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.
It seems no one has mentioned the fundamental problem with the "tax the rich" approach - There are not nearly enough "rich" (annual income over $250,000/year) to even make a dent in the national debt.
True reform will only come when taxes are raised on EVERYONE and government and social programs are slashed to the BONE.
Well, there WILL be cuts in government programs as well - that's a foregone conclusion. You are right in that there will probably be tax increases on everyone (at least to some degree) eventually - but those tax increases are NOT going to happen NOW- and they don't have to. All that has to happen NOW is that the government develops a plan and BEGINS the process - and it BEGINS with tax rates on the top 2 percent going back to what they were before Bush and government programs starting to be cut.
The debt is NOT an insurmountable problem - difficult to be sure, but not insurmountable. After all, as a percentage of the total economy, it's been higher than it is today (in 1944/1945).
Indeed he does!!!! -- Its good you are slowly waking up!!
It shouldn't have taken that much to wake some up.
Obama has already made it very clear he intends to put no spending cuts on the table and he does not intend to compromise in any way. He already has said that it will be the Republicans that he's going to make sure are blamed for the big tax increases coming our way and it's clear he does not give a damn about the taxpayers.
The only spending cuts Obama will agree to are those that will hurt the military and the military families. And those who work in defense will be made to suffer -- but that giant and fast growing welfare dependent population will go merrily on getting more and more handouts as well as those who work in useless government departments. No streamlining or cutting back for them.
Well, there WILL be cuts in government programs as well - that's a foregone conclusion. You are right in that there will probably be tax increases on everyone (at least to some degree) eventually - but those tax increases are NOT going to happen NOW- and they don't have to. All that has to happen NOW is that the government develops a plan and BEGINS the process - and it BEGINS with tax rates on the top 2 percent going back to what they were before Bush and government programs starting to be cut.
The debt is NOT an insurmountable problem - difficult to be sure, but not insurmountable. After all, as a percentage of the total economy, it's been higher than it is today (in 1944/1945).
Ken
A lot larger portion of the population in 1944/1945 paid taxes and we did not have such a large portion living on welfare handouts of one kind or another. There wasn't all that free health care back in those days, people paid for what they got.
A lot larger portion of the population in 1944/1945 paid taxes and we did not have such a large portion living on welfare handouts of one kind or another. There wasn't all that free health care back in those days, people paid for what they got.
1940-1980 was the era of the middle class America, that is why. Those generations benefited from social programs. Since 1980, however, the middle class incomes have remained stagnant with incomes multiplying for the upper income groups. That is something people like you need to understand to figure out why the proportion has been falling dramatically. To put THAT in perspective, consider bottom-50% of the American populace that y'all detest (their contribution to federal income tax):
1980: 7.1%
1990: 5.8%
2000: 3.9%
2005: 3.0%
2008: 2.7%
Their AGI have fallen from about 18% in 1980 to about 12% in 2008 unless you also believe their income is only a small part of their "income" and that they rely more heavily on capital gains, like the top earners.
It shouldn't have taken that much to wake some up.
Obama has already made it very clear he intends to put no spending cuts on the table and he does not intend to compromise in any way. He already has said that it will be the Republicans that he's going to make sure are blamed for the big tax increases coming our way and it's clear he does not give a damn about the taxpayers.
The only spending cuts Obama will agree to are those that will hurt the military and the military families. And those who work in defense will be made to suffer -- but that giant and fast growing welfare dependent population will go merrily on getting more and more handouts as well as those who work in useless government departments. No streamlining or cutting back for them.
Yet more ignorant BS.
Obama has said MANY TIMES that he's open to compromise - including just YESTERDAY:
""...As I’ve said before, I’m open to compromise and I’m open to new ideas...
Obama is proposing cuts to MANY areas - not JUST the military. There are cuts to agriculture subsidies and Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac - as well as programs "near and dear" to Democrats hearts such as higher education and nutrition subsidies.
A lot larger portion of the population in 1944/1945 paid taxes and we did not have such a large portion living on welfare handouts of one kind or another. There wasn't all that free health care back in those days, people paid for what they got.
You are right in that this challenge of paying down the deficit IS much more difficult than it was in 1945 - there's no doubt about that. The American economy was booming during and after WWII with FULL employment and the US in a commanding position in regards to being the export capital of the world (with little in the way of competition in that regard) - whereas today we are faced with STIFF competition from abroad - so yeah, it's going to be a LOT more difficult, but it CAN and WILL be done.
Also as EinsteinsGhost as stated the distribution of wealth in this country was FAR different back then - with a much more narrow gap between the rich and the middle class. Over the last few decades the gulf between these two groups has been getting wider and wider and more and more people being pushed into the lower classes and a greater and greater share of the wealth gets concentraited in the hands of the upper class. This was driven through the belief that wealth would somehow "trickle down" to everyone else. Problem is, it HASN'T WORKED THAT WAY - instead all that's happened is that the people on the top get wealthier and wealthier while more and more people are "shoved to the bottom".
Oh, EG, I am over it. President Obama is the president of these fifty united states. The people have spoken, via a process that has stood the test of time. There is always another election, a chance to recitfy whatever mistakes we might make. I have moved on to more elevating topics in my own life and business.
But my OP was sincere: what is Obama's aim? I presented two alternative explanations. What do you think?
Oh, EG, I am over it. President Obama is the president of these fifty united states. The people have spoken, via a process that has stood the test of time. There is always another election, a chance to recitfy whatever mistakes we might make. I have moved on to more elevating topics in my own life and business.
But my OP was sincere: what is Obama's aim? I presented two alternative explanations. What do you think?
If you’re sincere about learning about Obama’s plans and policies, you should pay more attention to his speech and actions. On this particular issue,
Here is what he wants: Let tax cuts expire for top earners, keep for the rest until reasonable employment
Here is what he does not want: Extend tax cuts for the top earners (much less make it permanent)
This is not meant to dramatically increase revenue but one of many major steps to fiscal responsibility per his plan (presented over a year ago). The target here is $1.6T over ten years. In exchange, he approves reasonable cost reductions of about $3T mostly via defense and healthcare spending.
If you believe that agreeing to spending cuts and raising revenue via expiring tax cuts for the rich is a bargaining position, I’ve seen Obama offer it since he took office.
What's really funny about the outcome of the elections and the fiscal cliff is that.
1.The people who have suffered the most in the last four years are the states where the economy has been the worst and the black community that has the larger unemployment problem.
2. The people who re-elected Obama, the liberal states on the coasts with the highest incomes will be hurt the most by the fiscal cliff.
The congress probably should just let the fiscal cliff hit. If people wanted Obama policies, they wanted bigger government, then get ready to pay for it.
What's really funny about the outcome of the elections and the fiscal cliff is that.
1.The people who have suffered the most in the last four years are the states where the economy has been the worst and the black community that has the larger unemployment problem.
2. The people who re-elected Obama, the liberal states on the coasts with the highest incomes will be hurt the most by the fiscal cliff.
The congress probably should just let the fiscal cliff hit. If people wanted Obama policies, they wanted bigger government, then get ready to pay for it.
Lee Atwater, is that you?
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.
