Welcome to PatsFans.com

Obama's 2% illusion

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by tanked_as_usual, Feb 26, 2009.

  1. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Obama's 2% Illusion - WSJ.com

    bottom line is that in order to pay for obama's party, there will need to be a 100% tax rate on all income over $75,000

    welcome to the latest brand of communism......
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,399
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +291 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    It's really amazing that a guy who compaigned on fiscal discipline signed off on Nancy's Spending Spree in his first few weeks. "The rich don't pay their fair share" isn't going to work when the numbers presented in the link start to present themselves. More taxes are coming - on everyone. Sales tax, payroll tax, gas tax increases will be coming - they have to.

    Tax receipts from the rich will plummet this year. I don't qualify as rich but even I am paying several thousand less this year due to losing money on my stocks vs. making money the year before. My middle to upper middle class income is paying something like $4K less this year. The actual rich will be in the same situation but on a higher order of magnitude.
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Obama has already explained that he wants to cut farm subsidies, go after corporations that place their home office in tax havens, reduce the cost of health care (ours is the most expensive in the world, and not even considered the best by most rating systems), etc. The author of that piece of nonsense in the WSJ seems to have left out a lot of the facts, including the effect of corporate taxes and the possible effects of economic growth. Of course, Obama will increase the deficit, but also plans to pay it down. It's not like we're going to wipe out the deficit in year one.

    Also, this sentence was clearly manipulative: A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue.

    No one has proposed a tax of 100% on those earning over $500,000. Why did the author choose that amount, especially when one considers that likelihood that there are many more families earning between $250k and $500k, then earning over $500k. Is is possible that he did it that way to make the results fit his argument. If we included those who earned between $250k and $500k, Obama proposal would probably have made much more sense even to those who choose for political to adopt a pessimistic attitude. But, again, let's remember the lesson of the last 8 years: The Republican Party (not all Republicans) and Wall Street lie a lot to the American people.

    But, one thing that puzzles me. I know that demographics show that Republicans are a dying breed in this country, as their mean age becomes increasingly older. But, I've noticed several examples of red-baiting here, and red-baiting really went out by the 1960s thanks to McCarthy. Are the red-baiters here very old, or is red baiting coming back in vogue?
  4. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    if you read the whole thing instead of taking things out of context, you would understand the answer to your own question............

    but the democrats with their hands in wall street tell the truth? the clinton administration is the one that opened the flood gate to allow the subrime situation to happen..........they're the ones that got the deregulation ball rollling

    what I find interesting is how people like you baselessly go off and blame one party for the economic problems of today.....like you heard a single democrat say anything a year ago........like democrats are any different in manipulating the public

    but thanks for responding, mr. naive......... typical liberal notion to think that everything spent will never have to paid back
  5. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,286
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +91 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey


    Your missing his point, what he is saying that even IF Obama taxed the Rich at 100%, it STILL WOLD NOT BE ENOUGH MONEY TO COVER HIS SPENDING!!!!

    But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.


    If you think that the Republicans are a dying breed wait unitl the next Congressional elections (if the country is still around by then).
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2009
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,399
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +291 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    It may take until the next round - right now Obama and Nancy are riding high on giving everything to everyone paid for by "the rich". I'm not sure if the American people will have figured out in less than two years that it's not going to work. It may be two more years after the next election, we'll see.
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,399
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +291 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Patters, get a clue my boy. It's called a "hypothetical".
  8. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    by 2012, when the interest rate is 30%, things will be clear
  9. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    was it over when the germans bombed pear harbor??

    forget it.......he's on a roll
  10. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,286
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +91 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    No but an American invented the automibile....

    President Obama gave his first speech to Congress this evening to talk up the bailout and his administration’s policies on everything from foreign policy to manufacturing.

    Who invented the automobile? Obama claims it was the United States. History 101 Score: F.

    The short version of the speech goes like this. Bailout, money, banks, more money, wars, more money, Gitmo, lead by example, more money.

    But there was one line in the speech that is raising eyebrows:

    “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”

    We could be flippant and suggest that given how grossly inaccurate the line is, that maybe the US Government should walk away from the industry.

    For the record, the answer to the question who invented the automobile is Karl Benz in Germany in 1885-86. If we want to be more pedantic, Benz invented the first true automobile, that is a car that runs on gasoline. The first “horseless carriage” was created by Frenchman Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot in 1769 (steam powered) and a Scot by the name of Robert Anderson created an electric vehicle in the 1830s. The first automobile made in the United States came along in 1893.




    and once agian Joe Biden talks BS>>>>>>>

    KSLA News 12 Shreveport, Louisiana |Reality check for Vice President Joe Biden

    And That rhetorical question to Governor Jindal on the CBS morning show, was followed with this. "in Louisiana there's 400 people a day losing their jobs, what's he doing?" asks Biden.
    But that claim is wrong, if you look at the numbers from the Louisiana Workforce Commission. "In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release that added employment over the month," says Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission. According to her, not only is Louisiana not losing jobs. "The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment," Granier said of the most recent figures.
  11. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    there should be an apologist coming by any minute to paraphrase what obamapalooza meant
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,146
    Likes Received:
    127
    Ratings:
    +346 / 1 / -9

    This is all OK, this is The Great Prince Beautiful Barry Hussein Obama, the man who causes democrats to faint and legs to tingle just by "talking".

    It's that friggin Bush we have to keep an eye.
  13. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Would it be enough to cover Bush's spending? No.


    Pot, meet kettle.
  14. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,399
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +291 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    What Bush did wrong has no bearing on adding $1.3T (for starters). Given the Barry and Nancy Spending Spree, Bush's spending is almost moot at this point - especially given that other than the war most of his spending (education bill with Teddy and Medicare prescription drugs) was supported by the Democrats.
  15. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0


    sure would......get a clue
  16. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The national Debt was 5.8T when Bush took office. It was 9T by the time the democrats took the house and senate. So No, most of it wasn't supported by the democrats. It was a little over 10T when Obama took office.

    And no, you can't just forget the war.
  17. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    it wasn't supported? the dems just sat there and said nothing even though they couldn't stand it? that just doen''t make sense

    fact is, the dems were along with things every step of the way....they can be bought just like anyone else........this just comes down to the dems saying 'its our turn now, and interms of screwing things, you ain't seen nothing yet'
  18. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    by the same token, I guess you could pin all of the successes of the 90's on gingrich's contract with america.......or will you have us believe the everyone that's a dem helps and everyone that's a repub hurts.......is that what you're saying?
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,399
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +291 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Honestly, I don't think you can read. I didn't say the Democrats had control of Congress nor that Republicans didn't support Bush. I said Democrats supported that spending WHICH THEY DID.

    I didn't "forget the war" (which the Dems also authorized), I just said "other than" which acknowledges it fully.
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    I did read the whole thing, and I found it dishonest and manipulative. I cited one specific example in that regard, where he chose conveniently what would happen if we taxed people who earn over $500k at 100%. That was a manipulative and pointless point by him, except to distort the truth. You're obviously buying the same load of bull that brought us into this financial crisis in the first place, and like many Republicans avoiding any sort of personal responsibility by blaming Clinton. Hey, at least you didn't blame events of 30 years, like some Republicans do. Clinton kept our economic engines running smoothly for his term and managed to cut the deficit dramatically; but, it's true he could have tried to reintroduce more regulation of the marketplace (though I doubt he would have succeeded with his Republican Congress).

    The fact is deregulation allowed all sorts of economic manipulation that put tremendous strains on the the world's economic system. It's deregulation that started the crisis, and allow Wall Street to outright steal and set up exotic trading vehicles that helped build a house of cards. The funny thing about people like you is that you never were here while Bush was spending hundreds of billions more than we had, but that was to help the Iraqis.

    Now that Obama wants to help Americans, Republicans are crying that we can't afford it. It's sick. The Republican Party has become anti-American. It's against using taxpayer dollars to help Americans, but it's all for spending billions to "help" the Iraqis and Afghanis. It's truly sick. No wonder the elephant is dying.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>