Obama wants to raise taxes on the American people once again

[The Rabbi]

Because capital formation is the lifeblood of business. Further, reducing capital gains rates actually increases the amount paid by high income people because the incentive to hold investments is less.
Even Obama understands this.

Please explain how that works, if you don't mind. Let me see if I have this right. By reducing capital gain rates ( taxes ), the high income folks pay more in taxes? And, exactly how does "holding investments less" affect income and taxes? Do not high income folks change their investments, and the way they invest all the time? Whether they are invested in stocks, bonds, currency, real estate, commodities, etc., they keep up with the economic trends, move their money accordingly, and by doing so, they protect their investments ( money). Am I wrong here? If so, please explain where I failed to understand investments and taxes. Thanks.

Look, Im not here to educate you on basics. But even Obama understands that lowering the cap gains tax produced more revenue because it unlocked gains in older investments.

Oh, so you can't explain it? I thought so. I really didn't think you'd be able to.

Let's just say I can't explain it in a way you could understand. This is because I never took Special Ed.

Very cute. And I suppose that little cutie is suppose to make you right? What is your score card telling you now? I have an idea. Just take a stab at the answer and see if I can get the picture. What could it hurt? At least give it a try.

OK let me see if I can explain this using words of one or two syllables.

There are many ways to get money to work for you (what adults call investments). It might be a company started. It might be real estate. It might be stocks. When someone holds one of these for a long time often the value goes up even 10 times. Sometimes more. The tax that would have to be paid makes selling the asset more expensive. If you started or bought a company for 10k and now it's worth 1M then you have basically 1M worth of capital gains and at a 40% rate thats $400,000. No one wants to pay 400,000 in tax. So the owner holds it. Now if the rate is like 10% then he only has to pay 100k. That might be worthwhile. He sells the asset and reinvests in another company with the remaining money. The profit is unlocked and used for more productive uses. The government gets 100k whereas before they wouldnt have gotten anything because the owner doesnt want to sell. This is why money going to the government goes up not down.

 

[Skylar]

This is completely meaningless. The rich do not divest from the stock market. Nor are stock gains the only capital gains in existence.
The rest of your post is equal gibberish. I just dont have time to sit and go through every fallacy there. No one could unfuck it, frankly.

Well that was easy. And the rest of my post was 'gibberish', huh? What part of the following did you have difficulty following?

Reagan lowered the cap gains rate and collections went up.

Reagan increased the capital gains rate. It went from an effective rate of 15% to 22%. And federal revenues went up as he did so, jumping 11% from 769 billion to 854 billion.

You were flat out wrong, Rabbi. Reagan did the exact opposite of what you claimed he did, raising the capital gains rate by 7%. And instead of federal revenue plummeting, it skyrocketed by 11%.

Your prediction provided the exact opposite result you insisted it would. So you ignore history. You fail, because you can't make us ignore it. Nor can you make us ignore your startling blunders, like this:"

Clinton raised it and they went down.

You may want to check history again, because its clearly not following your script. Federal revenues increased every single year of Clinton's term. His tax increases when into effect in 1994. In 1993, federal revenues were 1.154 trillion dollars. In 1994, the first full year of Clinton's tax increases, they were 1.258 trillion. That's an increase of over 100 billion dollars. And by about 100 billion the next year. And the next. And the next.

The exact opposite of your claims.

And not just federal revenues. But Capital Gains revenues as well. In 1993, capital gains revenues were 36 billion. By 1996, when the capital gains tax had risen to 25%, they had risen to 66 billion.

Exactly opposite of your claims.

You were wrong again, Rabbi. Not just a little wrong, but perfectly wrong. Your claims were the literal opposite of reality. Clinton increased capital gains taxes...and revenues went up. Federal Revenues, Capital Gains revenues, all of it.

Your predictions again provided the exact opposite result you insisted it would. Perhaps you should limit yourself to discussion of 'fair taxes'. As your record of accuracy on capital gains taxes has been essentially worthless.

Speaking of worthless.....here's another one of your claims that was shredded by far better evidence:

Bush lowered it and they went up again.

Alas, Bush's own economic advisors tell a very, very different story.

Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues

Tax Cuts Don t Boost Revenues - TIME

Lets elaborate a little on Greg Manwik's position, as he gets quite specific. And quite official, as he's citing Bush's own economic reports.

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing.

Greg Mankiw s Blog On Charlatans and Cranks

This is the man who GW appointed to chair the 'Council of Economic Advisors', the president's own agency that advises him on economic issues. And he explicitly contradicts your claims, indicating that less than half of the cut to capital gains and roughly a quarter of the gains in income tax cuts were recouped as revenue. And he's hardly alone:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

Andrew Samwick
Vox Baby A New Year s Plea

This is the chief economist for Bush's Council on Economic Advisors. And he too utterly obliterates your claims of causality between increased revenue and tax cuts.

So you ignore him too. You ignore Reagan increasing capital gains taxes....and revenue skyrocketing. You ignore Clinton raising capital gains taxes....and revenue skyrocketing. You ignore 2 trillion dollars in increased deficit because Bush's tax cuts didn't pay for themselves. You ignore both Dr. Mankiw and Dr. Samwick confirming that Bush's tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, and were never expected to.

You ignore them despite both men being on Bush's own Council of Economic Advisers. The former as its chair. And the latter as its chief economist. And for no particular reason, you dismiss both as 'gibberish'.

You're simply not sufficiently informed to discuss this topic intelligently, Rabbi. And as your willful ignorance of history and Bush's own economic advisers demonstrate, your perspective is rooted in remaining ignorant.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

Please explain how that works, if you don't mind. Let me see if I have this right. By reducing capital gain rates ( taxes ), the high income folks pay more in taxes? And, exactly how does "holding investments less" affect income and taxes? Do not high income folks change their investments, and the way they invest all the time? Whether they are invested in stocks, bonds, currency, real estate, commodities, etc., they keep up with the economic trends, move their money accordingly, and by doing so, they protect their investments ( money). Am I wrong here? If so, please explain where I failed to understand investments and taxes. Thanks.

Look, Im not here to educate you on basics. But even Obama understands that lowering the cap gains tax produced more revenue because it unlocked gains in older investments.

Oh, so you can't explain it? I thought so. I really didn't think you'd be able to.

Let's just say I can't explain it in a way you could understand. This is because I never took Special Ed.

Very cute. And I suppose that little cutie is suppose to make you right? What is your score card telling you now? I have an idea. Just take a stab at the answer and see if I can get the picture. What could it hurt? At least give it a try.

OK let me see if I can explain this using words of one or two syllables.

There are many ways to get money to work for you (what adults call investments). It might be a company started. It might be real estate. It might be stocks. When someone holds one of these for a long time often the value goes up even 10 times. Sometimes more. The tax that would have to be paid makes selling the asset more expensive. If you started or bought a company for 10k and now it's worth 1M then you have basically 1M worth of capital gains and at a 40% rate thats $400,000. No one wants to pay 400,000 in tax. So the owner holds it. Now if the rate is like 10% then he only has to pay 100k. That might be worthwhile. He sells the asset and reinvests in another company with the remaining money. The profit is unlocked and used for more productive uses. The government gets 100k whereas before they wouldnt have gotten anything because the owner doesnt want to sell. This is why money going to the government goes up not down.

Save of course, that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Reagan increased the capital gains rate. It went from an effective rate of 15% to 22%. And federal revenues went up as he did so, jumping 11% from 769 billion to 854 billion.

That's what we adults call the 'exact opposite' of what you claimed. 854 billion is what we adults like to call 'more' than 769 billion.

And here's the stunning part. You've already been provided these numbers. Express contradicts of your claims that increasing capital gains taxes reduces revenues that you don't even dispute. And you completely ignored them. Worse, you repeated the same disproven nonsense. As usual, your argument is based in the ignorance of your audience. Where you make silly nonsense up. And then hope the person you're talking to has never fact checked any of it. As you certainly never did.

But it gets so much worse. Clinton did the same thing too, increasing capital gains to a peak of 25%. Federal revenues increased every single year of Clinton's term. His tax increases when into effect in 1994. In 1993, federal revenues were 1.154 trillion dollars. In 1994, the first full year of Clinton's tax increases, they were 1.258 trillion. That's an increase of over 100 billion dollars. And by about 100 billion the next year. And the next. And the next.

The exact opposite of your claims.

And not just federal revenues. But Capital Gains revenues as well. In 1993, capital gains revenues were 36 billion. By 1996, when the capital gains tax had risen to 25%, they had risen to 66 billion.

Exactly opposite of your claims.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And you don't' want to know. Remain ignorant. I'll keep the thread informed.

 

[orogenicman]

It is not enough that the American people are already taxed to the hilt and that the filthy ass combined government already takes over 40% of the GNP for the cost of government but this piece of shit in the White House wants to once again raise taxes on the American people.

Yea, we really need more taxes now, don't we? The stupid idiots in the White House can't cut back on spending but they sure as hell can call for more taxes.

This is the type of bead government you get when you elect Democrats. Of course if history is any indication the Republicans will probably give him what he wants.

His stupid tax plan is taking money from Americans that earned the money and giving to Americans that didn't earn it while keeping spending and the tax burden at the already astronomical high. Stupid Libtardeconomics.

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address Fox News

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Do the 1% qualify as "The American People"? While most, no doubt are American citizens, to suggest that they constitute anything other than the tiny minority that they are is rather absurd.

Your response did not address my question. Care to try again?

Do you think American citizens paying taxes in America are somehow not Americans?

Non-sequitur. Try again.

Of course 1% constitues a minority. Why wouldn't you think that? Bad at math?

I am quite good at math. But apparently the OP is not

 

[orogenicman]

It is not enough that the American people are already taxed to the hilt and that the filthy ass combined government already takes over 40% of the GNP for the cost of government but this piece of shit in the White House wants to once again raise taxes on the American people.

Yea, we really need more taxes now, don't we? The stupid idiots in the White House can't cut back on spending but they sure as hell can call for more taxes.

This is the type of bead government you get when you elect Democrats. Of course if history is any indication the Republicans will probably give him what he wants.

His stupid tax plan is taking money from Americans that earned the money and giving to Americans that didn't earn it while keeping spending and the tax burden at the already astronomical high. Stupid Libtardeconomics.

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address Fox News

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Do the 1% qualify as "The American People"? While most, no doubt are American citizens, to suggest that they constitute anything other than the tiny minority that they are is rather absurd.

Your response did not address my question. Care to try again?

Actually it does, but it fails to work on far left drones not connected to reality..

No, actually, your response was irrelevant to my question. That is why I asked if you wanted to try again.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Please explain how that works, if you don't mind. Let me see if I have this right. By reducing capital gain rates ( taxes ), the high income folks pay more in taxes? And, exactly how does "holding investments less" affect income and taxes? Do not high income folks change their investments, and the way they invest all the time? Whether they are invested in stocks, bonds, currency, real estate, commodities, etc., they keep up with the economic trends, move their money accordingly, and by doing so, they protect their investments ( money). Am I wrong here? If so, please explain where I failed to understand investments and taxes. Thanks.

Look, Im not here to educate you on basics. But even Obama understands that lowering the cap gains tax produced more revenue because it unlocked gains in older investments.

Oh, so you can't explain it? I thought so. I really didn't think you'd be able to.

Let's just say I can't explain it in a way you could understand. This is because I never took Special Ed.

Very cute. And I suppose that little cutie is suppose to make you right? What is your score card telling you now? I have an idea. Just take a stab at the answer and see if I can get the picture. What could it hurt? At least give it a try.

OK let me see if I can explain this using words of one or two syllables.

There are many ways to get money to work for you (what adults call investments). It might be a company started. It might be real estate. It might be stocks. When someone holds one of these for a long time often the value goes up even 10 times. Sometimes more. The tax that would have to be paid makes selling the asset more expensive. If you started or bought a company for 10k and now it's worth 1M then you have basically 1M worth of capital gains and at a 40% rate thats $400,000. No one wants to pay 400,000 in tax. So the owner holds it. Now if the rate is like 10% then he only has to pay 100k. That might be worthwhile. He sells the asset and reinvests in another company with the remaining money. The profit is unlocked and used for more productive uses. The government gets 100k whereas before they wouldnt have gotten anything because the owner doesnt want to sell. This is why money going to the government goes up not down.

Please go back to what you said that brought my question to you. I'll repost it so you don't have to go back and refresh your memory { " Because capital formation is the lifeblood of business. Further, reducing capital gains rates actually increases the amount paid by high income people because the incentive to hold investments is less.
Even Obama understands this." } Now, here's the key part that I questioned you about: { ", reducing capital gains rates actually increases the amount paid by high income people because the incentive to hold investments is less." } Now, do you see where you said that when tax rates decrease ( go down ), it actually increases the amount of taxes that the high income folks pay? And, you also said it's due to, "incentive to hold investments is less". First, holding investments is no guarantee that they'll increase in value. Secondly, if taxes decrease, then folks pay less taxes, not more. Examples: What happened to GM stock in 2009? What happened to stocks in the construction and home building companies?

FYI - If taxes are reduced, then taxpayers pay less in taxes, not more. That is regardless of one's wealthy. If tax rates of 40% are reduced to a tax rate of 30%, then those tax payers that are in that tax bracket, pay less taxes. How do they pay more? FYI - Holding investments is NOT a guarantee that those investments will increase in value. Even Mr. Warren Buffett can verify that. Yes, most of his long term investments pay off nicely, but some have tanked costing him $Billions. No one has a crystal ball when it comes to investments. Investments are generally thought of as gambles. Some pay off nicely, while other don't. So your argument holds no water either way.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Look, Im not here to educate you on basics. But even Obama understands that lowering the cap gains tax produced more revenue because it unlocked gains in older investments.

Oh, so you can't explain it? I thought so. I really didn't think you'd be able to.

Let's just say I can't explain it in a way you could understand. This is because I never took Special Ed.

Very cute. And I suppose that little cutie is suppose to make you right? What is your score card telling you now? I have an idea. Just take a stab at the answer and see if I can get the picture. What could it hurt? At least give it a try.

OK let me see if I can explain this using words of one or two syllables.

There are many ways to get money to work for you (what adults call investments). It might be a company started. It might be real estate. It might be stocks. When someone holds one of these for a long time often the value goes up even 10 times. Sometimes more. The tax that would have to be paid makes selling the asset more expensive. If you started or bought a company for 10k and now it's worth 1M then you have basically 1M worth of capital gains and at a 40% rate thats $400,000. No one wants to pay 400,000 in tax. So the owner holds it. Now if the rate is like 10% then he only has to pay 100k. That might be worthwhile. He sells the asset and reinvests in another company with the remaining money. The profit is unlocked and used for more productive uses. The government gets 100k whereas before they wouldnt have gotten anything because the owner doesnt want to sell. This is why money going to the government goes up not down.

Save of course, that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Reagan increased the capital gains rate. It went from an effective rate of 15% to 22%. And federal revenues went up as he did so, jumping 11% from 769 billion to 854 billion.

That's what we adults call the 'exact opposite' of what you claimed. 854 billion is what we adults like to call 'more' than 769 billion.

And here's the stunning part. You've already been provided these numbers. Express contradicts of your claims that increasing capital gains taxes reduces revenues that you don't even dispute. And you completely ignored them. Worse, you repeated the same disproven nonsense. As usual, your argument is based in the ignorance of your audience. Where you make silly nonsense up. And then hope the person you're talking to has never fact checked any of it. As you certainly never did.

But it gets so much worse. Clinton did the same thing too, increasing capital gains to a peak of 25%. Federal revenues increased every single year of Clinton's term. His tax increases when into effect in 1994. In 1993, federal revenues were 1.154 trillion dollars. In 1994, the first full year of Clinton's tax increases, they were 1.258 trillion. That's an increase of over 100 billion dollars. And by about 100 billion the next year. And the next. And the next.

The exact opposite of your claims.

And not just federal revenues. But Capital Gains revenues as well. In 1993, capital gains revenues were 36 billion. By 1996, when the capital gains tax had risen to 25%, they had risen to 66 billion.
Obviously you have me mistaken for someone else. Surely you didn't mean that comment to be directed at me. "The Rabbi" is the one that has made the claims that you're addressing not me. Yes, you are correct in that raising taxes also raise revenue, just common sense. "Mr. Rabbi" said that decreasing tax rates, increase the amount of taxes one pays. Please go back and read what he said. Then go back and try to find where I said that also. I have never ever said that increasing tax rates decrease revenue.


Exactly opposite of your claims.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And you don't' want to know. Remain ignorant. I'll keep the thread informed.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Oh, so you can't explain it? I thought so. I really didn't think you'd be able to.

Let's just say I can't explain it in a way you could understand. This is because I never took Special Ed.

Very cute. And I suppose that little cutie is suppose to make you right? What is your score card telling you now? I have an idea. Just take a stab at the answer and see if I can get the picture. What could it hurt? At least give it a try.

OK let me see if I can explain this using words of one or two syllables.

There are many ways to get money to work for you (what adults call investments). It might be a company started. It might be real estate. It might be stocks. When someone holds one of these for a long time often the value goes up even 10 times. Sometimes more. The tax that would have to be paid makes selling the asset more expensive. If you started or bought a company for 10k and now it's worth 1M then you have basically 1M worth of capital gains and at a 40% rate thats $400,000. No one wants to pay 400,000 in tax. So the owner holds it. Now if the rate is like 10% then he only has to pay 100k. That might be worthwhile. He sells the asset and reinvests in another company with the remaining money. The profit is unlocked and used for more productive uses. The government gets 100k whereas before they wouldnt have gotten anything because the owner doesnt want to sell. This is why money going to the government goes up not down.

Save of course, that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Reagan increased the capital gains rate. It went from an effective rate of 15% to 22%. And federal revenues went up as he did so, jumping 11% from 769 billion to 854 billion.

That's what we adults call the 'exact opposite' of what you claimed. 854 billion is what we adults like to call 'more' than 769 billion.

And here's the stunning part. You've already been provided these numbers. Express contradicts of your claims that increasing capital gains taxes reduces revenues that you don't even dispute. And you completely ignored them. Worse, you repeated the same disproven nonsense. As usual, your argument is based in the ignorance of your audience. Where you make silly nonsense up. And then hope the person you're talking to has never fact checked any of it. As you certainly never did.

But it gets so much worse. Clinton did the same thing too, increasing capital gains to a peak of 25%. Federal revenues increased every single year of Clinton's term. His tax increases when into effect in 1994. In 1993, federal revenues were 1.154 trillion dollars. In 1994, the first full year of Clinton's tax increases, they were 1.258 trillion. That's an increase of over 100 billion dollars. And by about 100 billion the next year. And the next. And the next.

The exact opposite of your claims.

And not just federal revenues. But Capital Gains revenues as well. In 1993, capital gains revenues were 36 billion. By 1996, when the capital gains tax had risen to 25%, they had risen to 66 billion.
Obviously you have me mistaken for someone else. Surely you didn't mean that comment to be directed at me. "The Rabbi" is the one that has made the claims that you're addressing not me. Yes, you are correct in that raising taxes also raise revenue, just common sense. "Mr. Rabbi" said that decreasing tax rates, increase the amount of taxes one pays. Please go back and read what he said. Then go back and try to find where I said that also. I have never ever said that increasing tax rates decrease revenue.


Exactly opposite of your claims.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And you don't' want to know. Remain ignorant. I'll keep the thread informed.

You are basically saying the same thing that I said. Of course increasing tax rates increase revenue. "Mr. Rabbi" has said the opposite, not me. You obviously responded to the wrong comment.

 

[Skylar]

Obviously you have me mistaken for someone else. Surely you didn't mean that comment to be directed at me. "The Rabbi" is the one that has made the claims that you're addressing not me.

From what I see of the post you've cited I'm responding to Rabbi. Specifically, his claim that 'This is why money going to the government goes up not down.' Rabbi was responding to you.

There doesn't appear to have been any quoting error. That happens from time to time.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Obviously you have me mistaken for someone else. Surely you didn't mean that comment to be directed at me. "The Rabbi" is the one that has made the claims that you're addressing not me.

From what I see of the post you've cited I'm responding to Rabbi. Specifically, his claim that 'This is why money going to the government goes up not down.' Rabbi was responding to you.

There doesn't appear to have been any quoting error. That happens from time to time.

I'm sorry. My bad. I failed to pull down the quote correctly. Please ignore my last comment. I'm sorry for the mistake. My bad.

 

[Skylar]

Obviously you have me mistaken for someone else. Surely you didn't mean that comment to be directed at me. "The Rabbi" is the one that has made the claims that you're addressing not me.

From what I see of the post you've cited I'm responding to Rabbi. Specifically, his claim that 'This is why money going to the government goes up not down.' Rabbi was responding to you.

There doesn't appear to have been any quoting error. That happens from time to time.

I'm sorry. My bad. I failed to pull down the quote correctly. Please ignore my last comment. I'm sorry for the mistake. My bad.

No worries!

 

[zeke]

Dayum rabbit. You were up all night just to get your ass kicked? Over and over. First Sonny, then Skylar.
You must be a bloody mess by now rabbit. Better head off to the hidy hole quick.

These folks know what the hell they are talking about. And you rabbit, remain clueless.
But don't worry rabbit. After they understand how stupid and pitiful you are, they may take a little mercy on a stupid rabbit and quit kicking the shit out of you. I hope that doesn't happen. But they seem like pretty fair minded people.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Dayum rabbit. You were up all night just to get your ass kicked? Over and over. First Sonny, then Skylar.
You must be a bloody mess by now rabbit. Better head off to the hidy hole quick.

These folks know what the hell they are talking about. And you rabbit, remain clueless.
But don't worry rabbit. After they understand how stupid and pitiful you are, they may take a little mercy on a stupid rabbit and quit kicking the shit out of you. I hope that doesn't happen. But they seem like pretty fair minded people.

I'm beginning to understand him, and his obvious political bias. I wont be too harsh on him. He just needs to be led in the right direction. Once the light comes on, he might be OK, lets hope. Thanks.

 

[zeke]

He just needs to be led in the right direction. Once the light comes on, he might be OK, lets hope. Thanks.

Not happening. But nice of you to try. His is the contrary position. No matter how reasonable something is said, he would never consider agreeing with that position. No matter how much sense it makes, it will make no sense to him. Like someone posted last night, even the right wing hacks on here won't defend his position. Some get close. Skull Pliot has about the same amount of sense. And likes rabbit I guess. He agree's with the rabbit a lot.

He (rabbit) mimics the rest of the Republican party from what I can tell. No compromise. No concession. No fucking common sense. No common decency and a love of the ultra rich that borders on pathetic.

 

[Mac1958]

.

What matters is where we are. The fact that so few control so much of the wealth -- regardless of how they got there -- should be sounding alarms regardless of political persuasion. Big, loud fucking alarms. With flashing red lights. And maybe a siren.

And it gets worse: Ours is a country and electoral system almost completely controlled by money.

Oh, and it gets even worse: The same effect is happening globally, not just here.

As a free marketer, I don't like saying it, I really don't like saying it, but this cannot continue. It's bad and it's getting worse pretty quickly.

.

 

[Wildman]

It is not enough that the American people are already taxed to the hilt and that the filthy ass combined government already takes over 40% of the GNP for the cost of government but this piece of shit in the White House wants to once again raise taxes on the American people.

Yea, we really need more taxes now, don't we? The stupid idiots in the White House can't cut back on spending but they sure as hell can call for more taxes.

This is the type of bead government you get when you elect Democrats. Of course if history is any indication the Republicans will probably give him what he wants.

His stupid tax plan is taking money from Americans that earned the money and giving to Americans that didn't earn it while keeping spending and the tax burden at the already astronomical high. Stupid Libtardeconomics.

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address Fox News

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Cut back on what dipshit? I bet you get ten kinds of government help. Tards have difficulty functioning without government help.

<><><><><><><>

TRUE !!

how is that Gvmt. paid shrink helping you ?

aren't taxes just great ?

 

[Sonny Clark]

He just needs to be led in the right direction. Once the light comes on, he might be OK, lets hope. Thanks.

Not happening. But nice of you to try. His is the contrary position. No matter how reasonable something is said, he would never consider agreeing with that position. No matter how much sense it makes, it will make no sense to him. Like someone posted last night, even the right wing hacks on here won't defend his position. Some get close. Skull Pliot has about the same amount of sense. And likes rabbit I guess. He agree's with the rabbit a lot.

He (rabbit) mimics the rest of the Republican party from what I can tell. No compromise. No concession. No fucking common sense. No common decency and a love of the ultra rich that borders on pathetic.

I understand. Some people get locked into a political party, and they erect a very wide and tall barrier to keep alternatives from changing their beliefs. Once firmly grounded, it's almost impossible to get them to see flaws, obvious flaws. Really, it's very common. I find most people to be strongly for one political party or the other. And, the sad part is the fact that they don't realize the socioeconomic damage caused by a divided citizenry. They never stop to realize that a divided public, divided along party lines, plays right into the hands of those that do all us great harm. Most people need association, labels, something to support and to defend. They never step back and see the ill effects such labels and division cause.

It's almost impossible to get people to see and to understand that we really don't need to be labeled Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals, Conservatives, Right Wings, Left Wings, nor anything other than Americans for America. Politics is just politics, regardless of party. Politicians all play the same game, some just wear different jerseys at game time. It seems to me that people have so much fun criticizing "the other party", that to not associate with one party or the other, would take all the fun out of it. In reality, the general public enjoys the game as much as professional politicians do. If one has no one to blame when things go wrong, to them, life just isn't worth living. You can tell that by the way so many people get all worked up when they get into a conversation with total strangers, especially on forums such as this one. Some get so serious about their political party, that they appear ready to go to war to defend them.

All the while, professional politicians are sitting back laughing and enjoying the show. The worst enemy of professional politicians, is a united citizenry. As long as we are divided along party lines, they win, we lose.

 

[Flash]

Ron Paul managed to get one bill of his passed in his entire decades long service in Congress, and it was an exemption for some wetlands being protected in a federal reserve, as a favor to some of his pals in Texas.

Ya got to love how the tea party picks their heroes.....

Irrelevant

That was a good budget proposal to stop excessive federal spending. Rdean asked how I would reduce spending and I gave a good reasonable starting point that would eliminated a trillion dollars a year of excessive spending. .

Just because there is nobody else that has the courage to curtail excessive government spending doesn't make the proposal less viable.

We have an excessive bloated government because this country is full of greedy shitheads that use the government for free stuff and as a nation we don't have the courage to put an end to it.

 

[rightwinger]

Slashing spending removes money from the economy
Obamas plan shifts the burden of our tax structure away from the middle class

Obama has ramped up spending to record levels and the economy sucks. If what you said were true we would be roaring. Instead we have sub 3% growth.

When you are 0-3 in the statements you just made, I am not even going to bother to respond. You will just make more shit up

Gosh it's just tough to be as stupid and clueless as you are.

Cool....this is the part where we get to post graphs?

Slashing spending removes money from the economy
Obamas plan shifts the burden of our tax structure away from the middle class

Obama has ramped up spending to record levels and the economy sucks. If what you said were true we would be roaring. Instead we have sub 3% growth.

When you are 0-3 in the statements you just made, I am not even going to bother to respond. You will just make more shit up

Gosh it's just tough to be as stupid and clueless as you are.

Cool, this is the part where we get to insert graphs

I love it when you post charts that prove my point, as well as showing you dont know what the fuck you're talking about. Keep it up. I need entertainemnt.

Another Rabbi admission of failure

Shows the typical lack of class

 

[Sonny Clark]

.

What matters is where we are. The fact that so few control so much of the wealth -- regardless of how they got there -- should be sounding alarms regardless of political persuasion. Big, loud fucking alarms. With flashing red lights. And maybe a siren.

And it gets worse: Ours is a country and electoral system almost completely controlled by money.

Oh, and it gets even worse: The same effect is happening globally, not just here.

As a free marketer, I don't like saying it, I really don't like saying it, but this cannot continue. It's bad and it's getting worse pretty quickly.

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/b...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0