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.
The Class AAA Blame Artist has blamed everyone and everything under the sun for our fiscal morass. But nothing stands out more than his extreme dislike for wealthy Americans and their perceived lack of contribution via taxes.
So why didn't Obama and Democrats remedy this Achilles Heel while they had a Super-Majority? Why would he wait to put so much emphasis on a singular tax policy when he's politically impotent?
Is this guy stupid or what?
Here's the secret that Democrats do not want to acknowledge: they did not have the votes in their own Senate caucus to raise taxes. Some Members hail from Republican states and desire to be re-elected. A vote as you suggest would have been political suicide for half a dozen to a dozen Senators.
Actually, the left wingers are smart but the Democratic Party in Congress aren't Left-wing but are centrists.
Obama overwhelmingly was elected by voters who wanted him to boldly fulfill his campaign promises of reforming health care and bringing the nation a public option. What Obama delivered was a watered-down health care plan that was essentially the 1973 plan Richard Nixon promoted and the 1993 Republicans issued as an alternative to Bill Clinton's health care proposal.
The 2010 mid-term election was framed by Republicans as their protecting Medicare against cuts and chanting of 'death panels.' Once elected, what did these Republicans set out to do? Dismantle Medicare.
There is nothing arrogant in anything the Democrats did from 2008-2010. The country had expectations of boldness but didn't get boldness. The stimulus plan proposed was a fraction of the size economists said was necessary to jump-start the economy and was laden with Republican demanded tax-cuts.
When we look at polls, the only approval ratings that are lower than Obama's and the Democrats (29%) are Republicans in Congress, who have a 22% approval rating [Pew Research] (down 50% since Feb.)
Of course they didn't raise taxes. They knew it would be the cause of yhe rich leaving the Country and go else where..playing the blame card and calling names is all Dem. Are good at, but slowly the people are not buying it anymore.
The smart ones knew it all along and that is why most Dem. Are always playing on the weak.
Buffett doesn't pay taxes for his company and keep saying they need to raise the taxes but why isn't he giving everything away to the government if he really feels that way...
Actually, the left wingers are smart but the Democratic Party in Congress aren't Left-wing but are centrists.
Obama overwhelmingly was elected by voters who wanted him to boldly fulfill his campaign promises of reforming health care and bringing the nation a public option. What Obama delivered was a watered-down health care plan that was essentially the 1973 plan Richard Nixon promoted and the 1993 Republicans issued as an alternative to Bill Clinton's health care proposal.
The 2010 mid-term election was framed by Republicans as their protecting Medicare against cuts and chanting of 'death panels.' Once elected, what did these Republicans set out to do? Dismantle Medicare.
There is nothing arrogant in anything the Democrats did from 2008-2010. The country had expectations of boldness but didn't get boldness. The stimulus plan proposed was a fraction of the size economists said was necessary to jump-start the economy and was laden with Republican demanded tax-cuts.
When we look at polls, the only approval ratings that are lower than Obama's and the Democrats (29%) are Republicans in Congress, who have a 22% approval rating [Pew Research] (down 50% since Feb.)
Reagan never had a Republican Congress, yet he managed to get what he wanted in more or less complete form. The TEFRA spending cuts would be an exception.
Your poll numbers mean nothing since voters only vote for a president every four years, one Senator in two of three cycles and one Representative every two years. Just because they dislike members of Congress generally and members of a party doesn't mean they dislike their own Senators and Representative or will even vote for that matter. Democrats have always appealed to the lazy elements of society. Those people like to complain but then blow off voting.
They had the "super majority" for about 4 months, a large portion of which was taken up by summer recess. Kennedy was unable to vote many times and Franken was not seated until July. Brown was seated the following Feb. But, the Dems are to be blamed for not doing 8 yrs work in the 4 months time, when the Senate could have functioned.
You sound as if a super majority is needed to pass anything. If this is the case then very little would have been passed in our nations history.
But the big question is if they had passed tax increases how would that have helped anyone? Better yet if you are unemployed explain how passing a tax increase on others would have helped you personally?
If I owned a business that earned me $250,000 how by taking $100,000 of that in taxes, instead of $50,000, would have personally benefited anyone who is unemployed or poor?
This comes down to class envy and the ignorant.
You hear this from the whining how large companies like Exxon Mobil don't pay any taxes leaving the poor downtrodden to foot the bill.
Of course Obama and the class envy merchants are glad to perpetuate the myth but the reality is
During the first quarter of this year, our U.S. operating earnings were $2.6 billion. The rest of our earnings – more than $8 billion – came from operations in more than 100 countries worldwide.
Here’s a number you won’t hear in Washington: During the first quarter, on those U.S. earnings of $2.6 billion, we incurred tax expenses in the United States of $3.1 billion. That’s right – our U.S. tax bill was higher than our U.S. earnings.
People complain about how large multi-national companies get off without paying US income tax or even get a refund.
But if Exxon isn't able to deduct foreign taxes, and is taxed at 35%, of the entire $1.00 Exxon would be left with $0.35 and not with $0.455 of every dollar.
Now it is time to hit the evil stockholders and they should be hit hard because they are rich. Being a stockholder in Exxon-Mobil the left would think a 50% tax rate is fair, right?
Good, one of the largest owners of Exxon-Mobil stock is the California Teachers Association who use the profit to fund pension plans of retired teachers. What better target than evil, greedy, rich retired teachers, right? If we taxed them at 50% they'd get $0.2275 from every dollar earned. Maybe we could have the satisfaction of seeing pensions cut from $3,000/month to $1,200, right?
But imagine if the US didn't allow foreign tax deductions.... that $0.2275 would be $0.175 and we could all rejoice as retired teachers were reduced to eating dog food.
So how, exactly, would taking money from the pockets of retired teachers help the job market and unemployed in the country? And if you advocate this sort of thing exactly how it would benefit you personally?
Ya know that bill that had the rescinding of Bush's HUGE tax gift to his base, the Wealthy?
Well, in that bill was the money for unemployment...the Repugs said if the Democrats take back the HUGE tax break for the WealthyGods then they won't pass the bill with the money for unemployment(see how the Repugs HATE average Americans but worship the WealthyGods?)
So the bill passed to save average Americans who are out of work because the HUGE tax breaks for the WealthyGods did NOT produce jobs as the Repugs and Bushy said they would....
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
You sound as if a super majority is needed to pass anything. If this is the case then very little would have been passed in our nations history.
But the big question is if they had passed tax increases how would that have helped anyone? Better yet if you are unemployed explain how passing a tax increase on others would have helped you personally?
If I owned a business that earned me $250,000 how by taking $100,000 of that in taxes, instead of $50,000, would have personally benefited anyone who is unemployed or poor?
This comes down to class envy and the ignorant.
You hear this from the whining how large companies like Exxon Mobil don't pay any taxes leaving the poor downtrodden to foot the bill.
Of course Obama and the class envy merchants are glad to perpetuate the myth but the reality is
Now it is time to hit the evil stockholders and they should be hit hard because they are rich. Being a stockholder in Exxon-Mobil the left would think a 50% tax rate is fair, right?
Good, one of the largest owners of Exxon-Mobil stock is the California Teachers Association who use the profit to fund pension plans of retired teachers. What better target than evil, rich retired teachers, right? If we taxed them at 50% they'd get $$0.2275 from every dollar earned. Maybe we could have the satisfaction of seeing pensions cut from $3,000/month to $1,200, right?
So how, exactly, would taking money from the pockets of retired teachers help the job market and unemployed in the country? And if you advocate this sort of thing exactly how it would benefit you personally?
LOL! Your Worship of the Wealthy training is complete...you used a quote from EXXON to prove EXXON is ..blah, blah blah...LOL
Yes, Virginia, corporate mouthpieces NEVER lie...
Reminds me of how some Repugs want to have corporations do their own environmental studies..LOLOLOL!!!
Correct, not to mention they would have needed unanimous support that would have been nearly impossible to pull off.
This is another thing the right wingers don't understand is that the democrats have a wide variety of individuals that range from fairly liberal, to basically full blown republicans and everything inbetween. The democrats are not in complete unison like the right where McConnel cracks the whip and everyone votes to the far right.
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat" __Will Rogers
I think you are saying that on the merits, the Congress should have raised taxes on the rich. The Republicans were dead against it and the argument that Democrats are at fault for not forcing the tax-increases over Republican objection is an insane argument.
This reminds me of an illustration Lincoln used, where he said: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be the murderer!'"
No more "insane" than the Democrats blaming President Bush for the "crash" when it was the Democrats that refused to take note of and do something about the at least 7 alerts that president Bush sent to Congress informing all that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae "HAD" to be addressed because they were so very financially off track. See proof on film in the C-SPAN files...specifically vehemently speaking to the "soundness" of these two government-backed financial institutions were Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dobbs and Chuck Schumer. Now that is what got us in this mess...not President Bush. Now, who is insane.
The Dems didn't raise taxes on the rich early on because they knew it would throw many of them out of office at the next election...(IMHO)!
The Class AAA Blame Artist has blamed everyone and everything under the sun for our fiscal morass. But nothing stands out more than his extreme dislike for wealthy Americans and their perceived lack of contribution via taxes.
So why didn't Obama and Democrats remedy this Achilles Heel while they had a Super-Majority? Why would he wait to put so much emphasis on a singular tax policy when he's politically impotent?
The Class AAA Blame Artist has blamed everyone and everything under the sun for our fiscal morass. But nothing stands out more than his extreme dislike for wealthy Americans and their perceived lack of contribution via taxes.
So why didn't Obama and Democrats remedy this Achilles Heel while they had a Super-Majority? Why would he wait to put so much emphasis on a singular tax policy when he's politically impotent?
Is this guy stupid or what?
No. But he thinks we are. Considering the fact that he got elected to the most important executive position in the world on lame slogans and an anemic resume, he has every right to think the same poor gullible chumps that voted for him last time will do it again.
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.
