Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[McLaren]

All republican 's has done is tax the middle and lower class bush killed us with tax. My favorite president is clinton lots of us wished he could serve again.Now 8years of bushes bs Obama is here and people expect him to everything overnight. Also just because they have done nothing for you doesn't mean they haven't accomplished anything

Wait, wait, wait.

You said Bush is bad because he taxed the middle & lower class and that Clinton is good? That doesn't make any sense.
In 1993, Clinton issued the highest tax increase in American history as his "plan" to help the economy & it didn't go that well.

Obama is also pushing for a $1 trillion tax increase beginning next year. He claims this is on the rich, but common knowledge will show that the rich will pass those fees back onto the consumer. This is, & always has been, a Democrat approach.

 

[mazdaman]

Barack Obama’s tax plan delivers broad-based tax relief to middle class families and cuts taxes for small
businesses and companies that create jobs in America, while restoring fairness to our tax code and returning to
fiscal responsibility. Coupled with Obama’s commitment to invest in key areas like health, clean energy,
innovation and education, his tax plan will help restore bottom-up economic growth that helps create good jobs
in America and empowers all families achieve the American dream. The Obama plan will:
• Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for
working couples.
• Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families
sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create
jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward
investments in innovation.
• Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of
senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their
own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
Under the Obama Plan:
• Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see
their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under
the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan.i
According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle
class families as the McCain plan.ii Indeed, according to the National Review, McCain’s plan “offers
very little in the way of direct benefits to Americans in the middle of the income scale.”
• Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in
the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have
received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal
responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact,
dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
• Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under
Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP).iii The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief
for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000.
Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while
bringing down the budget deficit.


This helps people like me!!

 

[Keef]

Taxes shouldn't be meddled with in the first place, they should be flat percentages for every person. Income tax as a whole shouldn't even exist.

 

[mazdaman]

Taxes shouldn't be meddled with in the first place, they should be flat percentages for every person. Income tax as a whole shouldn't even exist.

To really be honest, I have mixed feelings about that. Do you also think taxes should be taken out of your paycheck?
What is that money used for ?

 

[McLaren]

Barack Obama’s tax plan delivers broad-based tax relief to middle class families and cuts taxes for small
businesses and companies that create jobs in America, while restoring fairness to our tax code and returning to
fiscal responsibility. Coupled with Obama’s commitment to invest in key areas like health, clean energy,
innovation and education, his tax plan will help restore bottom-up economic growth that helps create good jobs
in America and empowers all families achieve the American dream. The Obama plan will:
• Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for
working couples.
• Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families
sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create
jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward
investments in innovation.
• Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of
senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their
own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
Under the Obama Plan:
• Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see
their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under
the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan.i
According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle
class families as the McCain plan.ii Indeed, according to the National Review, McCain’s plan “offers
very little in the way of direct benefits to Americans in the middle of the income scale.”
• Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in
the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have
received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal
responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact,
dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
• Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under
Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP).iii The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief
for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000.
Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while
bringing down the budget deficit.


This helps people like me!!

No, it doesn't. Because those are promises. Your "precious" Democrats are now on the verge of wanting middle-class tax increases & neither Obama or the White House will comment.

A growing number of Democratic lawmakers have begun to make noise in recent days about raising taxes on the middle class and discarding President Obama’s promise not to increase the tax burden on those making $250,000 a year or less.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is the most prominent. But another member of the House Democratic leadership, Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, also indicated that a middle class tax increase might be inevitable, as have three senior Democratic senators: Dianne Feinstein of California, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

Meanwhile, the only noise from the White House on the matter is a loud silence. Asked to comment on whether the president’s pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class still stands, the White House declined.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/white-house-silent-on-whether-obama-tax-pledge-still-stands/

 

[Keef]

Do you also think taxes should be taken out of your paycheck?
What is that money used for ?

I said I don't think there should be an income tax.

 

[Joel]

while restoring fairness to our tax code

• Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families
sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.

So, because I'm sending a child to school, or I'm old, I pay less tax? The sending a child to school bit isn't as bad as the rest, but for seniors? They're more of a burden on the system than anyone. Oh and "the uninsured" getting tax cuts is garbage. An insured person doesn't get one, but because you didn't buy insurance you get one? Doesn't sound very fair to me.

provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare

Why? Why healthcare, and not some other arbitrary service? Why not plumbing, electrical, home renovations, etc? Doesn't sound very fair, does it? Far from fair in my opinion.


eliminating the need for millions of
senior citizens to file tax forms

All in the name of fairness, I suppose.

and no family making less than $250,000 will see
their taxes increase.

So then why should a family making more than 250k have tax increases? That's very unfair.

The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under
the Obama plan

What about the typical wealthy family? Just because they're over some arbitrary number of what is considered "rich", they don't get that?


Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have
received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal
responsibility.

The cherry on top.

You've worked hard, made your fortunes, and are comfortably living and not putting a burden on social services. You pay for more social services and public facilities than you use, and have never taken social security payments, because you can support yourself, and your family. So in the name of "fairness", you have to pay more tax? Doesn't this sound a bit unfair to you?

Cut the crap, make a flat tax, get it over with. In Canada we have the same BS. The rich are penalized for being rich, for no reason better than "they can afford it". I am so tired of having people discriminated against in the tax code for no reason better than some arbitrary number of what is "poor", "normal", and "rich".

 

[DK]

Taxes shouldn't be meddled with in the first place, they should be flat percentages for every person.

Well, let's just use an example here. After tax, Mr. Burns (or if you prefer Family Guy, Carter Pewterschmidt) has way more money left over than Homer Simpson (or Peter Griffin for Family Guy fans). Someone working in Burger King flipping burgers is going to be hit more than a CEO of a big company if there were a flat tax rate.

 

[Joel]

Well, let's just use an example here. After tax, Mr. Burns (or if you prefer Family Guy, Carter Pewterschmidt) has way more money left over than Homer Simpson (or Peter Griffin for Family Guy fans). Someone working in Burger King flipping burgers is going to be hit more than a CEO of a big company if there were a flat tax rate.

So?

Also, who employs Homer Simpson? Mr Burns. Why should Mr Burns be penalized for making profit, while employing 1000's of people?

 

[DK]

I'm saying that a flat tax would hurt the poor more than the rich.

 

[Famine]

I'm saying that a flat tax would hurt the poor more than the rich.

So would any gradated tax system that doesn't leave everyone with an identical post-tax wage. What's your point?

 

[Sam48]

@MazdaMan- If Obama wanted to cut taxes, he would have renewed Bushes this upcoming January. However, he didn't. Because in November, were all expecting 1994 all over again. This gives the dems someone to blame the tax increase on which is why I believe Obama doesn't want them renewed. (of course your gonna tell me Bushes tax cuts benefitted the rich)

 

[FoolKiller]

Barack Obama’s tax plan delivers broad-based tax relief to middle class families and cuts taxes for small
businesses and companies that create jobs in America, while restoring fairness to our tax code and returning to fiscal responsibility.

How is giving a benefit to one group at the cost of another fair?

Coupled with Obama’s commitment to invest in key areas like health, clean energy, innovation and education, his tax plan will help restore bottom-up economic growth that helps create good jobs in America and empowers all families achieve the American dream.

I question the term good jobs in relation to any job that requires a government handout to be maintained. If something is a good job it can exist without the aid of government. A government funded job could just be digging holes and filling them and it would have the same effect on the economy as any industry job favored by politicians and supported by government money.

The Obama plan will:
• Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.

Can someone explain to me this desire politicians have to create second-class citizens out of people that don't own their homes or don't have children? Some people prefer to rent. Some people can't have children. Heck, in some places it is illegal for certain couples (read: homosexual) to even adopt a child. But politicians constantly want to give certain groups certain benefits. Both parties have some sort of bias toward married homeowners with children.

• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.

Eliminating capital gains taxes for small businesses is not necessarily a good idea. It may be a cheaper tax option for them.

And we wouldn't need to provide credits to businesses to reduce the cost of healthcare if it was mandated. And define innovation. Last I checked Recovery Act dollars for innovation went to whomever the administration liked, meaning companies that have backed Obama initiatives, like GE (Joe Biden was at their Louisville plant Monday), or window companies with executives married to administration officials.

• Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.

Want to simplify taxes? Flat tax, consumption tax, anything that doesn't nickle and dime us worse than the phone company for every little thing. Did you make money? Tax. Did you buy stuff with that money? Tax. Did you sell some of that stuff you bought? Tax. Did you use some of that stuff you bought? Tax. Is any of that stuff a legal product which we don't necessarily approve of? More tax.

The only way to make taxes simple for everyone is to quit acting like every single thing citizens do is a taxable thing.

Under the Obama Plan:
• Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see
their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under
the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan.i
According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle
class families as the McCain plan.ii Indeed, according to the National Review, McCain’s plan “offers
very little in the way of direct benefits to Americans in the middle of the income scale.”
• Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in
the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have
received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal
responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact,
dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

So, let me get this straight. I will get a tax cut at the cost of others? Read my sig. I don't want the government to force them to give me anything. That is unfair. That is unjust. That is plain wrong.

Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

I will believe this when I see it. I have yet to see any signs of a commitment to cut any kind of spending. And of course, he only promises to lower the budget deficit, not the national debt, which are two very different things. Lowering the budget deficit from one year to the next is easy when you were handing out trillions previously. One less Recovery Act or bailout and you have reduced your budget deficit, but you haven't actually reduced the debt or stopped deficit spending.

This helps people like me!!

But at the cost of whom?

 

[Keef]

Well, let's just use an example here. After tax, Mr. Burns (or if you prefer Family Guy, Carter Pewterschmidt) has way more money left over than Homer Simpson (or Peter Griffin for Family Guy fans). Someone working in Burger King flipping burgers is going to be hit more than a CEO of a big company if there were a flat tax rate.

No, they won't be hit more. They will be hit with the same percentage. That's the only way to make it fair, but like I said stealing the money that people worked hard for is unfair in the first place so the income tax shouldn't exist. I'm sure the geniuses in DC can come up with other ways to make their revenue...or stop wasting so much money.

Anyways, we've got a tax thread around here somewhere for discussing taxes at length.

 

[Danoff]

This helps people like me!!

People like you need big companies to continue innovating and growing more than they need another $100 off their taxes at the end of the year (at the cost of another $10,000 lumped onto someone else's taxes). I know that's it's really difficult to see from where you are, but this hurts people like you in a far worse way than it helps.

I'm saying that a flat tax would hurt the poor more than the rich.

A flat tax taxes exactly the same percentage of income from poor and rich alike. Under that system the rich pay ridiculously MORE than the poor. A flat tax would be a giant leap forward for equal treatment by the government and would bring us closer to honoring our constitution. In my humble opinion any other tax structure that applies differently to different citizens should be stricken down as unconstitutional by the supreme court.

However, I still prefer a flat sales tax over a flat income tax. It gets rid of the remaining bias against the rich that comes with a flat income tax.

 

[Duke]

Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

To paraphrase Ben Folds: "Son, are you 🤬 high?"

 

[Omnis]

Well, let's just use an example here. After tax, Mr. Burns (or if you prefer Family Guy, Carter Pewterschmidt) has way more money left over than Homer Simpson (or Peter Griffin for Family Guy fans). Someone working in Burger King flipping burgers is going to be hit more than a CEO of a big company if there were a flat tax rate.

What are you talking about? A flat tax rate is equal for everyone. You're thinking of a regressive tax where everyone pays the same fee. $1000 dollars of tax will hit a poor person harder than a rich. 10% of expenditures is only a tenth of whatever someone decides to spend.

 

[DK]

You're thinking of a regressive tax where everyone pays the same fee.

Actually I wasn't thinking about that, I was thinking of a uniform tax rate. Let me give you an example. Person A earns $500 per week before tax. Person B earns $2,000 per week before tax. Both pay a 20% income tax. Person A and Person B both have similar expenditures (I know this seems very unlikely). Person B would have much more money left over than Person A.

 

[Famine]

That's because Person B earns more than Person A.

Any system of taxing income will always leave someone who earns more with more money than someone who earns less, unless you invent a "living wage" and take all the extra money off everyone who earns more than that.

So income tax means people who don't earn as much money as people who earn lots will always end up with less money. Yes, it's unfair - in a completely different way than the one you're thinking.

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually I wasn't thinking about that, I was thinking of a uniform tax rate. Let me give you an example. Person A earns $500 per week before tax. Person B earns $2,000 per week before tax. Both pay a 20% income tax. Person A and Person B both have similar expenditures (I know this seems very unlikely). Person B would have much more money left over than Person A.

Person A: $500*.2 = $100.
Person B: $2000*.2 = $400.

Seems like Person B paid more.

If you think that having more because you earned more is unfair then I can assume, purely judging by the fact that you have a device to access the Internet, that you have gained some unfair advantage at some point in your life and must feel completely guilt-ridden.

 

[Tenacious D]

Just to point out how "fair" the tax system is now, I'd like to discuss how my own taxes fared over the past two years. For the record, I'm a federal government employee and make about $34,500 a year with no other deductions than personal exemption, no houses, med expenses or anything like that.

In 2009, the last year in which those evil poor hating Republicans dominated the writing of tax laws - they were drafted in 2008 - I got a federal tax refund of about $600.

In 2010, the first year of Nancy Pelosi's Democrat controlled Congress, and tax laws written mostly by the dems, my refund was a paltry $30. If not for the Making Work Pay Credit of $400, another guvmint handout, that's all I would have had.

So you do the math, and tell me whether or not I'm one of the "rich."

By the way, if you really want people working in this country, you really want the rich taxed very little. They seem to have money to invest in businesses, start companies themselves, little things such as that. I've never been hired by the middle class or poor to do more than mow yards...

 

[LeftyWright69]

Quotes that make you think:

“Ever got a job from a poor person?”

“if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free”

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

 

[hambone8611]

.
By the way, if you really want people working in this country, you really want the rich taxed very little. They seem to have money to invest in businesses, start companies themselves, little things such as that. I've never been hired by the middle class or poor to do more than mow yards...

That say’s much more about you than it does the middle class or poor. I personally do quite a lot of work for the middle class as well as the rich the difference is the middle class save their money till they can afford to hire my company the rich don’t have to save and just for the record I’ve never lost a bid to someone with a job outside of the business so maybe you should stick to your government job or go into lawn mowing full time.

 

[hambone8611]

Quotes that make you think:

“Ever got a job from a poor person?”




Yes and I charge on the same scale as the rich pay.

 

[Tornado]

So what's all this then about leaks and whatnot? I was only half-paying attention to the news when they were talking about it, and it didn't catch my eye like the crap that the SEC is trying to pull did (which, by the way, is some right old bull). Something about Afghanistan?

 

[FoolKiller]

So what's all this then about leaks and whatnot? I was only half-paying attention to the news when they were talking about it, and it didn't catch my eye like the crap that the SEC is trying to pull did (which, by the way, is some right old bull). Something about Afghanistan?

WikiLeaks was given over 90,000 documents about the war in Afghanistan. The only revelations seems to be that there are more incidents of civilians accidentally killed by troops than publicly known. There is also a question about whether they put some informants on the ground at risk.

As for how it affects Obama, or Bush for that matter, it doesn't do much. For the most part it is stuff we already knew, just with more examples and details.

 

[Tornado]

Okay. Thanks for the info.

 

[Dotini]

WikiLeaks was given over 90,000 documents about the war in Afghanistan. The only revelations seems to be that there are more incidents of civilians accidentally killed by troops than publicly known. There is also a question about whether they put some informants on the ground at risk.

As for how it affects Obama, or Bush for that matter, it doesn't do much. For the most part it is stuff we already knew, just with more examples and details.

It had never been acknowledged that the Taliban were downing coalition aircraft with heat-seeking shoulder fired missiles. The incompetence, corruption and perfidy of the Afghan police, army and government are laid bare as beyond hopeless. The revelation that the Pakistani ISI has been secretly managing the Taliban is another shocker for the suckers who accept what they are told by government spokesmen.

The bottom line is that the whole coalition effort in Afghanistan is now on terminal life-support. The US intelligentsia no longer knows or can explain why the US is there. Neither do most of our soldiers. It will be only a short amount of time before the enterprise is abandoned. Implications for Obama are between grim and grimmer.

 

[FoolKiller]

I thought most of that all fell under stuff we already knew.

 

[Dotini]

I thought most of that all fell under stuff we already knew.

Suspected.