Obama fights keeping tax cuts

[mary51802]

http://www.wral.com/golo/page/1896337/?id=8254301

Obama is still apposed to continueing the tax cuts for all. What galls me is in the article he says he is against giving tax cuts to the millionars and billionars but what he is forgetting is the tax cut is for people or families who make 250,000 and over.

For a 2 working couple family or a small bsinessman this is not fair. The people who make this also donate more money to charity, employ people, and spend to stimulate the economy. He needs to extend them for all if at all. He is just not getting it.

[SBB]

The other side:

Republicans want to increase deficit by giving $700 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy (top 2%).  This would put the top marginal rate at 39%.  It was 50% under Reagan.

[snowcamper]

The deficit will only increase by $700 billion if spending stay at the same projected level.

The government always has the choice of cutting spending...

Leave taxes low, and cut spending... not just spending increases.  It doesn't take a brilliant economist to figure that one out, and it also means that the president is intentionally misleading people.

[SBB]

The deficit will only increase by $700 billion if spending stay at the same projected level.

The government always has the choice of cutting spending...

Leave taxes low, and cut spending... not just spending increases.  It doesn't take a brilliant economist to figure that one out, and it also means that the president is intentionally misleading people.

Then why didn't Bush cut spending to balance how much tax money he saved the wealthy instead of creating such a large deficit to hand to Obama along with the worst recession in US history?  I find it incredible that people would want to give the keys back to the party that drove the country into the ditch.  It has taken Obama less than two years to get the car back on the road after Republicans had 8 years of digging the ditch deeper.

[snowcamper]

You call this on the road?  Do you even understand the causes of the economy we have today?

Hint #1:  It has to do with bad loans made on real estate to "sub-prime" or non-creditworthy borrowers.
Hint #2:  Banks don't usually like to loan to people who aren't likely to pay them back.  Therefore, there must have been a reason for them to do so.

Chief among those reasons?  
The Community Reinvestment act as amended and selectively enforced required them to loan to less-than-worthy borrowers.  This is a Democrat piece of legislation.  Enforcement was stepped up under Bill Clinton, who was a Democrat.  Reform was prevented by the Democrats in the Senate during Bush's entire term

Those who made wise lending decisions were often sued by organizations such as ACORN for "discrimination" and their business operations were threatened by activist federal regulators.  ACORN is little more than a basement wing of the Democratic party.

Banks found ways to "shed" this risk.  One of the main ways was by selling the mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both the pets (and sometimes actual lovers) of the Democratic Party.  Bush and the Republicans tried to reform these two monstrosities multiple times, but they were blocked by the Democrats, chiefly Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd.

Another way of shedding the risk was by insuring it, using CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS... which protect lenders if Loans go into Default.

Then along comes the modification to accounting standards called "Mark to the Market Accounting", pushed by... drumroll... the Democrats who took over Congress!  This meant that banks would have to artificially reduce the value of loans on their books, even if they intended to hold them to maturity or they believed that they could "recover" a significant portion in a foreclosure.  They had to price them at the value they could sell them for to a third party.

When a few players in the market failed (Lehman would be the keystone), the market for loans froze, meaning no one was buying these loans at anywhere near their actual value... it froze because of a lack of trust and insecurity about what the government was going to do, if anything.

Then, the Obama government seized the assets of GM and Chrysler and gave them to their supporters in the union, ahead of the legal, senior creditors.  If you want to free up a credit market, you don't arbitrarily steal people's property.

Plummeting values for bank assets (loans are assets to a bank) destroyed bank's capital positions... and it did it all at once thanks to the "mark to the market" rules...  again a product of Democrat policies.  Even banks who made good loans ran  into trouble because the market had frozen...

In steps more uncertainty on behalf of the Feds... all run by the Democrats.

It is simply a head-in-the-sand world that you live in that blames all of these problems on the Republicans...

[snowcamper]

As a side note:  the Dodd-Frank financial act did NOTHING to reform Fannie & Freddie, two of the chief causes of this problem.  The Democrats had every opportunity in the world to enact necessary reforms... but instead they do stupid things that cause credit card rates to climb, banking fees to jump, make loans harder to get, and frighten the financial system even more...

If you call this "getting back onto the road", then you're on a road going in the absolute wrong direction.

[mary51802]

The other side:

Republicans want to increase deficit by giving $700 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy (top 2%).  This would put the top marginal rate at 39%.  It was 50% under Reagan.

If the failed current spending had not wrenched us so far into debt they could keep them for all people. The billionares club is small. Why punish 2 income families that do well with hard work and having used their education to live the American dream?  Those people in the 250,000 range donate a lot of money to charity and keep non profits going. Need money to donate it.

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

There has been a house cleaning in the GOP primaries. Rarely are the establishment candidates winning. This is a whole new crowd and thankfully so.

If the GOP drove us into the ditch, these Denicrat people have driven across the ditch through the fence, over the field and into the pond, where we are now drowning. The ONLY rescue available is the new GOP!!

Do not refuse the help!

Vote out those who are drowning us in favor of those who have taken the keys away from those who drove badly before.

[Muddylaces]

I love this tax the rich mentality.   Now the rich guy pays higher taxes and decides not to buy a new boat.   Who loses his boat manufacturing job then?   A rich guy?   No.

[beinginferior]

Wow Muddy,  that much logic is making my head hurt!   

[1911A]

Wotta cynic, ML.  At least look at the bright side; unemployment these days comes with many bennies.  There's "free healthcare", money-fer-nuthin'-checks-fer-free for 96 weeks, food "allowance".... hell, who needs a job?

[SBB]

The tax cuts need to go to the middle class.  They are the ones that will spend the money, not the rich.  Why give a millionaire a $100,000 tax cut who will just save it as he doesn't need to spend it to live.

[snowcamper]

What does it matter if the people who get to keep more of their own money spend or save it?

Saving it puts more money in the banks, so they can make more loans...
Saving it means providing capital to businesses to start, hire, develop, acquire, expand, refurbish, market, etc.
Saving it means more long-term income and health for the economy.

Spending also helps, but it is more likely to help the Chinese economy rather than our own.

[mary51802]

The tax cuts need to go to the middle class.  They are the ones that will spend the money, not the rich.  Why give a millionaire a $100,000 tax cut who will just save it as he doesn't need to spend it to live.

The so called "rich" tax cut kicks in at any family or individual starting at $250,000. That is not a millionare.

People who make that amount are upper middle class, not rich. The cut needs to start at a higher level for so called rich.
Some of us fall into upper middle class and yes we spend and donate thousands to local Chatham non profits and charities.

[1911A]

I don't care what they do with their money; they can stick it in their mattresses for all I care.  The point is it's not your money, it's not the government's money and how and what one does with one's money is not up for a vote as to acceptable and unacceptable legal uses, SBB, Duh Wun's class warfare and that of the Professional Left notwithstanding.

Personally, I'd think it a better use of my money if I used it to put people to work, as a rule, rather than give to charity, but to each his own.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else