PDA

View Full Version : Dear leader and the dem's humiliating walkback!



LWW
07-21-2011, 05:01 AM
After demanding tax increases, the regime has humbled itself to championing a plan that would actually reduce tax rates to something very similar to the Reagan era rates.

I do agree that the rate reduction would in fact increase revenue, however I suspect that there is the typical democrook treachery buried in the details.

If Boehner and company hold firm, the regime is near total collapse and it appears that they are ready to accept spending and tax rate reductions to save the people from finding out that the nation will not collapse if the federal gubmint enters a partial shutdown.

If Boehner is smart and has a set, and I'm not sure those are true, he will offer dear leader a deal:

- Spending to be decreased yearly until it drops to below 20% of GDP.

- Tax rates to be lowered as a gang plank towards the implementation of the "FAIRTAX" within 5 years.

- The tax on corporate jets will be raised by $0.50 per corporate jet.

This would allow the nation to actually enter a recovery and also allow dear leader to pimp his mob that he had won ... which they would repeat without hesitation, and hereafter swear that they had been for lowered tax rates the entire time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under the Gang of Six plan, $500 billion in budget savings would be immediately imposed, with marginal income tax rates reduced and the controversial alternative minimum tax ultimately abolished.

The plan would create three tax brackets with rates from 8% to 12%, 14% to 22%, and 23% to 29% -- part of a new structure designed to generate an additional $1 trillion in revenue. It would require cost changes to Medicare's growth rate formula, as well as $80 billion in Pentagon cuts.</div></div>

This "WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA" (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/19/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) moment has been exposed by LWW ... doing the work American journalists just won't do anymore.

Sev
07-21-2011, 05:23 AM
Yes but now we have the gang of 234 telling the senate to pass CCB

LWW
07-21-2011, 05:32 AM
As I said ... if they throw Obama a bone and raise the cost of a dog tag in DC by a nickel he will declare victory and his mob will nod like rear window bobble heads in collective unison.

eg8r
07-21-2011, 07:52 AM
I don't see any reason to lower taxes any more at this point. It is counter-intuitive to lower spending and revenue in an effort to quickly pay off debt. I think they should leave the taxes alone (unless removing loop holes which might cause some increases) and focus very heavily on private sector job creation and drastic reduction in spending.

eg8r

LWW
07-21-2011, 02:44 PM
It is counter intuitive ... but that doesn't make it wrong.

In fact, that's exactly what Obama's debt commission suggested to do.

Furthermore, study after study has shown that the FAIRTAX would cause the US economy to explode and quickly solve all of our budget and trade deficits with a 23% top rate.

In fairness, it would eliminate all deductions ... which is the only fair thing to do.

The state should never be deciding to determine winners and losers the way they do. If you have $1,000.00 available that could be used for housing and you decide to use it to buy a house ,,, or to live in a $200 a month rental trailer and spend the rest on beer and strippers ... the gubmint should treat both taxpayers the same no matter what legal choice they make.

Soflasnapper
07-21-2011, 05:14 PM
the FAIRTAX would cause the US economy to explode

Yeah, buddy! LOL!

In fact, that's exactly what Obama's debt commission suggested to do.

They might have, had they voted for it, which they didn't.

LWW
07-22-2011, 02:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In fact, that's exactly what Obama's debt commission suggested to do.

They might have, had they voted for it, which they didn't.
</div></div>

The biggest difference between you and I is that I don't make things up to make an argument:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In order to deal with the debt crisis, in addition to cuts in spending, the commission suggests simplifying the tax code, so that most Americans pay a lower percentage of their income to the government each year. The top personal rate would drop from 35 percent to 23 percent. But the decrease in income taxes would be offset by doing away with popular deductions that tens of millions of people take off their taxes for interest paid on mortgages. More low-income Americans would pay taxes under the proposal. </div></div>


From the reich wing ABC NEWS. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/debt-commission-mulls-social-security-benefits-cuts-tax/story?id=12111270)

LWW
07-22-2011, 02:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the FAIRTAX would cause the US economy to explode

Yeah, buddy! LOL!
</div></div>

The other difference is that I am willing to look at differing ideas while you insist upon being intellectually chained to a fatally flawed ideology.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK HERE TO LEARN&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_research)</span>

Qtec
07-22-2011, 03:18 AM
So, to summarise.

The top earners would get a 16.5% tax cut , while the poorest would pay more! Great plan.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The top personal rate would drop from 35 percent to 23 percent. </div></div>

WRONG. The TOP tax rate is 39.5%. There was a temporary reduction to 35% but this was ONLY for 10 years.

Carry on.

Q

LWW
07-22-2011, 03:29 AM
And the plan dear leader is endorsing would lower it to 29% ... and that went right over your head.

As I said ... if the compromise will contain raising the tax on cans of #2 Mississppi mud by a red cent, Obama will declare victory and then go to the O-cult which will then insist that they were for lowering the tax rates the entire time.

I love how you prove your nit-hood with each post.

Next inane comment please?

eg8r
07-22-2011, 10:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The top earners would get a 16.5% tax cut , while the poorest would pay more! </div></div>So, to summarize...You don't know crap about who pays what in this country.

eg8r

LWW
07-22-2011, 02:14 PM
I think that nails it?

Qtec
07-22-2011, 09:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the plan dear leader is endorsing would lower it to 29% </div></div>

In your dreams.

Q

LWW
07-23-2011, 03:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the plan dear leader is endorsing would lower it to 29% </div></div>

In your dreams.

Q </div></div>

Actually that would be in your nightmares ... if you were capable of independent thought. From the reich wing MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43807163/):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON — <span style='font-size: 11pt'>President Barack Obama gave his endorsement Tuesday to a deficit reduction plan offered by a bipartisan group of six senators</span>, urging congressional leaders to use that blueprint as the basis for a bill that he can sign into law before the Aug. 2 debt limit deadline.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>He acknowledged that his backing of the “Gang of Six” proposal</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The “Gang of Six” plan would:</span>

Aim to reduce deficits by $3.7 trillion over ten years;

Call for the elimination of some tax deductions and preferences and the reduction of others, raising $1 trillion in new revenue, <span style='font-size: 26pt'>while also reducing marginal income tax rates to as low as 23 percent for high earners</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Shift to a new measure of inflation called “chained CPI” which would have the effect of reducing future Social Security benefits</span> by mandating smaller annual cost-of-living adjustments.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a statement that the tax rates in the plan and Obama's endorsement of them "are a positive development and an improvement over previous discussions."</span></div></div>

So, as is clearly stated, Obama has endorsed a plan which would:

- Cut the top tax rates.

- Cut Social Security benefits.

- Admit that reduced rates grow tax revenue.

And, in the end, you will nod your head in slavish agreement.

Next inane statement?