Obama Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts. Does anybody like this so-called compromise?

  • Citrushills

    Posts: 56

    Dec 10, 2010 6:51 AM GMT
    Obama selling us, the American people, out yet again in favor of the corporations and the super-rich.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 2:53 PM GMT
    *yawn*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 3:01 PM GMT
    I'm so disgusted over it that I don't mind at all another opportunity to say so. Obama started giving in on it before he even fought, therefore taking away any power the House or Senate had with the backing of the public to avoid handing millionairs more money. This makes no sense to go in debt. to give them more, especially when even many of them have said, "WE DON'T NEED THE MONEY". What will It take I wonder, for him to get the message that he needs a spine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 3:03 PM GMT
    realifedad said I'm so disgusted over it that I don't mind at all another opportunity to say so. Obama started giving in on it before he even fought, therefore taking away any power the House or Senate had with the backing of the public to avoid handing millionairs more money. This makes no sense to go in debt. to give them more, especially when even many of them have said, "WE DON'T NEED THE MONEY". What will It take I wonder, for him to get the message that he needs a spine.


    Who has said this, the ultra rich or the upper middle class?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 3:05 PM GMT
    download?mid=1%5f423847%5fAGgJDUwAAEGnTQ
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 3:35 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    realifedad said I'm so disgusted over it that I don't mind at all another opportunity to say so. Obama started giving in on it before he even fought, therefore taking away any power the House or Senate had with the backing of the public to avoid handing millionairs more money. This makes no sense to go in debt. to give them more, especially when even many of them have said, "WE DON'T NEED THE MONEY". What will It take I wonder, for him to get the message that he needs a spine.


    Who has said this, the ultra rich or the upper middle class?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen 'clips' on the news, of a group of millionairs who signed a petition a few of them started, which stated that the undersigned were not for renewing tax breaks for them as millionairs, that they didn't need the money. They claimed that they were getting a lot of signers. I've also watched several individual wealthy people say the same thing in interviews over the last year or so.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 10, 2010 3:37 PM GMT
    when obama first started his "run" for the Presidency, he struck me as a verbose, south side chicago windbag lawyer, in love with the sound of his own voice, an excellent speech maker, a man with no strong morals, who would lean whichever way the political winds blew him.

    his latest stupidity-in-action reinforces my first opinion of him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 5:16 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Citrushills saidObama selling us, the American people, out yet again in favor of the corporations and the super-rich.

    Yeah, a single gay man earning $200,000 a year (i.e. "super-rich") will see his Federal income taxes rise if you and the Democrats had their way.

    Regarding your topic title, "Obama Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts. Does anybody like this so-called compromise?"

    I did at first, but now I don't.

    It basically keeps things the way they are tax bracket-wise, but increases spending tremendously.

    So in a way, I'm kind of rooting for the Democrats in the House to "mess up" the deal so that nothing gets done and then the Republican-controlled House and much more (than now) Republican Senate can push through a "clean" bill on just the tax brackets remaining as they are (or, gasp, reduced!).


    I'm utterly opposed to the extension of any tax cuts for the affluent and rich. In fact, they should be progressively increased to a) pay down the deficit that SB and others claim will destroy the country at any moment, b) allow increased support for the jobless and working poor, as well as to cement the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

    Beyond the fact that the gaping hole between the ultra-rich and the other 95% of the population is immoral, it is destabilizing to the American economic system.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 10, 2010 6:23 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said... a single gay man earning $200,000 a year (i.e. "super-rich") will see his Federal income taxes rise if you and the Democrats had their way.


    a single man, gay or str8, whose w-2 statement earnings is more than FOUR TIMES THE AVERAGE for the rest of the country is indeed "rich" and should be taxed accordingly. icon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 6:27 PM GMT
    rnch said
    southbeach1500 said... a single gay man earning $200,000 a year (i.e. "super-rich") will see his Federal income taxes rise if you and the Democrats had their way.


    a single man, gay or str8, whose w-2 statement earnings is more than FOUR TIMES THE AVERAGE for the rest of the country is indeed "rich" and should be taxed accordingly. icon_exclaim.gif


    What about 2 times?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 6:54 PM GMT
    It's unfortunate that all the tax cuts and additional spending in this deal are necessary to completely get the economy back on track and over the ill after effects of the Bush recession, but the recovery is so weak and job growth is so slow, that I think the deal is just a bitter pill we need to swallow in order to get our economy well.

    It's just more damage caused by the gross fiscal incompetence and irresponsibilty of the Bush years, and it shows again how severe and damaging the Bush recession really was.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 7:30 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 saidIt's unfortunate that all the tax cuts and additional spending in this deal are necessary to completely get the economy back on track


    How does tax cuts contribute to getting the economy "back on track?"

    You're deviating from the liberal line here, RickRick. icon_wink.gif



    rickrick91 saidIthe recovery is so weak and job growth is so slow


    What about those 3 million jobs that were "saved or created?"

    Where did they go?




    rickrick91 saidIt's just more damage caused by the gross fiscal incompetence and irresponsibilty of the Bush years, and it shows again how severe and damaging the Bush recession really was.


    I'll meet you half way on this. Yes, what we are seeing are the results of Republicans going along with Democrats in terms of public policy, which is exactly what happened once the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007.



    HAHAHA!

    1.) Contrary to your right-wing BS, Democrats SUPPORT tax cuts.
    For average Americans, NOT for the rich.

    2.) There have been over 8 million jobs lost as a result of the Bush recession.
    The vast majority of those jobs were lost BEFORE Obama took office.
    Creating 3 million jobs is great, but we have 5 million more jobs that need to be created.

    3.) The recession hit in 2007, after Bush and the Repubs were in complete control for 6 years.
    When the Dems took control of Congress, they COULD NOT (because Bush had the veto pen) and DID NOT do anything to alter the economic policies that were put in place by the Repubs.
    So, the Bush recession that hit a matter of months after the Dems took control of Congress is yet another REPUBLICAN recession.

    Three strikes and you're OUT, SB.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2010 8:38 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    1.) Contrary to your right-wing BS, Democrats SUPPORT tax cuts.
    For average Americans, NOT for the rich.


    Then why haven't they raised the taxes on "the rich?" They control Congress and the Presidency. Why haven't they done it? Why don't they do it?



    Because of the severity of the Bush recession, SB - and because the cuts were about to expire anyway and because the Repubs would filibuster and block any attempt to do so.
    Duh!


    rickrick91 said
    2.) There have been over 8 million jobs lost as a result of the Bush recession.
    The vast majority of those jobs were lost BEFORE Obama took office.
    Creating 3 million jobs is great, but we have 5 million more jobs that need to be created.


    Incorrect and if I didn't think of you as an honest, though misguided person, I might think you were LYING! icon_surprised.gif

    CongressJobsLarge1.jpg





    Apparently, SB, you can't even read the graph you posted - which shows very clearly that the majority of the job losses occurred BEFORE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE in January of 2009.


    rickrick91 said
    3.) The recession hit in 2007, after Bush and the Repubs were in complete control for 6 years.
    When the Dems took control of Congress, they COULD NOT (because Bush had the veto pen) and DID NOT do anything to alter the economic policies that were put in place by the Repubs.
    So, the Bush recession that hit a matter of months after the Dems took control of Congress is yet another REPUBLICAN recession.


    As we've seen, just the thought of Democrats controlling Congress is enough to derail the economy.




    HAHAHA!
    That's the weakest and lamest attempted excuse for the gross fiscal disaster of the Bush recession EVER.

    Sorry, SB, but that's ANOTHER EPIC FAIL for you.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Dec 11, 2010 5:46 AM GMT
    Under the proposed plan, 50 million poor people will get a tax INCREASE

    If this scheme is supposed to produce jobs, why didn't it produce even ONE SINGLE JOB during the entire length of the current tax cuts ?

    In fact, during that time, 600 million jobs were LOST.

    And, this was BEFORE the economic melt down.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 11, 2010 10:35 AM GMT
    What I don't like about it is that it's more of the same

    Everytime there a negotiation Obama starts off with a compromise
    before anyone asks for anything
    instead of standing up to them and saying Sorry but that's not in the options

    It's how the republicans got to where they are now
    he Allowed them to say no
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2010 5:10 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidUnder the proposed plan, 50 million poor people will get a tax INCREASE.


    Huh?


    Read the new thread. The whole world doesn't revolve around gay guys earning more than $200000 a year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2010 5:32 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidUnder the proposed plan, 50 million poor people will get a tax INCREASE.


    Huh?


    Read the new thread. The whole world doesn't revolve around gay guys earning more than $200000 a year.


    Yes. I can't even bring myself to read the articles coming out about it today. It's so fucked up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2010 7:00 PM GMT
    OK, now you lost me.

    Making Work Pay is a tax credit. I.e. the government is collecting LESS tax on the middle and working class.

    IRS:In 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will provide a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.

    This tax credit will be calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and will phase out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $75,000, or $150,000 for married couples filing jointly.


    I thought you were all for tax cuts.

    Unless, of course, it's part of the ARRA because it's labeled as "stimulation."

    Or are you only for tax cuts and credits for those earning more than $200000 a year? icon_rolleyes.gif I call that stimulation for the wealthiest 2%.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2010 8:15 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidOK, now you lost me.

    Making Work Pay is a tax credit. I.e. the government is collecting LESS tax on the middle and working class.

    IRS:In 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will provide a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.

    This tax credit will be calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and will phase out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $75,000, or $150,000 for married couples filing jointly.


    I thought you were all for tax cuts.

    Unless, of course, it's part of the ARRA because it's labeled as "stimulation."

    Or are you only for tax cuts and credits for those earning more than $200000 a year? icon_rolleyes.gif I call that stimulation for the wealthiest 2%.


    SB is for the ongoing redistribution of wealth from the poor, working and middle classes to "single, gay men making more than $200k per year."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2010 8:26 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    The "Making Work Pay" credit is the Federal government giving $400 to people because they have a job? That's insane!

    But modifying it in the way described (or eliminating it altogether) is not a tax increase. It's just less of a handout.



    What's even more disturbing is that he is not willing to acknowledge that it's those people's hard-earned money but instead it's a "government handout" given to people.

    Whereas, in other instances he insists that taxes take away his hard-earned money.

    So:
    working/middle class = handout
    single gay guy earning $200000 a year (one of the top 2% of earners)= hard-earned money

    Hypocrite much? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2010 9:34 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    southbeach1500 said

    The "Making Work Pay" credit is the Federal government giving $400 to people because they have a job? That's insane!

    But modifying it in the way described (or eliminating it altogether) is not a tax increase. It's just less of a handout.



    What's even more disturbing is that he is not willing to acknowledge that it's those people's hard-earned money but instead it's a "government handout" given to people.

    Whereas, in other instances he insists that taxes take away his hard-earned money.

    So:
    working/middle class = handout
    single gay guy earning $200000 a year (one of the top 2% of earners)= hard-earned money

    Hypocrite much? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Hypocrite VERY much. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2010 11:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 saidOK, now you lost me.

    Making Work Pay is a tax credit. I.e. the government is collecting LESS tax on the middle and working class.


    So if, without counting the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, my income tax liability is zero, and the Making Work Pay tax credit is then applied to me, my Federal income tax liability will be minus $something, yes?


    You're going to need to ice your groin after that stretch.

    How many times must you be told that there are an array of federal taxes that are paid by those who do not pay income tax per se?