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.
His reasoning for the $500 credit/2 working spouses bothers the hell out of me. It's meant to tip the scales for a working mother to STAY working and not stay home.
The secondary earner credit was a Republican proposal and he co-opted it. Republicans, true to the form they took with Obamacare, oppose even their own ideas if they come from Obama.
...........................How many have AGI > $200,000 and meaningful Capital Gains in the same year?....................
..
A new fee on 100 big banks favors the smaller community bank.
Color me neutral.
Here is the central problem with the president's proposal and your understanding: the shopkeeper or small business owner who sweats a lifetime of 60-70 hour weeks for decades, scrimping and juggling and struggling for much of that time, sells out at the end and guess what? AGI is over $200k and he has a huge capital gain. Then the tax code treats him or her as one of those filthy rich bastards who have their feet on the necks of the poor. This is a travesty.
"The rich" is a changing group. Even the "1%" has huge turnover over time.
Secondly, your theory about the smaller community bank would be great if only there was going to be any smaller community banks left after about seven more years of Dodd Frank. Dodd Frank poisoned the community banking system, and they are rapidly disappearing.
His reasoning for the $500 credit/2 working spouses bothers the hell out of me. It's meant to tip the scales for a working mother to STAY working and not stay home.
Keep the breeders on the hamster wheel. But get the kids into government schools where they can be properly indoctrinated. Next up, another push for universal preschool.
In his "State of the Union" speech to Congress (and to the American people, since it is always broadcast) I read that he is going to propose higher taxes on "high earners" in order to pay for "tax credits" for others. These "transfer payments" are also known as "wealth redistribution."
With the new Republican Congress, I predict: FAIL! Apparently Obama does not think these "high earners" are taxed enough. He really sees them as "cash cows" to be exploited; to be robbed of their hard earned money to reward the lazy, the 'slackers' who are already feeding off the wealth of others.
And don't bring up Social Security and those who receive it. Social Security is not funded by the government, but is paid for by American workers. In fact, the government owes Social Security millions of dollars (if not billions). And, the government continues to rob Social Security to add "benefits" that SS was never intended to provide (disability, for example), which is another reason why it is going broke.
It's time for a cut back in government spending. Why are tax increases always the solution that Democrats propose, and their ever increasing "programs" which are bankrupting our nation? Let's have some new ideas. How about we cut the size of government? Lets get rid of some of the "administrative agencies" and their worthless "studies" and thousands of "workers" who do not benefit society, but only feed on the largesse, the taxes that we pay.
I think we should end the "State of the Union" speech. There is no Constitutional requirement that the President give his "report" orally, and it isn't even a "report" anymore, but it is a Propaganda tool, another chance for the President to blame the opposing Party for the nations ills, and excuse himself from responsibility for anything. We don't need to hear it. Abolish it. Let him do as the Constitution requires, and make a written report.
I am always amazed at how many people here pity the poor billionaires. I hope their love is reciprocated, but I seriously doubt it. I also doubt that there are many one-per-centers on this board, or that anyone here will ever rise to that financial level.
Those who make the most have an obligation to pay the most, period. Congress has the power to levy taxes to meet the bills of the nation. In other word, if a company like, say, Halliburton makes obscene profits due to war profiteering while the country goes three trillion dollars into debt, they should be obligated to pony up to discharge that debt. The middle class is shrinking due to a number of factors. They cannot possibly be considered as a means to keep the country solvent.
Why tax the rich? Like Willie Sutton said when they asked him why he robbed banks: "That's where the money is!".
I would like to hear from fellow republicans how they would propose to help now, not in the future, the struggling middle class. They are hurting and with such income disparity that is a dangerous situation for the security of the country. I don't see the mobs stringing up the rich in the streets, but to assume no backlash will ever happen is naive.
Let's hear those proposals....
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.
