The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And how did that work out?

Obama's "targeted tax breaks" are a joke. Most are tax credits which tend to be useless if you dont have the money to spend to qualify. If he really wanted to help small business he would do just about the exact opposite of everything he has done since taking office. Increasing needless regulation, Obamacare, the IRS requiring businesses to pay them electronically and on a much shorter time table therefore interupting cashflow at a time when credit is impossible to come by, threatening to let the Bush tax cuts expire for $250k and up earners (where a huge portion of small business owners are). All of those things plus his concessions to big labor don't make for a very business friendly President.

That's up to 1 mil now. Didn't change things, cuz what the GOP really cares about is looking out for millionaires.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's up to 1 mil now. Didn't change things, cuz what the GOP really cares about is looking out for millionaires.

The GOP should have taken that, for both political reasons, but mostly that it would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out and it's a good thing to do. They could even take the credit for it next election. Mitch McConnell has become brain dead in his old age.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The GOP should have taken that, for both political reasons, but mostly that it would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out and it's a good thing to do. They could even take the credit for it next election. Mitch McConnell has become brain dead in his old age.

I guess you think that the million dollar proposal floated by Schumer wasn't just a PR move right?

The idea that this would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out is laughable.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I guess you think that the million dollar proposal floated by Schumer wasn't just a PR move right?

The idea that this would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out is laughable.

You have very unique financial ideas, not shared by most economists. Not shared by any economist I've seen, but I'm sure there are some out there. Can you quote any?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You have very unique financial ideas, not shared by most economists. Not shared by any economist I've seen, but I'm sure there are some out there. Can you quote any?

As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect. The slowing down of economic growth would most certainly cause the extra money supposed to be raised by the cuts to be lower than suggested. Add in tax reciepts overall decreasing as the economy gets worse. Not a good picture.

One underlying reason the Democratic leadership is supporting rasing taxes outside of the liberal agenda of taking from the rich is that they know they need a whole lot more money to support the Obamacare debacle. That money that they would take from the "rich" wouldnt be used to reduce the deficit. Anyone who believes that is beyond naive.

[Riot]

As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect.

Why would you guess that outcome? I don't see much support for that supposition.

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration. The practical rate of the mega-rich is more like 17% average due to their massive deductions.

The reversion back to the normal tax rates equals about 100,000 per one million dollars, BEFORE deductions and adjusted gross income determination.

Surveys have shown the mega rich already do not infuse any extra money into consumerism or capitalism, it's extra = thus they save it, invest it.

Why would you think that small shift would cause the mega-rich to totally alter their historical behaviours, thus cause our economy to stagnate, let alone move money offshore, tax shelters, stop investing?

The only thing that increased when the tax rates dropped in 2001 and 2003 was the mega-rich saving more of the extra money they got.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration.

Are you suggesting that the tax rate was responsible for the "boom years"?

And if you arent, why would raising tax rates be a good idea in decidedly not boom years?

And what exactly qualifies one as "mega-rich"? Certainly a person who makes $251000 a year isnt "mega-rich" right?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why would you guess that outcome? I don't see much support for that supposition.

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration. The practical rate of the mega-rich is more like 17% average due to their massive deductions.

The reversion back to the normal tax rates equals about 100,000 per one million dollars, BEFORE deductions and adjusted gross income determination.

Surveys have shown the mega rich already do not infuse any extra money into consumerism or capitalism, it's extra = thus they save it, invest it.

Why would you think that small shift would cause the mega-rich to totally alter their historical behaviours, thus cause our economy to stagnate, let alone move money offshore, tax shelters, stop investing?

The only thing that increased when the tax rates dropped in 2001 and 2003 was the mega-rich saving more of the extra money they got.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's up to 1 mil now. Didn't change things, cuz what the GOP really cares about is looking out for millionaires.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...or-the-jobless

I guess you and Riot can start the crying now...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...or-the-jobless

I guess you and Riot can start the crying now...

Now? I started crying when Obama came out and said he'd cave before negotiations began. He may yet stick at 1 million (which I think is the most he should go), but he already said he'd extend for everyone, it's just a matter of length.

Yes, I do not agree with that at all. Bad, bad for expanding deficit as an unfunded tax cut. Obviously doesn't build any jobs, because that's the tax rate in effect now, that we've had since 2001-2003. We've lost 800,000 jobs on that tax rate and gone into a major recession after a threatened depression. Not much "business building" there, is there?

How's that tax cut supposed to be so awesome for growing the economy again?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Now? I started crying when Obama came out and said he'd cave before negotiations began. He may yet stick at 1 million (which I think is the most he should go), but he already said he'd extend for everyone, it's just a matter of length.

Yes, I do not agree with that at all. Bad, bad for expanding deficit as an unfunded tax cut. Obviously doesn't build any jobs, because that's the tax rate in effect now, that we've had since 2001-2003. We've lost 800,000 jobs on that tax rate and gone into a major recession after a threatened depression. Not much "business building" there, is there?

How's that tax cut supposed to be so awesome for growing the economy again?

Are you seriously saying that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a global economic calamity? The Bush tax cuts caused the collapse of the housing markets and caused finanical companies to make bad investmets? Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the debacle of fannie mae and freddie mac?

[Riot]

Are you seriously saying that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a global economic calamity?

You seriously got that out of what I said? LOL - no, that's not what I said.

The Bush tax cuts caused the collapse of the housing markets and caused finanical companies to make bad investmets? Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the debacle of fannie mae and freddie mac?

Geeshus freekin' cripes. What drugs are you on?

Show me how that tax rate to the wealthy helped grow jobs and the economy since 2001 and 2003.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You seriously got that out of what I said? LOL - no, that's not what I said.



Geeshus freekin' cripes. What drugs are you on?

Show me how that tax rate to the wealthy helped grow jobs and the economy since 2001 and 2003.

You cant say that we have lost jobs since 2003 and simply blame one thing, the Bush tax cuts. Again, there are so many factors that it is silly to blame one particular thing. I could counter that perhaps we would have lost 2 million jobs without them. Naturally my argument would be silly as well so i wont go there.

[Riot]

You cant say that we have lost jobs since 2003 and simply blame one thing, the Bush tax cuts.

I didn't do that, and do not think that. I simply pointed out the truth, that the tax rates in question for the wealthiest 2% of Americans have been the rates present through this last historical near great depression and great recession.

As keeping these rates as they are, and not raising the gross rate 3.6% (and remember that is not adjusted rate after deductions, not the practical rate of 17% or so the wealthiest average) - on the top 2% of wealthiest Americans has been deemed essential to our economy, surely there is some way that conclusion was arrived at, some way to measure the amount of this tax rates contribution to growth within the economy, in spite of the toilet the entire economy fell into. That's not too complex an operation, especially in retrospect. There must have been present exactly what is being promised now: increases in business capital investment, etc.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...or-the-jobless

I guess you and Riot can start the crying now...

OBA wouldn't stand up to a squirrel. Blinks each time. He n' Carter gunna fight it out for the most female President ever. Do you really think most DEMS are gunna care who gets elected President? I mean, he never acts like he is the president. He acts like the Republicans' House Boy. WTF is he gunna run on? Extending Oprah's tax break? 1 term. It's over for this woman. What old White Dude is next? No matter what, people aren't gunna show up for someone that won't fight for stuff they say needs to be done. He said we can't afford to extend it, and now he'll extend it. Is there anything this loser will stand up n' fight for? All he does is lose. Get owned. Lose. Lose. What percentage of males gunna vote for this wimp in 2012? I don't think I can vote for this guy again. I can't see the point in watching him give in, n' get politically raped for another 4 years. Miracle he could make kids. Funny thing is, I don't think DEMS will filabuster like the Reps been doing. How did we get the tax break in the 1st place? Base ain't coming out for this guy. Ain't no way. Won't fight. Vick would of quickly killed this type.