Obama Keeping Bush Tax Cuts?

@rodney850 (2145)
United States
July 9, 2012 7:25am CST
The article at the link below addresses just how clueless our president really is or it speaks volumes as to how stupid he believes the American people are. Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts to households making less than 250k. Now this all sounds great until you look at the big picture and realize that over 90% of all taxes are paid by the top 1% of the taxpayers. So what this adds up to is exactly what economists say would be devastating to a recovering economy and that is a tax increase, no matter what sector is the victim. It's really beyond my comprehension that anyone could vote for this idiot for a second term. http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/obama-push-extension-middle-class-tax-cuts-092533347--finance.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US
2 responses
• United States
9 Jul 12
Rodney, the problem with your logic is that both Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton did the same exact thing, and they both had watched over economic growth. How many jobs has the Bush tax cuts created? When Bush left office he created 1 million net jobs. Of which were gone within three months of him leaving office. We have had 11 years of tax cuts, and the economy isn't getting better. Should we continue to cut taxes till the government takes in no money, and see where that gets us?
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
9 Jul 12
The problem as I see it is that we are adding daily to the roles of people who get supported for little or no return. We cannot sustain the outgo and continue to place the majority of the burden on the rich and yes, they DO pay most of the taxes, because that's the way the system works. They also create almost ALL of the jobs and if they ever decide that being proactive and creating thriving businesses is just not worth the consequences then you will see what real unemployment numbers look like. America and her leaders can't continue to reward nonproducers and slothfull people and I don't mean the ones who can't work, rather the ones who choose not to and play the system for all it's worth. That is what's unsustainable!What the Bush tax cuts created, Barney Franks and the freddie/frannie debaucle took away and then some. The housing bubble that burst cannot be attributed to GW rather to Clinton and his libs who wanted EVERYONE to be able to buy a home whether they could afford it or qualify for it or not. I am not saying the republicans are blameless but they have been in control far far less than the liberal democrats and have done much less damage.
• United States
9 Jul 12
Have you ever met the boggy man that is the "slothfull people" you refer to? Have you ever met someone who is this infamous "nonproducer" that all these right wingers use as examples of what is wrong with this country? I might have met one or two, but that's less than a fraction of a fraction of the good hard working people I have met, and meet everyday. "!What the Bush tax cuts created, Barney Franks and the freddie/frannie debaucle took away and then some." What drove the economy during the Bush years was the housing industry, and people using their houses like ATM's. That is like saying that Clinton's economy was destroyed by the .com bubble, when that is what built it. "The housing bubble that burst cannot be attributed to GW rather to Clinton and his libs who wanted EVERYONE to be able to buy a home whether they could afford it or qualify for it or not." LMFAO, Bush had two years where he controlled the entire government, and did NOTHING to stop this, and told the country about the housing bubble in 2006. Yet he also continued to taught how his administration helped people get into houses. How you justify Bush claiming his administration help millions of Americans to buy a house, but then blame Clinton for the housing market to collapse. The reason these mortgages destroyed the economy was because the banks took the majority of the loans off of their books, and onto AIG's back. Once AIG looked shaky, the whole economy was on the verge total economic collapse. You want to blame Freddie, and Fannie, but you should be blaming these unlicensed mortgage dealers, and AIG. It wasn't just libs that wanted everyone to buy houses, Bush and his republican friends did to!!! "I am not saying the republicans are blameless but they have been in control far far less than the liberal democrats and have done much less damage." Do you remember 2008? The economy lost 700,000 JOBS IN ONE MONTH!!!!! The banking sector was in such bad shape that they had to bail out EVERY bank so NO ONE knew which ones were on the verge of collapse, and they wouldn't make a run on them. You might want to research the end of 2008 and see how close this country came to complete economic destruction. Do some research and you will understand how bad it really was. By the way in the last 32 years we have had 20 years of republican presidents and 12 of democrats. You do the math!!!
• United States
10 Jul 12
And One President who spent more than all of the combined. Yes, I am talking about President Obama. I did the math. On average, the Democrats come out on top for spending even with Bill Clinton. He is also the only President still campaigning on tax increases. I know you don't like the Bush tax cuts. But there is a reason why it is an all or nothing deal. They will likely stay due to one very good reason, to protect what little growth the economy is currently experiencing. Most economists on both sides agree that this could potentially put us into another recession with very little pay-off in return. In other words, its total effect on the debt would be negligible. There is also another very big tax raise in the future with the health care bill. That means two big whopping tax raises in just one year for the middle class.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
9 Jul 12
The President is totally clueless to economics. He promised us that unemployment would not rise above 8% if we pumped almost a Trillion Dollars into the economy. He was almost right unemployment has not be below 8% during his term in office. He even said the shovel ready jobs were not there. Where did the money go most of it went to state and local governments so they did not have to cut expenses. Many of the shovel ready jobs that were funded were done a year ahead so that next year there were no projects. What I don't understand is peoples lack of understanding who is backing him. He holds $50,000 a plate fundraisers with the very wealthy and they are paying it only to be told thay are the bad guys and need to be taxed more. President Reagan gave the example that taxing the very rich does not make sense because as an actor he could make enough money to live comfortably by making 5 movies a year. At that point the top tax rate was 90%. If he made more than 5 movies a years 90% of the money he made went to the government. So he made the decision not to make more than 5 movies a year. What happened was the support people who help make the movies don't work. That what happens when you tax the rich. The rich do not mind paying taxes but it is an economic decision. If you are going to pay most of what you earn to the government what is the point in working. The same thing goes for investing (Capital Gains and Dividends) if I risk $10,000 in different businesses and lose all the money I can claim a loss of is about $3,000, but if I make $10,000 the government takes a percent of your profits. You have already paid taxes on the money you invested and the companies will pay taxes on the money they pay in dividends and then you will pay a tax on that money again.
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
9 Jul 12
I agree totally! We cannot continue to put most of the burden on the people who create the jobs because if they ever balk we're finished as a free country.