Obama still wanting to raise taxes on wealthy!

[kmseeker]

Obama: Raising taxes in a recession ‘last thing you want to do’

July 11, 2011

.

In a 75-minute meeting Sunday night, President Obama once again demanded that more than $1 trillion in tax increases be part of any deficit reduction package attached to a vote on the debt ceiling. In the session, Obama rejected a Republican proposal to seek $2.5 trillion in spending cuts and reforms, and insisted on higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.

It’s a curious position, given the anemic economic growth and rising unemployment. And it’s even more curious considering that Obama himself has warned about the deleterious effects of raising taxes in a struggling economy.

In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

[DinarBam]

Screw Obama and the "tax & spend" horse he rode in on!

[r65]

It has already been agreed previously that their tax cuts received under the Bush regime would have an end by date. Ending the tax cuts is not the same as raising them, agreed?

[TheUnspoken]

It makes sense that he wants to tax the wealthy............

[DinarBam]

Class warfare is a dirty trick of the liberal elite. Prosperity has nothing to do with class status. You cannot tax the country into prosperity and re-distribution of wealth is socialism that can only end in disaster.

[TBnhispower]

so what's new?

[D-BUNK]

It makes sense that he wants to tax the wealthy............

This...

What is wrong about pulling back tax breaks for having private jets in this economy?

[Francie26]

This...

What is wrong about pulling back tax breaks for having private jets in this economy?

Obama doesn't mind using taxpayer money to fly his own fine self around the world for foolish reasons. In fact, he even took O-One for a ride halfway across the country just to plant a tree for Arbor Day. Smart move, huh?? If he is so concerned that business people, those who are actually building businesses and hiring people in this country, have jets, perhaps he should cool his own now and then. What a hippocrite!!!

[Mongo]

This...

What is wrong about pulling back tax breaks for having private jets in this economy?

That's not what this is about.....(private jets) class warfare is what it is about, middle class hate the rich the gov steps in takes from the rich gives to the poor and controls both...................SOCIALISM

[kiteman]

That's not what this is about.....(private jets) class warfare is what it is about, middle class hate the rich the gov steps in takes from the rich gives to the poor and controls both...................SOCIALISM

Three trillion dollars in cuts which mostly effect middle and lower income people (about 85-90% of the population) vs. one trillion dollars worth of loopholes closed for the super wealthy and corporations. Doesn't sound like socialism to me, sounds pretty reasonable to me!

Heck the Republican plan that was on Boehner's website last week said they would like to see 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue adjustments(tax changes) for a new deal. That was where Biden that group were a couple of weeks ago (87/13) when Cantor and the Republicans walked!

Once again, set the bar and when it's met, raise it. Nothing will get done at this rate.

[DinarIntel]

Yahoo, go Obama go Obama. Why shouldn't we/YOU all pay more taxes you will be rich rich rich.

And you wonder what is wrong with the world WTF

[the next contestant]

All, it's very simple. Since America has become the greatist country on the face of this planet through capitalism you can't expect to go against the grain and everything be peachy. This is why socialism will never work! People come to America to get rich and live the American dream. Now what will happen when they realize that the rich are under attack and are hated just because they are rich? Does not matter how many charities they give to or how they became wealthy. They will be treated the same. Now go figure this, most minorities dream of being rich (those that say otherwise are lying), but at the same time want the rich to become poor. It's a circle that never ends. The point is, nobody is ever satisfied just being poor! In a Socialistic society, that's all you have is the poor! It's not a crime to be rich! At least not yet. Once it does become a crime all of us Dinar people better head for another country that welcome the wealthy with open arms. Thats where I want to spend my money, you?

Edited July 11, 2011 by the next contestant

[dinarmaniac]

I don't believe the rich people would mind paying a little more in taxes......IF they were given some assurance that entitlement programs were slashed at the same rate!!!!

[DinarBam]

Three trillion dollars in cuts which mostly effect middle and lower income people (about 85-90% of the population) vs. one trillion dollars worth of loopholes closed for the super wealthy and corporations. Doesn't sound like socialism to me, sounds pretty reasonable to me!

Heck the Republican plan that was on Boehner's website last week said they would like to see 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue adjustments(tax changes) for a new deal. That was where Biden that group were a couple of weeks ago (87/13) when Cantor and the Republicans walked!

Once again, set the bar and when it's met, raise it. Nothing will get done at this rate.

Raising anyone’s taxes is unthinkable. The solution is simply spending less. A lot less. How about eliminating huge chunks of unnecessary government bureaucracy and end giant entitlement programs! BTW, calling social security an entitlement program is an insult to those of us who have paid large sums into the system. It's only an entitlement if you take but didn't contribute. I'll take mine back anytime and handle it myself. SS reform should address not giving money to people who didn't earn it. It all comes back to this, If I earned it, it's mine. Nobody has a right to claim it as theirs for any reason; I don't care how sad their story is. Give achievers their money back, and they will take care of those who deserve help. This is the land of equal opportunity, not equal outcome! The fact is some people will never work hard enough or smart enough to succeed and that is nobody else’s fault or responsibility.

[Carrello]

Obama doesn't mind using taxpayer money to fly his own fine self around the world for foolish reasons. In fact, he even took O-One for a ride halfway across the country just to plant a tree for Arbor Day. Smart move, huh?? If he is so concerned that business people, those who are actually building businesses and hiring people in this country, have jets, perhaps he should cool his own now and then. What a hippocrite!!!

Speaking of hippocrites and taxes, I am including several exchanges below between you and I about hippocrisy, inflation, taxes, and basically having a partisan bias without a reality check:

View PostFrancie26, on 25 June 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

When I first bought dinar, I told four of my dearest friends about it, and I encouraged them to do the same. Not one of them did so. They acted like I was a fool for making this investment, and now they simply never mention it, and I'm sure all of them think I made a huge mistake. I think they are embarrassed for me because I was suckered into this. So be it. I shut up after getting their reactions. I simply stopped talking about it altogether. And I have stayed "shut up" about it ever since. If I have anything to say about it, I come here to say it, among fellow-buyers-of-the-dream, so to speak. I think when the dinar revalues, and when our own currency is in so much trouble because Obama's failed policies have led to severe inflation, my friends will wonder how I can still have money to spend, but I am not going to talk to them again about this. They had their chance, just as I did, and they chose not to take what they thought was a huge flyer, a risk beyond what they were willing to consider, and in fact, which they thought I was a fool for buying into. I don't want to be hard on them, but I am not going to make up for their shortsightedness when I am able to pay my bills and live my life, while they continue to struggle. I will be sad for them, but that is just how things go. (They are sad for me right now). lol Francie26

Francie, I am confused regarding your comment about current "severe inflation". I have included below a chart of the inflation rates from 2000-2011, and have included the link for the information. As you can see, our current inflation rate is low comparatively. In 2008, the rate was 4.28%, hardly low compared to 2011's rate of 1.63%.

I am curious why you would think the rates are so abysmal. Our currency IS in trouble, but that is not something you do overnight. It has been decades of policy that has put us where we are today. You do not sink an economy like ours in just two years. We have been cruising on the Titantic for some time.

My link

YEAR JAN

2011 1.63%

2010 2.63%

2009 0.03%

2008 4.28%

2007 2.08%

2006 3.99%

2005 2.97%

2004 1.93%

2003 2.60%

2002 1.14%

2001 3.73%

2000 2.74%

Read more:

View PostFrancie26, on 25 June 2011 - 12:32 PM, said:

Here is what I wrote--"when the dinar revalues, and when our own currency is in so much trouble because Obama's failed policies have led to severe inflation" In both instances I said "when" this happens, which suggests it hasn't happened yet, but I expect it to happen soon after the RV. As to the causes, I think our ship of state could have been turned around if people in either party had stepped up to do it, but since they didn't, I put the final meltdown in his corner. We may have been cruising on the Titanic for many years, but Obama's policies have put the iceberg in our path. Others may think differently, and that is their choice, but this how I see it. Take it for what it is worth. I don't intend to argue this point, nor do I intend to defend my view any further. I don't mean this to sound angry, defensive, nor argumentative, since I don't feel that way at all, but I am entitled to believe what seems clearest to me, and I don't feel I should have to fight to defend myself or my beliefs. That may not be what you are leading into, but I've seen it happen here all too often. So this is all I have, or will have, to say regarding this matter.

So you are saying Obama will cause severe inflation, and it will happen after the RV. Got it.

" and since things have been made incredibly worse by Obama's huge taxing/spending sprees,..."

Taxes are at the lowest levels since 1950, and 50%of Obama's spending was in tax cuts. One of the first things Obama did when he got into office, was to lower taxes. He just supported the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. So your accusation against Obama on taxes bewilders me.

We have people out of work, which creates less taxes, and we have programs trying to create. Of course we are spending more. When Bush left office, the country was loosing on average, 775,000 jobs a MONTH. Obama created more jobs in his first 18 months of office than Bush created in 8 YEARS.

I do have two articles for your review, and then I won't both you anymore with facts.

"TO THE TAXMAN

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

My link

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010....."

SPENDING

My link

It seems as if there has been enough political propaganda in the past 4 years to really become lost between facts and lies. I can’t guarantee you any sort of absolute truth, but what we have available is a certain level of information, which can be dissected to ascertain a level of truth.

A big political and economic topic; Obama is spending at record levels. Some are saying Obama has spent more than Bush in 1 year, and the rising and unstable federal deficit is now Obama’s fault completely. Two years ago everything was Bush’s fault, because of war expenditures. So which is it? Is there any truth to any of these claims?

How much has each president spent every year and how has the federal deficit been affected?

Let me disclaim, I made it a point to try and be statistical without bias (never truly 100% possible). I am not able to capture every variable and create some magical algorithm that can settle all the political arguments about our federal debt. What I can do is provide you with some factual data, which may help support or shape your opinion.

Below are the numbers through 2009. * 2010 has not concluded and I did not want to use estimated numbers (at the time this was written).

Fiscal Years 2000 to 2008 (in billions)

GDP Spending Deficit

2000 9951.5 1789.22 -236.24

2001 10286.2 1863.19 -128.24

2002 10642.3 2011.15 157.75

2003 11142.1 2160.12 377.59

2004 11867.8 2293.01 412.73

2005 12638.4 2472.20 318.34

2006 13398.9 2655.44 248.19

2007 14077.6 2728.94 160.94

2008 14441.4 2982.55 458.55

Spending increased every year through 2008. $730 billion of that spending was attributed to military expenditures. That is about 24% of the government spending. It is safe to assume that the war was a significant contributing factor to the massive deficit. The seven years of high war costs are part of the Bush administration, not Obama. This is obviously a significant factor in understanding the countries path to a large federal deficit.

For clarity, Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplemental’s (not the regular budget process), but the spending is reflected in the numbers above.

Now, we have one full year of factual numbers to dissect Obama’s spending. Let’s take a look at the numbers. Some argue that the spending was passed in 2008 under President Bush. Government budgets are flexible and spending can be changed through legislation at any point.

GDP GDP Spending Deficit

2009 14601.4 3517.7 1412.7

Obama spent approximately $535 billion more year-over-year then Bush’s highest year of spending. Because of the continuing recession and slowed GDP, the deficit increased by a staggering $960 billion in 1 year.

$794 billion was spent on military expenditures, more than in 2008 while Bush was still president. That cost is almost a wash, but it is a surprising number considering the anti-war stance Obama drove during his campaign.

I also do not want to confuse the reduction in federal revenue with the increase in our federal deficit. This would be unfair to Obama in comparing his spending to Bush’s spending. Rising unemployment and slowed GDP lead to less tax revenue which also increases the federal deficit.

Obama spent the following in new legislation in 2009.

- TARP Program – $154 billion (money spent during Obama’s administration but passed under Bush)

- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – $202 billion

- Omnibus Spending Bill – $410 billion

This represents about $766 billion in spending directly attributable to the increase of $960 billion in the federal deficit. With the increase in military spending, that leaves about $140 billion left, which can presumably be attributed to inflationary budgetary expenditures (originally from the Bush office) and reduced revenue from the economic recession. Recessions and high unemployment add to the deficit because they result in less tax revenue as explained above.

Read more:

[wpsmit]

IMO The real answer lies in the gazillion pages of the tax code complete with loopholes. Simplify (flat tax) it and the whole system works again. Fairly simply put, but it has soooo much merit.

[fioranosportscars]

They should tax the rich!! just like Warren Buffet said!!!

[Don & Rocio]

Speaking of entitlements...overhaul the unemployment benefits. Seriously? 3 years of unemployment? That just breeds lazy a$$ people.

[DinarBam]

I don't believe the rich people would mind paying a little more in taxes......IF they were given some assurance that entitlement programs were slashed at the same rate!!!!

Dinarmaniac,

I have heard this stated by others so I'm not attacking you personally. I just want to say that engaging in any discussion using terms like rich and poor, is to engage in basic class warfare and distracts the audience from the real issue. It doesn't matter how much someone earns in a free society. Whether a lot or a little, it's yours. I think it more appropriate to state it in terms of "levels us success". You may be unsuccessful or you may be very successful and everyone is free to pursue the entire range. How successful you are does not inherently correlate to how deserving you are or change the fundamental rights you have as an individual. That should be philosophically applied across the entire range of success with no group being considered more "deserving" than another.

[Bumper64]

I am moving this to the tax section as it pertains mostly to USA taxes and not Iraq!!

Sorry if I messed anyone up in posting to this thread as i moved it!!

[FishmanTx]

The biggest problem with any bureaucracy is the inherent unwillingness to stop spending. Why is it that any "cutting" always has to do with entitlement programs? I ge tired of hearing everyone in the gub't and media bitchin' about kids going without education and seniors starving to death, etc. That is all the biggest pile of horse **** I've ever heard! Try starting with Senate and Congressional PAYCHECKS FIRST! Then lets look at their office budgets and perks. Touch nothing that has to do with SSI, education, kids, the elderly and disabled, or veterans. ALL ELSE IS A TARGET. Why do we provide money to foreign countries when can't take care of our own house? NO aid for Greece or any other country til we get our own house in order!!!

[RSTEFAN]

THIS IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT ELECTION TIME COMING!!!!

Subject: 1% tax on all bank transactions HR4646

Watch for this AFTER November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE in case you think Obama's looking out for your best interest.

1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646

This government just cannot think of enough ways to hurt the American people!

1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check out HR 4646.

President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.

This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your account, will have a 1% tax charged.

~If your paycheck or your social security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.

~If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check into your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged.

~You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.

~If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.

Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed.

~Oh, and by the way, you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank. Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.

Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "oh, that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"! Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it's no big deal???

A lot to think about? NOT!!

Time for a change!!!

Have a Great Weekend

Bob

[WesParsons]

The US Citizens want all the safety nets of a socialist country (like Canada) but don't want to pay the taxes that those countries pay.

Guess what folks, medicaid and medicare are gonna cost ya, social security is going to cost you.

American's don't pay enough tax plain and simple.

give me all the negatives you want, then do a quick google search and compare income tax rates with other countries and you'll quickly see how under taxed you are....

When you pay a 43% income tax rate and a 13% VAT on purchases, you get free medical, old age pension, education, etc. etc.

[Francie26]

THIS IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT ELECTION TIME COMING!!!!

Subject: 1% tax on all bank transactions HR4646

Watch for this AFTER November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE in case you think Obama's looking out for your best interest.

1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646

This government just cannot think of enough ways to hurt the American people!

1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check out HR 4646.

President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.

This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your account, will have a 1% tax charged.

~If your paycheck or your social security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.

~If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check into your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged.

~You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.

~If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.

Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed.

~Oh, and by the way, you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank. Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.

Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "oh, that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"! Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it's no big deal???

A lot to think about? NOT!!

Time for a change!!!

Have a Great Weekend

Bob

And of course, banking costs will go up because banks will have to hire extra people to take care of these extra banking "events." Guess this is Obama's way of creating jobs.

[easy]

Obama needs a new job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!