PDA

View Full Version : 51% Support Obama's Tax Plan



Gayle in MD
08-23-2010, 05:41 PM
As big business lobbies to block raising taxes on the top wealthiest Americans, the latest CNN poll shows that 51% support President Obama's plan to raise taxes on the top two wealthiest tax groups.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67M3XO20100823

While unemployment still shows consistantly lower increases in unemployment numbers monthly, than the status quo under the Bush Administration's last months in office.

The Bush recession,k the worst econoomic recession in decades, since te Great Depression, and nearly causing another Depression, lasted the entire last two years of his administration, and so far continues to challenge the new administration as Republicans work to prevent administration policies for recovery.

G.

Sev
08-23-2010, 06:03 PM
Yup. Keep blaming the Republicans. The end of year 2 is rapidly coming to a close and thus far the country is still in the tank.

Majorities in both house and still no utopia.

pooltchr
08-23-2010, 06:29 PM
Wow! a poll that shows 51% think the government should raise taxes on someone other than themselves!

I'm shocked.

Of course, there are almost 51% who already don't pay any taxes at all, so why would they care???

Steve

Chopstick
08-24-2010, 08:22 PM
Reuters? What are you doing in there? I ride that site all day. As long as you brought it up how about including the first paragraph of the article.

The Senate is set to take up expiration of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>tax cuts on nearly all individuals</span> enacted under former President George W. Bush when it reconvenes in September. The thorniest issue involves taxes for the top income classes -- families earning at least $250,000 a year -- which President Barack Obama and most Democrats want to let expire.

All individuals? I thought you guys said Bush only cut taxes on the rich.

Gayle in MD
08-24-2010, 09:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reuters? What are you doing in there? I ride that site all day. As long as you brought it up how about including the first paragraph of the article.

The Senate is set to take up expiration of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>tax cuts on nearly all individuals</span> enacted under former President George W. Bush when it reconvenes in September. The thorniest issue involves taxes for the top income classes -- families earning at least $250,000 a year -- which President Barack Obama and most Democrats want to let expire.

All individuals? I thought you guys said Bush only cut taxes on the rich. </div></div>

I don't recall saying "Only" for the rich, I believe I usually say tax cuts for the wealtiest among us, but in fact, the wealthy were, and are, the ones who benefitted the most from those cuts.

Further, why did the Republicans install an expiration date, themselves, on those tax cuts?

It may interest you to know that Greenspan stated that it would be irresponsible to fail to end Bush's tax cuts on those making over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year.

He also said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

I don't use the Voodoo Republican math, nor their take on what a surplus is, which actually doesn't even mean what some RWers think it means. But when I hear people like the lady from Ohio, who spoke on the Olbermann show tonight, tell her story about how stimulus lending allowed her to go after three new businesses, and how the Health Care plan, allows her to compete with the larger corporate restaurant chains for the same talent, because it allows her to offer the same benefits, yet, she clearly states that a tax cut for those who make over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, is of no help or consequence to her, at all, her words mean much more than, for instance, the colossal load of BS which Boehner spewed, today, regarding letting the pre-Bush tax cuts expire, so incredibly full of falsehoods, based on his Republican styled controversial statistics, I can understand why most people do support Obama's tax plan, and HC plan.

What I am interested in watching most, is which segment of our society always benefits the most from Republican policies, and over time, IMO, Republicans prove over and over, that they are nothing but pawns for the wealthy, while the lower 97% always lose out under Republican presidents and Republican majorities.

Their voting record surely supports my take on their love affair with the wealthy top two percent, the corporate fascist tax evaders, and the environmental pigs who trash our environment.

Because of the tax cuts of the Bush era, along with the spending party Republicans took part in, and the failure of their majority to address the losing situation most Americansn found themselves in as energy, health care, and HC insurance prices rose, and credit care companies with corrupt policies gouged for their share of Middle Class blood, what did they do about it? NOTHING! As Middle Class wages dropped, they did nothing. As more and more jobs were outsourced, they did nothing, happy as long as that top one percent was getting their multi billions flooding in non stop.

Yet, Republicans are against extending unemployment, against spending for our troops, our first responders, hell, even our hungry children, yet, they are all for keeping those tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. I must say, I find Boehner, the Republican Party, and the RW who gobble up their lies, worse than repulsive.

The wealthy don't run out and spend their money. They already have everything they want, or need, and their excess multi-billions are saved, not spent.

Even many conservative economists agree with that much. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and the trickle down theory, is a very dishonest Republican myth.

G.

pooltchr
08-25-2010, 06:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in fact, the wealthy were, and are, the ones who benefitted the most from those cuts.


G. </div></div>

Could that be because the wealthy are the ones who pay most of the taxes? That 40 plus percent in the lower income brackets pay little or no taxes. If you aren't paying any income tax to begin with, how would you expect a tax cut to help them. They are already paying ZERO!


Steve

Chopstick
08-25-2010, 08:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reuters? What are you doing in there? I ride that site all day. As long as you brought it up how about including the first paragraph of the article.

The Senate is set to take up expiration of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>tax cuts on nearly all individuals</span> enacted under former President George W. Bush when it reconvenes in September. The thorniest issue involves taxes for the top income classes -- families earning at least $250,000 a year -- which President Barack Obama and most Democrats want to let expire.

All individuals? I thought you guys said Bush only cut taxes on the rich. </div></div>

I don't recall saying "Only" for the rich, I believe I usually say tax cuts for the wealtiest among us, but in fact, the wealthy were, and are, the ones who benefitted the most from those cuts.

Further, why did the Republicans install an expiration date, themselves, on those tax cuts?

It may interest you to know that Greenspan stated that it would be irresponsible to fail to end Bush's tax cuts on those making over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year.

He also said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

I don't use the Voodoo Republican math, nor their take on what a surplus is, which actually doesn't even mean what some RWers think it means. But when I hear people like the lady from Ohio, who spoke on the Olbermann show tonight, tell her story about how stimulus lending allowed her to go after three new businesses, and how the Health Care plan, allows her to compete with the larger corporate restaurant chains for the same talent, because it allows her to offer the same benefits, yet, she clearly states that a tax cut for those who make over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, is of no help or consequence to her, at all, her words mean much more than, for instance, the colossal load of BS which Boehner spewed, today, regarding letting the pre-Bush tax cuts expire, so incredibly full of falsehoods, based on his Republican styled controversial statistics, I can understand why most people do support Obama's tax plan, and HC plan.

What I am interested in watching most, is which segment of our society always benefits the most from Republican policies, and over time, IMO, Republicans prove over and over, that they are nothing but pawns for the wealthy, while the lower 97% always lose out under Republican presidents and Republican majorities.

Their voting record surely supports my take on their love affair with the wealthy top two percent, the corporate fascist tax evaders, and the environmental pigs who trash our environment.

Because of the tax cuts of the Bush era, along with the spending party Republicans took part in, and the failure of their majority to address the losing situation most Americansn found themselves in as energy, health care, and HC insurance prices rose, and credit care companies with corrupt policies gouged for their share of Middle Class blood, what did they do about it? NOTHING! As Middle Class wages dropped, they did nothing. As more and more jobs were outsourced, they did nothing, happy as long as that top one percent was getting their multi billions flooding in non stop.

Yet, Republicans are against extending unemployment, against spending for our troops, our first responders, hell, even our hungry children, yet, they are all for keeping those tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. I must say, I find Boehner, the Republican Party, and the RW who gobble up their lies, worse than repulsive.

The wealthy don't run out and spend their money. They already have everything they want, or need, and their excess multi-billions are saved, not spent.

Even many conservative economists agree with that much. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and the trickle down theory, is a very dishonest Republican myth.

G. </div></div>

Well, I don't know about all that. I was just yankin your chain. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

I do not buy into the notion that there is a two party political system. I only see one party, two sides of the same coin. I do not paint one side good and one side bad. The coin is bad and must be replaced. The notion that the government can spend as it pleases and tax the people is against every principle this country was founded on. There are so many tax regulations now that even the IRS openly admits they don't know how many there are any more.

If there was no big government then there would be no place for the evil corporations to exert their influence. I would venture to say that 90% of our existing government is absolutely useless. For example, why are we paying $1.5 million to provide Michelle Obama with 22 personal assistants? What exactly are they doing for us? Would you even notice if they were all sent home tomorrow? IF not, then why are they there?

I would even wager that half of the federal government could disappear tomorrow and you would never even know it. Why are we paying for it?

pooltchr
08-25-2010, 08:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I would even wager that half of the federal government could disappear tomorrow and you would never even know it. Why are we paying for it? </div></div>



Only half???????????


Steve

Qtec
08-25-2010, 08:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, there are almost 51% who already don't pay any taxes at all, so why would they care???

Steve </div></div>

If you have 10% unemployed, how come the other 40% who are working don't pay taxes?

Q

pooltchr
08-25-2010, 09:25 PM
This has been well reported and covered in the past. Use the google!

Steve