Should Obama Extend Obama's Tax Cuts ?

**Detroitej72** · November-14-10, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Bailout loans are turning a profit? Why don't they offer me one? The banks sure as f*#k won't.

You can thank the cons, who control the banks and big business, as well as their tools in congress for that.

Wall Street, and the ruling oligarchy control the world's wealth, and periodically give the peasants some scraps to make them feel as if they are getting something.

That is what gets the sheep to the polls every few years.

**oladub** · November-14-10, 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Quick history lesion, free of charge!

AMC was bought outright, by the Chrysler Corporation, and had never gone out of business. I guess your right wing source's failed to teach you that.

The Hudson Motor Car Company merged with Nash-Kelvinator Corporation to form American Motors Corporation, later bought out by Chrysler.

When Chrysler was given a government loan in the late 70's, it was saved from collapsing, and re-payed the loans back earlier than expected, with interest[[thus giving the government a hefty return on investment).

Now, GM and Chrysler are poised to do the same, while preserving thousands of jobs, and all cons do is whine because the conservative media tells them to!

You are making my point that things often work out without federal giveaways to foreign countries. The federal government didn't do much to rescue Hudson and American Motors. These failing companies, save AMC's Jeep division, went out of business and their useful parts were taken over by private buyers. The recent Chrysler and GM interventions by the federal government also resulted in Fiat taking a 35% stake in Chrysler and a Chinese government owned company expected to take a 1% stake in GM. The Fiat involvement with Chrysler might be increased to a 55% foreign ownership of Chrysler. The Chrysler deal is on a par with Cash for Clunkers for using US taxpayer money for the benefit of foreign companies.

my 'right wing sources' citing change

Fiat Acquires 35% Stake in Chrysler [[NY Times)

GM sold it's Saginaw based steering division to a Chinese government owned company. Another Chinese company is buying part of Delphi.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...012417524.html Chinese

Company May Buy Stake in GM - truthdig

You can thank the cons, who control the banks and big business, as well as their tools in congress for that.

Wall Street, and the ruling oligarchy control the world's wealth, and periodically give the peasants some scraps to make them feel as if they are getting something.

It would probably be more correct to say that the ruling oligarchy control the leaderships of both parties. Obama and McCain both left the campaign trail to lobby their peers to support Bush's Wall Street bailout. Last Christmas Eve, President Obama , not a con, transferred his banker friends' debt to US taxpayers by executive order; not that Bush wouldn't have done the same.

**Zacha341** · November-14-10, 04:44 AM

Well stated... the difference between the dems and repubs in terms of behavior and policy making is often very superficial.

Originally Posted by oladub

It would probably be more correct to say that the ruling oligarchy control the leaderships of both parties. Obama and McCain both left the campaign trail to lobby their peers to support Bush's Wall Street bailout. Last Christmas Eve, President Obama , not a con, transferred his banker friends' debt to US taxpayers by executive order; not that Bush wouldn't have done the same.

**Jimaz** · November-20-10, 02:53 PM

Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength

gdogslim · November-20-10, 03:18 PM

So Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes [[because the RICH will pass on costs)
the RICH [[a business or person that grosses over 250,000) won't hire as many people in this derpression the US is in.

Wall Street bankers are the largest beneficiaries of Obama's handouts and Obama's cronies took over some of the banks with OUR tax money.

The problem is spending is out of control, and Obama is addicted to spending others money.

**jerrytimes** · November-21-10, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Just by saving GM and Chrysler, the president took a bold step and saved thousands, perhaps half a million jobs. Now, he should stand up and take credit for stopping the unemployment rate from skyrocketing even further.

Give me a break.

**jerrytimes** · November-21-10, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

If blowing a massive hole in the budget to give a handout to rich people doesn't count as out-of-control spending, then I don't know what does.

A handout to rich people. How does cutting a companies or an individuals taxes count as a handout? It's their money to begin with, not the governments.

**firstandten** · November-21-10, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by gdogslim

So Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes [[because the RICH will pass on costs)
the RICH [[a business or person that grosses over 250,000) won't hire as many people in this derpression the US is in..

I know you don't care for our president and I get that, but at least get your facts straight otherwise one might think you are trying to re-write history. First he doesn't want to raise everyones taxes. There are plenty of people who make more than 250 k[[trust fund babies for one) who are not capable of passing their costs to the middle class. That is a real reach of an assumption you are making. High marginal tax rates acts as an incentive for companies to re-invest in their businesses rather than take that money out and get taxed on it.

Originally Posted by gdogslim

Wall Street bankers are the largest beneficiaries of Obama's handouts and Obama's cronies took over some of the banks with OUR tax money..

I think the handouts to the wall street bankers were the Bush handouts

Originally Posted by gdogslim

The problem is spending is out of control, and Obama is addicted to spending others money.

The real problem is our economy is broken thru decades of policies that negatively affect demand

If you want to say Obama is addicted to spending others money, how about saying Bush spent like he had a giant Visa card yet when the bills came due there was no money [[ two wars, NCLB among others)

**Bobl** · November-21-10, 03:34 PM

"Yes", he said, "all of the stimulus was a waste of money and did not work. Look at the unemployment rate!"
"Yes", he said, "We must keep the Bush tax cuts, to improve the economy."
"How does the unemployment rate under the tax cuts differ from that of the rate under the stimulus?", I asked.
He shook his head, and walked away.

**maxx** · November-22-10, 09:55 AM

gdog: Obama not only did NOT save 1 job, .

Your source?

firstandten: If you want to say Obama is addicted to spending others money, how about saying Bush spent like he had a giant Visa card yet when the bills came due there was no money [[ two wars, NCLB among others)

W was just following Grover Norquist's advice for destroying gov. Norquist - the great anarchist. lol

oladub: whatever taxpayer aid was provided to GM and Chrysler is now unavailable for health care, building infrastructure, or whatever else the federal government would otherwise spend money on.

The same could be said for the billions spent on W's war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthiest top 1%.

**oladub** · November-22-10, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by maxx

oladub: whatever taxpayer aid was provided to GM and Chrysler is now unavailable for health care, building infrastructure, or whatever else the federal government would otherwise spend money on.

The same could be said for the billions spent on W's war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthiest top 1%.

True. The same could also be said for the ongoing war and bush tax cuts which are still in effect after two years of Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency. The point remains that the same money cannot be spent on two things. Announcing that money spent helping bankers, GM, wars or whatever has improved those entities is a statement that those things were the spending priority since that same taxpayer money, borrowed Chinese money, or the Fed's helpful printing press money could have alternatively been used for something else.

**maxx** · November-22-10, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Announcing that money spent helping bankers, GM, wars or whatever has improved those entities is a statement that those things were the spending priority ....

Saving the economy was the priority, something which the Republicans didn't appear to be concerned about. Neocons are the apostles of Grover Norquist who believes in destroying gov.

**oladub** · November-22-10, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

Saving the economy was the priority, something which the Republicans didn't appear to be concerned about. Neocons are the apostles of Grover Norquist who believes in destroying gov.

Saving the economy? Since your Savior in Chief came to power unemployment has risen from 5.5% to 9.6%. That is a 68% increase in official unemployment. Foreclosures continue to climb, retirees and others who depend on savings account interest are out of luck, inflation is increasing, war spending goes on, jobs keep leaving the country, my health insurance costs increased, the dollar has lost 10% of it's spending power internationally since July, and the trillion$ of additional national debt have indebted and dashed our childrens' futures. I'm not saying that your Savior in Chief isn't trying but I'm not enough of a masochist to say,' thank you master, things are better now.' If that is 'saving the economy', I wish He wouldn't try so hard. Harding did much better turning a worse economy around in 1921 by doing almost nothing which succeeded in getting debts liquidated. After two years, unemployment went from 11.1% to 3.8% under Harding compared with going from 5.7% to 9.6% under Obama. Under Obama, the debts are yet to be liquidated. He only shifted them to taxpayers.

Obamaworld: Nuns get groped while the Federal Reserve is protected from transparency.

**maxx** · November-24-10, 04:50 PM

You can't be so naive as to believe that we can just turn off a war we've started without any concern for the outcome. Or that the U.S. economy, which was sliding into depression according to Hank Paulson and which had undergone an enormous structural change with the loss of manufacturing , could just be turned around in a couple years. Here's our unemployment rate history:
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.a...h_Group_Id=402

There are 15 million unemployed and 50 million without health insurance, but the Republicans do't think health care is a big issue. They want to return us to the system during W's admin. when premiums were growing and people who had managed to continue paying the insurance crooks were getting shafted when they got sick. Republican family values: My family is doing fine. Screw everyone else's.

**oladub** · November-24-10, 05:52 PM

maxx:

"You can't be so naive as to believe that we can just turn off a war we've started without any concern for the outcome. Or that the U.S. economy, which was sliding into depression according to Hank Paulson and which had undergone an enormous structural change with the loss of manufacturing , could just be turned around in a couple years. Here's our unemployment rate history:
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.a...h_Group_Id=402"

I provided one example which you must have missed. I did go through your data. Unemployment went down an average of 46% 24 months after each peak. The recent peak was October 2009 under Obama. Two years are not up from that peak but if unemployment doesn't get down to 5.5% by October, 2011, then the Obama recovery hasn't equaled average recoveries. So far, unemployment has gone from 5.7% when Bush left office to 9.6% last month. Also, the Obama Administration told us that if it didn't get it's porkulus package, unemployment would exceed 8.5%. System failure.

There are 15 million unemployed and 50 million without health insurance, but the Republicans do't think health care is a big issue. They want to return us to the system during W's admin. when premiums were growing and people who had managed to continue paying the insurance crooks were getting shafted when they got sick. Republican family values: My family is doing fine. Screw everyone else's

Premiums continue to grow. You are contradicting your President who said that there were 30M without insurance but maybe he wasn't counting illegal aliens. Have your state institute tort reform and/or offer a single payer plan if you want affordable health care for individuals and society. Democrat family values: "Families" are what ever we choose to define them. 51% can always mug 49%.

**Detroitej72** · November-24-10, 11:37 PM

President Obama should not extend the Bush entitlement tax cuts to those making over $250,000 period. [[Paris Hiton, Sara Palin, Britney Spears)

We have not seen any investment by these out of touch millionaires. They are part of the ruling oligarchy who have benefited from America's ignorance since the cuts have been enacted.

Continue the fair tax cuts for most folks making less than a quarter million, and the nation will reap the benefits.

**oladub** · November-25-10, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

President Obama should not extend the Bush entitlement tax cuts to those making over $250,000 period. [[Paris Hiton, Sara Palin, Britney Spears)

We have not seen any investment by these out of touch millionaires. They are part of the ruling oligarchy who have benefited from America's ignorance since the cuts have been enacted.

Continue the fair tax cuts for most folks making less than a quarter million, and the nation will reap the benefits.

President Kennedy reduced income taxes by the same percentage of GDP as Bush. However, Kennedy's tax cuts were focused on the middle class instead of the rich as Bush's are. Would you support the tax cuts if they were refocused on the middle class as Kennedy's were?

caveats:
-Kennedy balanced the budget too; quite a guy! No other President has accomplished that since the great Calvin Coolidge.
-Even if the income tax cuts were refocused on the middle class, we would still have a huge budget shortfall.
-Bush's tax cuts on the rich have also been Obama's tax cuts for the rich for the last two years.

**maxx** · November-26-10, 12:58 PM

oladub:... if unemployment doesn't get down to 5.5% by October, 2011, then the Obama recovery hasn't equaled average recoveries.

What have just been through was not an average recession.

Have your state institute tort reform and/or offer a single payer plan if you want affordable health care for individuals and society.

Michigan is not in any financial condition to go it alone with single payer. And the bigger the group, the less everyone pays. What do the neocons fear? That the for-profit health insurance companies, which offer nothing to most of their customers today except sky-high premiums and admin. costs, might go out of business? Good. Let's have some nonprofit health insurance companies that actually serve their customers without breaking their wallets. The neocons just worry about their political contributions from for-profit businesses.

You are contradicting your President who said that there were 30M without insurance but maybe he wasn't counting illegal aliens.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red17_ST_N.htm

You guys are so worried some illegal alien might get medical help, you're willing to risk an outbreak of childhood diseases or TB. Not surprising since Reagan was willing to let AIDS turn into a pandemic before he acknowledged it. As a "good" christian, he undoubtedly was hoping all the gays would die of AIDS so he wouldn't have to bring it up.

**oladub** · November-27-10, 08:44 PM

maxx: "What have just been through was not an average recession."

First you say it is unfair to judge President Obama's economic failure because it takes a couple of years for unemployment to decline. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I figured out what the rate of unemployment would have to be to be average as recoveries go and I gave Obama 2 years and 11 months to get to that 5.5% unemployment number. Even though he has until Nov.2011, you are already beginning to make excuses for him.. Maybe his policies will succeed by then. After all, Harding reduced unemployment from over 11% to about 3.8% in two years so it can and has been done.

Michigan is not in any financial condition to go it alone with single payer. And the bigger the group, the less everyone pays. What do the neocons fear? That the for-profit health insurance companies, which offer nothing to most of their customers today except sky-high premiums and admin. costs, might go out of business? Good. Let's have some nonprofit health insurance companies that actually serve their customers without breaking their wallets. The neocons just worry about their political contributions from for-profit businesses.

My advice to Michigan if it wants an affordable health care system; Do tort reform and otherwise duplicate Ontario's single payer plan. For-profit health insurance is something mandated under Obamacare. It isn't societally affordable. If places poorer than Michigan such as New Brunswick and Newfoundland can afford a single payer plan, surely Michigan could.

You guys are so worried some illegal alien might get medical help, you're willing to risk an outbreak of childhood diseases or TB. Not surprising since Reagan was willing to let AIDS turn into a pandemic before he acknowledged it. As a "good" christian, he undoubtedly was hoping all the gays would die of AIDS so he wouldn't have to bring it up.

Where did you come up with 50M uninsured Americans? President Obama claimed that his plan would insure 30M Americans. If you add 20M extra from wherever, His numbers won't work. The President made very clear that under existing immigration law, Obamacare would not be spent on illegal aliens. Why would you even be worried about the outbreak of TB and childhood diseases from illegal aliens anyway if existing immigration law was enforced?

woodwardboy · November-27-10, 11:37 PM

We want JOBS or LAND!!!

**1KielsonDrive** · November-29-10, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

Saving the economy? Since your Savior in Chief came to power unemployment has risen from 5.5% to 9.6%. That is a 68% increase in official unemployment. Foreclosures continue to climb, retirees and others who depend on savings account interest are out of luck, inflation is increasing, war spending goes on, jobs keep leaving the country, my health insurance costs increased, the dollar has lost 10% of it's spending power internationally since July, and the trillion$ of additional national debt have indebted and dashed our childrens' futures. I'm not saying that your Savior in Chief isn't trying but I'm not enough of a masochist to say,' thank you master, things are better now.' If that is 'saving the economy', I wish He wouldn't try so hard. Harding did much better turning a worse economy around in 1921 by doing almost nothing which succeeded in getting debts liquidated. After two years, unemployment went from 11.1% to 3.8% under Harding compared with going from 5.7% to 9.6% under Obama. Under Obama, the debts are yet to be liquidated. He only shifted them to taxpayers.

Obamaworld: Nuns get groped while the Federal Reserve is protected from transparency.

I like your analogy, though I don't believe anyone should be excused from groping should it remain policy. Not nuns, priests, fully covered muslims, babies, or anyone else. The nutcases who are out to get us will stop at nothing.

gdogslim · December-06-10, 12:28 PM

Well, it looks like tax rates will stay the same for the meantime.
The Democrats who control both houses, just can't muster the votes to take more money from succcessful businesses. This should help Obama because people may invest more now

Just wondering, why is there now a mantra from Pelosi et al, to give only the middle class a tax cut. For seven years, the libs and the media shouted only tax cuts for the rich. I thought Bush never lowered tax rates for the middle class, only the RICH.

**1KielsonDrive** · December-06-10, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by gdogslim

Well, it looks like tax rates will stay the same for the meantime.
The Democrats who control both houses, just can't muster the votes to take more money from succcessful businesses. This should help Obama because people may invest more now. .........Great punch line for the Comedy Castle, gdog.

Just wondering, why is there now a mantra from Pelosi et al, to give only the middle class a tax cut. For seven years, the libs and the media shouted only tax cuts for the rich. I thought Bush never lowered tax rates for the middle class, only the RICH.

What planet did you say you were on for the last 7 years?

gdogslim · December-07-10, 04:49 PM

What does groping a nun have to do with Obama not raising taxes.
What planet do you live on?
I guess you missed the democrats and media's rant on tax breaks for the rich for seven years.

**Zacha341** · December-07-10, 06:44 PM

Well stated... it's hard to critique President Obama's policy without having it said that you a. hate him, b. are a racist, c. are a right-winger, d. are a tea-bagger e. are a racist ...[[repeat). Even if you're black and offer a critique you have to defend that you're not operating from the a.b.c.d. turnstile though the 'you're a racist' is less applicable...

As more dems and blacks speak out the a.b.c.d. factor is dissipating and we can stick with the facts and outcomes more objectively.

Originally Posted by oladub

The dealership where I bought my my previous Chevy S-10 was shut down by the government. All the mechanics and everyone else working there had to scramble for other jobs. The fact remains, that every dollar the government sunk into GM and Chrysler is money the government cannot spend on health care, military needs, infrastructure, or anything else. The measure of success is what it did for GM and Chrysler minus subsequent potential sales losses by Ford and the value of what else could have been done with money sunk into GM.

I actually like the President a bit. He is witty and can speak in whole sentences. I don't like the way he has maintained and sometimes accelerated much of what Bush did wrong. He's an ok guy but a poor President.

I see what you mean. Fiat has taken over 35% of Chrysler and hopes to take over another 20% if the relationship works out. When Hudson and American Motors went out of business it didn't cost taxpayers much [[apples). When Obama pumped huge amounts of taxpayer money into Chrysler, it merged with foreign company. [[oranges)