Jump to content



Photo

Obama's Legacy...


  • Please log in to reply
316 replies to this topic

#41 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 10:09 AM

Posted Image

#42 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:49 PM

Oh, concentration of wealth at the top... good point. Unemployement benefits... minimum wage... I'm thinking Obama is on the side of guess who?
I wish we could tax the wealthy, and I'm sure Obama would want their taxes raised as well. So, don't look at him as the culprit in that issue.

The deaths of innocent people from drones is far less than what we would have with a Republican administration that would go in to Syria or bomb Iran. That's the truth.


It's gotten worse. Under his leadership. You think Solydra's CEO got richer or poorer? Are those in the business of eagle-killing wind farms hurting? Insurance executives? Drone manufactuers? He has explicitly mandated a wealth transfer from the people to the insurance executives and struggling doctors, from the older, who have a disproportionately high amount of disposable income as a group, to the young who traditionally factor highly among those at least temporarily in poverty. There is evidence that increases in the minimumn wage cause a decrease in employment among the young, unskilled, poor, minorities. Besides BeingLiberal memes about Australia, there is certainly an absence of evidence an increase helps the poor in any way.

He does talk a better game about helping the poor and middle-classes than most Republicans. There's little to show for his talk.
  • Bedford, JHS1982, CityBoy and 1 other like this

#43 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 07:36 AM

I don't believe any of the things you cherry-picked are the root causes of income inequality. The rich and their government sponsors continue to institute policies that keep them rich. It's the golden rule... those with the gold make the rules. Obama is not the one who will lead us out of this. Will take someone else, less offensive to the golden ones.


I'd just like to add this: Let's not anyone forget... The Bush administration wrecked the economy, and high-tailed it out of town, leaving Obama with a HUGE mess. This has not been the normal way a President starts his term. Not normal at all. And those at the bottom were hurt the worst by all of that. Still hurting.

Edited by snowman, 20 December 2013 - 08:02 AM.


#44 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 08:16 AM

I'm just saying Obama is among those government sponsors. The sponsorship comes in the form of subsidies, contracts, rules that require increased consumption and regulations that keep big companies from having to compete with new start-ups. He's cool with all those things.

#45 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 09:08 AM

I'm just saying Obama is among those government sponsors. The sponsorship comes in the form of subsidies, contracts, rules that require increased consumption and regulations that keep big companies from having to compete with new start-ups. He's cool with all those things.


Above all he is pragmatic, which pushes him to be slanted corporatist... more than I like.

#46 apirateatheart

apirateatheart

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 228 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 01:01 PM

Snowman - I think that if you take a look at your history, the economy was going fine under Bush until Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House. The Democratic House deserved at least equal credit in destroying the economy.
  • Bedford likes this

#47 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,993 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 03:40 PM

those who can't afford to get by will be getting subsidies to help pay for their premiums.


interesting that all taxes in the US negatively affect the poorer people, except this new healthcare tax. so if we're needing to help folks who are haviing a hard time getting along, then i am all for more tax relief for those folks. and tax the wealthy people more.


Sometimes I get quite frustrated with those who keep saying "tax the wealthy more". I am not wealthy but I do not believe we should just keep raising taxes on the wealthy. After all, they are the ones who provide the jobs to the rest of us. Without the wealthy, many of us would have no jobs at all. The entrepreneurial spirit is being crushed in America by higher and higher taxes.

2013 marks the 100th anniversary of our modern federal income tax. Here are some interesting facts from the Tax Foundation:

The top marginal income tax rate in 1913 was 7%, compared to 39.6% today.

The inflation-adjusted annual income you'd have needed to hit the top marginal rate in 1913 was $11,600,000 compared to $400,000
today for single filers.

The highest marginal income tax rate was 94%(!) for 1944-1945 (World War II)

The share of all federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers in 2010 was 38.38%, while the share of federal income taxes
paid by the bottom 50% of all taxpayers n 2010 was 2.36% (down fom 7% in 1980)

And, tax rates for 2014 are going up significantly for those with income over $400,000 (single) and $450,000 (married filing jointly). Long-term capital gains rates are increasing for those in higher tax brackets; there is a 3.8% surtax on net investment income or modified adjusted gross income for those with income exceeding $200,000 single and $250,000 MFJ; personal exemptions are phased out for those in higher income brackets; section 179 expense deduction for capital investments is being reduced from $500,000 in 2013 to only $25,000 in 2014; the social security wage base increased to $117,000; the Medicare Part A hospital insurance withholding increased by .9% for those with income over $200,000; and the list goes on and on. My point is that the so-called "rich" are being taxed to a greater and greater extent -- many of their tax increases are "hidden", that is, not an increased rate, but a loss of a myriad of deductions. While there are obviously some people who are "mega-rich" like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, these men are also extremely generous in their donations to charities. And for those who are not "mega-rich", but are considered "wealthy" -- income over $400,000 single; they live a lifestyle that costs more (bigger houses, more cars, more consumer goods, etc.) If we tax them to the point that they cannot afford these things any longer, we will just hurt the economy. And many of the rest of us will lose jobs. Is this what we really want?

One of the great things about America is that any of us can follow the "American dream" and start our own business and join the ranks of the "wealthy" if we so desire. But I would bet that if any of you did that and suddenly started making $400,000 a year, you would soon realize that your added tax burden would be far more than you realize. The more you make the more you spend and the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. I don't want to see the wealthy be squeezed to death by taxes -- I want them to spend more and invest more and give more. That is what is needed to get the economy going. Taxing them to the point that they give up and go out of business only hurts all of us. So be careful what you wish for.

Edited by IntegrityMatters, 20 December 2013 - 03:41 PM.

  • Tina, Peanut and woo like this

#48 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 03:52 PM

100 years ago the Federal Reserve was also created. A group of private bankers were given control over our economy.

Not once has the Federal Reserve been audited.

Reid will not even allow a vote.

Want to tax the wealthy? Start there.
  • IntegrityMatters, kelley and Bedford like this

#49 karen

karen

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 929 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 08:10 PM

Flat tax across the board. No one should pay more than anyone else. If someone has taken the chance and put in the hard work to own their own business, they should not be taxed any more than someone who works fast food or clerical or manufacturing.

Edited by karen, 20 December 2013 - 08:19 PM.

  • Bedford and JHS1982 like this

#50 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:36 AM

Sometimes I get quite frustrated with those who keep saying "tax the wealthy more". I am not wealthy but I do not believe we should just keep raising taxes on the wealthy. After all, they are the ones who provide the jobs to the rest of us. Without the wealthy, many of us would have no jobs at all. The entrepreneurial spirit is being crushed in America by higher and higher taxes.

2013 marks the 100th anniversary of our modern federal income tax. Here are some interesting facts from the Tax Foundation:

The top marginal income tax rate in 1913 was 7%, compared to 39.6% today.

The inflation-adjusted annual income you'd have needed to hit the top marginal rate in 1913 was $11,600,000 compared to $400,000
today for single filers.

The highest marginal income tax rate was 94%(!) for 1944-1945 (World War II)

The share of all federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers in 2010 was 38.38%, while the share of federal income taxes
paid by the bottom 50% of all taxpayers n 2010 was 2.36% (down fom 7% in 1980)

And, tax rates for 2014 are going up significantly for those with income over $400,000 (single) and $450,000 (married filing jointly). Long-term capital gains rates are increasing for those in higher tax brackets; there is a 3.8% surtax on net investment income or modified adjusted gross income for those with income exceeding $200,000 single and $250,000 MFJ; personal exemptions are phased out for those in higher income brackets; section 179 expense deduction for capital investments is being reduced from $500,000 in 2013 to only $25,000 in 2014; the social security wage base increased to $117,000; the Medicare Part A hospital insurance withholding increased by .9% for those with income over $200,000; and the list goes on and on. My point is that the so-called "rich" are being taxed to a greater and greater extent -- many of their tax increases are "hidden", that is, not an increased rate, but a loss of a myriad of deductions. While there are obviously some people who are "mega-rich" like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, these men are also extremely generous in their donations to charities. And for those who are not "mega-rich", but are considered "wealthy" -- income over $400,000 single; they live a lifestyle that costs more (bigger houses, more cars, more consumer goods, etc.) If we tax them to the point that they cannot afford these things any longer, we will just hurt the economy. And many of the rest of us will lose jobs. Is this what we really want?

One of the great things about America is that any of us can follow the "American dream" and start our own business and join the ranks of the "wealthy" if we so desire. But I would bet that if any of you did that and suddenly started making $400,000 a year, you would soon realize that your added tax burden would be far more than you realize. The more you make the more you spend and the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. I don't want to see the wealthy be squeezed to death by taxes -- I want them to spend more and invest more and give more. That is what is needed to get the economy going. Taxing them to the point that they give up and go out of business only hurts all of us. So be careful what you wish for.


When you say "the share of all income taxes" and then break that out between the top 50% and bottom 50% you will definitely get numbers like that. But that is the wrong way to look at the tax issue. of course the wealthy will pay a huge amount more in taxes than the poor... the wealthy make more income!

If someone makes 1million dollars a year they should pay a percentage of that in taxes, the same percentage as me, or anyone else for that matter. That's the way to get our deficit to come down. It has gone out of control since tax rates on wealthy people have been falling for the last 50 years. And then the huge tax break George W Bush put in effect, just as we were going in for 2 wars and a huge medicare giveaway to seniors...
With that huge tax decrease back in 2001 or whenever that was... did we have a huge increase in job creation? NO. Hell No we did not. And I do welcome the recent tax increases that have happened through the ACA/

Edited by snowman, 21 December 2013 - 10:44 AM.


#51 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:46 AM

Flat tax across the board. No one should pay more than anyone else. If someone has taken the chance and put in the hard work to own their own business, they should not be taxed any more than someone who works fast food or clerical or manufacturing.


this would never fly... because the rich have duped us all into believing that since they pay a huge share of the total taxes that are paid in, that they should get all these tax breaks.

#52 Peanut

Peanut

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 04:44 PM

A friend sent me this video. I think some might like it.



#53 Dave

Dave

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 05:33 PM

I agree that TAX THE RICH! is a silly basis for policy but your post has some issues...

The top marginal income tax rate in 1913 was 7%, compared to 39.6% today.


In 1912 it was 0%.

The inflation-adjusted annual income you'd have needed to hit the top marginal rate in 1913 was $11,600,000 compared to $400,000
today for single filers.


In 1912 it would have to be infinite.

The highest marginal income tax rate was 94%(!) for 1944-1945 (World War II)


World wars are a laugh-a-minute but expensive. We're supposed to be in it together. I'll pay 94% if you will be the first one off the boat at Peleliu.

The share of all federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers in 2010 was 38.38%, while the share of federal income taxes
paid by the bottom 50% of all taxpayers n 2010 was 2.36% (down fom 7% in 1980)


Taxation inequality is a symptom of income inequality.

Edited by Dave, 21 December 2013 - 05:35 PM.

  • kelley likes this

#54 CityBoy

CityBoy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 970 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 06:20 PM

Would you who preach "tax the rich" be willing to cut government spending in an amount equal to the amount to be raised by increasing taxes on the "rich"?

The phrase "income equality" is a catchy way to demonize those who have more wealth, regardless of how they became "rich".

What would you suggest as a maximum marginal tax rate for someone with an annual gross income of $100,000? $200,000? $500,000? $1,000,000? What is the breakdown for "income equality" -- a division that would satisfy your push to eliminate "income inequality"?

Edited by CityBoy, 21 December 2013 - 06:23 PM.

  • kelley, Beading Lady and Bedford like this

#55 Dave

Dave

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 08:13 PM

Would you who preach "tax the rich" be willing to cut government spending in an amount equal to the amount to be raised by increasing taxes on the "rich"?


Government spending should be the minimum that is required to provide what is required. The amount raised via taxes should meet spending.

The phrase "income equality" is a catchy way to demonize those who have more wealth, regardless of how they became "rich".


No. It means this: I earn a different amount than you do. Our incomes are not equal. We have income inequality.

What would you suggest as a maximum marginal tax rate for someone with an annual gross income of $100,000? $200,000? $500,000? $1,000,000? What is the breakdown for "income equality" -- a division that would satisfy your push to eliminate "income inequality"?


The appropriate marginal tax rate would be the rate that raises appropriate revenue to meet the minimal demands of the government. As for the eliminating income inequality question, somewhere around here there is a critical thinking thread. Look up "straw man".

#56 CityBoy

CityBoy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 970 posts

Posted 22 December 2013 - 09:35 AM

Government spending should be the minimum that is required to provide what is required. The amount raised via taxes should meet spending.

No. It means this: I earn a different amount than you do. Our incomes are not equal. We have income inequality.

The appropriate marginal tax rate would be the rate that raises appropriate revenue to meet the minimal demands of the government. As for the eliminating income inequality question, somewhere around here there is a critical thinking thread. Look up "straw man".


I agree with your first statement, but the nub of the issue is what constitutes a reasonable "minimum". In my view, the government long ago began meeting demands that far exceed reasonable minimums. The far-left wing of the Democrat party has one goal that never changes: Tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend, spend.

"Straw man"? Not so much. If the use of the phrase "income inequality" is as benign as your definition, why is it being used constantly by Obama? It's pretty clear to me that his use of the term "inequality" is meant to imply unfairness, i.e., some of those "rich" people don't deserve their wealth. His solution: Higher tax rates for the "rich".

Edited by CityBoy, 22 December 2013 - 09:42 AM.

  • Bedford likes this

#57 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 09:16 AM

This certainly has to be the cornerstone of Obama's dismal legacy... No jobs! People losing faith and dropping out of the work force... really sad situation out there...

2013 ends with weakest job growth in years
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Job growth slumped sharply in December, falling far short of expectations. The economy added only 74,000 jobs in December, according to the Department of Labor.
This was the weakest month for job growth since January 2011 and came as a huge surprise to economists, who were expecting an addition of 193,000 jobs.

Only 62.8% of the adult population is participating in the labor market -- meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. That matches the lowest level since 1978.

http://money.cnn.com...port/index.html

#58 CityBoy

CityBoy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 970 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 09:20 AM

Must be George Bush's fault, huh? By any objective measure, Obama has failed miserably on fixing the economy and providing jobs, but he continues to press for failed policies.
  • Quasar and Bedford like this

#59 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 02:13 PM

The secretiveness and vindictiveness of the Obama administration will certainly be a part of his legacy as described by Jill Abrahmson during an interview with John Seigenthaler.

Jill Abramson, first female executive editor of The New York Times

JS> Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media?

JA> Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as "How secretive is this White House?" which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush's first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It's on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

JS> And do you think this comes directly from the president?

JA> I would think that it would have to. I don't know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we'd know that at this point.

JS> So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

JA> Absolutely.

http://america.aljaz...igenthaler.html
  • kelley likes this

#60 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 06:35 AM

I think this contributes more to the press giving the president as pass than does bias. They already lack access and don't want it more restricted as they'll be unable to do their jobs.

This is also more troubling than bias if I'm right. It's not that a great deal of members of a mostly educated profession that has access to info about the man like and respect him so much they slant reporting in his favor. He's secretive; they're greedy cowards.
  • Quasar likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users