Obama wants higher taxes: No deal for repubs.

Posted in the Gerber Forum

First Prev
of 48
Next Last
Local

Clearlake, CA

#1 Dec 21, 2012
Pres. Obama never had any intention of making a deal with house repubs., because he wants higher taxes, and he wants be able to blame the repubs. for not making a deal. Unfortunately for the repubs., the press is allowing obama to get away with not "dealing" in a sincere manner.
Obama wants a blank check going forward. The repubs. should not, and can not give obama a blank check. No deal.

Boehner Won't Get a Deal Because Obama Wants To Go Over the Cliff
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-rof...

Obama wants higher taxes and more spending. Boehner and the Republicans would prefer no tax hikes and lower spending. Right now the American people support the latter approach, according to most polling data, but are also backing the president. It doesn't make much sense, unless you consider what is missing from the story that most of the media are telling.
Local

Clearlake, CA

#2 Dec 21, 2012
Unfortunately, what obama wants is a lose/lose for America's middle class.
Higher taxes on everyone(over the cliff) means less money in the pockets of the middle class.
Any deal that inlcudes much higher taxes on the wealthy means higher unemployment....less jobs for the middle class.
Obama is in a win/win situation politically, but for middle America??? Not so much.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#3 Dec 21, 2012
Local wrote:
Unfortunately, what obama wants is a lose/lose for America's middle class.
Higher taxes on everyone(over the cliff) means less money in the pockets of the middle class.
Any deal that inlcudes much higher taxes on the wealthy means higher unemployment....less jobs for the middle class.
Obama is in a win/win situation politically, but for middle America??? Not so much.
Correct..........He knows that only the stupid and poor vote liberal.
Local

Clearlake, CA

#4 Dec 21, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct..........He knows that only the stupid and poor vote liberal.
It is amazing to me that the poor and middle class support him in such large numbers.
The middle class has been crushed over the last four years..........and yet, obama is still their hero?
Wow..........how stupid is that scenario.
I always thought that most people do not want a handout....they want a job. I guess things have changed.

As of now, I figured 5 more years of a bad economy. Facing four more years of obamanomics? We may never recover.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#5 Dec 21, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amazing to me that the poor and middle class support him in such large numbers.
The middle class has been crushed over the last four years..........and yet, obama is still their hero?
Wow..........how stupid is that scenario.
I always thought that most people do not want a handout....they want a job. I guess things have changed.
As of now, I figured 5 more years of a bad economy. Facing four more years of obamanomics? We may never recover.
I pray you are not right but you very well may be.....
Tea Party Solution

Oroville, CA

#6 Dec 21, 2012
Local wrote:
Any deal that inlcudes much higher taxes on the wealthy means higher unemployment....less jobs for the middle class.
Explain this, please, and in details not platitudes.
Here Is Oner

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#7 Dec 21, 2012
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>Explain this, please, and in details not platitudes.
The wealthy never pay taxes so any raise in taxes is paid by the consumers and workers
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#8 Dec 22, 2012
>
>
So how exactly is Romney going to pass higher capital gain taxes to the consumers when he sells some of his shares...???
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#9 Dec 22, 2012
>
>
At any rate, it is beginning to look like the T Publicans will end up raising taxes on everyone and running the economy into the ground in the process....LOL

I can't wait for the midterm elections....LMAO

Good by Bohener *

Good by Bohner

Hello Nancy

Hello Nancy

* sung to the tune of Hello Dolly

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#10 Dec 22, 2012
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
>
>
So how exactly is Romney going to pass higher capital gain taxes to the consumers when he sells some of his shares...???
Yes you are so stupid that you don't understand that he will no longer buy shares of stock if taxes eat up the profit

So the company selling the shares that he buys will raise the price of what they sell to increase the price of their shares and make up for the loss in taxes

Now do you understand village liar?

If not ask a 5 year old to explain it to you
Local

Clearlake, CA

#11 Dec 22, 2012
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain this, please, and in details not platitudes.
most small business operate on a slim profit margin. If government takes a larger share of profit, the business will have to cut back on expenses (employee compensation costs) to make up the difference.....or....raise prices. Either of those two options hurt the middle class(i.e. job creation or higher costs of goods).
Most large corporatons also operate on a small profit margin, but on a very large scale. Corporations are also obligated to return a profit(dividends) to their shareholders. If government takes a larger share of profit, corporations will have to find a way to continue to provide a return for shareholders. They will either cut costs(employee compensation), or raise their prices. Again, the middle class loses.

Unlike government, business operates in order to make a profit, and/or provide investment returns to shareholders. When government becomes to greedy in regard to taxation, businesses MUST react, or they will cease to exist.
Why would anyone risk investment in business(job creation) when most of the proceeds end up in the hands of greedy overspending government?
The cards are currently stacked against the success of ANY business.
Raising taxes on these businesses only makes matters worse.

Where is it written that the job of government is to milk every last dollar out of the economy wherever it can?
It is becoming painfully clear that our government, in its zeal to grab dollars away from our economy, has become a drag on the economy. It is also obvious that if the intent of government is to manage the ebb and flow of business, they are not very good at it.
The evidence is clear. Government has grown at an unsustainable rate, and at the same time, business is contracting in order to survive.


GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#12 Dec 22, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you are so stupid that you don't understand that he will no longer buy shares of stock if taxes eat up the profit
So the company selling the shares that he buys will raise the price of what they sell to increase the price of their shares and make up for the loss in taxes
Now do you understand village liar?
If not ask a 5 year old to explain it to you
>
>
Get outta here!!!

First off, the company sells it's shares once during the initial offering... after that the stocks are traded by the shareholders or investors.... the company might repurchase some of those shares if the management thinks they are way undervalued....

Second, if Romney dumps a large blocks of shares the price of the shares will go down anyways....

And no company run by intelligent management will increase the cost of their products just to increase the price of their shares , especially in competitive markets....LOL

Lastly, if Romney won't buy the shares of a good company there are plenty of other investors who will..

Check with your 5year olds....ROTFLMAO

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#13 Dec 22, 2012
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
>
>
At any rate, it is beginning to look like the T Publicans will end up raising taxes on everyone and running the economy into the ground in the process....LOL
You have stated previously many times that higher taxes improve the economy. Now you are stating that higher taxes will run the economy into the ground. I know you try but you can't have it both ways.

Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#14 Dec 22, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
most small business operate on a slim profit margin. If government takes a larger share of profit, the business will have to cut back on expenses (employee compensation costs) to make up the difference.....or....raise prices. Either of those two options hurt the middle class(i.e. job creation or higher costs of goods).
First a small business is doing well if it's making 250K a year (or 400K a year, as Obama recently offered). Such a business owner is in the top 2% of income earners.

You've shown a lack of knowledge before about how tax brackets work. Remember, EVERYONE pays the same rate on the first 250K or 400K, and only pay higher percentages on the money above that.

And, a business owner pays taxes on his net income, AFTER deducting all business expenses such as labor costs.

And then you repeat your platitude that raising taxes hurts the economy, the middle class, and job creation.

This is a DIS-PROVED THEORY. It's repeated endlessly in the right-wing bubble as though it's a god-given fact. But history shows that it's wrong.

The '50's and 60's imposed a very high tax on the top income earners-- and our economy thrived for EVERYONE. The fifties had a top rate of 90%, AND it featured huge stimulus programs such as the GI Bill, and massive freeway construction. You may want to hide from these facts, but they don't disappear because your eyes are closed.

The Bush tax cuts, on the other hand, didn't help create jobs-- we had one of the slowest job growths in 60 years.

And our deficit balloned under Bush, even before his financial meltdown.

In fact, the repub administrations over the last 30 years were the ones responsible for ballooning our debt, causing huge income disparity, and finally collapsing our economy.

Clinton left Bush a SURPLUS. The one democratic administration in the last 30 years is the only one which whittled down our debt. And it included higher taxes.

The righties just can't accept these facts. Instead you just keep repeating the same lies.

Local

Clearlake, CA

#15 Dec 22, 2012
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
First a small business is doing well if it's making 250K a year (or 400K a year, as Obama recently offered). Such a business owner is in the top 2% of income earners.
You are like that ole socialist bastard that holds on to an false premise like a tic on a hound.
My simplification of a tax issue was done in order to make a point, just as I will make this point:
taking more money away from employers will hinder their ability to expand(create jobs).
You can slice and dice it anyway you like, that is a fact of life.
You constantly biyatch that it is the governments JOB to take money away from those who prosper.
Where is it written that government should be required to milk every last dime out of the economy?
Unless you haven't noticed, our government has proven itself to be totally incompetent in managing(or directing) our economic condition.
and yet, you want to reward the incompetency with........wait for it........here it comes.........yup, we guessed it....more taxation and revenue.
You are showing a total lack of understanding of logic and reality.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#16 Dec 22, 2012
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
You have stated previously many times that higher taxes improve the economy. Now you are stating that higher taxes will run the economy into the ground. I know you try but you can't have it both ways.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =6edLRwTTxRAXX
You see, Sam, it's all relative. It's not black or white.

Right now, because of the financial squeeze most of the poor and middle class are experiencing, raising taxes on them would not help our economy. This is because most of those who are poor or in the middle class NEED all of their income to pay the mortgage, the car, pay for food and other necessities, pay education costs for their kids, and so on.

They SPEND about all of the money they earn, which helps the economy. Their spending keeps other people employed.

On the other hand, raising the taxes on these groups would dampen their spending, because they would have to cut back on eating out, going to the movies, or buying a new car. And businesses would begin laying off people, or shutting down completely. These people would now be out of work, which causes even less spending, and then causes more businesses to shut down.

Do you understand how this downward spiral works yet?

And this downward spiral would also cause poor families to become even poorer. Just like the Walmart employees of today, these people would now have to get government assistance in order to survive. This causes more debt for all of us--you know, the government.

And then, if the righties got their way, the government would stop funding these people, essentially putting them into the streets. Then what happens? Think about it.

Regarding raising taxes to Clinton levels on the top 2%. Millionaires and billionaires don't spend all of their income. Most of their money is saved, often in tax free havens overseas. Or, if they're part of corporations, they may build factories overseas, where they need only pay their workers $10 a day. This is not helping our country.

The super-rich will not be hurt by increasing their top tax rates by 3%, and this extra revenue can be used to help our economy. It can help stop the downward spiral. We need an upward spiral, because at the end of a downward spiral is complete economic collapse.
Local

Clearlake, CA

#17 Dec 22, 2012
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton left Bush a SURPLUS. The one democratic administration in the last 30 years is the only one which whittled down our debt. And it included higher taxes.
The righties just can't accept these facts. Instead you just keep repeating the same lies.
The lefties can't seem to accept facts either.
It was Clinton spending cuts(with the repub. congress insistance) that created the surpluses. Absent "the contract with America..(Newt and the repubs.), Clinton never would have had surpluses.
"By the end of Clinton's second term, federal spending was at its lowest level since 1966 as a fraction of GDP"

"For those who say "austerity" does not work, look at the U.S. after Ronald Reagan cut tax rates. In 1983 the federal government spent 23.5% of GDP. By 2000 it was spending only 18.2%. That is like a 235-pound man going on a diet and losing 53 pounds. It was significant. It was real. And it lasted."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/a_bala...
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Educate yourself:

A Balanced Approach: Tax like Bush, Spend like Clinton

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/a_bala...
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#18 Dec 22, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
My simplification of a tax issue was done in order to make a point, just as I will make this point:
taking more money away from employers will hinder their ability to expand(create jobs).
You can slice and dice it anyway you like, that is a fact of life.
No, it's not a 'fact of life'. Again, this is a DIS-PROVED THEORY. If you were right, why were the '50's and '60's, with their high tax rates, one of our most prosperous eras? And why did the Bush era, with its reduced tax rates, give us so few jobs?
Local wrote:
<Where is it written that government should be required to milk every last dime out of the economy?
Our tax rates are the lowest in generations.
Local wrote:
<Unless you haven't noticed, our government has proven itself to be totally incompetent in managing(or directing) our economic condition.
Yes, I've seen what the tea partiers in the House have done to our government.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#19 Dec 22, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
It was Clinton spending cuts(with the repub. congress insistance) that created the surpluses. Absent "the contract with America..(Newt and the repubs.), Clinton never would have had surpluses.
"By the end of Clinton's second term, federal spending was at its lowest level since 1966 as a fraction of GDP"
I don't have time now to research how much Clinton cut spending, but that fact shows that dems do not make a religion of being against spending cuts WHEN it will help. Repubs, of course, make it a religion to NEVER raise taxes.

BTW, Obama agreed to a trillion in spending cuts last year, with NO tax increases. And he's agreed to over a trillion more in cuts this year.
Local wrote:
<"For those who say "austerity" does not work, look at the U.S. after Ronald Reagan cut tax rates. In 1983 the federal government spent 23.5% of GDP. By 2000 it was spending only 18.2%. That is like a 235-pound man going on a diet and losing 53 pounds. It was significant. It was real. And it lasted."
St. Reagan also raised taxes, many times. That's why he wouldn't have a chance as a repub these days.

Also, the debt ballooned under Reagan. If that's austerity it didn't work.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Colima, Mexico

#20 Dec 22, 2012
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>>
>
Get outta here!!!

First off, the company sells it's shares once during the initial offering... after that the stocks are traded by the shareholders or investors.... the company might repurchase some of those shares if the management thinks they are way undervalued....

Second, if Romney dumps a large blocks of shares the price of the shares will go down anyways....

And no company run by intelligent management will increase the cost of their products just to increase the price of their shares , especially in competitive markets....LOL

Lastly, if Romney won't buy the shares of a good company there are plenty of other investors who will..

Check with your 5year olds....ROTFLMAO
Can you tell us what your childish rant has to do with someone not investing in the USA but instead investing outside the USA as taxes eat up the profit if morons raise them?????

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 48
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gerber Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 52 min JOEL 71,263
Gruber - Gate the demise of oblamercare 1 hr nice job libtards 99
what is a floodgate for methhead 1 hr nice job libtards 8
N. Korea says Obama looks like a Monkey 1 hr if the shoe fits 1
Moron here is one thinks Coyote Dam/Lake Mendo ... 4 hr SalmoTrutta 15
Dish dumps faux 15 hr Babcock 17
Aren't Obama & Liberals the Real Racist 17 hr Ultraman 25
Gerber Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Gerber People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Gerber News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Gerber

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:57 am PST