Obama Announces Huge Tax Increases Are Only Solution

[editec]

I think people should be able to write off expenses related to market consultation services. Failing to allow people to write off such expenses will kill the industry.

My neighbor owns a restaurant franchise (true story!). He thinks people should be able to get a tax deduction for money they put on their credit cards at chain restaurants. Failing to allow people to deduct restaurant expenses will kill the industry.

The guy down the street is a plumber. He thinks people should...well, you get the point.

Back in the old days you could deduct any interest payment. Reagan elminated that. And industry survived.

So removing the largest deduction homeowners get other then the standard deduction calling it a tax loop-hole is a good idea? Talk about massive tax increase. If he removed mortgage interest as a deduction on all of my properties I would lose everything. I've barely got my head above water and this prick wants to drown me.

And just think what that will do the real estate market as people invested in real estate divest their holdings.

Only I don't really get how this will work for real estate investors as the cost of borrowing is ALWAYS thought of an part of the xpense of doing business.

I'm thinking that this change will therefore only effect HOMEowners who currently gett to write off the interest on their mortgages.

Btw, wasn't there a time when credit-cards were once touted as a good investment before "Reagan" removed it as a deduction?

Yes there was a time when the interest you paid on credit cards was deductable.

This change in tax laws is still another example where Reagan's so called tax cutting was actually a TAX INCREASE on the working classes.

Throw in the enormous increase in SSI and medicare contributions under Regan and contrary to what most of you kids think about that guy, his policies were not about cutting taxes, so much as they were shifting the balance from the investor classes to the worker classes.

REAGAN was a socialistic and collectivist as any DEM POTUS in my lifetime.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, we didn't have a spending problem in 2000. If we cut all spending back to 2000 levels as a percentage of GDP, in 2010 we would still have had a shortfall of over $500 billion. So yes, we have a revenue problem as well as a spending problem. In order to reach those 2000 numbers as calculated by percentage of GDP in 2010, we would have had to cut spending by $792 billion and increased revenue by $502 billion.

Even if that were true, it's only because we are in a recession. The deficit would disappear once the recession went away, and there odds of a recovery would have been a lot better if government wasn't spending $3 for every $2 it takes in.

The deficit is always a spending problem. The mentality that says government spending must always increase no matter what the economy does is the cause of our problems. They idea that Americans don't pay enough in taxes is simply too absurd for words. We pay five times more than we should.

 

[bripat9643]

But Marc, I mean we should be thankful that we have rich people.

I mean we should build statues for these great people. I mean lets ignore the fact that these psychos literally brought the economy to a halt. They are special.

to republicans.

Democrat politicians brought the economy to a halt. Only goosestepping liberal lickspittles buy the notion that rich people are responsible.

 

[Sarah G]

Tax increases for the wealthy, get rid of obscene tax cuts for large corporations and defense budget cuts will help tremendously.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bullshit! I pay enough freaking taxes. The government is so f'd up nobody is ever going to fix it. I already am doing more with less. The government and the people with hand outs to the government should do the SAME! It is disgusting.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't earn over $250,000 a year, so I'd calm down if I were you.

But feel free to tell me why the middle class should continue to fund the Bush tax cuts.

This statement operates on a false assumption.

It assumes that what you earn doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the government. They're just doing you a favor by letting you keep some of it.

Imagine the mind of a socialist. You spend your life earning but you don't get to touch it, not quite yet. It all gets thrown into a tank filled with sharks. First the federal, state, and local governments get first crack at it. It's like a piece of meat. The sharks are thrashing around fighting over your earnings. What you're left with are the scraps.

Tax cuts never have to be paid for. The government doesn't have to take from you to get their handouts for their special interest groups.

Personally I think we should pass a constitutional amendment preventing politicians from drafting legislation that favors one class or one group over another. If any program benefits one person over another in hopes they will reciprocate with votes it should be deemed unconstitutional. It's like the government offering a job to someone to receive something in return. This already is illegal. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/211

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Once again Obama has shown his plan all along. Raise taxes.

He wants to remove home interest payments as a deduction.

Trust me, this will include everyone, not just those who make over $200k.

Also, he says he wants to remove charitable contributions as well.

Folks, this isn't all he plans to do. He's just telling us the part he thinks we want to hear.

I guess you can drop all the rhetoric over how he's cut taxes now. It was all smoke and mirrors anyway.

Gee.....so many (what Teabaggers would consider) "details".

Is it any wonder a majority of Americans consider the Teabagger Nation terminally-clueless?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y]YouTube - 9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48]YouTube - 9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It has never been about Taxes. It's about Government spending more than they ever had. Punishing the Taxpayers for Government malfeasance is not the answer. I just don't get how so many agree with blaming Taxpayers for Government fucking everything up. It's not the Taxpayers' fault. It's the Government's fault. The more they raise Taxes,the more money they spend. So raising Taxes just isn't the answer.

Yeah.....we heard all that, before.....in '93....right before.....

THE GREATEST ECONOMY THIS COUNTRY HAD EVER EXPERIENCED!!!

"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."
— Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)

 

[mudwhistle]

Tax increases for the wealthy, get rid of obscene tax cuts for large corporations and defense budget cuts will help tremendously.

The reason we spent so much the last 5 or 6 years is because of unemployment insurance payments, Medicaid, food stamps, the EPA, discretionary spending, and spending on 3 wars.

Cutting Defense spending before we end those wars is idiotic. Why do don't we just shoot our own troops while we're at it. Tell Obama to get us the heck out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

I say cut food stamps, unemployment benefits, and pull back on the EPA, not just go after just those you despise.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

All the rabble who AREN'T going to get taxed are the ones making the most noise.

CLASSIC!!


lol

 

[mudwhistle]

An Obama spokesman just said on Fox News that "We're asking Americans ACROSS THE BOARD to tighten their belts and sacrifice....".

Sounds like he let it slip that everyone is gonna pay, not just the wealthy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Back in the old days you could deduct any interest payment. Reagan elminated that. And industry survived.

So removing the largest deduction homeowners get other then the standard deduction calling it a tax loop-hole is a good idea? Talk about massive tax increase. If he removed mortgage interest as a deduction on all of my properties I would lose everything. I've barely got my head above water and this prick wants to drown me.

And just think what that will do the real estate market as people invested in real estate divest their holdings.

Only I don't really get how this will work for real estate investors as the cost of borrowing is ALWAYS thought of an part of the xpense of doing business.

I'm thinking that this change will therefore only effect HOMEowners who currently gett to write off the interest on their mortgages.

Btw, wasn't there a time when credit-cards were once touted as a good investment before "Reagan" removed it as a deduction?

Yes there was a time when the interest you paid on credit cards was deductable.

This change in tax laws is still another example where Reagan's so called tax cutting was actually a TAX INCREASE on the working classes.

Throw in the enormous increase in SSI and medicare contributions under Regan and contrary to what most of you kids think about that guy, his policies were not about cutting taxes, so much as they were shifting the balance from the investor classes to the worker classes.

REAGAN was a socialistic and collectivist as any DEM POTUS in my lifetime.

He was once a Democrat. Problem is the Democrats aren't Democrats anymore.

 

[G.T.]

Obama can't do anything without the cooperation of the Republican Congress.

 

[skookerasbil]

All the rabble who AREN'T going to get taxed are the ones making the most noise.

CLASSIC!!


lol

said the committed Maoist who would happily advocate for taking 80% from every working American.

Weve become a country that supports losers. Theres the helpless and then there are the losers. Over the past 40 years, Maoists like Obama have successfully made the helpless/loser line real hazy, thus, all these government programs for millions who dont want to get off their asses.

What a disgrace............

 

[asterism]

Dropping the tax break on charitable donations will hit the charities. People will be less inclined to give as much. How about the Government gives the tax we paid on any amount given to charity to the charity.

That way, the charity gets the benefit, not me and not the government.

That's not really true. Only 30% of those who contribute realize a deduction.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Frequently Asked Questions Answers

So can you handle a 30% reduction in income?

How is that a 30% reduction in income?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It has never been about Taxes. It's about Government spending more than they ever had. Punishing the Taxpayers for Government malfeasance is not the answer. I just don't get how so many agree with blaming Taxpayers for Government fucking everything up. It's not the Taxpayers' fault. It's the Government's fault. The more they raise Taxes,the more money they spend. So raising Taxes just isn't the answer. It's all just Community Organizer Class Warfare stuff. Community Organizers thrive on pitting Americans against Americans. It's just a distraction and a diversion. The real problem is with the Government. It's not with the Taxpayers.

I can see it now. The government will see this new tax revenue as a windfall and spend the shit on something other than intended. Typical!

That's only because your (obviously) much-too-young to remember....

THE PROSPEROUS YEARS!!!​

September 27, 2000​

"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt."

A Bill-Paying Primer: For Teabaggers​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Once again Obama has shown his plan all along. Raise taxes.

He wants to remove home interest payments as a deduction.

Trust me, this will include everyone, not just those who make over $200k.

Also, he says he wants to remove charitable contributions as well.

Folks, this isn't all he plans to do. He's just telling us the part he thinks we want to hear.

I guess you can drop all the rhetoric over how he's cut taxes now. It was all smoke and mirrors anyway.

Y'know, if he doesn't watch it, Democrats may become known as the party of tax-and-spend....

Love it!!!

You Texans never were all-that-sharp at recognizing SARCASM, when you heard it!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Bullshit, it is not about taxes. Before Bush tried to run two wars and cut taxes at the same time, we had an expanding economy. Now we are trying to pull out of a recession verging on a Great Depression. The debt we have now cannot be paid by just cutting spending, or by increasing taxes, we will have to do both.

And defense is not off the table. Nor are the breaks given corperations.

I am a blue coller worker with an income that is just under or over six figures for that last few years. I would like to see the tax structure under Clinton re-instated, with a higher bracket, maybe by 5%, for those with an income over $1,000,000. I can afford the increases, as can all that are working. The people that the Ryan cuts are aimed at are those that are already at the bottom. I don't buy that at all.

Not to worry.

The BLUEPRINT was PERFECTED years-ago.....​

August 5, 1996​

"The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers.

The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

Before There Were 'Baggers​

 

[The Rabbi]

Tax increases for the wealthy, get rid of obscene tax cuts for large corporations and defense budget cuts will help tremendously.

The reason we spent so much the last 5 or 6 years is because of unemployment insurance payments, Medicaid, food stamps, the EPA, discretionary spending, and spending on 3 wars.

Cutting Defense spending before we end those wars is idiotic. Why do don't we just shoot our own troops while we're at it. Tell Obama to get us the heck out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

I say cut food stamps, unemployment benefits, and pull back on the EPA, not just go after just those you despise.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDW_IO7azmE]YouTube - Bill Whittle - Let's Just Eat the Rich![/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Back in the old days you could deduct any interest payment. Reagan elminated that. And industry survived.

So removing the largest deduction homeowners get other then the standard deduction calling it a tax loop-hole is a good idea? Talk about massive tax increase. If he removed mortgage interest as a deduction on all of my properties I would lose everything. I've barely got my head above water and this prick wants to drown me.

And just think what that will do the real estate market as people invested in real estate divest their holdings.

Only I don't really get how this will work for real estate investors as the cost of borrowing is ALWAYS thought of an part of the xpense of doing business.

I'm thinking that this change will therefore only effect HOMEowners who currently gett to write off the interest on their mortgages.

The change would only affect homeowners. And only those who itemize. Which is a small number, relatively speaking.
Trade the deduction for lower rates across the board? Hell yes.

And btw, your views of Reagan are idiotic, Editec. About like the rest of your views.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This is all just more Community Organizer Class Warfare shit.

Bill Clinton was considered a community-organizer, TOO??!!!

You must have read that in one o' those Texas-approved History text-books.

(....'Cause you're obviously too-damned-young to have had any personal experiences, during the '90s.)​