Obama Pushes for Extention Of Bush Tax Cuts

[Tex Mex]

The lie is that they don't pay their fair share.

When it comes to fair share, who benefits most from the government, the Rich or the Poor?

[toreyj01]

When it comes to fair share, who benefits most from the government, the Rich or the Poor?

Obviously the rich, why?

(hint as to how I can prove this ----- they are rich, if the poor benefitted more they wouldn't be poor anymore)

[Tex Mex]

Obviously the rich, why?

(hint as to how I can prove this ----- they are rich, if the poor benefitted more they wouldn't be poor anymore)

I am not really arguing against that. Government does benefit the rich but then why do the poor want more of it?

[Bluesgtr44]

The GOP needs to focus on stuff like this. Romney needs to address stuff like this.

And ask, if it's a good thing then, WHY ONLY 1 YEAR?

If Government really believes in stimulating business, then WHY ONLY FOR THE LESS THAN 250K crowd. The other crowd makes jobs, and needs relief.

WHY NOT cross the board reforms instead of aimed bandaids to voting groups?

They are rhetorical answers, but they need to be asked.

Because somebody has to "eat it". Someone has to take the loss in this scenario if the goal is to increase revenues for the government(s).....they have to come from somewhere/someone. We're only talking about the fed level now. How many states are "revenue starved" because they, like the feds, simply can't make those cuts. Especially if it affects them on personal levels (city, state, county and fed employees).

If he really wanted to be a bit more "fair" in his view of all Americans having a stake in this I would suggest a serious look at that EIC redistribution, buy a vote scheme scam that is nothing more than an attempt to create class warfare. It's not the governments purpose or responsibility to decide how much an individual earns. And that is the main purpose of this ridiculous scheme. Zero is zero......when the math is done on the tax returns and it hits zero.....that's all there is. No one gets back more than they actually paid in.

To be fair, no dem and most reps won't ever try to undo this debacle. If you don't think you're being paid enough it's not up to the government to make up that difference......FOR VOTES!

[kaydahl]

Some Conservatives have a great difficulty understanding what the word "temporary" means.....

it was a Dem president who signed the extension in December 2010. And the same Dem president who is calling for a further extension of most of them now.

[kaydahl]

When it comes to fair share, who benefits most from the government, the Rich or the Poor?

The poor. No question about it.

[Tex Mex]

The poor. No question about it.

Working ones way out of poverty without government assistance is not an impossible dream in America. Illegals prove that on a daily basis.

The poor could help pay their fair share by not being so excessively needy.

[chip]

Sounds good to me. It gives us another year for the recession to ease, at least. I do NOT want to continue the tax cuts for rich people. They're doing fine.

Doug

"Congress's Joint Tax Committee—not a conservative outfit—estimates that in 2013 about 940,000 taxpayers will have enough business income to meet Mr. Obama's tax increase threshold. And of the roughly $1.3 trillion in net business income, about 53% will get hit with the higher tax rates."

Who knew there were so many "rich" people.

[Bluesgtr44]

When it comes to fair share, who benefits most from the government, the Rich or the Poor?

Good one! Kind of like "is the glass half empty....or half full"?

Depends on whether one is drinking.....or pouring, does it not? Government will always look out for themselves first.....history people. They're politicians and it's simply what they do. Endear themselves to constituencies. With the tech. advancement in the ability to spread a message far and wide in a matter of minutes, it has taken political prostitution to a whole new level in this country.

You know, it's not so much what they say......it's what they leave out. What they don't say. We no longer get well rounded messages from them because they can't deride their constituents pretty much at all. They have to just make the other side look "evil" and "greedy" and "unfair". We can even throw a bunch if "ists" and "ics" in there for desert!

[Tex Mex]

Good one! Kind of like "is the glass half empty....or half full"?

Depends on whether one is drinking.....or pouring, does it not?

The government glass is fixed with a tap on it that the liberals have set to super suck.

[Databyter]

Because somebody has to "eat it". Someone has to take the loss in this scenario if the goal is to increase revenues for the government(s).....they have to come from somewhere/someone. We're only talking about the fed level now. How many states are "revenue starved" because they, like the feds, simply can't make those cuts. Especially if it affects them on personal levels (city, state, county and fed employees).

If he really wanted to be a bit more "fair" in his view of all Americans having a stake in this I would suggest a serious look at that EIC redistribution, buy a vote scheme scam that is nothing more than an attempt to create class warfare. It's not the governments purpose or responsibility to decide how much an individual earns. And that is the main purpose of this ridiculous scheme. Zero is zero......when the math is done on the tax returns and it hits zero.....that's all there is. No one gets back more than they actually paid in.

To be fair, no dem and most reps won't ever try to undo this debacle. If you don't think you're being paid enough it's not up to the government to make up that difference......FOR VOTES!

This is not about revenue.

It is about getting elected.

He is throwing a bone, nothing more, nothing less.

If it were about responsibility, then we should address why half the people in the Country do not pay Federal taxes after exemptions, credits, and subsidies.

They get off scot free ONLY because they have more power at the ballot box.

I am not for enslaving the rich, middle class, OR poor by taxes.

I am saying that our Country needs all three groups to pay equitable and fair taxes.

And if this FAIR and AMERICAN equality based assessment were to take place, the resulting taxes would be fairly low, because the burdon would be spread to EVERYBODY, as it should be.

Even the poor can contribute 15 cents of a dollar when our Country is posed over the cliff. The day laboror can pay 15 bucks of the hundred he makes helping a guy weed his yard, and Hewlett Packard can pay 150K for each million.

And for anybody to say that we will get more from HP than from the poor people, and the middle class shows a marked lack of understanding of mathematics.

So if it is revenue and responsibility you are looking for, you should not be looking at Barack Obama or anybody in his administration, or that shares his ideology.

[Databyter]

I don't believe so.

It was designed so that those working would support those no longer working. And those that followed would support those no longer working.

Just my understanding.

Your understanding leaves a lot to be desired.

Both about how SS works.

And about American values, or heck, just values period.

When you justify taking by qualifying need, you just made the case for thieves.

[Databyter]

Of course they avail themselves to every tax break they can find. They would be stupid not to, and it is legal after all.

And yes, some do pay zero, several hundred thousand last I read.

The reason those tax breaks exist in the first place, is that the tax is too high.

It is a method of control to make the tax too high, and then offer breaks and incentives to make business possible.

But it is a system designed to be abused and corrupted.

And as I said, if you removed the multi billion dollar expense of Corporate tax departments necessary to screen through the behemoth codes in searching expensive ways to comply with overly zealous and unfair tax assessments, then those Companies would save that much expense, and the Government would STILL get the SAME revenue under a simple flat tax assessment with no exceptions, shelters, or exemptions.

Instead of defending the sins of a broken system and the incredible waste that amounts to almost 3X what is actually paid in revenue to the government, consider what those other 2X could do for the economy, while not affecting revenue stream AT ALL.

Get rid of the tax code and replace it with something that is THE SAME FOR EVERY ENTITY.

And use the 'magic' of percentage math to asses the higher amounts to the rich. Not higher RATES, higher AMOUNTS.

THE RATE SHOULD BE THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD.

And EVERYBODY SHOULD PAY.

It's really simple, really fair, and really doable.

[Databyter]

Yeah because, you know, letting the tax cuts expire on the people already struggling is a great way to revive the economy...

I agree with BO on this. The rich aren't hurting, they can afford to give up a little to ease the deficit slightly. Although realistically it won't help that much with the deficit, it is more of a feel good position than anything. But any little bit to reduce the deficit is something I would take into consideration.

The rich might not be hurting as individuals. although I disagree, they are bleeding out, they just have more blood.

But they also are not growing or hiring.

And if you are wanting to help the poor in hard times, you better come up with a multi-decade plan, not an election year cookie, because your boy just guaranteed that we no longer have the bones to recover sooner, by doubling down on waste and debt by using every tool we have and blowing the entire wad of tricks, and directing it all into the same burning pit of stupidity that caused it in the first place.

What we should have done was tightened our belts in 2008, and kept our funny money in our pockets.

QE is only an effective tool to round out the dips, not to CREATE peaks. And it should be used sparingly, not as a revenue source.

Obama blew it, and not only did he devalue the dollar by diluting it too much when he monetized the debt, but then, he didn't even spend the QE on the debt. He gave it to the very people that even HE claimed caused the problems on Wall Street and even overseas.

A one year extension is fine. Nothing wrong with the idea, but it should be across the board and multi-year, or better yet, TAX reform.

An idea that is GUARANTEED to generate more government revenue, at the same time it causes massive tax relief to virtually all areas that stimulate economies.

And it costs NOTHING.

[Bluesgtr44]

This is not about revenue.

It is about getting elected.

He is throwing a bone, nothing more, nothing less.

If it were about responsibility, then we should address why half the people in the Country do not pay Federal taxes after exemptions, credits, and subsidies.

They get off scot free ONLY because they have more power at the ballot box.

I am not for enslaving the rich, middle class, OR poor by taxes.

I am saying that our Country needs all three groups to pay equitable and fair taxes.

And if this FAIR and AMERICAN equality based assessment were to take place, the resulting taxes would be fairly low, because the burdon would be spread to EVERYBODY, as it should be.

Even the poor can contribute 15 cents of a dollar when our Country is posed over the cliff. The day laboror can pay 15 bucks of the hundred he makes helping a guy weed his yard, and Hewlett Packard can pay 150K for each million.

And for anybody to say that we will get more from HP than from the poor people, and the middle class shows a marked lack of understanding of mathematics.

So if it is revenue and responsibility you are looking for, you should not be looking at Barack Obama or anybody in his administration, or that shares his ideology.

I understand this clearly.....here's my last sentence in the post you responded to.

To be fair, no dem and most reps won't ever try to undo this debacle. If you don't think you're being paid enough it's not up to the government to make up that difference......FOR VOTES!

There is a HUGE problem with having any level of government getting into the "personal earnings" game. They have to keep pushing for more to get those voters to simply show up on election day......or basically, there's nothing in it for them to show up. Dems know this and they know they have to deliver the "num nums".

Liberal mentality that somehow, someway abusing a tax structure will bring about some distorted view of fairness is in and of itself totally "unfair". Especially when it becomes so obvious, as it is now and has been for awhile, that the purpose of this is more for encouraging voter turn out than really helping these individuals. To help so many of them would require liberals to tell them what they need to hear.....not what they want to hear......for votes.

Now, how does a message to counter all these supposed "freebies" see the light of day? We have a media that wants to control the information.....not freely disiminate it.