wow obama "should we comprimise safety so some corporate jet owner gets a tax break"

#76
#76
This coming from the guy who flies around in the
ultimate corporate jet.

0.jpg


flbm9d.jpg


Who doesn't even know the Staue of Liberty was
a gift from Fance.

6a0105349f4348970b01156f8312ad970c-300wi


gorrell.jpg


Historically, at least for the past 80 years or so in
America, the surest way to stifle the economy is to
raise taxes on those who are the most prosperous.

It has happened ever single time it's been tried.

OTOH, lowering taxes on the more prosperous makes
the economy boom.

That too has happened every single time it has been
done.

WSJ had an excellent article on that just last week
that was well researched and included facts and
figures going back to about 1929.

No big surprise that Obama DEMANDS we do things
assbackwards, that seems to be his approach to
just about any policy.

He refused to talk with Republicans about the buget
today and a while back when he sent his budget to
congress he didn't even get one vote, not even the
most looney of the Democrats would vote for it and
one must admit the D party has more than it's share
of moonbats.

And LG says blame it on the tea party??

bboarda.jpg
 
#79
#79
Obama's rhetoric is meaningless, pure political puff.

Obama's recent budget plan would add $9.5 trillion in
cumulative new debt over the next decade. Eliminating
a tax break for the purchase of corporate jets – it’s
called “accelerated depreciation” and Obama has
endorsed the deduction twice before to boost growth
and create jobs – would save $3 billion, or 0.03%
of that total.

And Obama insists his demands must be met or he
won't even talk??

I doubt he has outflanked anyone, now if you said
he had outfaked someone then you would be correct.

Every word out his mouth, if not an outright lie, is
blatently misleading!

jabbataxes.jpg


As one senator said; "These are words you might
expect from some third world tyrant, not from the
president of the United States of America."

BTW, the same senator said he wasn't even coming
back next week for the extra session if something
didn't change.
 
#80
#80
Even cnn is turning on his speech earlier this week. How much more evidence is needed that people are buying what he's selling and are ready to see results.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#81
#81
ToineMac said:
makes too much sense. I think its ridiculous that people expect to balance budgets when you want to continually cut taxes. It costs money to run a government. Education, Maintainance of streets and highways, providing police and other public servants take money to do.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If gov't spending was just limited to education, roads and police, you wouldn't have much of a fuss from me. The problem is that you have gov't getting involved in giving drug addicts needles, teenagers abortions, and prisoners condoms.
 
#82
#82
Some critics suggested the administration risked problems similar to those that arose from a luxury-goods tax imposed briefly as part of a deficit-reduction deal in the early 1990s. That tax was widely blamed for driving down the affected industries—yachts, personal aircraft, luxury automobiles, furs—in the midst of an economic downturn.

This won't cost one American job

President Gets Flak for Jet-Tax Idea - WSJ.com

really not a SINGLE job? tell us it's a stupid tax rule and maybe we agree, but don't tell us it wont have any effect on the industry. that's ridiculous. the obama administration seesm to be under this delusion that rich people will spend money no matter what taxes are.
 
#83
#83
I agree he should have just said its a matter of fairness in dealing with the budget.
 
#84
#84
Rasputin_Vol said:
If gov't spending was just limited to education, roads and police, you wouldn't have much of a fuss from me. The problem is that you have gov't getting involved in giving drug addicts needles, teenagers abortions, and prisoners condoms.
Click to expand...

Word up. If somebody's gonna be in prison, getting it raw and teh AIDS comes with the territory. Deal.
 
#85
#85
tigervol9802 said:
Even cnn is turning on his speech earlier this week. How much more evidence is needed that people are buying what he's selling and are ready to see results.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Yeah that's bad. If Communist News Network isn't fluffing Obama then man he's got some problems.
 
#86
#86
lawgator1 said:
So your solution is to cut the programs that benefit the lower and middle classes AND increase their effective tax rates, whilst leaving the top alone, or even giving them more breaks?

Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Sorry to interrupt, but I keep seeing the reference to programs that benefit the middle class, which would those be?

The fact is the middle class is being squeezed out and the real fight is between those who live off government programs and those who fund them.
 
#88
#88
lawgator1 said:
I agree he should have just said its a matter of fairness in dealing with the budget.
Click to expand...

Farging fair? Help me understand anything remotely fair about our progressive scheme. Spare me the idiocy about my having benefitted more from being American than the net negative types.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#94
#94
BigPapaVol said:
You don't really buy the tired cliche?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
That's exactly what it is. It offers an easy out so that the majority of Americans can feel oppressed and vote for whichever politician repeats it.
 
#95
#95
BigPapaVol said:
Farging fair? Help me understand anything remotely fair about our progressive scheme. Spare me the idiocy about my having benefitted more from being American than the net negative types.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


This is a very telling post. You view "the system" (and by that I mean a combination of the long term-economy (and by that I mean way more than a single lifetime), the American culture, our institutions (government and the home), education, and our overall sense of morality and right and wrong) as a snapshot in time.

You view some people as deserving (because you think they got where they were based purely on their work ethic and talent) and some as "net negative types."

By this, it would seem you view the issue as one of those who work and contribute and pay taxes (you, today) versus those who depend in some fashion on the use of your tax dollars.

We now get into the debate about whether we think we as a society advance more, or better qualitatively, if we:

a) directly and immediately reward only those who produce, casting aside efforts to improve the lot of all, especially future generations, and especially those coming from the lower economic classes;

or

b) whether it is a legitimate goal for our society and our government through taxation and spending to affirmatively work to improve the status (education and financial) of those who do not either have the talents or the tools to do what you do.

Now, I know that the immediate retort to that is to disclaim your own selfishness. Maybe tell me how much you donate every year to charity. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about long term sacrifice of a portion of the immediate proceeds of your efforts so as to create opportunity for others.

And I know the retort to that, too. You will argue that our government does this very inefficiently, spending the money in ways that won't have the desired result, giving it to people who don't have the desire, much less the ability to take advantage of the chance your tax dollars might provide them.

I don't necessarily disagree. But in my view that is an argument for better policy and decision making, rather than an argument to say, well, we can't get this done so let's just stop even trying.

And, yes, I do claim the moral high ground here. I do think your view is cynical and selfish. And I know you would call me pollyanish, in response. I would say only in response that my guess is that, either within your own family tree, or the family tree of someone close to you, there was a period where, in a snapshot in time, the family was consuming much more than it produced, on a meta scale. And, thanks to the combining of community resources, the family survived.

Leading in perhaps even large part to you being the success you are now.
 
#97
#97
How will raising taxes on millionaires help the middle class in any way other than trying to make millionaires part of the middle class?

If the middle class has been shrinking for decades while simultaneously the number of government programs aimed at the middle class (e.g. student loan programs, drug benefits, etc.) how can anyone conclude more government programs will address the issue?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top