Oh Good! GOP Won't Support Obama Econ Plan

[HenryReardon]

Obama handled it very badly. His objective was to get Republicans on board. He included big tax cut provisions in the bill to please them, then made revisions to please them, and still he failed to get a single GOP vote. I don't see how you can characterize such a monumental failure as handling it pretty well? Especially with Obama having promised so grandly during the campaign that he was going to usher in an era of post-partisan Washington.

What big tax cut provisions?

 

[NickCole]

What big tax cut provisions?

There's $275 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses in that bill.

 

[HenryReardon]

There's $275 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses in that bill.

Look more closely. I think you'll find that most of the individual tax cuts are really payments to people who don't otherwise pay taxes.

 

[NickCole]

Look more closely. I think you'll find that most of the individual tax cuts are really payments to people who don't otherwise pay taxes.

The biggest portion by far is the Making Work Pay credit, which would offset payroll taxes on the first $8100, up to $500 per person or $1000 per "family" [note, gays get screwed again].

These are definitely people who'd otherwise be paying that payroll tax.


But while it's always nice to have an extra few hundred bucks, IMO this is not going to do jackshit for the economy.

 

[snapcat]

Look more closely. I think you'll find that most of the individual tax cuts are really payments to people who don't otherwise pay taxes.

Actually, that's not accurate. They do pay payroll taxes, including social security tax.

Inferring that a segment of the population does not pay ANY taxes is a myth perpetuated by the right to call the wealthiest of Americans to action.

 

[HenryReardon]

Actually, that's not accurate. They do pay payroll taxes, including social security tax.

Inferring that a segment of the population does not pay ANY taxes is a myth perpetuated by the right to call the wealthiest of Americans to action.

As of 2004, 32% of ameraicans paid no income taxes. The number is higher today.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

 

[NickCole]

^^God, this element of Republicanism is so annoying.

Payroll Taxes are a tax on income, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Obama's Making Work Pay credit is a tax cut for people who pay taxes.

 

[Kulindahr]

Henry, snap and Nick are right on this: you're playing word games.

Personally, I'd do it differently: every American who votes would get a card to attach to their income tax form, indicating participation in America. Then they'd get a $1000 dividend check for being a voting member.

Would that make you happier, Henry? It's a very, um, capitalist sort of thing to do -- pay dividends to the members.

 

[HenryReardon]

Henry, snap and Nick are right on this: you're playing word games.

Personally, I'd do it differently: every American who votes would get a card to attach to their income tax form, indicating participation in America. Then they'd get a $1000 dividend check for being a voting member.

Would that make you happier, Henry? It's a very, um, capitalist sort of thing to do -- pay dividends to the members.

1. What word games? Specific taxes have specific names which, in turn, have precise meanings. Income Tax. FICA Tax. Quite different taxes levied for different purposes.

It is not playing word games to point out that x% of Americans do not pay income taxes. Clearly they do not.

2. Dividends are paid by corporations to stockholders to distribute their share of the corporation's profits. Governments are not profit making organizations. Governments are net consumers of wealth, not producers of wealth.

To give a $1,000 "dividend" to every participant, you would first have to take it away from someone else.

You are the one playing word games.

 

[naked gent]

It is not playing word games to point out that x% of Americans do not pay income taxes. Clearly they do not.

Henry if you supported the Bush tax cuts then you supported kicking about 12% of americans off the income tax rolls.

Under Clinton about 20% of working americans paid no income tax but after the Bush tax cuts in 02 that number rose to 32%.

If you're going to support republican tax cutting policies you should understand the ramifications of those policies.

If you don't want any more americans to be removed from the income tax rolls then the next time you hear a politician say he wants to cut taxes for everyone you should.......Just Say No.

 

[HenryReardon]

If you're going to support republican tax cutting policies you should understand the ramifications of those policies.

If you don't want any more americans to be removed from the income tax rolls then the next time you hear a politician say he wants to cut taxes for everyone you should.......Just Say No.

1. The ramifications of tax cuts for the productive rich has been proven to be stimulation of growth. JFK was well aware of that, which is why he did it.

2. The current talk about cutting 'income taxes' for everyone is fraudulent. Everyone doesn't pay income taxes. Why can't BO be honest and call his plan by its rightful name, which is wealth redistribution. Oops, forgot, honest and democrat are mutually exclusive concepts.

It has already been shown that under the Bush tax cuts, the productive rich are paying more taxes. I believe I've even posted the citations and charts in earlier threads.

 

[naked gent]

It has already been shown that under the Bush tax cuts, the productive rich are paying more taxes. I believe I've even posted the citations and charts in earlier threads.

If you're saying we should only cut taxes on the rich then you have very little understanding of how politics works.

And seeing that we live in a consumer driven economy I'm not sure your understanding of economics is any better than your understanding of politics.

 

[HenryReardon]

If you're saying we should only cut taxes on the rich then you have very little understanding of how politics works.

s.

The Bush tax cuts were pretty much across the board. Very nearly every group of taxpayers got some sort of break.

This has been discussed to death in these forums for freaking ever.

Buried in the so-called stimulus bill is a huge welfare payment to a lot of people. The left fully intends to eventually get 51% of the electorate on the federal dole because once that happens the left is home free. Vote them out, heck no - my welfare check might disappear. That is the mindset.

 

[naked gent]

Buried in the so-called stimulus bill is a huge welfare payment to a lot of people. The left fully intends to eventually get 51% of the electorate on the federal dole because once that happens the left is home free. Vote them out, heck no - my welfare check might disappear. That is the mindset.

And how is that mindset an different from the mindset behind the Bush tax cuts which predominantly went to the wealthy people who usually vote republican?

Bush pursued tax policies which catered to those who voted for him if you didn't object to him doing that then why object to Obama doing the same for those who voted for him?

 

[naked gent]

I'll play along. How about because Obama was "a different kind of candidate," makes people's "leg tingle when he talks," ran on a platform of "change," was going to reach out to "both parties" I mean we can go on and on. If you're going to argue that Obama has every right to fuck the people like every other president then fine. Understand that this shit-can's his savior status, different status, and agent of change status. If you can deal with that then cool!

jav I don't recall Obama ever saying that he would give no consideration to the constituency which put him into office and he wouldn't be much of a pol if he did.

I do think he has tried to "reach out" to republicans in this stimulus bill as evidence by the inclusion of the tax cuts which they always go gaga over but apparently his efforts fell short but he did make the attempt.

As for his "savior status" I consider that to be, like the messiah tag, a republican attempt to ridicule him......and for those who consider themselves religious a blasphemous one at that.

BTW to me the "change" he referred to was no more Clintons no more Bushes and in that he has succeeded.

 

[NickCole]

1. What word games? Specific taxes have specific names which, in turn, have precise meanings. Income Tax. FICA Tax. Quite different taxes levied for different purposes.

It is not playing word games to point out that x% of Americans do not pay income taxes. Clearly they do not.

You definitely are playing word games.

And not very well.

You didn't say "income tax."

You said: "Look more closely. I think you'll find that most of the individual tax cuts are really payments to people who don't otherwise pay taxes."

These people do pay payroll taxes and Obama's plan offsets $500 of payroll rax on the first $8100.

 

[HenryReardon]

And how is that mindset an different from the mindset behind the Bush tax cuts which predominantly went to the wealthy people who usually vote republican?

Bush pursued tax policies which catered to those who voted for him if you didn't object to him doing that then why object to Obama doing the same for those who voted for him?

Here we go with the wealth envy and class envy. That's so tired.

The Democrat party wants us to believe that they are Robin Hood - stealing from (taxing) the evil rich and giving to the deserving poor.

What the Democrats actually do is steal from (tax) the productive rich and give the money to the thieving poor.

The Republican party created tax cuts for the productive rich - you know, the people who actually pay taxes and create jobs - and cuts were there for other income levels as well.

 

[naked gent]

Here we go with the wealth envy and class envy. That's so tired.

Thats your characterization Henry what I'm seeing is each class pursuing their own interests (which does not mean its to my benefit) and seeing as we live in a democracy you'll need those "unproductive poor" to be stupid as well as poor to see a continuation of the policies you support.

The Republican party created tax cuts for the productive rich - you know, the people who actually pay taxes and create jobs - and cuts were there for other income levels as well.

Do tell Henry if the rich who received all those tax cuts were so productive how come we're in such a mess today?

We gave them all that money to guide us to the promised land....what went wrong?

 

[TX-Beau]

The "productive rich" aren't producing anything much without the "thieving poor" and their labor. So really who's productive and who's thieving?

 

[HenryReardon]

Thats your characterization Henry what I'm seeing is each class pursuing their own interests (which does not mean its to my benefit) and seeing as we live in a democracy you'll need those "unproductive poor" to be stupid as well as poor to see a continuation of the policies you support.
:

One problem with the above - we do not live in a democracy. We do not have mob rule, at least not yet, although that is one way the 2008 elections might have been characterized.

Obama should have been honest and said, 'vote for me and I'll give you $500 from the government.' Instead he cloaked the same promise in fraudulent language and called it a tax cut, even though many, if not most, of the intended recipients do not, in fact, pay income taxes.