PDA

View Full Version : Under Obama, Taxes Hit A 30-Year Low



Qtec
07-15-2012, 01:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To hear conservatives and Tea Partiers tell it, President Obama is a serial tax-raiser who has increased taxes on “millions of Americans.” But according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office, <u>tax rates under Obama hit a 30-year low in 2009,</u> in part because of the tax cuts he implemented in response to the country’s economic downturn:

Americans paid the lowest tax rates in 30 years to the federal government in 2009, in part because of tax cuts President Obama sought to combat the Great Recession, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday. [...]

During Obama’s first year in office, the average tax rate paid by all households fell to 17.4 percent, down from 19.9 percent in 2007, according to the CBO. The 2009 rate was significantly lower than the previous low of 19.4 percent in 2003 and well below the 30-year average of 21 percent. </div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/11/514384/taxes-30-year-low-obama/)

Q

LWW
07-15-2012, 04:41 AM
If you honestly believe this to be the truth, why are you supporting him?

Qtec
07-15-2012, 05:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you honestly believe this to be the truth, why are you supporting him? </div></div>

Its true.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The average federal income tax rate also reached a new low, settling at 7.2 percent in 2009 — two points lower than in 2007, the CBO said. Although detailed data are available only through 2009, the CBO said more recent estimates suggest that effective tax rates remained at historically low levels in 2010 and 2011.

“However much Republicans try to perpetuate false claims, the facts speak for themselves: Tax rates have never been lower than under President Obama,” said Rep. Sander M. Levin (Mich.), the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over taxes.</div></div>

The question is,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> why aren't YOU supporting him?</span>


I'm supporting Obama because Mitt is a disaster in human form. He claims to be a job creator when he is really a vulture, a parasite that leeches on to a company and sucks the profit out of it, regardless of the consequences for others.
He is a habitual lying flip-flopper who repeats his lies even though those lies have been pointed out to him. He doesn't care.

My main problem with Willard is that he thinks we are all stupid. That will be his downfall because its only the hard core Cons and the anti-Obama mob that will buy his crap.

Q

eg8r
07-15-2012, 03:36 PM
LOL so he cut more taxes than any other president in the last 30 years while also spending more in their first term. Sounds like he is better being GWB than GWB was at being himself. How about that for hope and change.

eg8r

LWW
07-15-2012, 07:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL so he cut more taxes than any other president in the last 30 years while also spending more in their first term. Sounds like he is better being GWB than GWB was at being himself. How about that for hope and change.

eg8r </div></div>

Hich is why I wonder why Snoopy would supprt him ... If it were true.

Qtec
07-15-2012, 11:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL so he cut more taxes than any other president in the last 30 years <u>while also spending more in their first term.</u> Sounds like he is better being GWB than GWB was at being himself. How about that for hope and change.

eg8r </div></div>




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Obama spending binge never happened</span>

Rex Nutting

Commentary: <u>Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s</u>


WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of <u>a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget</u></span> </div></div>

Here is a simple fact that you and others decide not to accept.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations. </div></div>

Q......... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif

LWW
07-16-2012, 04:52 AM
Which party controlled the house and senate at that time?

eg8r
07-16-2012, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama spending binge never happened

</div></div>LOL, those binging are always the last to admit it.

eg8r

LWW
07-16-2012, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama spending binge never happened

</div></div>LOL, those binging are always the last to admit it.

eg8r </div></div>

Don't you know that it's Bush still increasing the budget?