Obama "Very Interested" In Raising Taxes Through Executive Action

[Wildman]

I HOPE Obama declares martial law or finds some way to get a 3rd term.

Heil Hitlerbama !

i have read some really stupid shit from libertraitors, but you have taken top prize

oooooh !! ...........................

 

[zeke]

The Wall Street Journal notes that three of the tax breaks to which Sanders refers — check-the-box loophole, Hewlett-Packard loophole, and the real estate investment trust loophole — were created by administrative actions or regulations, rendering them vulnerable to being closed by executive action. Sanders proposes closing the other three loopholes — corporate inversions, carried interest loophole, and valuation discounts — through regulatory powers assigned to the Treasury Department.



Don't any of you dumb fucks EVER do a little Google search before you get you panties all twisted up in a knot?

Sanders wants Obama to eliminate tax loopholes that were already created by admin actions. Were you all bitching when these tax loopholes were opened up? Fuck no.

 

[Wildman]

while the owners get richer.

you stupid fucking "the owners get richer", that is the way it is supposed to work you stupid fucking commie !

get your stupid lazy ass out and get a job that pays better than your welfare check.

is your parents getting tired of you filling their basement with your shit ?

if not, they should..., and kick your lazy ass OUT !!!

 

[Wildman]

liberals are so dense, they support tax increases

well of course they do.., they are wanting more $$$$$$$ in their welfare check.

 

[zeke]

well of course they do.., they are wanting more $$$$$$$ in their welfare check.

Is it painful to be as stupid as you are? Just curious.

 

[rickm19]

Just answer this question: what funds any level of government spending? Our badass military? Hell your local police force? Highways?

There's is much more than that to federal gov't spending and when it exceeds tax revenues it is OVERSPENDING. You loony lefties can't even say the fuckin' word. Try it ... OVERSPENDING.

I don't understand why you aren't computing what I am saying lol. Yes you douche over spending is a problem but so is egregious tax cuts. Even without Bush and Obama's crazy defense spending, Bush's tax cuts added 4 trillion to our national debt. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm curious, how does decreasing tax income equate to increasing the national debt? I'd appreciate you explaining how that math works out. Thanks in advance.

You mean how does cutting revenue lead to more debt? Because revenue as a percentage of GDP is near the historic low. We already do not have sufficient revenue to pay the gov's bills. More cutting leads to more borrowing.

If our debt surpasses our income, a far better, more intelligent solution would be to decrease the debt. If we don't raise enough revenue to pay the bills, we should probably refrain from creating more bills, don't you think? This nation will never balance a budget by spending like drunken sailors in port and then robbing the next generation to pay for such profligate waste.

Yes we have a spending problem but I think the bigger problem is how the system is designed to never let the government get out of debt. As soon as the money comes off the press there is a interest rate attached to it. So we look at our debt and say we are so far in but how much of that debt is actually the interest that comes with the money??? and you call it overspending, but who is responsible for putting the price tags on everything we buy? take the actual money out of the equation and you just have materials. Valuable materials that too many people take advantage of. Everyone is too focused on looking at things in numerical value and not economical, sustainable or humane value.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Very scary but BS. Except for corporate loopoles, which your Pub heroes defend to the deat, hater dupes...

Sanders sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Friday identifying a number of executive actions he believes the IRS could take, without any input from Congress, that would close loopholes currently used by corporations. In the past, IRS lawyers have been hesitant to use executive actions to raise significant amounts of revenue, but that same calculation has change in other federal agencies since Obama became president.
Obama's preferred option would be for Congress to pass a corporate tax hike

 

[hadit]

That does it. If Obama raises taxes through an executive order, I'm not voting for him again.

If he does that, you might just get a chance to actually make that decision.

I'm curious, how does decreasing tax income equate to increasing the national debt? I'd appreciate you explaining how that math works out. Thanks in advance.

That's a valid question, since every major tax cut over the last 60 years has been followed by a substantial increase in federal tax revenue.

The Facts About Tax Cuts Revenue and Growth

But the point is that Obama would be breaking the law if he tried to raise taxes via executive order. I truly find it surprising that liberals just don't seem to care that raising taxes by executive order would be brazenly unconstitutional.

We live in a country where the rule of law is being replaced by a cult of personality. People literally do not care if Obama has the authority to do something or not, they just want him to do it. Of course, they do NOT stop to think what that means when the next president wants to do something they DON'T like. Then they'll scream bloody murder but won't be able to do anything about it.

 

[hadit]

There's is much more than that to federal gov't spending and when it exceeds tax revenues it is OVERSPENDING. You loony lefties can't even say the fuckin' word. Try it ... OVERSPENDING.

I don't understand why you aren't computing what I am saying lol. Yes you douche over spending is a problem but so is egregious tax cuts. Even without Bush and Obama's crazy defense spending, Bush's tax cuts added 4 trillion to our national debt. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm curious, how does decreasing tax income equate to increasing the national debt? I'd appreciate you explaining how that math works out. Thanks in advance.

You mean how does cutting revenue lead to more debt? Because revenue as a percentage of GDP is near the historic low. We already do not have sufficient revenue to pay the gov's bills. More cutting leads to more borrowing.

If our debt surpasses our income, a far better, more intelligent solution would be to decrease the debt. If we don't raise enough revenue to pay the bills, we should probably refrain from creating more bills, don't you think? This nation will never balance a budget by spending like drunken sailors in port and then robbing the next generation to pay for such profligate waste.

Yes we have a spending problem but I think the bigger problem is how the system is designed to never let the government get out of debt. As soon as the money comes off the press there is a interest rate attached to it. So we look at our debt and say we are so far in but how much of that debt is actually the interest that comes with the money??? and you call it overspending, but who is responsible for putting the price tags on everything we buy? take the actual money out of the equation and you just have materials. Valuable materials that too many people take advantage of. Everyone is too focused on looking at things in numerical value and not economical, sustainable or humane value.

Enough people believe we can give everything to everyone. We just can't.

 

[SAYIT]

Get this, liberals are so dense, they support tax increases...

Billy000 actually prays for them (post #57):

God willing he'll raise taxes. I hope he does.

 

[SAYIT]

... This nation will never balance a budget by spending like drunken sailors in port and then robbing the next generation to pay for such profligate waste.

Yes we have a spending problem but I think the bigger problem is how the system is designed to never let the government get out of debt...

Reread GW's post (above). The problem isn't the system or tax revenues but rather the drunken sailor spending. If you ran your household (or business) like our gov't runs this country you would quickly find yourself broke or out of biz.

 

[zeke]

We live in a country where the rule of law is being replaced by a cult of personality.

No, we live in a country that has seen the legislative branch shun their responsibility to take up the business of running a country. All the while giving more and more power to the executive branch..

And our supposed legislators are doing this so no one can make them take responsibility for their actions.

What a fucked up way to run a country.

 

[SAYIT]

The thing about that is many people are over skilled for their positions in life but they are kept their due to the controlling nature of things. Yes owners provide and deal with a lot of crap, but does it really entitle them to soooo much more worldly possessions and wealth that really do nothing more than create greed, envy, and criminalistics ways? Everyone works hard and most people choose where they want to be. Most people don't choose to fall into wealth and the ones who create it still don't work much harder than the average person. Granted they have more knowledge and understand things better but does that really make them more entitled?

On a day filled with whiny, sniveling loony leftist posts on this thread yours rings the bell as the silliest, and I mean that with all due respect. Those who are "over skilled" have the right and the opportunity to get a better job or, if they are up to the task, start their own business. Those who make good money have the right to enjoy it without your jealous eyeballs watching their wallets and I can't believe anyone could be so stupid as to claim "everyone works hard." Let me guess ... you're 14 years old, right?

Let me guess, you fail to observe the world around you.. I agree a lot of people do not work hard or at all but those who are over skill get kept in their place by higher authorities because they think they know best...

Stop right there. In your first post you claimed "everyone works hard" and when that silliness was challenged you admitted that "a lot of people do not work hard or at all." Evidently you really don't know what you think but you're damned certain of it. People are not "kept in their place by higher authorities" nor are financially successful people "criminalistic" by definition. Most succeed because they are smart, they work hard, are willing to take chances and are opportunistic. It's time you stop blaming invisible forces for your failings and grow a pair.

 

[zeke]

The problem isn't the system or tax revenues but rather the drunken sailor spending.

No the problem is that we committed to spend all this money years ago. And then we cut the income needed to service this debt by considerable amounts.

What the hell did people think would happen when there were commitments made to spend tremendous amounts of money, then cut the income needed to pay for the spending.

For instance, you think the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were free? No matter what Bush and Co said.

For instance, we have a very expensive drug benefit program for seniors. There was never a provision made to pay for the service. So taxes were cut. Then the debt blew up. And some act like this is a mystery that this happened.

On a yearly basis. Obama has spent as few dollars as any President in a long time. His administration though has had to deal with the most costly wars and drug benefits program as well as dealing with a huge financial collapse. And large decreases in tax receipts.

You can't just stop paying for the goods and services that have been used. You can come up with more income to pay those bills. Like should have been done in the first place. This ain't rocket science.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I really want to know how much extra money was spent on those wars, then if not?

We don't have a draft, the military payroll would still have been spent.

The cost of fuel would have still been spent, since we always send our navy fleets all over the world

So what was the real costs?

We blew 150 tomahawk missles at $500,000 a piece for example, but they are made in the USA by Union workers and provided jobs for there local Economies during a recession

So what was the real price tag? And be honest

 

[zeke]

I really want to know how much extra money was spent on those wars, then if not?

(Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraqhas cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.





Can't a man of your intelligence use Google? Weird that you can't. Aren't you sitting at a computer now?


Now you tell me, What benefit was gained for America by invading Iraq?

 

[zeke]

We blew 150 tomahawk missles at $500,000 a piece for example, but they are made in the USA by Union workers and provided jobs for there local Economies during a recession

How many time do you have to be told that the government does not create jobs? Don't you ever read what the rabbit says? You should sometime. It's a hoot.

But seeing as how you recognize that the government can and does create jobs, just think of all the jobs that could be created with a full scale war against say a Russia. Full employment in no time. Prosperity for all except those that get killed or maimed in the war. But they are all volunteers.

 

[rickm19]

... This nation will never balance a budget by spending like drunken sailors in port and then robbing the next generation to pay for such profligate waste.

Yes we have a spending problem but I think the bigger problem is how the system is designed to never let the government get out of debt...

Reread GW's post (above). The problem isn't the system or tax revenues but rather the drunken sailor spending. If you ran your household (or business) like our gov't runs this country you would quickly find yourself broke or out of biz.

Yeah but I think you miss the underlying reasons.. If it were not for government spending there would be sooo many Americans without a job or work. Especially in the construction industry. Now agreeably there are many investments they make that I wish we did not have to make like, weapons of mass destruction and areas like that but that is to protect all the billionaires who like to hog all the money and profits and then all the foreign country's see Americans as pigs and selfish. Im sure all the Chinese that work for practically nothing to create the goods we use most just love to see where all the wealth goes.

 

[rickm19]

The thing about that is many people are over skilled for their positions in life but they are kept their due to the controlling nature of things. Yes owners provide and deal with a lot of crap, but does it really entitle them to soooo much more worldly possessions and wealth that really do nothing more than create greed, envy, and criminalistics ways? Everyone works hard and most people choose where they want to be. Most people don't choose to fall into wealth and the ones who create it still don't work much harder than the average person. Granted they have more knowledge and understand things better but does that really make them more entitled?

On a day filled with whiny, sniveling loony leftist posts on this thread yours rings the bell as the silliest, and I mean that with all due respect. Those who are "over skilled" have the right and the opportunity to get a better job or, if they are up to the task, start their own business. Those who make good money have the right to enjoy it without your jealous eyeballs watching their wallets and I can't believe anyone could be so stupid as to claim "everyone works hard." Let me guess ... you're 14 years old, right?

Let me guess, you fail to observe the world around you.. I agree a lot of people do not work hard or at all but those who are over skill get kept in their place by higher authorities because they think they know best...

Stop right there. In your first post you claimed "everyone works hard" and when that silliness was challenged you admitted that "a lot of people do not work hard or at all." Evidently you really don't know what you think but you're damned certain of it. People are not "kept in their place by higher authorities" nor are financially successful people "criminalistic" by definition. Most succeed because they are smart, they work hard, are willing to take chances and are opportunistic. It's time you stop blaming invisible forces for your failings and grow a pair.

Well im sorry for my poor choice of wording when saying "everyone" we all know that is simply not the case. When stating "everyone" I was refereeing to middle and upper class. But even then there are still people who manipulate the system to be in that bracket. But see its people like you who hold people back. I am not blaming invisible forces, I do blame egotistical assholes like yourself for trying to put people instead of encouraging others to do or say the right things. See most people are held back because they do not want to deal with politics and legalistic systems the ones implement for themselves to get wealthy. Now of course some people are not smart enough but if it were not for those making sure the lesser had no clue what they implementing, to take advantage of others, we wouldn't be in this situation. Now of course much of that verbage in contractual agreements are for protection but how many times to people use it to screw others over?!

 

[rickm19]

I don't understand why you aren't computing what I am saying lol. Yes you douche over spending is a problem but so is egregious tax cuts. Even without Bush and Obama's crazy defense spending, Bush's tax cuts added 4 trillion to our national debt. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm curious, how does decreasing tax income equate to increasing the national debt? I'd appreciate you explaining how that math works out. Thanks in advance.

You mean how does cutting revenue lead to more debt? Because revenue as a percentage of GDP is near the historic low. We already do not have sufficient revenue to pay the gov's bills. More cutting leads to more borrowing.

If our debt surpasses our income, a far better, more intelligent solution would be to decrease the debt. If we don't raise enough revenue to pay the bills, we should probably refrain from creating more bills, don't you think? This nation will never balance a budget by spending like drunken sailors in port and then robbing the next generation to pay for such profligate waste.

Yes we have a spending problem but I think the bigger problem is how the system is designed to never let the government get out of debt. As soon as the money comes off the press there is a interest rate attached to it. So we look at our debt and say we are so far in but how much of that debt is actually the interest that comes with the money??? and you call it overspending, but who is responsible for putting the price tags on everything we buy? take the actual money out of the equation and you just have materials. Valuable materials that too many people take advantage of. Everyone is too focused on looking at things in numerical value and not economical, sustainable or humane value.

Enough people believe we can give everything to everyone. We just can't.

No we cannot and people need to work for the things we have. The thing we can do is stop basing everything on money and help others more. Money is a figment of our imagination set forth to try help bartering and trading, but look where it has gotten us. Now of course if you're rich most of you don't care about the little guys because you can have every materialistic thing you want but really where does that get you in the end? It just leaves people wanting more because they cannot fill an empty void. What purpose does stockpiling gold have in this world unless it is being used for the benefit of others who are deserving. We have the technology and ability to do anything our hearts and minds desire. Money is the only thing that holds people back in todays age.