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.
Could this be? Obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff...blame the Republicans...and keep the money to spend. {snip}
So my question to fellow posters is, are the president's proposals just an attempt to establish a bargaining position that will be watered down later, or is he angling for going over the fiscal cliff and dramatically increasing government revenues to further his policy agenda? What do you think?
All of these legislative time bombs that make up the fiscal cliff were signed into law by Obama, so at the very least, he wanted to create this crisis, and now here he is grandstanding about it.
As if... "Save us Barack, save us from the crisis you created."
If, and most likely when, they become more diversified and self-sufficient, I'd begin to be worried.
It's already happening.
I work in an industry where we've historically had to compete with Chinese manufacturers. Over the last year or so we've seen work come back from China because the customers weren't getting timely deliveries from their Chinese sources. Reason being, China is producing more and more of these kind of goods for domestic use and American customers are having to take a back seat.
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.
but, but, but...extending the tax cuts for top earners only gets $800 billion of revenue and now he wants $1.6 trillion--to be reached by letting the tax cuts expire AND peeling back deductions and exemptions.
So the news in the $1.6 trillion figure is that the President now wants much more than a simple expiration of the tax cuts on top earners. This is a large change from our previous understanding of the President's position, which prompts my orginal question.
but, but, but...extending the tax cuts for top earners only gets $800 billion of revenue and now he wants $1.6 trillion--to be reached by letting the tax cuts expire AND peeling back deductions and exemptions.
So the news in the $1.6 trillion figure is that the President now wants much more than a simple expiration of the tax cuts on top earners. This is a large change from our previous understanding of the President's position, which prompts my orginal question.
I can't speak for $800B versus $1.6T because the latter is the number presented in recent reports AND is close enough ($1.5T) to Obama's fiscal plan presented over a year ago. In fact, without the details, I would wager that his number comes from Simpson-Bowles, which is likely to include some tax reform. It may also include the President's previous push to reduce corporate tax rates (to 28%) and closing loop holes.
I can't speak for $800B versus $1.6T because the latter is the number presented in recent reports AND is close enough ($1.5T) to Obama's fiscal plan presented over a year ago. In fact, without the details, I would wager that his number comes from Simpson-Bowles, which is likely to include some tax reform. It may also include the President's previous push to reduce corporate tax rates (to 28%) and closing loop holes.
Interesting that he would take the number from Simpson Bowles yet leave half the policy guidelines of Simpson Bowles in the trash can. Erskine Bowles has been all over the news lately with the message of "gut the tax expenditures, lower and flatten the rates, collect more revenue." Which is what the plan entails.
We'll know more after today (Friday), when the leadership meets. I hope both sides are motivated by the sharp sell-off in the markets, with indications of a replay of the August 2011 slide becoming more abundant.
why is obama and the liberals sticking to the 250K garbage
dont liberals understand that one size does not fit all
dont the liberals understand that 250k is not rich
rich (top bracket) in the 1950s was 380k...thats over 3 million todya....
if the liberals were smart they would be saying rsaise the tax on those making 1 million + or 2 million +, instead of this garbage of 250k
tha average nassau county PO (not sergeant, not LT, not cpt, but basic PO) makes 150k.....the average teacher with 10 years on the job makes 110k...
so what the liberals are saying is that a workingclass cop, married to a workingclass teacher is rich, becuase they cross some magical one size fits all financial line in the sand
liberals are against the middleclass..they want two classes...the poor serfs , getting thier SCRAPS of welfare for votes...and the rich elite liberal masters
Hostess Inc. maker of Twinkees, Ding Dongs, Wonderbread, is on the verge of going out of business because of union demands and the cost of the fiscal cliff. My guess is that it will get worse, and more manufacturing and jobs will leave the USA. Its going to get ugly.
why is obama and the liberals sticking to the 250K garbage
dont liberals understand that one size does not fit all
dont the liberals understand that 250k is not rich
rich (top bracket) in the 1950s was 380k...thats over 3 million todya....
if the liberals were smart they would be saying rsaise the tax on those making 1 million + or 2 million +, instead of this garbage of 250k
tha average nassau county PO (not sergeant, not LT, not cpt, but basic PO) makes 150k.....the average teacher with 10 years on the job makes 110k...
so what the liberals are saying is that a workingclass cop, married to a workingclass teacher is rich, becuase they cross some magical one size fits all financial line in the sand
liberals are against the middleclass..they want two classes...the poor serfs , getting thier SCRAPS of welfare for votes...and the rich elite liberal masters
More ignorant nonsense.
No - the Top Tax Bracket in 1950 WAS NOT 380k. It was 1.862 MILLION in 1950 - and that tax bracket had a tax rate of 91% - 91%!!!!
Not only that, but someone making 380k had a tax rate of 69%!!!
Hostess Inc. maker of Twinkees, Ding Dongs, Wonderbread, is on the verge of going out of business because of union demands and the cost of the fiscal cliff. My guess is that it will get worse, and more manufacturing and jobs will leave the USA. Its going to get ugly.
Hostess has a LOT more problems than just "union demands" - though it IS true that refusal of the Bakers Union to accept wage cuts may well turn out to be the final nail in the coffin for the company. This is a case where the unions themselves are in disagreement. The Teamsters have agreed to the wage cuts the company says it needs to make, but the Bakers have not. The REAL problem for Hostess though is that they are a victim of the "backlash" against "junk" food and the fact that there's severe competition in the snack business.
More ignorant nonsense.
No - the Top Tax Bracket in 1950 WAS NOT 380k. It was 1.862 MILLION in 1950 - and that tax bracket had a tax rate of 91% - 91%!!!!
Not only that, but someone making 380k had a tax rate of 69%!!!
Tax rates are ridiculously low today. No wonder we have deficit problem.
Ken
ken...not like you to spin
look at your own LINK.""""".ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION""""""
the top bracket in 1957 was 200k....
so in 1957 the top bracket was incomes over 200k...over 200k was considered rich....in toadays dollars that would be $1,575,383.85
so again...why wont the LIBERALS BE HONEST...rich is those making more that 1.5 million
why, oh why do liberals lie so much
and yes the tax rate was 90+%...and the OTHER TAXES WE CURRENTLY PAY didnt exist or were much lower
do you REALLY think anyone would be WANTING to pay 91% to the feds...10% to the state, and 20% to the local,, and still get hit with the other sin/exise taxes?????do you think anyone in their right mind would pay out MORE than they earned????
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.
