Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[MachZer0]

You asked for an example of unintended loopholes. I'm certain that one of the largest corporations the planet has ever seen was not intended to file under "small business" tax rates.

If that's true, which part of the tax law allows them to do that?

If you want an example of choice businesses getting breaks, look at the corn industry, or the oil companies. They get extra tax breaks that other industries do not.

The question is, do we want greater success for the oil and corn industries or lesser?

The tax cuts have been in place almost a decade longer than Obama has been in office, why didn't we see significant job growth then? The last decade showed us the slowest economic expansion since WWII, and unless Bush was also leaving businesses not knowing what to expect, it doesn't seem a very good explanation.

The tax cuts have been in place, but Obama wants to remove them. that's the problem. Businesses have to look to the future and right now they don't have any certainty.

 

[BondiHarry]

Washington is sharing the sacrafice. Obama is currently offering 4:1 cuts to loop hole reductions. You're saying that $4 cut for every $1 in closed loophole isn't a fair enough sacrifice for cutting, and the GOP wants $4 cut for $0 in closed loopholes? What exactly are those at the top sacrificing to help with the problems they also helped create?

Umaro, a promise of $4 worth of cuts for every $1 in closed loopholes coming from a man who has no intention of makng such cuts is worth absolutely nothing. The Democrats made a similar promise in the 80s of spending cuts for tax increases. The taxes were increased but the cuts never materialized. Even though government revenues nearly doubled under Reagan the Democrats spent it all growing government even larger. Obama has done nothing but grow government and spend money like it grows on trees. He has shown no inkling of financial responsiblity, if he had we wouldn't be in this situation where we either raise the national debt ceiling or suffer some painful cuts in spending. Do we risk default? Only if Obama's priorities are such that he would rather not pay the interest on our debts ... he has about 200 billion a month to work with and the interest is about 30 billion.

 

[MachZer0]

Umaro, a promise of $4 worth of cuts for every $1 in closed loopholes coming from a man who has no intention of makng such cuts is worth absolutely nothing. The Democrats made a similar promise in the 80s of spending cuts for tax increases. The taxes were increased but the cuts never materialized. Even though government revenues nearly doubled under Reagan the Democrats spent it all growing government even larger. Obama has done nothing but grow government and spend money like it grows on trees. He has shown no inkling of financial responsiblity, if he had we wouldn't be in this situation where we either raise the national debt ceiling or suffer some painful cuts in spending. Do we risk default? Only if Obama's priorities are such that he would rather not pay the interest on our debts ... he has about 200 billion a month to work with and the interest is about 30 billion.

Didn't Democrats promise Reagan a 3:1 ratio of cuts to tax increase, with no cuts actually ever being made? No reason to trust Democrats on this: Fool me once, shame on you...

 

[Umaro]

If that's true, which part of the tax law allows them to do that?

I'm not going to dig through our bloated tax codes to give you a specific line they use for the loophole. The fact that they're able to do it should be enough.

The question is, do we want greater success for the oil and corn industries or lesser?

I guess you'd be all in favor of subsidizing the green energy industry then, right?

Beyond that, why should those industries get breaks that no others do? And as long as we're talking about everyone sacrificing, shouldn't special perks be the first sacrifice made? I ask again, what shared sacrifice are the top being asked of?

The tax cuts have been in place, but Obama wants to remove them. that's the problem. Businesses have to look to the future and right now they don't have any certainty.

But what about before Obama was even a blip on the radar? Where was all the job growth in 2002? Future was looking pretty bright for businesses then, and we still saw the lowest job growth in 60+ years. If they're going to spend an entire decade making excuses for why they can't invest, why should I believe they're ever going to?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Umaro, a promise of $4 worth of cuts for every $1 in closed loopholes coming from a man who has no intention of makng such cuts is worth absolutely nothing.

Hey, since you are clearly PSYCHIC, can you tell us what is going to happen when the U.S. defaults?

The Democrats made a similar promise in the 80s of spending cuts for tax increases.

And since Obama was in college (undergrad I believe) at the time I'm sure he will do the same thing!

The democrats are evil like that! They lie all the time. Evil evil evil.

Just ask Ann Coulter!

Sorry this is hardly convincing. Just guessing that the current administration and democratic legislators will do something like what people did almost 30 years ago doesn't really carry much weight.

The taxes were increased but the cuts never materialized. Even though government revenues nearly doubled under Reagan the Democrats spent it all growing government even larger.

Those democrats! If only there had been some GOP representatives in the government at the time to halt the growth of government.

Interestingly since 1962 Republicans have controlled the White House during 6 of the 10 largest annual percentage increases in real discretionary outlays. During 3 of those times the GOP controlled Congress and the WH.

Those darn Democrats always spending! If only the GOP wasn't busy spending too. But we'll ignore that for a while.

Obama has done nothing but grow government and spend money like it grows on trees.

And Bush almost instantaneously evaporated the budget surplus developed under Clinton when he gave a tax break to the rich. Which, as has been pointed out before, saw a block of time when real income for working folks decreased (when adjusted for inflation).

Those darn Democrats and their wild spending and profligate waste of money!

He has shown no inkling of financial responsiblity, if he had we wouldn't be in this situation where we either raise the national debt ceiling or suffer some painful cuts in spending.

LOL! Give me a break. Under Bush the debt ceiling was raised 7 times. It's always raised.

If the GOP was so dedicated to stopping the spending train: why do it now when we are barely able to get out of the worst recession in 70 years of American history?

Why? I am unaware of any economists who think this is a good idea, I am unaware of any time of serious economic crisis in which "trickledown" has actually improved the matter.

Do we risk default? Only if Obama's priorities are such that he would rather not pay the interest on our debts

PSST: if we default because the GOP refuses (REFUSES) to even discuss closing tax loopholes for the rich and raising the marginal tax rate to something closer to what it was under Reagan we will automatically increase our debt because it will incur borrowing cost increases.

An immediate and long-term result. Why? Because everytime someone said anything about increasing revenues the GOP shut it down.

 

[BondiHarry]

I'm not going to dig through our bloated tax codes to give you a specific line they use for the loophole. The fact that they're able to do it should be enough.



I guess you'd be all in favor of subsidizing the green energy industry then, right?

Beyond that, why should those industries get breaks that no others do? And as long as we're talking about everyone sacrificing, shouldn't special perks be the first sacrifice made? I ask again, what shared sacrifice are the top being asked of?



But what about before Obama was even a blip on the radar? Where was all the job growth in 2002? Future was looking pretty bright for businesses then, and we still saw the lowest job growth in 60+ years. If they're going to spend an entire decade making excuses for why they can't invest, why should I believe they're ever going to?

Are we living in alternate universes Umaro? There was something that happened on September 11, 2001 that sent our economy into a tailspin.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Oh wealthy sacrifice? About 1/2 of Americans pay no tax. ZERO.

This is a great meme going around.

If the Conservatives on this board could please tell me the following:

1. HOW DO THESE 50% of people NOT PAY GASOLINE TAXES?
2. HOW DO THESE 50% of people NOT PAY SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES?
3. HOW DO THESE 50% of people NOT PAY SALES TAX?

Because I'd really, really like to know how they do that. I'd like to see where they swipe their "Freeloader" card.

In some cases these taxes end up being a greater percentage of income for the poor that the capital gains rate which the RICH pay.

But hey, why not keep the meme alive?

Please show me where the "Freeloader Card Swiping Machine" is at the gas station and the stores.

Thanks!

 

[NotreDame]

A little late, but interesting.



Full story here -->

Interesting...what chapter and verse of the Bible says giving to the needy is to be imposed upon the people by the government? I am also interested in reading the chapter and verses from the Bible mandating or even suggesting going into debt, or issuing more debt, to assist the needy.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Can someone explain to me how closing loopholes is raising taxes? A loophole by definition is a technicality to avoid the intent of the law. If the rate that was agreed upon is 35%, and you're paying 17%, removing the loophole so you pay the 35% you're supposed to isn't a tax raise, it's the intended rate. I mean, I don't see anyone calling this a price hike.

Didn't you realize that the rich are different? It is relatively well known that the more wealth you have the more access you have to ways to control outlay of expenditures and even take advantage of tax loopholes.

So as per usual if you are rich you can get away with not paying what you are supposedly "taxed" at because you can work the system more efficiently.

I once read a corporate notification that showed their CEO (who on average made 10's of millions of dollars every year) was contractually provided with "financial advisor services" paid for by the company as part of his pay package.

Of course the guy was making millions of dollars a year, his family had access to the corporate jet occasionally, he could often write off meals for them while he took them on business trips and he got his home security paid for by the company...so it only stands to reason that he'd need some help paying for FINANCIAL ADVISORS to help him manage what few million dollars he had left over after all his "expenses". I guess he must have had expenses, though it looked like from the proxy statement he really didn't...but maybe he had to pay for his own pool cleaner or something.

At least he wasn't one of them bums leaching off the hard labor of all the "Producers".

 

[Umaro]

I'm posting this in its own post to assure it gets a response.

In a time when "we all must share the sacrifice" seems to be the battle cry, what is being asked of those at the top?

 

[chaz345]

And Bush almost instantaneously evaporated the budget surplus developed under Clinton when he gave a tax break to the rich. Which, as has been pointed out before, saw a block of time when real income for working folks decreased (when adjusted for inflation).

There was no budget surplus under Clinton. It was achieved by spending Social Security funds and basing projections on economic growth at a pace that had never sustained itself for that length of time, ever. Economic growth, in the form of the tech bubble, that wasn't even real in the first place.

 

[NotreDame]

This is a great meme going around.

If the Conservatives on this board could please tell me the following:

1. HOW DO THESE 50% of people NOT PAY GASOLINE TAXES?
2. HOW DO THESE 50% of people NOT PAY SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES?
3. HOW DO THESE 50% of people NOT PAY SALES TAX?

Because I'd really, really like to know how they do that. I'd like to see where they swipe their "Freeloader" card.

In some cases these taxes end up being a greater percentage of income for the poor that the capital gains rate which the RICH pay.

But hey, why not keep the meme alive?

Please show me where the "Freeloader Card Swiping Machine" is at the gas station and the stores.

Thanks!

Fine, then the statement can be qualified as follows. About 50% of people in the U.S. did not pay ANY income tax to the U.S. government.

By people I mean "tax-filing units," a reference to individuals or couples either filing a tax return or would have if they had earned enough income.

So, in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center, it was projected 47% of people would pay no income tax for the year, which is an increase from an initial estimate of 38 percent. The precipitator for the rise is believed to be largely due to additional tax credits through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009.

The Joint Committee on Taxation, relying upon 2009 tax data, estimated slightly more than 50 percent of tax-filing units actually paid no income tax.

But popular lower and middle income breaks like earned income tax credits, child credits and mortgage interest deductions do get a majority of the population off the hook.

You can read more about this at the following link. http://http://www.politifact.com/vi...antor-says-almost-50-percent-americans-dont-/

 

[thaumaturgy]

You should have listened to Steve Wynn explain. Businesses do not know what to expect from this administration. When he moved his headquarters to China, he said it was because with the current administration in Washington, China is more business friendly

Tell me, Does Steve Wynn himself live in China? I doubt it.

I wonder why that is.

Hmmmm, interesting.

But at least he could save some cash on employing loser AMERICANS so he can afford his homes in the U.S.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Fine, then the statement can be qualified as follows.

Oh so as long as we know the original claim was technically incorrect.

About 50% of people in the U.S. did not pay ANY income tax to the U.S. government.

Oh, who runs Social Security? I thought that was federal. Was I mistaken?

By people I mean "tax-filing units," a reference to individuals or couples either filing a tax return or would have if they had earned enough income.

Thanks. I thought people were "people". How many more caveats can we pile onto the original claim?

Shall we redefine a few more terms?

 

[chaz345]

If the GOP was so dedicated to stopping the spending train: why do it now when we are barely able to get out of the worst recession in 70 years of American history?

Maybe because the runaway spending of non-existant money is a factor in not being able to get out of the recession.

 

[chris4243]

Interesting...what chapter and verse of the Bible says giving to the needy is to be imposed upon the people by the government? I am also interested in reading the chapter and verses from the Bible mandating or even suggesting going into debt, or issuing more debt, to assist the needy.

Leviticus 23:22
“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.’”

Also all of Leviticus 25

Exodus 23:10-11
10 “For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what is left. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

 

[NotreDame]

Oh so as long as we know the original claim was technically incorrect.



Oh, who runs Social Security? I thought that was federal. Was I mistaken?



Thanks. I thought people were "people". How many more caveats can we pile onto the original claim?

Shall we redefine a few more terms?

I could not care less about the original claim. Why not address the claim I made?

 

[pgp_protector]

Leviticus 23:22
“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.’”

Also all of Leviticus 25

Exodus 23:10-11
10 “For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what is left. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

Um that's God saying you should do it, not God saying the Government must do it for you

 

[chaz345]

Leviticus 23:22
“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.’”

Also all of Leviticus 25

Exodus 23:10-11
10 “For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what is left. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

Speaking to the individual though, not to the government.

 

[chris4243]

Um that's God saying you should do it, not God saying the Government must do it for you

Speaking to the individual though, not to the government.

And the government had the responsibility of executing those who didn't follow the law. These weren't "do this out of the goodness of your heart but if you don't the government won't do anything to you", these were laws.