American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I mis-spoke, errrr, mis-wrote, kinda. Long term Cap gains get preferrential tax treatment. Short term Cap gains are taxed at the individual marginal rate. I learned this the hard way during the crash of 2008. Anyway, I think the whole system is FUBAR and needs to be replaced-BF.

[QUOTE=BlueFalcon;418741]Esten. Bro. Dividends aren't Capital gains. Dividends are taxed at individual marginal rates. I think we should scrap the whole tax code and have a consumption tax. Let the individual decide, through his own consumption, how much tax he will pay. This would piss off a LOT of accountants and attorneys. Oh well. The "regressiveness" arguement against a consumption tax (The Fair Tax) is BS. It would force everyone (even tourists, dealers and hookers.) to participate, with no loopholes or offshore sanctuaries. Cheers-BF.[/QUOTE]

Esten not only are you a liar but a damn liar! Perry and the Texas Republicans balanced our budget shortfall in the last legislature with CUTS in spending not 'stimulus' money. Check your posts from several months ago when it was happening, you were gloating over the fact Texas had a budget shortfall and your perceived notion the state could not close it. Also after the fact you were still quoting an out of date articles about the "catastrophe" taking place in Texas – wrong as usual.

Obama has done everything in his power to denigrate Texas since taking office from gutting NASA to denying funds for natural disasters while doling out billions to states which supported him during the 2008 election or states he needs in 2012. Buddy you need to check your facts, but I guess you would rather make this shit up as you go as usual.

Your boy is going down and going down hard in 2012.

I hate to say it but things are not going to get better. Obama has wasted trillions upon trillions of dollars based on the idea that the economy needed more 'community organizers.' Countless make believe government jobs, which did not have the ability to produce a single paper clip, have been added to the economy. That money is gone, we are up to our necks in debt, the economy is in freefall and we have nothing but a trail of wasted money. I think Obama's understanding of a free market economy flat-lined when he cashed his last 'community organizer' check.

By contrast, go back 30 years when Reagan inherited over 10% unemployment. 20% inflation and 20% interest rates. Did Reagan spend 3 years complaining about the mess that idiot Carter left him. No, and although by this time in Reagan's administration (3rd year) unemployemnt was still high, inflation was still high and interest rates were still high the economy was morphing into a runaway train with 8% and 9% growth during the 3rd and fourth quarters of 1983.

I shutter to think how long we would have stayed in Carter's depression had Obama been in charge during the Reagan years.

Esten loves to quote polls but the Market Poll is voting long and loud over the Debt Deal, falling 340 points just today and a total of 1, 170 point since things started looking bad back on July 20th. Nobody is buying the "debt reduction" that was sold in the House and Senate. With our debt now egual to and about to surpass the GDP what makes Obama think taxes are the way to go when he would have to take all the goods and services produced in the US for a year to pay off the debt. It's SPENDING that has to stop, federal and state programs as well as federal and state workers that have to go. We need to be creating REAL jobs not make believe government jobs that produce nothing and consume resources.

[QUOTE=Esten; 418739]This is hugely important. We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains scam giveaway to the wealthy. Capital gains should be taxed at one's personal federal income tax rate.[/quote]Esten,

You have been ripped off. Really gypped, bamboozled, taken. Shit, they saw you coming. Who ever taught you Economics took you for a ride. Demand your money back or least title to the bridge. You know. That bridge in Brooklyn.

You're a great monger, but misled.

You want the capital gains tax repealed so the poor go jobless. Yes, the poor go jobless.

Back in the 80's, I was with a startup company in the computer industry. We were financed by Venture Capital whose investors (rich guys) put up money (versus buying rental apartments or bing cherry farms) to help us grow. Grow we did. [B]We hired thousands of poor people who got good well paying jobs and stock options[/B]. Those people later made a bag full of money from the stock. Those rich people did too. In addition, they claimed capital gains. Would they have invested if there weren't favorable treatment of capital gains? Not in a million years! Money always seeks the best return.

Therefore, when those poor people are out looking for a job, collecting food stamps, and about to run out of unemployment, we will send them to you to explain the benefits of no advantages for capital investment. You can show them your bridge

My Former Name,

Agreed. You start a corporation. It makes profits. The corporation pays income tax, both on earnings that are paid as dividends, and also on earnings that are used to grow the size and value of the business.

Esten has gone on record here that both dividends and capital gains received by individuals should be taxed as ordinary income. And that ordinary income should be taxed at 39.6%, or around 42% after additional taxes for health care go into effect. Add to that state income taxes, inflation imbedded in capital gains, and taxation already paid at the corporate level, and he would indeed tax away the majority or most of the profit from many investments. That's the way the Esten Tax Plan would work. Unless you're in a US business that benefits from loopholes, your ultimate tax rate after being taxed twice, once as a corporation and once as an individual, is going to be perhaps the highest in the world. The incentive to take risk is gone. You're working for the US government. If you suceed, it gets most of the profits. If you fail, it pays none of the costs.

So why invest or start a business and create jobs? But maybe that's what Esten wants -- a country where the private sector plays a distant second fiddle to government.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418743]Esten not only are you a liar but a damn liar! Perry and the Texas Republicans balanced our budget shortfall in the last legislature with CUTS in spending not 'stimulus' money.[/QUOTE]Texas received $12 BILLION in ARRA funds. Are you telling us none of that impacted the state budget?

I know what was done with that money, but I'd like to hear it from you. What did Texas do with that $12 BILLION?

[QUOTE]Check your posts from several months ago when it was happening, you were gloating over the fact Texas had a budget shortfall and your perceived notion the state could not close it. Also after the fact you were still quoting an out of date articles about the "catastrophe" taking place in Texas – wrong as usual.[/QUOTE]That was MoveOn.

[QUOTE]Obama has done everything in his power to denigrate Texas since taking office from gutting NASA to denying funds for natural disasters while doling out billions to states which supported him during the 2008 election or states he needs in 2012. Buddy you need to check your facts, but I guess you would rather make this shit up as you go as usual.[/QUOTE]Look in the mirror buddy. You're just making an ass of yourself.

Try to redeem yourself (somewhat) by admitting your confusion about past posts, and posting an accurate description of what Texas did with the $12 B Stimulus funds.

Yea Esten let's change the subject from Cutting Spending, which you don't want to talk about, to the funds Texas received in 2009 from ARRA. Yes Texas did receive $14 Billion dollars in ARRA money not $12 Billion in 2009. It was considerably less than the $38 Billion it could have had. Over 65% of the $14 Billion in ARRA funds went to cover the Feds portion of Medicare / Medicaid, Education, and Unemployment payments. Does that answer your question? Yes it did postpone budget cuts for 2009.


But when the money ran out Texas did the same thing many other states did which was cut Sending, something Obama just does not seem to be able to do. The state continues to pay Unemployment and make up the short fall in Medicare / Medicaid while cutting other spending in such areas as Education. The point now just as it was in the first post was Texas cut Spending and is living within its means, something the clowns in Washington don't seem to be able to do.


I did notice you did not address the fact Texas has greater job and business growth than almost all other states, particularly the welfare states like New York and California which are already bankrupt and living on borrowed time.


You can carp all you want to about how much money Bush spent but Obama has spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 8. I know it's all Bush's fault. So tell me Esten, when does Obama start accepting responsibility? Everything is always Bush's fault, or 'headwinds' buffeting the economy, or the Tea Party, or the rich, or 'I didn't mean Change You Can Believe In tomorrow or next week' to quote the Great One. So tell me when exactly will Obama take responsibility for ANYTHING?


Perry and the Texas Legislature took responsibility and did what had to be done to balance the budget, can Obama do better? I think not.


Esten, you are one of many liberls here who constantly makes as ass of themselves. If you find you can not address the issue you just change the subject. You remind me of Bill Clinton: Admit nothing, Deny everything, Make counter accusations.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418751]Esten has gone on record here that both dividends and capital gains received by individuals should be taxed as ordinary income.[/QUOTE]It's better than that.

Esten is on record a few months ago equating dividends and capital gains as "free money" that is morally equivalent to the "free money" paid to government program beneficiaries.

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten, you still don't get it. Standard and Poor's downgraded the US debt rating from AAA to AA+ citing the failure to reduce spending over 10 years by a minimum of $4 Trillion to address our debt problem. While the other two ratings agencies still have the US on their watch list, they have not YET downgraded our rating. You and the rest of the clowns in Washington don't seem to get the point that it is SPENDING that is the problem. With the debt above 100% of the US's annual GDP no matter how much you raise taxes, even to 100% of income, it won't bring down the debt. Everyone else, ratings agencies, the markets, individual American's understand you can not spend more than you make, but Liberals never seem to get it.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton. ITS SPENDING STUPID!

Jackson, we both know in Liberal Speak, free money = someone else's money you give away

I just don't get why you guys assume that cutting spending will reduce debt better than cutting spending AND raising tax revenues. Intelligent enough, perhaps you started new economics. I admire your confidence that you are smarter than the "clowns in Washington."

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418757]Esten, you still don't get it. Standard and Poor's downgraded the US debt rating from AAA to AA+ citing the failure to reduce spending over 10 years by a minimum of $4 Trillion to address our debt problem. While the other two ratings agencies still have the US on their watch list, they have not YET downgraded our rating. You and the rest of the clowns in Washington don't seem to get the point that it is SPENDING that is the problem. With the debt above 100% of the US's annual GDP no matter how much you raise taxes, even to 100% of income, it won't bring down the debt. Everyone else, ratings agencies, the markets, individual American's understand you can not spend more than you make, but Liberals never seem to get it.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton. ITS SPENDING STUPID![/QUOTE]

Matt- Raising taxes reduces the tax base, therefore reduces revenue. This problem is amplified during deflationary cycles (which has been happening since 1999 in U$ denominated debt) , when folks have a "Hunker in the Bunker" mentality and the aggregate social mood has changed from optimistic to pessimistic. We are way out on the right end of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes would sink this economy faster than a rating agency downgrade-BF.

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;418760]I just don't get why you guys assume that cutting spending will reduce debt better than cutting spending AND raising tax revenues. Intelligent enough, perhaps you started new economics. I admire your confidence that you are smarter than the "clowns in Washington."[/QUOTE]

How did you methodologically and scientifically find that the current tax level is after, but not before or at, the top of Laffer curve? Thanks.

[QUOTE=BlueFalcon;418761]Matt- Raising taxes reduces the tax base, therefore reduces revenue. This problem is amplified during deflationary cycles (which has been happening since 1999 in U$ denominated debt) , when folks have a "Hunker in the Bunker" mentality and the aggregate social mood has changed from optimistic to pessimistic. We are way out on the right end of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes would sink this economy faster than a rating agency downgrade-BF.[/QUOTE]

Matt: Here it is. A nut in an eggshell. If you want something to go away (eventually) , tax it. If you want something to stick around and grow, subsidize it or otherwise incent it. We punish productivity by having the highest corporate tax rates in the world, double taxation of dividends, etc. We would be closer to the Laffer Curve apex, if not to the left, if we would reduce, or "Fundamentally Transform (BHO. 15 January 2009)" our tax code so folks aren't spending butt-loads of $ trying to evade it. Scrap the tax code and implement the Fair Tax, and we'd be off to the races, on a macro level-BF.

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;418762]How did you methodologically and scientifically find that the current tax level is after, but not before or at, the top of Laffer curve? Thanks.[/QUOTE]