France wants to slap the rich with 75% super tax

First off be fair the comparable numbers would be 7.8 and 7.5 Obama and Reagans first term unemployment number. You cant use 5.5 unless Obama got a second term.
Secondly Reagan raised taxes 11 times to stimulate the economy and it worked. So why are we demonizing Obama for doing whats tried and true

 

You're right, to be fair we should only look at first terms. But I would not say unemployment is 7.8%. We did not just add 800,000 jobs from out of thin air. That report was based on a household survey and will be revised after the election in a few weeks...conveniently.

The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 times. But it’s a bit misleading to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes because that's not referring to income taxes. Many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions. One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.

Overall, Reagan did the most dramatic tax revision in US History. He reduced the top tax bracket from 70% to 28%!! We would have been like France or Greece if Reagan did not do what he did.

 

In post 63 I said tax cuts are relevant to the job market, but ONLY if you offer them exclusively to those corporations that are willing to bring jobs back to America, so either you have selective reading or you would rather see ALL corporations get a tax break and pretend as if that will benefit everyone. Tax cuts serve to grow the overall debt, so we can not just give them out with no benefit in return. If we continue to add to the debt at the pace we are going, one of two things is going to happen.

1. People quit buying our debt causing interest rates to rise perpetuating hardships for smaller businesses as well as a decline in housing and stock markets, causing a recession and higher rate of unemployment.

2. People quit buying our debt and inflation goes through the roof causing a crash in the stock market and the dollar will no longer serve as the world reserve currency, effectively destroying the world financial system.

It is a shame that as Americans we would risk seeing High Interest rates during a recession or runaway stagflation during a recession due to a political ideology or greed. I am still having a hard time believing that so many people believe in the tax cut fix all scenario with no regard to how such a reckless practice may jeopardize everything. We have had a republican president and a democratic president in the last 12 years, so if cutting spending was a significant option we would have done it by now, so that is hardly an option in balancing more proposed tax cuts. What goes up must come down, economics not an ideology it is a science, and I am done with this thread.

 

What he said

 

We agree that companies that offer employment to those creating US based jobs should receive a tax break. But understand the other side of the equation. More US based jobs will mean higher prices for goods and services. So unless wages rise, it will put immense pressure on low income people. Cheaper priced goods is a direct reflection of cheaper labor overseas.

I am not a proponent of tax cuts solves everything. I believe tax cuts only help solve economic downturns. The Federal Reserve has already lowered rates to near zero, they have done all they can do. Obama needs to do his part now. In good economic times like the 90's you can afford to raise taxes like Clinton did.

Keeping spending under control is prudent for any President. Bush raised deficit spending to $500 billion towards the end of his term. He was really good about spending during his first four years, but was not as disciplined in his second term. But Obama has doubled that with over $1 trillion in deficit spending per year.

 

So keep outsourcing because it helps poor people shop at Walmart?

Or give tax breaks to us companies so poor people have jobs and more money to spend because things at Walmart will cost more because the poor of America made it instead of the poor of china..

Yeah...

I..can...see...the...issues facing US corporations are really tough and heart wrenching. Good thing mitt thinks said corporations are people, my friend..
Because someone has got to look out for the American people.

 

It's something you need to consider. Even if Walmart is able to hire more people at $10/hour...the cost of goods & services will go up at a higher rate than minimum wage. So we would have an inflation problem.

And yes, corporations are people too! Corporations are made up of employees and shareholders...everyday people. They create jobs, create products we use, and allow people to earn income to retire through 401k and other retirement accounts. I think Obama has tried to make the word "corporation" this horribly evil thing.

 

interesting choice of words there..seeing as how the right slammed the left with the you didnt build that bullshit.

ahhhhhhh.....anything for a vote, eh?

 

The difference between the two statements is that Obama is stating a fundamental belief. He honestly believes that government can stimulate the economy back to health and that businesses owe him a big "thank you". Businesses exist because hard working people took a risk and followed a dream.

Romney was pointing out the fact that corporations are just a large collection of people, making products & services for people.

 

Obama believes the success of the American economy is a COLLABORATION between the federal government and the private sector, and he's absolutely right.

He's not a socialist. Never has been. It fact it's impossible for a U.S. president to govern as a socialist because of all the high powered money interests that prop up an administration and lobby Congress day after day.

The problem is that too many in the private sector believe their own creation myth, in that they spawned out of NOTHING and the Union of States owes everything to the business community and nothing to Uncle Sam.


Without rules there is only chaos and destruction.
And without corporations paying their fair share to the federal government in taxes, there is no union except a loose confederation of self-interested states.

 

Obama does not believe in the collaboration of government and the private sector. He believes the government can stimulate the economy through spending. He uses corporations to basically fund his massive piggy bank by taxing them into extinction.

People who started private companies did create their business and unless Obama was there in the room or gave them money, they do not owe their success to him. Obama needs to realize that our country survives off the backs of entrepreneurs and companies. It is the reason we are the greatest nation in the world today. Companies create the products & services we sell which make our GDP grow.

Perhaps one of the most common myths is the idea the “rich don’t pay their fair share”. The bottom 40% pay about 6% of taxes, while the top 40% pay about 85% of taxes — or about 14 times more than their counterparts in the lower brackets. This is why Republicans are saying this is nothing more than Obama playing to his base and trying to create class warfare in our country. It's honestly shameful!

The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.

Taxes paid by lowest incomes

The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.
The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes.

 

What actual policies has Obama supported or signed into law that have directly hurt American business?

What new regulations has he put in place that make it harder for the average small business owner to earn a buck??

When your national economy craters, the one thing the federal government must do is enact stimulus spending, to prime the economic pump.

It's not that Obama has no belief in free enterprise, but when businesses aren't hiring because of lack of demand, and demand is low because there are fewer jobs, the only way to get off that merry-go-round from hell is by federal stimulus spending.

It's the reason Paul Ryan requested stimulus dollar for Wisconsin, because he believed to would help CREATE JOBS.

BTW it's not about who pays what percentage of total federal income taxes. It's how much are they paying.

The wealthy earn more than the poor, of course by percentage of total income tax dollars paid their percentage is going to be higher. But the marginal income tax rate is the lowest it's been since the early 1980s.

THe wealthy are paying more into a smaller total pie.

 

Obama wants the top effective tax rate on successful small business to go above 40 percent. Ryan was saying that under Obama’s policies, people with adjusted gross incomes of more than $250,000 would pay a high effective tax rate whether or not they got rich by owning a small business. What Obama fails to realize is that most small business owners report on their individual tax returns. A person running a small business with $250,000 in revenue is not a billionaire hedge fund manager, but Obama treats them the same. Raising the rate from 35% to 40% would kill roughly 710,000 jobs.

Paul Ryan requesting stimulus dollars they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled. He has a duty as Governor to get funding for his constituents regardless if he agrees with legislation or not.

 

This is a scare tactic.
Small businesses in the 1990s under Clinton sprouted like mushrooms across the country while paying 39% in federal income tax. Over 90% of small businesses don't earn 250K a year BTW.

Either the stimulus was a job creator or it wasn't. Paul Ryan requesting stimulus funds on behalf of constituents by arguing in a letter that it would CREATE JOBS, is both ironic and hypocritical.

Either Paul RYan is full of shit, or business owners in Wisconsin are smarter than he is.

 

The answer to that is of course BOTH.

 

Yes!

Hey look - we agree on something.

 

Actually miss huntress..
I think you and I would agree on many more things that we would even like to cop to in public.

You look really good btw. Very nice smile
:yawinkle:

 

Businesses sprouted up because of high tech investment shot through the roof. That has absolutely nothing to do with Clinton policies or tax rates.

The stimulus was not a job creator. We spent over $860 billion and we have a zero net gain in jobs. We are back to even now four years later. Because Barack doesn't seem to understand the federal government cannot spend its way to making the economy healthy. All we have to show is a few new roads and bridges. Completely failing to realize that these people are working on one time projects and not jobs they could for 30 years to provide for their family.

As far as Paul Ryan is concerned, it is his duty as Congressman of Wisconsin to get federal funding for his constituents. Even if he disagrees with the legislation. Not everyone in Wisconsin is a Republican and holds his view, so I applaud him for realizing that and doing his fiduciary duty to the state.

 

It's simply not true that tax rates had no bearing at all on the economic boom during the Clinton administration. The entire economy saw a boost, it wasn't just speculation on info tech.


More right wing talking points.

Most of the stimulus package HAS NOT BEEN SPENT.
Over $230 bil of the stimulus was dedicated to TAX CUTS.
Most of the Obama stimulus was given in loans, which have been already PAID BACK to the Government.

The stimulus package was $787 bil, not $860 bil, but who cares when we're being loose with the facts anyway??

If you're serious about finding out the effectiveness of the stimulus package, you should read this review of nine studies grading the stimulus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

When you have massive deficits, you have to raise taxes. Period.
Supply side economic policy has never worked. Not once.

 

I got your stimulus package right here