A promise? - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

basswipe · 01-05-2013, 08:09 AM

"I will not raise taxes on lower and middle class Americans!That is my promise."
-Barack Obama.

Effective 1/1/2013 all working Americans were hit with a 2% tax increase.Social Security went from 4.2% to 6.2%.

Obama guys get your "spin" going!

justplugit · 01-05-2013, 08:32 AM

Yes, the great pretender, stay tuned, more to come.
How are those paycheck stubs looking supporters, doing your
fair share yet.

JohnR · 01-05-2013, 08:58 AM

They let the S.S. Tax Holiday pass so we are now back up to where we were 3 years or so ago. Didn't hear either party mention it. But your checks will be a little smaller

buckman · 01-05-2013, 08:59 AM

Add the increased cost of my health insurance and this fraud is costing me a lot of money !!
Now they are trying to figure out how to tax green cars by the mile. Seems the Feds lose to much gas tax revenue. I find this funny as hell .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence · 01-05-2013, 09:21 AM

The 2% reduction in payroll taxes (passed under Obama mind you ) was always intended to be a temporary stimulus measure.

To claim this is a broken promise is pretty silly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw · 01-05-2013, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

The 2% reduction in payroll taxes (passed under Obama mind you ) was always intended to be a temporary stimulus measure.

To claim this is a broken promise is pretty silly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think they called it a "tax holiday"

talk about silly....think of it as another of Obama's gifts from his bottomless bag of gifts, like most Obama gifts(promises)...the have an expiration date

basswipe · 01-05-2013, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

The 2% reduction in payroll taxes (passed under Obama mind you ) was always intended to be a temporary stimulus measure.

To claim this is a broken promise is pretty silly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Calling any tax increase temporary is silly.A promise is a promise plain and simple.The man said he wouldn't raise taxes and he did,temporary or not,and that my friend constitutes a broken promise.

Expected much better spin from you.

Nebe · 01-05-2013, 10:41 AM

Did you guys hear about the "magic coin" that the reserve is going to mint out of platinum worth 1 billion dollars? Pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch · 01-05-2013, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebe

Did you guys hear about the "magic coin" that the reserve is going to mint out of platinum worth 1 billion dollars? Pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it is supposed to be valued at 1TRILLION dollars. And I think it is supposed to be minted by the treasury, not the reserve, so the gvt. can deposit into the reserve to help pay off debt. Hey, just mint 16 of them, the debt is payed, voila. Except, of course, there is nothing to back up the value of the coins.

Nebe · 01-05-2013, 10:50 AM

Yes. Exactly. I haven't had my coffee yet

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence · 01-05-2013, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basswipe

Calling any tax increase temporary is silly.A promise is a promise plain and simple.The man said he wouldn't raise taxes and he did,temporary or not,and that my friend constitutes a broken promise.

Expected much better spin from you.

It was a tax "decrease" and yes it was always intended to be a temp measure.

-spence

sburnsey931 · 01-05-2013, 03:27 PM

All of the so called Bush tax cuts were temporary also. They were never "intended" to be permanent either. The President had to extend the during his first term. They were made permanent at the insistance of the President and the Democratic Party. They chose to not include the SS 2% in the legislation. They chose to let it expire and raised everyones SS payroll tax from 4.2% to 6.2%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

basswipe · 01-05-2013, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

It was a tax "decrease" and yes it was always intended to be a temp measure.

-spence

You just made my point.And the funny thing is you don't even realize it.Gotta spin it better than that!

basswipe · 01-05-2013, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

All of the so called Bush tax cuts were temporary also. They were never "intended" to be permanent either. The President had to extend the during his first term. They were made permanent at the insistance of the President and the Democratic Party. They chose to not include the SS 2% in the legislation. They chose to let it expire and raised everyones SS payroll tax from 4.2% to 6.2%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And why would the President and his party do this?Ask yourself that.

Btw you re-enforce my point.Your statement:"They chose to not include the SS 2% in the legislation. They chose to let it expire and raised everyones SS payroll tax from 4.2% to 6.2%."

To all reading notice sburnsey used these words:raised everyones SS payroll tax.

detbuch · 01-05-2013, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

All of the so called Bush tax cuts were temporary also. They were never "intended" to be permanent either. The President had to extend the during his first term. They were made permanent at the insistance of the President and the Democratic Party. They chose to not include the SS 2% in the legislation. They chose to let it expire and raised everyones SS payroll tax from 4.2% to 6.2%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bush and the Republicans wanted his tax cuts to be permanent, they had to agree to the Democrats' insistence on a sunset expiration in order to get them passed. Giving Obama and the Democrat Party credit for making them permanent is a twist. It wasn't as if Republicans opposed Obama and the Democrats allowing them to be extended during his first term--the Republicans were absolutely in favor of extending them. They were the ones who originally created them and wanted them originally to be permanent, against the wishes of the Democrats. That the Democrats agreed to extend them testifies to how important the tax cuts were to prevent economic decline, and makes apparent the lie that they were the cause of the recession.

spence · 01-05-2013, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

Bush and the Republicans wanted his tax cuts to be permanent, they had to agree to the Democrats' insistence on a sunset expiration in order to get them passed. Giving Obama and the Democrat Party credit for making them permanent is a twist. It wasn't as if Republicans opposed Obama and the Democrats allowing them to be extended during his first term--the Republicans were absolutely in favor of extending them. They were the ones who originally created them and wanted them originally to be permanent, against the wishes of the Democrats. That the Democrats agreed to extend them testifies to how important the tax cuts were to prevent economic decline, and makes apparent the lie that they were the cause of the recession.

The reason for the 10 year sunset was to keep the net cost projection artificially low in an effort to gain support...that's the white elephant in the room...the Bush tax cuts were with borrowed money in an effort to create long-term growth. Instead we got two wars and a credit bubble.

-spence

detbuch · 01-05-2013, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

The reason for the 10 year sunset was to keep the net cost projection artificially low in an effort to gain support...that's the white elephant in the room...the Bush tax cuts were with borrowed money in an effort to create long-term growth. Instead we got two wars and a credit bubble.

-spence

Right, "in an effort to gain support." The Democrats were vehemently opposed to the tax cuts. They have apparently changed their minds. The Repubs, in spite of the sunset provision wanted the cuts to be permanent and avoided the "Byrd rule" by sunsetting them. They assumed that nobody would have the courage to let them expire when the sunset provision came due. It appears they were right. But politics, being the game that it is, allows the Dems to get "credit" for making them permanent on 99.4% of the tax paying public. But those are the ones who pay the bulk of the taxes, so the revenue impact by raising the taxes on the "rich" is insignificant. But it makes the Dems look like Robin Hood in the eyes of the half-blind public.

But wow, Spence. Are we blaming the "two wars and a credit bubble" on the Bush tax cuts? If the cuts were responsible for those events, what horrors can we expect now that they have been made permanent?

saltfly · 01-05-2013, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

The 2% reduction in payroll taxes (passed under Obama mind you ) was always intended to be a temporary stimulus measure.

To claim this is a broken promise is pretty silly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A Temporary Stimulus Measure????????????????? Ya Right.

spence · 01-05-2013, 06:39 PM

If there was bi-partisan confidence the Bush tax cuts would have worked the Byrd rule wouldn't have been a factor. The simple fact is the Republicans didn't have enough votes and had to compromise on a bill that they could pass with a simple majority...because many people don't believe in magic tax cut fairy dust.

As for the wars and credit bubble...that's the variability that proves tax cuts alone don't work.

-spence

detbuch · 01-05-2013, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

If there was bi-partisan confidence the Bush tax cuts would have worked the Byrd rule wouldn't have been a factor. The simple fact is the Republicans didn't have enough votes and had to compromise on a bill that they could pass with a simple majority...because many people don't believe in magic tax cut fairy dust.

As for the wars and credit bubble...that's the variability that proves tax cuts alone don't work.

-spence

Right, the Dems were vehemently opposed to the tax cuts and the Repubs had to do what they could to get them passed. And so the magic tax cut fairy dust is now also believed in by the Dems.

That tax cuts alone don't work, does not mean they don't help. Which is why, I guess, the Dems want to continue the fairy dust. Now, what everybody seems to agree on, seems being the operative word, is that spending cuts would be another policy that would add to tax cuts so that they "alone" won't have to do all the work. Interesting to see if that actually transpires, and if so, if there will be meaningful cuts, or just smoke and mirror, magic spending cut fairy dust.

scottw · 01-06-2013, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

But wow, Spence. Are we blaming the "two wars and a credit bubble" on the Bush tax cuts? If the cuts were responsible for those events, what horrors can we expect now that they have been made permanent?

that was a beauty wasn't it?...yikes.....

I don't think anyone has suggested that tax cuts alone "do" work ...except for Spence setting up yet another straw man...beyond meaningful spending reductions which are almost always included in discussions of tax cuts but are seldom included in the final conclusion except as down the road intentions, tax cuts are the last and probably best way to starve the beast and to try to keep money in the private sector where it can grow the economy rather than growing the governement bureaucracy....

spence · 01-06-2013, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

Right, the Dems were vehemently opposed to the tax cuts and the Repubs had to do what they could to get them passed. And so the magic tax cut fairy dust is now also believed in by the Dems.

Tax cuts impact different people in different ways. You're generalizing...

Quote:

That tax cuts alone don't work, does not mean they don't help. Which is why, I guess, the Dems want to continue the fairy dust.

Do tax cuts always help? For top earners the Bush tax cuts had a significant negative impact on deficit spending and yet didn't seem to drive economic expansion nearly as much as cheap credit.

Quote:

Now, what everybody seems to agree on, seems being the operative word, is that spending cuts would be another policy that would add to tax cuts so that they "alone" won't have to do all the work. Interesting to see if that actually transpires, and if so, if there will be meaningful cuts, or just smoke and mirror, magic spending cut fairy dust.

I think we'll get some movement this year but I'm not sure either side right now is honest about significant spending cuts...even many in the GOP.

-spence

detbuch · 01-06-2013, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

Tax cuts impact different people in different ways. You're generalizing...

I checked what I said--it seemed rather specific. Your response, on the other hand was rather vague . . . one might say "you're generalizing . . ."

Do tax cuts always help?

Do they? Or is this just a general question? Is there anything that "always" helps? Depends on a whole lot of specifics (and opinions). Rather vague . . .

For top earners the Bush tax cuts had a significant negative impact on deficit spending and yet didn't seem to drive economic expansion nearly as much as cheap credit.

I would hope that tax cuts WOULD have a significant negative impact on deficit spending. The less deficit spending the better. Isn't it peculiar that the more "revenue" the government gets, the more it deficit spends. Kind of a goofy Keynesian relationship.

The cheap credit is still hanging around but doesn't seem to be driving much economic expansion. Maybe its just not having a significant negative impact on the increasing deficit spending.

Maybe deficit spending kind of has a life of its own, or of politician's preference, rather than necessarily having a connection to revenue or credit.

I think we'll get some movement this year but I'm not sure either side right now is honest about significant spending cuts...even many in the GOP.

-spence

Isn't it amazing how we can repeatedly say "even many in the GOP" yet it is the other's in the GOP, like tea partiers or "conservatives," that are marginalized and painted as kooks? It is true, I think, that many in the GOP are not much different than Dems. But they're supposed to be the good ones. So we keep getting deeper in debt, but happily so since the good guys are winning.

Jim in CT · 01-06-2013, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

But wow, Spence. Are we blaming the "two wars and a credit bubble" on the Bush tax cuts? If the cuts were responsible for those events, what horrors can we expect now that they have been made permanent?

Well played, sir. And I see that as usual, Spence chose to ignore this, and he refused to address your obviously salient point.

Log on, lob a few insults, log off and hide.

Those tax cuts are now the "Obama tax cuts".

sburnsey931 · 01-06-2013, 08:24 PM

Because it's really about 2014 midterm elections the bush tax cuts had expired and technically the vote was to cut taxes for 98% of the workers. Now the Republicans can say they didn't vote to raise taxes and should force significant spending cuts and then I think the midterms would be better for them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jackbass · 01-07-2013, 07:31 AM

As long as his supporters can rationalize his broken PROMISES!!! This argument is broken. On both sides of the aisle
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

RIJIMMY · 01-07-2013, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basswipe

You just made my point.And the funny thing is you don't even realize it.Gotta spin it better than that!

Im no Obama supporter but math is math.
I have to agree with Spence here, middle class taxes did not increase under Obama. The break on payroll tax was put in under Obama as a stimulus and it expired. If you believe it is a spin - look at your % before Obama took office and look at it now. Its exactly the same. No spin here its the exact same %

RIROCKHOUND · 01-07-2013, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I have to agree with Spence here, middle class taxes did not increase under Obama. The break on payroll tax was put in under Obama as a stimulus and it expired. If you believe it is a spin - look at your % before Obama took office and look at it now. Its exactly the same. No spin here.

Stop being reasonable. It has no place in this forum!