on Corporations.

I forget what the % but again another majority do not want the age for Medicare to be increased to 67.

Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't as Arnie found out in CA when he tried to do the same thing.

I think the reason its working for the President is there appears to be a lot of people still angry with Wall Street which seems to includes the rich these days.

journey fan
"Don't Stop Believin'"

PeaNut 308,186
April 2007
Posts: 12,538
Layouts: 0
Loc: California Coast

Posted: 12/10/2012 2:51:30 PM

I was looking at a new poll this morning that shows 60% of Americans want higher taxes on the people making over $250,000. 64% want higher taxes on Corporations.

Oh, you mean all those people providing the jobs? Yeah, that'll work

You can tax them all you want (and have!) but the rich people will stay rich. The pain will still be felt by the middle class no matter how you approach this. I'd rather rein in the spending than lose my job



CADoodlebug
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy

PeaNut 178,445
November 2004
Posts: 18,132
Layouts: 0
Loc: Northern California

Posted: 12/10/2012 3:03:37 PM
My beef is that even taxing the rich won't do anything
to the deficit. A drop in the bucket. It's the other
things that need to be addressed.


Joy

"I've reached an age where my train of thought often leaves the station without me!"



leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 12/10/2012 3:09:08 PM
Are the people he's talking to involved in the decision process? No. He doesn't spend much time talking with the House Republicans.






If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/10/2012 3:17:47 PM

Oh, you mean all those people providing the jobs? Yeah, that'll work


That is an urban myth. More and more people are beginning to realize that tax cut to the rich and corporations does not equal jobs.

tallydale
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 278,734
October 2006
Posts: 2,916
Layouts: 24
Loc: texas

Posted: 12/10/2012 3:18:15 PM
Seems like his time would be better spent figuring out a budget instead of going on the road talking. I'm with you, CADoodlebug--the taxes on the rich are just a drop in the bucket and we will never get out of the hole without cutting the spending. Honestly I think the only way out of debt will annoy everyone--higher taxes, cut budgets and entitlements, etc.
It would be the same with a household in debt--everyone has to curb their spending in order to get out of it.





xicanabuela
PeaAddict

PeaNut 196,849
March 2005
Posts: 1,138
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 3:26:43 PM
Disclaimer: I haven't kept up with where the POTUS is headed.
So - with that thought in mind, is he visiting areas that have a Republican congressional representative? And is he hoping that the constituents will voice their opinion to their congress-person?
Shoot - I just don't know; I hope some more folks will share their answers.

journey fan
"Don't Stop Believin'"

PeaNut 308,186
April 2007
Posts: 12,538
Layouts: 0
Loc: California Coast

Posted: 12/10/2012 3:31:49 PM

Oh, you mean all those people providing the jobs? Yeah, that'll work


That is an urban myth. More and more people are beginning to realize that tax cut to the rich and corporations does not equal jobs.


Links please? I would love to read up on that.

I know that the doctors I work for probably "make" more than $250k a year. Are they rich? By no means. But they employ an office staff and I'm sure I'll be the first one cut if their tax burdens go up ... AGAIN.

I personally know employers (friends) who will have to cut staff. If I'm seeing it in real life, how is it a myth?

And I agree with the "drop in the bucket" statements above as well. This is NOT the solution.

Krazy, what do you think the impact will be on the middle class if this happens? Nothing?



dalayney
Shut the PEA UP! Yer gettin me all twitterpaited!

PeaNut 123,471
January 2004
Posts: 16,907
Layouts: 165
Loc: Husker by Heart in WI

Posted: 12/10/2012 3:36:21 PM



My beef is that even taxing the rich won't do anything
to the deficit. A drop in the bucket. It's the other
things that need to be addressed.







What totally p*sses me off, is how they demand raising taxes but yet they fail to cut spending. I dont' care WHO you raise taxes on people!!!! If the gov't keeps outrageously spending money like Pres. Obama's administration has, nothing, will save us.

Adding, before you ask for one stinkin' penny, they need to show everyone what cuts are going to happen, and how to reduce our spending. Way to deflect Mr. President. The focus on taxing people is such a deflection from what really needs to be done. CUT THE BUDGET! Cut the spending! Stop pandering to people like a crack whore needing their next fix.


Whew. That was fun.


~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 12/10/2012 3:55:06 PM
When you win re-election and are President of the United States, one of the benefits/perks of the job is the ability to use your "bully pulpit" to take your show on the road, so to speak.

The President is doing EXACTLY what he campaigned on and his supporters are expecting him to do.

The Republican needs to be willing to play ball or out they go in 2014, because recent public sentiment isn't on their side.






swim mom
BucketHead

PeaNut 226,253
October 2005
Posts: 959
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 4:00:39 PM
Saying "My way or nothing" is not negotiating. That's what the president and his speakers are doing. They have refused to discuss or vote on the budgets presented by Congress. They are refusing to discuss specifics. The president is firm on targeting approx. 2% of the income earners in the country, raising their taxes, then increasing spending more than will be collected in taxes. This can't work out well for the American people. Then, on top of refusing to negotiate increasing taxes, the president wants unilateral decision making control about increasing the debt and borrowing abilities of the government by increasing the debt ceiling whenever he wants to. That alone is scary because there wouldn't be much check and balance at all if that happens. The only reason to keep raising the debt ceiling and keep increasing the amount borrowed is to keep spending uncontrollably. where does it stop? It has already been shown that the tax increase the president is demanding won't even start to solve the debt problem, even if the money would actuall be directed to that end. Spending and borrowing must decrease. Even having a majority of public support can't change the fact that the demanded tax increase won't solve the problems. Besides, historically, targeted tax increases have resulted in less tax money being collected because people start protecting their money by legal means as well as choosing not to make the mistake of earning enough to fall into that tax bracket.

All involved need to discuss the issues by looking at the facts and leave the animosity out of it. No matter what is decided, the taxpayers will lose.


Susie Pea
PeaAddict

PeaNut 433,822
August 2009
Posts: 1,452
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 4:05:58 PM

But he's still campaigning? Why?

Because that is all he knows how to do. He cannot lead.

Kymberlee
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 32,544
March 2002
Posts: 2,082
Layouts: 1
Loc: where ever Uncle Sam sends us!

Posted: 12/10/2012 4:13:22 PM
I guess I'm in the camp that just doesn't get the road show either. He's done campaigning; he won and now it is time to lead. Sit down with the republicans and hash this sh*t out for cripes sake.

Actually, scratch that. I do get it. It works for him so he will continue to do what works. It doesn't matter if it is what is good for the taxpayers; it is what will make him look like a here.

I would like someone to address the points that Swim Mom made. I completely agree with what she said, and I would like to hear the other side of the argument. Just so I can understand 'cuz I really don't get the "tax the rich" mentality and how that is going to help.




Sunny1213
PeaNut

PeaNut 386,078
August 2008
Posts: 148
Layouts: 12

Posted: 12/10/2012 4:19:49 PM

All involved need to discuss the issues by looking at the facts and leave the animosity out of it.


I'm tired of both sides. They both have good plans and there needs to be a point in the middle they can compromise on. We need to cut spending. Period. It has to be done. I don't think we should raise taxes on anyone, but realize it is going to happen. I also think the result of raising taxes is not going to be what Obama is preaching it is going to be. So, we realize there is going to be a raise in taxes, now lets start talking about how to cut spending. I get so tired of both the republicans and the democrats expecting the other side to completely agree with their plan. They need to work together and get it taken care of.

Regarding OP's post. I think Obama is out "campaigning" because he wants everyone to think it's the republicans fault we go over the fiscal cliff. That way, in mid elections they will get voted out and Obama and the democrats will have full reign over the country to continue to spend us to death.

Darcy_Collins
PeaFixture

PeaNut 514,615
July 2011
Posts: 3,236
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 4:30:02 PM
After the ridiculous "proposal" President Obama presented, his only choice is to use his "bully pulpit" to convince Americans that the problem is Republicans. He certainly can't justify that as a reasonable plan or a demonstration of leadership. So he did what he does best - hit the road and let the media beat the drum of uncooperative Republicans. Anyone who thinks a plan that instead of cutting a single dime in spending - but instead INCREASES is balanced and the problem is the Republicans should really spend some time looking at the numbers - it's utterly indefensible.
Uploaded with iPhone client

Wildcatmom
Right-Wing Extremist

PeaNut 27,343
January 2002
Posts: 21,488
Layouts: 6
Loc: in red country

Posted: 12/10/2012 4:40:40 PM

There are a couple of polls out showing if we go over the cliff it will be all the Republican's fault.




which is complete and utter crap


***********************************************************
"This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave" Elmer Davis
***********************************************************



nanett
PeaAddict

PeaNut 50,755
October 2002
Posts: 1,964
Layouts: 16
Loc: NE Florida

Posted: 12/10/2012 4:46:05 PM


What totally p*sses me off, is how they demand raising taxes but yet they fail to cut spending. I dont' care WHO you raise taxes on people!!!! If the gov't keeps outrageously spending money like Pres. Obama's administration has, nothing, will save us.


Exactly! How is it not completely immoral to ask for MORE money from people already paying MOST of the taxes without showing how the cuts will kick in so we aren't continually coming with our hats out for MORE, MORE, MORE?

If a family member continually asked for money to meet his/her expenses but continued to let the expenses grow out of control, would you really keep handing the dough over? Or would you expect them to make some cuts...try to get things under control...try to give up some of the unnecessary goodies?


They've proven that even taxing the 'rich' at 100% won't even begin to handle the problem.



pafer
PeaFixture

PeaNut 127,675
January 2004
Posts: 3,320
Layouts: 0
Loc: southern Louisiana

Posted: 12/10/2012 4:53:16 PM

When you win re-election and are President of the United States, one of the benefits/perks of the job is the ability to use your "bully pulpit" to take your show on the road, so to speak.


I am quoting this because IMHO this is what he is doing. The only other word that I can think of that suits his current behavior would be PROPAGANDA. I think that he thinks if he says it enough he can get people to believe him.

lovestorun

PeaNut 90,754
June 2003
Posts: 7,128
Layouts: 38
Loc: So Cal

Posted: 12/10/2012 4:54:35 PM
Define "rich" - $250,000 is a crap ton more than I make, don't get me wrong...but it's the people making way more than that who are sitting on $$$. There should be no excuse or loophole to get out of paying millions in taxes (I'm looking at you, GE)....

no one is trying to nickel and dime your doctor friend - the problem falls within the super rich people who spend all the time and money in the world hiring full time accountants in order to keep every last red cent they can ....

dynalady
My soul is fed with needle and thread

PeaNut 25,620
December 2001
Posts: 20,256
Layouts: 49
Loc: Sweet Home Chicago

Posted: 12/10/2012 5:11:53 PM
The fact is, he was re-elected. The majority of the people want him to hold firm to the plan he campaigned and won on. Republicans, who made public statements that they would not work with President Obama, can and should shoulder the vast majority of responsibility for the fiscal cliff. They played their hand, they lost, and now they need to accept it.







"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts




dynalady
My soul is fed with needle and thread

PeaNut 25,620
December 2001
Posts: 20,256
Layouts: 49
Loc: Sweet Home Chicago

Posted: 12/10/2012 5:30:21 PM
The *road trip* is not campaigning. It is explaining to the people that he has made proposals that the majority of the people want to see enacted and the Republicans are blocking any progress on implementing them. A tax increase being passed does not mean spending cuts will not be made. Its not an either/or, its a place to begin, which MUST be done.







"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts




Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/10/2012 5:35:59 PM

his only choice is to use his "bully pulpit" to convince Americans that the problem is Republicans.


I don't think he has to do much convincing. People are starting to notice just exactly what the Republicans are doing.

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/10/2012 5:38:06 PM

But we don't have the funds. Families don't have the extra to pay the higher taxes. Taxing the "rich" isn't a solution- they can't shoulder this burden indefinitely. We MUST STOP THE SPENDING.


You can't get us out of this mess with just spending cuts. If it was tried we would be in a recession faster than you can spell it.

It has to be a combination of both spending cuts and an increase in revenue.


Scrapn Nana
PEAring through my camera lens

PeaNut 272,954
August 2006
Posts: 8,491
Layouts: 26

Posted: 12/10/2012 5:47:51 PM
His proposal to tax the "rich" was more than offset by increased spending. The only leading that he's doing is into bankruptcy.

And for the record, reportedly when Great Britain increased the tax percentage on the rich of that country, many of the rich took their money and left the country to live in other countries that gave them a lower tax rate. And other countries actually "courted" the British rich folks looking to move. The article I read said that Great Britain ended up taking in LESS money in taxes because their targeted group had fled. So they were moving to reduce the tax rate on those with higher incomes in an effort to prevent further flight of the wealthy and hopefully entice some to come back. Unfortunately, even with the lowered rate, it was still pretty high.

But let's go ahead and raise taxes on the rich. When they take off for foreign parts, then the middle class will get to foot the bill.

If our government doesn't stop spending so recklessly, then things are going to get really, really ugly. And yes, both sides are to blame. There will have to be some compromise, but there absolutely can NOT be spending increases, or debt ceiling increases, because we cannot sustain this level of spending and survive long.

But in the meantime, instead of setting an example by cutting cutting back on his own spending, the President continues to waste money like there is no tomorrow. The expenses of this President have been astronomical when compared to his predecessors. Why?


My Scrapn' Blog

Photographers are violent people. First they frame you, then they shoot you, then they hang you on the wall; but if you're real good, they will scrapbook you!

WannaPea
No Peas for you ! Come back one year!

PeaNut 151,172
June 2004
Posts: 26,982
Layouts: 175
Loc: In my PJ's

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:04:12 PM

Please link the White House proposal for spending cuts.

White House Budget Overview The cuts, as well as the actual budget, are listed in the tabs to your right, once you are there. Enjoy.


Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown

Sue_Pea
Old Pea Coven member wannabe

PeaNut 36,163
April 2002
Posts: 10,494
Layouts: 5
Loc: here, there and everywhere

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:08:46 PM
Obama has already agreed to 1.5 trillion in cuts. It has already been signed into law.

Oops-forgot to post the link:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/07/fox-news-papers-over-obamas-proposed-spending-c/191748


Uploaded with iPhone client

sunny 5
PeaFixture

PeaNut 472,024
June 2010
Posts: 3,280
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:17:32 PM
how did the rich survive all those years when the tax rate was over double the rate it is now??? british experience does not translate to america....one thing that helped CA pass a new tax increase was a study that showed wealthy individuals would not move out of state if it passed. they want to live in CA. all reasonable economists agree with raising taxes and cutting loopholes and cutting spending.

obama has no reason to make a big compromise on his promises he was elected on...increasing tax rates on wealthy.

Sue_Pea
Old Pea Coven member wannabe

PeaNut 36,163
April 2002
Posts: 10,494
Layouts: 5
Loc: here, there and everywhere

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:30:48 PM
It's official: austerity doesn't work:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/austerity-economics-doesnt-work.html


Uploaded with iPhone client

MochasMom
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 146,383
May 2004
Posts: 5,692
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:36:19 PM
Another example of the rich in the Obama camp. One has to wonder if they know/knew what would happen to the tax breaks and all this talk between parties about the "fiscal cliff" is just that talk.


When President Obama needed a business executive to come to his campaign defense, Jim Sinegal was there. The Costco co-founder, director and former CEO even made a prime-time speech at the Democratic Party convention in Charlotte. So what a surprise this week to see that Mr. Sinegal and the rest of the Costco board voted to give themselves a special dividend to avoid Mr. Obama's looming tax increase. Is this what the President means by "tax fairness"?


Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady on Costco and other companies paying out fatter dividends this year to avoid the tax cliff.

Specifically, the giant retailer announced Wednesday that the company will pay a special dividend of $7 a share this month. That's a $3 billion Christmas gift for shareholders that will let them be taxed at the current dividend rate of 15%, rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4% an increase to 39.6% as the Bush-era rates expire plus another 3.8% from the new ObamaCare surcharge.

More striking is that Costco also announced that it will borrow $3.5 billion to finance the special payout. Dividends are typically paid out of earnings, either current or accumulated. But so eager are the Costco executives to get out ahead of the tax man that they're taking on debt to do so.

Shareholders were happy as they bid up shares by more than 5% in two days. But the rating agencies were less thrilled, as Fitch downgraded Costco's credit to A+ from AA-. Standard & Poor's had been watching the company for a potential upgrade but pulled the watch on the borrowing news.

We think companies can do what they want with their cash, but it's certainly rare to see a public corporation weaken its balance sheet not for investment in the future but to make a one-time equity payout. It's a good illustration of the way that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's near-zero interest rates are combining with federal tax policy to distort business decisions.

One of the biggest dividend winners will be none other than Mr. Sinegal, who owns about two million shares, while his wife owns another 84,669. At $7 a share, the former CEO will take home roughly $14 million. At a 15% tax rate he'll get to keep nearly $12 million of that windfall, while at next year's rate of 43.4% he'd take home only about $8 million. That's a lot of extra cannoli.

This isn't exactly the tone of, er, shared sacrifice that Mr. Sinegal struck on stage in Charlotte. He described Mr. Obama as "a President making an economy built to last," adding that "for companies like Costco to invest, grow, hire and flourish, the conditions have to be right. That requires something from all of us." But apparently $4 million less from Mr. Sinegal.




By the way, the Costco board also includes at least two other prominent tub-thumpers for higher taxes William Gates Sr. and Charles Munger. Mr. Gates, the father of Microsoft's Bill Gates, has campaigned against repealing the death tax and led the fight to impose an income tax via referendum in Washington state in 2010. It lost. Mr. Munger is Warren Buffett's longtime Sancho Panza at Berkshire Hathaway and has spoken approvingly of a value-added tax that would stick it to the middle class.

Costco's chief financial officer, Richard Galanti, confirms that every member of the board is also a shareholder. Based on the most recent publicly available data, they own more than 4.1 million shares and more than 1.3 million options to purchase additional shares. At $7 a share, the dividend will distribute roughly $29 million to the board, including Mr. Sinegal's $14 million at a collective tax saving of about $8 million. Even more cannoli.

We emailed Mr. Sinegal for comment but didn't hear back. Mr. Galanti explained that while looming tax hikes are a factor in the December borrowing and payout, so are current low interest rates. Mr. Galanti adds that the company will still have a strong balance sheet and is increasing its capital expenditures and store openings this year.

As it happens, one of those new stores opened Thursday in Washington, D.C., and no less a political star than Joe Biden stopped by to join Mr. Sinegal and pose for photos as he did some Christmas shopping. It's nice to have friends in high places. We don't know if Mr. Biden is a Costco shareholder, but if he wants to get in on the special dividend there's still time before his confiscatory tax policy hits. The dividend is payable on December 18 to holders of record on December 10.

To sum up: Here we have people at the very top of the top 1% who preach about tax fairness voting to write themselves a huge dividend check to avoid the Obama tax increase they claim it is a public service to impose on middle-class Americans who work for 30 years and finally make $250,000 for a brief window in time.

If they had any shame, they'd send their entire windfall to the Treasury.

Wall Street Journal

Kelpea
Owner of "best tacky invitation" thread EVER

PeaNut 176,832
November 2004
Posts: 14,039
Layouts: 2
Loc: Stalking Dave Gahan

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:45:03 PM

But let's go ahead and raise taxes on the rich. When they take off for foreign parts, then the middle class will get to foot the bill.


Hahahahaha. They're not going anywhere...I'm pretty sure they're happier than pigs in pokes. And many of them are probably too ethnocentric to leave. (We are talking about the super rich here.)



Shih Tzu Mommy
Million dollar camera, 10 dollar lock!

PeaNut 224,352
September 2005
Posts: 24,004
Layouts: 0
Loc: Right here

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:46:07 PM

I was looking at a new poll this morning that shows 60% of Americans want higher taxes on the people making over $250,000. 64% want higher taxes on Corporations.

Do people not realize that EVERYONE is going to pay if Corporations are taxed at an increased rate? And that giving and certain employments are going to decrease if the folks above 250K are taxed at a greater rate? I know we'd cut back on donations to several organizations (but would continue with two) and our yard and housekeeping services, as would several of my friends which would GREATLY impact those people since my house alone is 1/5 of a housekeepers pay and 1/20 of the income for our yard man. So a 20% paycut for our housekeeper and a 5% cut for our yard man. And that is just me. Get a few of us and that housekeeper is no longer employed. You can't just take and take and take from all we do to earn and expect us to keep going as we always have.

How about having oh, I don't know, the lower what, 25% actually paying SOMETHING instead of getting free money at tax time!? Getting people on welfare to WORK for their money? I think they should have to register with their skills and be available for work to those of us that DO pay taxes, relative to the amount we pay OR fulfilling needs of government jobs. Who can't pick up trash in the park, supervise a playground, or come bag leaves in my (or any other taxpaying citizens) backyard?

Some stuff just really heats my blood!



Dog people are a special breed!

TexasScrap
PeaAddict

PeaNut 27,295
January 2002
Posts: 1,266
Layouts: 7

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:47:43 PM
I recall hearing people on here talking about 250k not being the right threshold, I.e. it should be higher.

Any thoughts on what it should be?


Uploaded with iPhone client

PunchPrincess

PeaNut 17,063
June 2001
Posts: 12,706
Layouts: 0
Loc: where 71 and 70 meet

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:51:19 PM
While I hate to be the enabler here, if you google the following "tax cuts for rich don't work" you find out about the Congressional Research Center report that was suppressed by the Republicans. From the report:

GOP officials told The Times that the decision by the CRS came after a cooperative discussion, but Democrats have suggested that the move is part of a broader effort by Republicans to squelch legitimate research that runs counter to their economic principles.

The CRS report, by researcher Thomas Hungerford, concluded:

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced -- lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.



And since no one will change their mind in this thread and will try to turn this study on its head, I'm out.


<*********************************************************************>

PunchPrincess ( def. A long, long time ago when I first started scrapping I discovered punches -- round, square, squiggles, cars, etc. You name it. Like coat hangers they multiplied, under the bed I think until they were threatening to take over that precious space that we all covet and refuse to cede to other family members. Thus I became PunchPrincess. )


MochasMom
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 146,383
May 2004
Posts: 5,692
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:52:11 PM

Do people not realize that EVERYONE is going to pay if Corporations are taxed at an increased rate?
Unfortunately no they don't realize it. They listen to only the rhetoric they are spoon fed. I wonder what percentage of that 60% that wants taxes raised on those making over $250,000 even pay one dime in federal income taxes. Time for them to cough up their "fair share".

MochasMom
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 146,383
May 2004
Posts: 5,692
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:05:23 PM

From JFK To Bush, Treasury Swelled After Tax Cuts

By Paul Sperry


Posted 10/17/2012 06:58 PM ET


President Obama warned that GOP hopeful Mitt Romney's proposed income-tax cuts will "cost" the government revenue and repeat Bush policies that he says blew up the deficit.

"The centerpiece of his economic plan are tax cuts," Obama said at Tuesday's presidential debate in New York. "That's what took us from surplus to deficit."

He called Romney's tax plan "sketchy," because it promises to raise revenues while slashing personal tax rates from top to bottom. His debate sparring partner, Democratic Sen. John Kerry, went further, calling it a "fraud."

The Obama camp has strenuously opposed Romney's pro-growth strategy, arguing that tax breaks, especially for the wealthy, "rob" programs for the middle class and poor because they don't raise revenues and don't "pay for themselves."

"It has never been done before," Vice President Joe Biden insisted in last week's debate with Romney running-mate Paul Ryan.

"It's been done a couple of times, actually," Ryan shot back.

The data bear out Ryan. In fact, the White House's own numbers put a big wrinkle in its argument.

The historical tables in the back of the latest "Economic Report of the President" show that the Bush tax cuts generated more, not less, federal revenues — a phenomenon that also held true for Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Kennedy.


All four leaders, two Republicans and two Democrats, slashed taxes for top individual earners or investors. And once these rate reductions took effect and began stimulating economic activity, record individual income-tax receipts poured into the U.S. Treasury. Revenues increased even after adjusting for inflation and population growth.

Kennedy

Kennedy's major tax cut, which included chopping the top marginal rate to 70% from 91%, became law in early 1964, after his untimely death. It promised to grow the economy and close the budget gap.

"Coming at a time of substantial deficit in the federal budget, this was a startling proposal to many observers," said New York University economist Richard Sylla, co-author of "The Evolution of the American Economy."

To the shock of many naysaying Democrats, the plan worked. The economy grew at an average 5.5% clip, and unemployment fell to 3.8%. In turn, the annual deficit shrank to $1 billion from $7 billion as individual income-tax receipts nearly doubled.

"Rising income more than offset the decline in income tax rates as far as federal revenue was concerned," Sylla said.

Kennedy and his supply-side advisers "could point to those few who remained unpersuaded that despite the tax cuts — or rather because of the tax cuts — the federal deficits of fiscal 1965 and 1966 were substantially reduced from 1962-64 levels."

Vindicated, the "new economists" proposed even more tax cuts. But President Johnson opted instead for tax hikes, including a 1968 tax surcharge of 10% on everyone's income. Revenues peaked two years later at $90 billion.

Reagan

President Reagan picked up where Kennedy left off, slashing the top personal rate from 70% all the way down to 28%. The historic tax relief triggered record new business start-ups and small-business expansion.

As in the '60s, tax revenues exploded throughout the '80s as the economy boomed. Between 1982, when the first round of Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts went into effect, and 1990, when President George H.W. Bush broke his no-new-taxes pledge, individual tax receipts jumped 57% to $467 billion.

Clinton

Obama says he wants to go back to the higher personal income "tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president. ... That's part of what took us from deficits to surpluses."

In fact, those budget surpluses didn't materialize until after Clinton in 1997 reluctantly signed a GOP tax bill that cut the capital-gains rate to 20% from 28%.

The result was dramatic. Tax receipts from capital gains ballooned as stock and other capital investment more than tripled.

Between 1996 and 2000, "the increase in capital gains revenues accounted for a little over 20% of the total increase in federal revenues," former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett said.

For the first time, individual tax receipts hit $1 trillion, before peaking in 2000 from the dot-com bust and Clinton recession.

Despite the government taking in more money from lower taxes on investment income, Obama wants to raise those taxes "for purposes of fairness."

Bush II

While Obama claims the Bush tax cuts caused the recession and record deficits, the evidence says otherwise.

After President George W. Bush in 2003 signed the largest tax cut since Reagan — including dropping the top marginal rate to 35% from 39.6% — government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $794 billion to a peak of $1.2 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began — a jump of 47%.

Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period.

Revenues weren't the source of the problem. Deficits came from the other side of the ledger: spending, which outstripped new revenues.

And for that, both Democrats and Republicans share the blame.

Article Includes a couple of great charts for those that do not wish to read the article.

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:05:44 PM
The hysteria over letting the Bush tax cuts for the folks making over $250,000 is rather amusing but getting old. So far no one either on this board or anyplace else that I have read has made a solid argument on NOT letting the tax cuts expire.

I also find the comments about housekeepers, yard men, & 25% of the lower economic latter sort of like what I call the "let them eat cake" syndrome.

Everyone pays taxes its just the matter of how much & what type.


MochasMom
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 146,383
May 2004
Posts: 5,692
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:07:19 PM

Everyone pays taxes its just the matter of how much & what type.
However, federal income taxes is the topic and no everyone does not pay federal income taxes.

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:14:12 PM
"The fact is, he was re-elected. The majority of the people want him to hold firm to the plan he campaigned and won on. "
------

And which promise is it that the "majority" want him to stick to?
Back in 2011 he wanted to raise the revenue by closing loopholes - the very think republicans proposed last week that he rejected out of hand.

Or how about the debt ceiling, that as a senator he decried the raising of it as a "failure of leadership". Now he wants complete and arbitrary control over it.

Or how he said just a little over two years ago that raising taxes on anyone in this climate was a bad idea. Now he has all his minions convinced that killing the rich will save this sinking ship and give us all unicorns to keep as backyard pets to boot.

All the while he is out jettin around for photo ops and demonizing the GOP while stirring up the populist low information voters who lap up his special brand of economic illiteracy like starving dogs.

Yep, that felt good.





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

gerryglow
PeaNut

PeaNut 77,852
March 2003
Posts: 377
Layouts: 7
Loc: Illinois

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:14:36 PM
He's out talking to people who already support him. Today in Detroit talking to union auto workers. He should get back to Washington and DO HIS JOB. I honestly thought he would negotiate in good faith but he's still taking the "my way or the highway" stand. Disgusting.


Gerry



TravelAgent
Resident Smart Ass

PeaNut 294,429
January 2007
Posts: 12,858
Layouts: 7
Loc: Indiana

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:19:25 PM

The hysteria over letting the Bush tax cuts for the folks making over $250,000 is rather amusing but getting old. So far no one either on this board or anyplace else that I have read has made a solid argument on NOT letting the tax cuts expire.


Yah, I'll tell the office assistant who works for my business friend that she's simply being hysterical because they don't know how to pay all these taxes and her salary next year. Or how about I say to the gal who cleans my house whose husband with a college degree in finance was laid off for the third time in three years because the small business can't afford the taxes and his wages, "Krazyscrapper says you're full of it because raising taxes has no negative consequences."

Julie



MochasMom
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 146,383
May 2004
Posts: 5,692
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:21:08 PM
TravelAgent:

"Krazyscrapper says you're full of it because raising taxes has no negative consequences."

Don't forget to add that we are just a hysterical bunch.

Shih Tzu Mommy
Million dollar camera, 10 dollar lock!

PeaNut 224,352
September 2005
Posts: 24,004
Layouts: 0
Loc: Right here

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:31:34 PM

I also find the comments about housekeepers, yard men, & 25% of the lower economic latter sort of like what I call the "let them eat cake" syndrome.

Everyone pays taxes its just the matter of how much & what type.



You have GOT to be kidding! We are talking about FEDERAL TAXES and even the Savior of the Welfare Class, also known as Barry Obama, will state there are those that pay NOTHING but gets all the benefits.

And no, it is not let them eat cake. It is gee, I paid for the cake ingredients. I took the time to make the cake. I watched it in the oven. I decorated the cake. I would just like a slice without it being taken away and given to others who did exactly NOTHING! Is it sooooo wrong for me to have a piece of my own cake!?



Dog people are a special breed!

MochasMom
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 146,383
May 2004
Posts: 5,692
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:38:12 PM
Shih Tzu Mommy: No cake for you and it gets worse; soon we will be watching them eat the cake so we can wash the dishes for them.

In all actuality; I feel a bit of sympathy for those that believe raising taxes on those over $250,000; the amount some feel is "rich" is a good thing. It can't do much for one's pride to be always riding on someone else's coat tails, letting them pay the bills and turning around and making them into "rich" monsters while demanding more.

WannaPea
No Peas for you ! Come back one year!

PeaNut 151,172
June 2004
Posts: 26,982
Layouts: 175
Loc: In my PJ's

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:49:05 PM

In all actuality; I feel a bit of sympathy for those that believe raising taxes on those over $250,000; the amount some feel is "rich" is a good thing. It can't do much for one's pride to be always riding on someone else's coat tails, letting them pay the bills and turning around and making them into "rich" monsters while demanding more.


Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown

~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 12/10/2012 8:07:36 PM

In all actuality; I feel a bit of sympathy for those that believe raising taxes on those over $250,000; the amount some feel is "rich" is a good thing. It can't do much for one's pride to be always riding on someone else's coat tails, letting them pay the bills and turning around and making them into "rich" monsters while demanding more.


Too funny!

and In all actuality; I feel a bit of sympathy for those that are still so upset, angry and defensive that their candidate lost and can't quite swallow that bitterness pill that's lodged in their throats, so I guess we're even in the sympathy department.





Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,196
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 12/10/2012 8:13:44 PM
The rise in tax rates IS coming no matter how opposed to it you are or how much you rail against it on this message board. It won't be too long until we'll all know which side was right about the impact.



Skybar
Perfect Peaing

PeaNut 188,727
January 2005
Posts: 24,389
Layouts: 0
Loc: AZ desert

Posted: 12/10/2012 8:44:16 PM

My beef is that even taxing the rich won't do anything to the deficit. A drop in the bucket. It's the other things that need to be addressed.

right. it'll cover about 8 days of spending by this admin.

but, it'll do a lot to promote more class divide in this country. And more unemployment. And the extra $s will cover his vacations - and those of his wife and dds (including extravagant BD parties in other countries).

And remodel lots of mosques around the globe.


That is an urban myth. More and more people are beginning to realize that tax cut to the rich and corporations does not equal jobs.

I agree. I worked for many yrs helping businesses get started. Many of those bz owners are still my friends. A large %age of them file as individuals and this will be terrible for their businesses - that includes those who work for them - and their customers. The owner might continue to squeak out a living but how about those he has to let go? and all the customers who will be paying more to cover the tax increase?


whoever is 'realizing' that isn't very business smart. They believe a lie - which doesn't surprise me at all. They are the same ones who voted for him.


When many here say it won't bother them, they better think about how they'll feel at the increase in prices of goods and services.


The Republican needs to be willing to play ball or out they go in 2014, because recent public sentiment isn't on their side.

that's plain left-wing BS.

you need to get away from msnbc, cbs, abc, huffy, etc - news provided by Soros.



But he's still campaigning? Why?

because he loves to have his face in the news / on tv. That won't happen if he's behind closed doors working.


the president wants unilateral decision making control about increasing the debt and borrowing abilities of the government by increasing the debt ceiling whenever he wants to. That alone is scary because there wouldn't be much check and balance at all if that happens. The only reason to keep raising the debt ceiling and keep increasing the amount borrowed is to keep spending uncontrollably.

that's been his goal. It is his agenda. Chavez, Castro, Morsi etc - and now BO.




"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

On June 28, 1787, as Governor of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin hosted the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, where he moved:

"That henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning."

Franklin wrote April 17, 1787:

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Benjamin Franklin wrote his epitaph:

"THE BODY of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN - Printer. Like the cover of an old book, Its contents torn out, And stripped of its lettering and gilding, Lies here, food for worms; Yet the work itself shall not be lost, For it will (as he believed) appear once more, In a new, And more beautiful edition, Corrected and amended By The AUTHOR."

Darcy_Collins
PeaFixture

PeaNut 514,615
July 2011
Posts: 3,236
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:44:19 PM
I see yet again the usual suspects are here regurgitating Obama's talking points. Why is there a continued disconnect in the reality that we are debating a $70 billion proposal. Raising taxes on the upper $250,000 will bring in $70 billion a year at most. This is a ploy. I mean seriously do the math. The only reason that this is the cornerstone of Obama's proposal is not that it fixes ANYTHING - but it sells really well and no doubt he will continue to sell it as long as people let him propose window dressings instead of real economic proposals.

There's a few here who like polls - I have one for you: 80% of Americans are concerned with the deficit and debt. I can certainly, definitively say that the one thing I know with 100% certainty is that the $1 trillion deficit, let alone the $16 trillion debt problem will not be solved with an additional $70 billion in revenue.

Obama has clearly succeeded on his little road trip. He has convinced people that if the rich just pay more, than the actual hard work of fixing our economic mess doesn't have to happen.

I said last week and I'll say it again. As Washington seems utterly incapable of seriously, addressing the out of control spending, I think our best shot getting our fiscal house in order is to let the across the board tax hikes go up and the automatic spending cuts be enacted.

1 2 3 >
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}