President Obama's Speech

unsung

Davidtrios wrote:

I heard he doesnt want to raise taxes for the middle class, but wants to eliminate writing off mortage interest...

Isn't that way of increasing taxes for the middle class without raise them?
:thumbdown:

Are you speaking of Obama? That is true. He also wants to eliminate the SS tax cap.

Godfather.

unsung wrote:

Davidtrios wrote:

I heard he doesnt want to raise taxes for the middle class, but wants to eliminate writing off mortage interest...

Isn't that way of increasing taxes for the middle class without raise them?
:thumbdown:

Are you speaking of Obama? That is true. He also wants to eliminate the SS tax cap.

if that happens my tax bill at the end of the year would be aprox. $1500 dollars after all the tax's I've paid during the year, this don't sound too good to me.

Godfather.

Indifference

unsung wrote:

Davidtrios wrote:

I heard he doesnt want to raise taxes for the middle class, but wants to eliminate writing off mortage interest...

Isn't that way of increasing taxes for the middle class without raise them?
:thumbdown:

Are you speaking of Obama? That is true. He also wants to eliminate the SS tax cap.

Well if you uncap the contributions into SS don't you have to uncap the benefits?

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

wrong, several "rich liberals" have offered to pay much more in taxes. michael moore, soros, huffington, many democratic politicians all have advocated paying more out of their own pockets. bill gates even offered to pay a significantly higher amount of taxes in washington state and make that the law because the state is broke. rich liberals give money away. rich conservatives hoard theirs.

when is the last time any conservative went on record and said "i will gladly pay more in taxes to help out my sturggling country"???? i can't think of a single one.

Offered to or did it?

does it really matter? gates and his dad campaigned hard to get that bill passed in washigton. i have not heard if it passed but it was to tax the top 5% significantly more. if it passed i am sure gates paid more money....

Yep, it matters.

unsung

Indifference wrote:

Well if you uncap the contributions into SS don't you have to uncap the benefits?

That would make sense. I want to opt out though, we should have that option. I won't pay into it so I will agree not to take it.

I did hear somewhere that even though the SS cap is $106800, you stop paying into your own at ~$86000. Everything between the two numbers funds those that aren't maxed out.

pjfan021

it seems like a lot of people are against letting the bush tax cuts expire, but where were you in the 90's? We can't afford $500 billion a year to the upper class ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S BORROWED! We're borrowing money and paying interest on it so the upper class can have tax breaks.

-end the wars
-end the bush tax cuts
-do something about medicare and social security

..is it really that hard to do?

gimmesometruth27

pjfan021 wrote:

it seems like a lot of people are against letting the bush tax cuts expire, but where were you in the 90's? We can't afford $500 billion a year to the upper class ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S BORROWED! We're borrowing money and paying interest on it so the upper class can have tax breaks.

-end the wars
-end the bush tax cuts
-do something about medicare and social security

..is it really that hard to do?

the bush tax cuts were temporary for a reason. they were only meant to be temporary and not permanent. for that tax cut to pass the way it passed there had to be an end date on them otherwise it was going to have to require a different procedural vote to pass a permanent tax break. he gop did not have a 2/3 majority to pass the house to make the tax cuts permanent. for a temporary tax cut i believe that it only requires a simple majority.

aerial

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

wrong, several "rich liberals" have offered to pay much more in taxes. michael moore, soros, huffington, many democratic politicians all have advocated paying more out of their own pockets. bill gates even offered to pay a significantly higher amount of taxes in washington state and make that the law because the state is broke. rich liberals give money away. rich conservatives hoard theirs.

when is the last time any conservative went on record and said "i will gladly pay more in taxes to help out my sturggling country"???? i can't think of a single one.

Offered to or did it?

does it really matter? gates and his dad campaigned hard to get that bill passed in washigton. i have not heard if it passed but it was to tax the top 5% significantly more. if it passed i am sure gates paid more money....

Yes It matters!
Just like it matters that Obama walk the walk......which he will not do....he is only a speaker not a doer...

gimmesometruth27

aerial wrote:

Yes It matters!
Just like it matters that Obama walk the walk......which he will not do....he is only a speaker not a doer...

geeee kinda like every other politician....

Jason P

pjfan021 wrote:

it seems like a lot of people are against letting the bush tax cuts expire, but where were you in the 90's?

In high school living off my parents and not giving a hoot about politics and the future.

VINNY GOOMBA

cincybearcat wrote:

Offered to or did it?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

does it really matter? gates and his dad campaigned hard to get that bill passed in washigton. i have not heard if it passed but it was to tax the top 5% significantly more. if it passed i am sure gates paid more money....

cincybearcat wrote:

Yep, it matters.

It matters very much. If Gates wants to pay more, what's stopping him? The fact that A LAW has to be passed or changed for him to pay more? He's proven himself charitable in other ways with his own private organizations-- and many people believe that the state is charitable (I would argue otherwise, but I'm not going to go there in this thread), although I can't say for sure that Gates sees the state as charitable. Charity or not, Bill, like many others believe that the state is supposed to exist for the common good, right? So, why does giving more to the state have to be mandated for any super well-off Bill Gates / Soros / or Alec Baldwin-Hollywood-type? If they believe so strongly in the current incarnation of government, why aren't they voluntarily chipping in to ease the budget problems? Maybe others would follow their example? It works great when Sarah Mclachlan goes on television, seeking donations for battered animals by holding some sad little puppy while playing some shit in the background that makes me cry like Ronnie on Jersey Shore! How can you not donate to that?

This is where I take issue with many modern-day liberals. I hate doing that-- calling out liberals or conservatives because it makes me like like I'm the opposite, when really I'm neither by today's commonly understood definition of either, but I have to do it here. I'm all about progress, but why must progressives insist that "progress" ALWAYS be made at gunpoint? Bill Gates OFFERED to pay more. Then pay it, Bill! If you believe in it so much, be willing to stand alone, or not at all. It's not like he couldn't make a dent-worthy contribution...

He probably realizes that he doesn't want to voluntarily pay for progress alone because his money, just like everyone else's, is likely to just disappear or be spent recklessly; he may feel stupid that he just threw it all away to an organization that hasn't proven itself incapable of handling money at all, let alone prudently. People tend to feel less stupid when their property is forcefully taken from them in the name of doing their "civc duty." But in my eyes, as long as the state proves to be as fiscally responsible as the least-upstanding crackhead I know, they don't deserve another dime until they can prove otherwise.

As far as the 8% national sales tax, sounds good except it's the same problem-- government and money mix about as well as water and electricity. I'm in NY. Almost everything is sales-taxed at 8+% (depends the county) and we're still horribly in debt and "under-funded." We have a state income tax, and a lottery that is extremely popular and IS voluntary (although I can't say for sure that money from those payouts come from elsewhere or not) that was supposed to fund all of the education in this state. FAIL. We have a Thruway that was supposed to be a FREE-WAY over 20 years ago once it was paid for with it's own tolls, but now we pay more in tolls than ever, and the list goes on with the taxes, permits, and fees, ridiculous property taxes here, combined with more fuckin rules than you could ever imagine. And don't even get me started on METRO NORTH :x If not for my family and friends, I would be long gone from this place. Well, having 4 seasons, THE CITY, The Hudson Valley, and upstate upstate are nice too

Government is broken everywhere thanks to giant monolithic public/private cartels, and expectations of government that are unrealistic. I can't for one second believe that the problems are revenue problems when it is a fact that if all of us were taxed 100% of our incomes for a year, the debt would still exist. Every dollar created has debt attached to it, most of government is financed by newly printed money, and most taxes pay interest before they actually directly finance any real functions of government.

In a system where the debt is NOT fully repayable to anyone, the creditors will eventually stop supporting it and collapse is soon to follow after. When it comes to war, I've heard of anti-war people being in favor of a draft, because it might create a movement that will be strong enough and angry enough to stop current unjust wars dead in their tracks. Maybe I should be in favor of ramping UP taxes and spending, so this system will either wake people up to it's horrible flaws, or it will bring the inevitable collapse to our doorstep sooner than later? The key is having people know what to do after the Reset button-- take care of each other and your business on your own terms, not mandatory and compuslory terms.

Go Beavers

Shawshank wrote:

It's crazy economics to think that raising the tax rate is the way to help this disaster. You don't increase tax revenue by giving people less money to spend. You only have a small percentage of people that actually pay tax to begin with. The very wealthy have ways to get around paying most of the tax they owe. Their loopholes have loopholes. The very poor obviously have nothing to pay. So you have this group in the middle, and I guess making $250,000 a year now is considered "rich". While it does make life more comfortable, especially when you live well within your means, it is in no way "rich". I think anyone who thinks it is, needs to raise their aspirations a bit. It's really not that hard to make that kind of money these days.

I think they should do away with all the bullshit and just have an 8% sales tax on everything except food and clothing. That's the most simple solution. Then you have EVERYONE paying tax. It doesn't matter if you're a billionaire CEO or a drug runner. You're paying your tax if you use your money. No more writing off your $600,000 motorhome as a business expense. This government would have more money than they knew what do with, and I believe it would allow our economy to explode.

If anything, I say they should raise, or hell, I'd even be happy with making big corporations pay ANY tax at all. The problem with the system now is, the smaller corporations are the ones that get hurt. People who don't have their own business, or who have never known the struggle of running their own business like to blame everything on corporations, as if they are the scum of society. In reality, most corporations in this country are small local employers. They probably do less than $5 million a year in revenue, and probably hire a few hundred people. There's a huge difference between your average corporation and a company like GE. It's these smaller companies who carry a huge burden already. Raising taxes on them WILL NOT EVER help our economy. The only thing that will have a substantial impact is to eliminate the ability of mega corporations to avoid paying taxes. They are the ones who have funneled money everywhere in an effort to pay almost no tax. That alone causes a shortfall that is easily in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Close the loop holes there, then lower the tax rate across the board to ease up on the smaller companies, and you will actually increase tax revenue.

"It's not that hard" to make $250,000 these days? Do tell, I'm all ears!

gimmesometruth27

so i guess EVERYBODY is full of crap on both sides huh...

Why $38.5B budget deal will only cut spending by $352M

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive ... ng-by-352m

By Tim Fernholz
National Journal

A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the fiscal 2011 spending deal that the House passed Thursday concludes that it would cut spending this year by less than one-one hundredth of what both Republicans or Democrats have claimed.

A comparison prepared by the CBO shows that the omnibus spending bill, advertised as containing some $38.5 billion in cuts, will only reduce federal outlays by $352 million below 2010 spending rates. The nonpartisan budget agency also projects that total outlays are actually some $3.3 billion more than in 2010, if emergency spending is included in the total.

The astonishing result, according to CBO, is the result of several factors: increases in spending included in the deal, especially at the Defense Department; decisions to draw over half of the savings from rescissions, which are funds previously authorized but not spent; cuts to reserve funds; and to mandatory-spending programs, such as certain farm subsidies.

National Journal previously reported that after removing rescissions, cuts to reserve funds, and reductions in mandatory-spending programs, discretionary spending would be reduced only by $14.7 billion. CBO's analysis, which takes into account the likelihood that certain authorized funding will never be spent, suggests that the actual cuts will be even smaller.

Some conservatives already opposed the deal for not going far enough to meet the GOP campaign pledges to cut $100 billion. The minimal effect on current government spending, however, could improve macroeconomic forecasts that predicted lower economic growth if government spending was drastically reduced.

"This bill will cut $315 billion in Washington spending over 10 years, $78 billion compared with the President's request this year alone," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Democratic spin and arcane budget jargon doesn't change that."

The CBO did confirm that budget authority would remain $78.5 billion below what President Obama requested in his fiscal 2011 budget request, and Republicans can point to long-term savings as a result of lowering the government's spending baseline, including some $40 billion from cuts to Pell Grants.

"It is kind of crazy to have come to the brink of shutting down the government over a $350 million difference," said Scott Lilly, a former staff director at the Appropriations Committee under Chairman David Obey, D-Wis.

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

so i guess EVERYBODY is full of crap on both sides huh...

Why $38.5B budget deal will only cut spending by $352Mhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110414/pl_yblog_exclusive/why-38-5b-budget-deal-will-only-cut-spending-by-352m

I was just reading this article ... so in reality spending will be cut by $352 million when compared to the 2010 spending and could actually increase by $3.3 billion if emergency spending is authorized. If I didn't mix my numbers up (I usually don't add and subtract numbers in the billions), I think this is $996,400,000,000 short of the GOP's Pledge to America.

Why are we arguing with each other on whether Ryan's or Obama's plan is better? Does anyone really believe these guys when they promise saving trillions of dollars over the next ten years? Does anyone here feel comfortable giving more of your money to them? (I know the answer when it's someone else's money )

Jason P

Maybe the $352M in savings can be used to cover the money spent on prosecuting Barry Bonds. :(

Shawshank

Go Beavers wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

It's crazy economics to think that raising the tax rate is the way to help this disaster. You don't increase tax revenue by giving people less money to spend. You only have a small percentage of people that actually pay tax to begin with. The very wealthy have ways to get around paying most of the tax they owe. Their loopholes have loopholes. The very poor obviously have nothing to pay. So you have this group in the middle, and I guess making $250,000 a year now is considered "rich". While it does make life more comfortable, especially when you live well within your means, it is in no way "rich". I think anyone who thinks it is, needs to raise their aspirations a bit. It's really not that hard to make that kind of money these days.

I think they should do away with all the bullshit and just have an 8% sales tax on everything except food and clothing. That's the most simple solution. Then you have EVERYONE paying tax. It doesn't matter if you're a billionaire CEO or a drug runner. You're paying your tax if you use your money. No more writing off your $600,000 motorhome as a business expense. This government would have more money than they knew what do with, and I believe it would allow our economy to explode.

If anything, I say they should raise, or hell, I'd even be happy with making big corporations pay ANY tax at all. The problem with the system now is, the smaller corporations are the ones that get hurt. People who don't have their own business, or who have never known the struggle of running their own business like to blame everything on corporations, as if they are the scum of society. In reality, most corporations in this country are small local employers. They probably do less than $5 million a year in revenue, and probably hire a few hundred people. There's a huge difference between your average corporation and a company like GE. It's these smaller companies who carry a huge burden already. Raising taxes on them WILL NOT EVER help our economy. The only thing that will have a substantial impact is to eliminate the ability of mega corporations to avoid paying taxes. They are the ones who have funneled money everywhere in an effort to pay almost no tax. That alone causes a shortfall that is easily in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Close the loop holes there, then lower the tax rate across the board to ease up on the smaller companies, and you will actually increase tax revenue.

"It's not that hard" to make $250,000 these days? Do tell, I'm all ears!

It's really a matter of diversifying and not relying on one type of income. Regardless of how much money you make, that is something everyone should be doing anyway. At least then you have something to fall back on. I have 6 different businesses I run. A couple don't make much, a couple do ok, and a couple do really good. As stupid as it may sound, I have one business that only nets me about .60 cents per sale. I've always had the attitude though that says, "well that's .60 cents I didn't have before", so why would I be stupid enough not to do it??

There are opportunities that are out there (I'm not talking about all the multi-level marketing crap), and if it means having 5, 10, 15, or 20 different things that only make a little bit of money, then so be it. If you have multiple revenue streams, it begins to add up quick. It doesn't mean you have to work yourself to death, and I'm not talking about getting multiple jobs. Just use the technology that's available to you in this day and age and make it work for you. One of my businesses just runs on auto-pilot. Trust me, I'm not that smart, and I definitely wasn't born into money. I've suffered some extraordinary failures that I learned some hard lessons from, but I just kept moving forward. My dad was just one of those amazing success stories, and it instilled in me an attitude that you really could do anything. You just have to open your eyes and your mind to what's around you. I've always felt that if I could do it, anyone can. People spend too damn much time killing themselves at one mediocre job, when they could just sit down and think of every possible way to make money and try to do that in addition to their everyday job. It just takes work and determination.

Smellyman

All I know is that teachers are making up to $50,000, sometimes more!

I have had enough of them sucking at the teet of government and becoming fat pigs.



because as we all know $250,000 is not rich, but $50,000 sure as hell is.

EdsonNascimento

Smellyman wrote:

All I know is that teachers are making up to $50,000, sometimes more!

I have had enough of them sucking at the teet of government and becoming fat pigs.



because as we all know $250,000 is not rich, but $50,000 sure as hell is.

$50K? Where's that? Try 6 figures. Plus full pensions. Plus health with contributions significantly lower than private. I don't begrudge teachers, but at some point those mandated benefits are ridiculous. In NY we are
laying off teachers instead of unions budging on unsustainable benefit mandates. Not to mention poor teachers being protected by unions' tenure plans over more qualified, more up to date new teachers. In years when folks are seeing pay cuts, teachers are getting step raises while saying they are taking no increases because they are not taking the additional raises on top of the steps.

I want great teachers. But I don't know when public service jobs financed by tax dollars became so lucrative.

Smellyman

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

All I know is that teachers are making up to $50,000, sometimes more!

I have had enough of them sucking at the teet of government and becoming fat pigs.



because as we all know $250,000 is not rich, but $50,000 sure as hell is.

$50K? Where's that? Try 6 figures.

*citation needed


Here are Seattle area school teachers salaries circa 06

http://lbloom.net/zse06.html

EdsonNascimento

More than you wanted:

http://www.lischooltax.com/08-9TS.pdf

And AVERAGES

http://www.evanhoffman.com/evan/2010/04 ... -salaries/

Don't get me wrong. They need to be paid to get top people to want to do it. It's really the mandated benefits and tenure that need to be fixed. That's what the whole Wisconsin thing is about.