Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When Barack Obama is not busy trying to distract from his own failed record by spinning tall tales about Mitt Romney’s years at Bain Capital, he is attempting to persuade the middle class he is on their side. How? By returning to his popular meme of reducing the national debt (and simultaneously achieving income fairness) by raising taxes on “the rich.”
Here he is last Monday, explaining to a crowd of prospective voters that he is “not proposing anything radical. I just believe anybody making over $250,000 a year should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Bill Clinton.” Later on, he repeats his mantra: that he is merely asking the “wealthy to do their fair share.”
Sounds like a plan—so long as you are willing to buy into the false premise that a yearly income of $251,000 constitutes wealth. But let’s agree to do that as part of a thought experiment. Let’s also accept the most optimistic analysis of the proposed tax hike, which suggests it would affect only 3% of small business owners (read: job creators). Here is the rationale for that claim:
There is a big difference between ‘business income’ and the small-business profits. Business income includes profits from real estate, royalties and limited partnerships for anything from real estate and oil drilling to venture capital and private equity funds. It also includes income from estates and trusts—so trust-fund babies are a part of the mix.
Put another way, much of what Republicans equate with small business income is investment income earned by wealthy people who hold stakes in a wide array of ventures.
This reading would be flawless were it not for the 900-pound gorilla in the room called Obamacare. One of the provisions of the health care law is to impose a 3.8% surtax on investment income of families earning $250,000 a year or more effective January 2013. The top rates would include a punishing 23.8% on capital gains and 43.4% on dividends and unearned income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.
Although the effect would raise the marginal income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans into the stratosphere, Obama and his enablers in the liberal blogosphere are to determined to have voters ignore this inconvenient truth by focusing their attention on some shiny object.
How many topics a day do you start? You do know this hurts your case by acting like a shotgun to see what sticks. It will just annoy and make people tune you out.
Anyways, trying to read through your post it is hard but there are always "extras" people can find and add to make "facts" support them.
Bottom line is though without serious revenue generation (more taxes) combined with significant spending reductions, it will be impossible to fix the debt. So while Obama needs to support more spending reductions when the economy is better, he is on the right track to raise taxes when the economy is better. Both need to happen.
How many topics a day do you start? You do know this hurts your case by acting like a shotgun to see what sticks. It will just annoy and make people tune you out.
Wow, do these liberal fanatics ever post ANYTHING in this forum besides attempts to prevent people from discussing certain subjects?
Quote:
Bottom line is though without serious revenue generation (more taxes)
... and the usual lies about raising tax rates resulting in MORE revenue to the government, especially during an already-existing economic slowdown?
Now they are trying to get people to re-elect them so they can double down on those same disastrous policies... chief of which is raising tax rates. The CBO has already pointed out that if the Democrats allow taxes to increase on Jan. 1, 2013, at the same time that the various Obamacare tax increases kicking then and later, it will destroy a million or more jobs and push the country off a fiscal cliff. And, by the way, people without jobs pay a lot less taxes than they did when they had jobs.
Don't these Democrat fanatics ever learn?
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 09-10-2012 at 11:19 AM..
How many topics a day do you start? You do know this hurts your case by acting like a shotgun to see what sticks. It will just annoy and make people tune you out.
Anyways, trying to read through your post it is hard but there are always "extras" people can find and add to make "facts" support them.
Bottom line is though without serious revenue generation (more taxes) combined with significant spending reductions, it will be impossible to fix the debt. So while Obama needs to support more spending reductions when the economy is better, he is on the right track to raise taxes when the economy is better. Both need to happen.
I agree, it's nothing but mass ultra-right wing spam.
So, how does a Democrat policy of tax-rate increases, that causes 1,000,000 Americans to lose their jobs as the CBO predicts, result in the American people paying MORE money to the Federal government?
So, how does a Democrat policy of tax-rate increases, that causes 1,000,000 Americans to lose their jobs as the CBO predicts, result in the American people paying MORE money to the Federal government?
Plus the CBO said it would lower the GDP by 1%.
The GDP is only at 1.5% now!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
