Barack Obama accused opponents of holding a personal grudge against him

Nesster · 12-20-2012, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Jasvox

How else is the $1.5 TRILLION Dollars worth of illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going to be paid for? Spending cuts? Try there first. Either way, the debt needs to be paid for the follies of the past.

Jason

Clearly getting out of the wars is key. And then putting a stop to this brinksmanship and constant change to tax and other economic policy: it is the constant threat of change, of government shut down, or big spending cuts, that increases business risk. Not merely the threat of higher taxes. Bipartisanship gets us an imperfect compromise, but one that we hope will last past a 2 year election cycle.

By reducing the government confusion and uncertanity business should have enough of a sense of the future that they can calculate risk and start to invest. That grows the economy, which as John has pointed out several times, is the best way to shrink a deficit and increase revenue.

Tom S. · 12-20-2012, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by JohnInIndy

I'll go along for your flat tax.

But spending needs to be cut and not as wasteful

No problems there, so long as the cuts aren't made simply to say they were. I know there is lots of government spending that can be cut, but politicians tend to use broad brushes instead of surgical tools.

Tom S. · 12-20-2012, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Nesster

Fair means everyone in the same circumstance is treated the same and that everyone has the same recourse under law.

Fair in the sense of one's own opinion is not fairness, it is personal opinion. This also changes based on how the issue is presented. A while back we'd discussed here the studies that show how Americans would think a fair division of income and/or wealth would look; very different than reality. And though Mitt Romney's tax rate is fair in the sense it is legal, I personally don't think it is so, and therefore I support those who would change it.

While I agree with what you've said, I'm reminded of a story I read in the Sunday Magazine in our newspaper at least 20 years ago. In synopsis, the story talked about more than 400 laws that had been passed as add-ons that gave certain people tax free status. The example they gave was a law written similar to this: If your name is Joe Jones, and you reside at 123 Maple in Somewhere City, USA, you will no longer be responsible to pay federal income taxes. Obviously they were written to pay off large contributors, I believe (or at least hope) the law has since been changed to make these things illegal, but reading that made so mad I thought my head would explode.

Nesster · 12-20-2012, 01:16 PM

This is true, and wrong.

I should point out that marginal tax rate may or may not impact business negatively - in some cases the impact may be positive with a higher rate. How? It depends on what goes with the marginal rate change. Something that remains tax deductible becomes 'cheaper' for the buyer as the tax subsidy is now larger. This increases demand and reduces price sensitivity.

Reducing the marginal rate but making the thing not deductible may have the effect of reducing demand.

Changing capitalization/amortization rules can similarily affect demand.

Re those laws -- I recall reading that even though identifying individuals is illegal, they get around that by putting in general qualifications that make for a very small set of matches, the beneficiary among them. And it's not tax free status, it's special treatment for deductions or tax credits and the like. Still sucks.

**boriscleto** · 12-20-2012, 02:12 PM

Daily Kos: Boehner's 'Plan B' sweetened with GOP wish list for screwing poor*people

graphicgr8s · 12-20-2012, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Nesster

Fair means everyone in the same circumstance is treated the same and that everyone has the same recourse under law.

Fair in the sense of one's own opinion is not fairness, it is personal opinion. This also changes based on how the issue is presented. A while back we'd discussed here the studies that show how Americans would think a fair division of income and/or wealth would look; very different than reality. And though Mitt Romney's tax rate is fair in the sense it is legal, I personally don't think it is so, and therefore I support those who would change it.

How about 32.94456% with no exemptions?

Parallax · 12-20-2012, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Nesster

Fair means everyone in the same circumstance is treated the same and that everyone has the same recourse under law.

Okay, so minimum wage is what, 7.35 an hour? So if the government says anything you make over (roughly) $14,000.00 per year gets turned over to the gvt, that's fair; right? As long as it's the same for everybody.

graphicgr8s · 12-20-2012, 06:33 PM

Libs want all of us to be equal money wise. All poor so we depend on them. Thank you Mr Food Stamp President.

seacapt · 12-20-2012, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by graphicgr8s

Thank you Mr Food Stamp President.

Great title for a blues song.

glennbp · 12-20-2012, 08:58 PM - **1 Like**

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a POTUS and a democratic party that simply can not stop spending insane amounts of money. This POTUS has spent more in 4 years than all other president's combined and he is systematically destroying the union with his socialist policies. I don't expect our Kool-Aid drinking friends to understand that money is not an unlimited commodity, but I fear we are going to find out the hard way one day soon unless something radically changes. I am not trying to start an argument here, but our elected representatives (and that includes our president) had better wake up and start doing the right thing for ALL AMERICANS!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Barack Obama vs James Buchanan	jtkratzer	General Talk	50	11-06-2012 07:07 AM
Barack Obama better for world economy: Poll	jeffkrol	General Talk	2	08-17-2012 11:56 AM
President Barack Obama at the 2012 White House Correspondents' Dinner	jogiba	General Talk	3	05-02-2012 10:23 AM
Obama campaign donor accused of fraud	ElJamoquio	General Talk	31	04-08-2012 02:17 PM
The humiliation of Barack Obama	techmulla	General Talk	61	10-08-2011 06:23 AM

12-20-2012, 12:52 PM	#31
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by Jasvox How else is the $1.5 TRILLION Dollars worth of illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going to be paid for? Spending cuts? Try there first. Either way, the debt needs to be paid for the follies of the past. Jason Clearly getting out of the wars is key. And then putting a stop to this brinksmanship and constant change to tax and other economic policy: it is the constant threat of change, of government shut down, or big spending cuts, that increases business risk. Not merely the threat of higher taxes. Bipartisanship gets us an imperfect compromise, but one that we hope will last past a 2 year election cycle. By reducing the government confusion and uncertanity business should have enough of a sense of the future that they can calculate risk and start to invest. That grows the economy, which as John has pointed out several times, is the best way to shrink a deficit and increase revenue.

12-20-2012, 12:56 PM	#32
Tom S. Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 4,317	Originally posted by JohnInIndy I'll go along for your flat tax. But spending needs to be cut and not as wasteful No problems there, so long as the cuts aren't made simply to say they were. I know there is lots of government spending that can be cut, but politicians tend to use broad brushes instead of surgical tools.

12-20-2012, 01:03 PM	#33
Tom S. Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 4,317	Originally posted by Nesster Fair means everyone in the same circumstance is treated the same and that everyone has the same recourse under law. Fair in the sense of one's own opinion is not fairness, it is personal opinion. This also changes based on how the issue is presented. A while back we'd discussed here the studies that show how Americans would think a fair division of income and/or wealth would look; very different than reality. And though Mitt Romney's tax rate is fair in the sense it is legal, I personally don't think it is so, and therefore I support those who would change it. While I agree with what you've said, I'm reminded of a story I read in the Sunday Magazine in our newspaper at least 20 years ago. In synopsis, the story talked about more than 400 laws that had been passed as add-ons that gave certain people tax free status. The example they gave was a law written similar to this: If your name is Joe Jones, and you reside at 123 Maple in Somewhere City, USA, you will no longer be responsible to pay federal income taxes. Obviously they were written to pay off large contributors, I believe (or at least hope) the law has since been changed to make these things illegal, but reading that made so mad I thought my head would explode.

12-20-2012, 01:16 PM	#34
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	This is true, and wrong. I should point out that marginal tax rate may or may not impact business negatively - in some cases the impact may be positive with a higher rate. How? It depends on what goes with the marginal rate change. Something that remains tax deductible becomes 'cheaper' for the buyer as the tax subsidy is now larger. This increases demand and reduces price sensitivity. Reducing the marginal rate but making the thing not deductible may have the effect of reducing demand. Changing capitalization/amortization rules can similarily affect demand. Re those laws -- I recall reading that even though identifying individuals is illegal, they get around that by putting in general qualifications that make for a very small set of matches, the beneficiary among them. And it's not tax free status, it's special treatment for deductions or tax credits and the like. Still sucks.

12-20-2012, 02:12 PM	#35
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Daily Kos: Boehner's 'Plan B' sweetened with GOP wish list for screwing poor*people

12-20-2012, 05:55 PM	#36
graphicgr8s Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 229	Originally posted by Nesster Fair means everyone in the same circumstance is treated the same and that everyone has the same recourse under law. Fair in the sense of one's own opinion is not fairness, it is personal opinion. This also changes based on how the issue is presented. A while back we'd discussed here the studies that show how Americans would think a fair division of income and/or wealth would look; very different than reality. And though Mitt Romney's tax rate is fair in the sense it is legal, I personally don't think it is so, and therefore I support those who would change it. How about 32.94456% with no exemptions?

12-20-2012, 06:01 PM	#37
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Nesster Fair means everyone in the same circumstance is treated the same and that everyone has the same recourse under law. Okay, so minimum wage is what, 7.35 an hour? So if the government says anything you make over (roughly) $14,000.00 per year gets turned over to the gvt, that's fair; right? As long as it's the same for everybody.

12-20-2012, 06:33 PM	#38
graphicgr8s Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 229	Libs want all of us to be equal money wise. All poor so we depend on them. Thank you Mr Food Stamp President.

12-20-2012, 08:50 PM	#39
seacapt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: North Carolina , USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,271	Originally posted by graphicgr8s Thank you Mr Food Stamp President. Great title for a blues song.

12-20-2012, 08:58 PM - 1 Like	#40
glennbp Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Clarkston, Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 148	We don't have a revenue problem. We have a POTUS and a democratic party that simply can not stop spending insane amounts of money. This POTUS has spent more in 4 years than all other president's combined and he is systematically destroying the union with his socialist policies. I don't expect our Kool-Aid drinking friends to understand that money is not an unlimited commodity, but I fear we are going to find out the hard way one day soon unless something radically changes. I am not trying to start an argument here, but our elected representatives (and that includes our president) had better wake up and start doing the right thing for ALL AMERICANS!