• Obama puts out plan to pay for American Jobs Act, suggests raising taxes on the wealthy, removing su
    79 replies, posted
Can we start calling the Republicans the Party of Tetris? Because the only way you can actually get anything done is by eliminating lines of them or they BLOCK EVERYTHING!
[QUOTE=Swilly;32267360]Can we start calling the Republicans the Party of Tetris? Because the only way you can actually get anything done is by eliminating lines of them or they BLOCK EVERYTHING![/QUOTE]But Tetris is a relic from the evil Soviet Empire! [i]Tetris (Russian: Те́трис) is a puzzle video game originally designed and programmed by Alexey Pajitnov in the Soviet Union. It was released on June 6, 1984, while he was working for the Dorodnicyn Computing Centre of the Academy of Science of the USSR in Moscow, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.[/i] We can't let our patriots use a slogan for Obama's Socialist mentors, the Czars already have too much control. We can't let the true Americans fall to this Soviet plot to take over the God Blessed United Sates of America.
[QUOTE=Medevilae;32266418]Actually, the Eric Cantor has more or less copy-pasted Obama's Jobs Act and created a GOP Jobs Act, which has little differences that play to special interests. We'll see this get passed one way or another, it's just which incarnation will manage to get through that's kind of up in the air.[/QUOTE] Well even if they did draw up a similar bill, you can bet they won't be paying for it like this.
[QUOTE=Miskav;32266084]America[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Miskav;32266084]riot[/quote] lol
Keep subsidizing oil. The poor needs oil and gas to travel
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;32265660]Republicans will block it.[/QUOTE] They sure as shit will. If the end of the world was coming around the bend and the U.S government had the opportunity to save it's people then the repubs would argue that only the rich/themselves/etc could, and when the democrats say no they'd just put everything in a deadlock and we'd all die.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32264299]Ooh I can't say I agree with removing oil subsidies. I'm afraid that making it more expensive for the average worker to get to and from work, and taking more discretionary spending out of the hands of the poorer Americans will not serve the economy that well. [editline]13th September 2011[/editline] This will also effect electricity bills in areas with gas and oil power plants, making people pay more for electricity(this is bad). [editline]13th September 2011[/editline] Other than that it's a good idea.[/QUOTE] Removing oil subsidies might have benefits that outweigh the negative consequences. The US does have an over-reliance on oil and removing those subsidies would push us to live within our means, at the same time we would see a huge (and needed) boost in the development of public transportation and urban areas. The oil industry itself may as well be a "bubble", ready to burst.
Obama's doing something good for once. Hopefully he doesn't puss out like the other times.
Even if Obama has an entire planet behind him, there's no way the Republicans will go for this.
[quote] [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act[/url] As with the payroll tax cut passed in December 2010, the American Jobs Act will specify that Social Security will still receive every dollar it would have gotten otherwise, through a transfer from the General Fund into the Social Security Trust Fund.[/quote] Good times.
Well, this definitely confirms that the Jobs Act will never happen. Remember, the Republicans were willing to force the country to [i]default on it's debt[/i] to avoid making rich people pay one cent more in taxes.
I suddenly love this man.
[quote]...suggests raising taxes on the wealthy...[/quote] Yeah, this plan will never see the light of day. That phrase is not allowed in politics.
What Obama's done here is pretty clever. If the Republicans reject this, he goes "I tried to cut taxes and the Republicans stopped me" If they don't, he cuts taxes and hopefully lowers unemployment, thus he goes "hey I did that, I'm great" He's made them choose between tax cuts for the middle-class, or tax cuts for the rich
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32269299]Remember, the Republicans were willing to force the country to [i]default on it's debt[/i] to avoid making rich people pay one cent more in taxes.[/QUOTE] According to [url=http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html]the IRS tax statistics[/url] concerning [url=http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls]tax revenues by income percentile[/url] in 2008, the top 5% income rates account for 58.72% (or $600 billion) of all income tax with an effective tax rate of 20.70%. If we increased the effective tax rate to 21.70% for the top 5% in 2008 and assume the increase would have no other effects, we would have an additional $29 billion in revenue for that year. In comparison, the Debt Deal [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people]cut, at the very least, $350 billion over 10 years[/url] from DoD spending alone so far; a cut of $35 billion per year. [quote][url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people[/url] Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.[/quote] Means that an additional $750 billion cuts in DoD spending and $750 billion cuts in non-"Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs" discretionary spending cuts in deficit reduction (if an agreement isn't reached to reduce the [i]deficit[/i] by December 23, 2011. If I've read all this correctly and politicians can't cut the deficit by Dec 23, that means the debt deal ended up with a cut of $110 billion a year from DoD spending. Anyway, increasing tax on the rich is fine and all, but it can't solve all our problems - ignoring cuts just takes options off the table. ([url=http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls]2008 stats[/url]:) Should the top 5% still be paying 59% of all income tax? Would you be more comfortable with 70%? After all, they [i]do[/i] receive 35% of U.S. adjusted gross income, and it's not like they would want to leave the U.S. or anything. You're clearly the expert at this. How much should the top 5% pay?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32264299]Ooh I can't say I agree with removing oil subsidies. I'm afraid that making it more expensive for the average worker to get to and from work, and taking more discretionary spending out of the hands of the poorer Americans will not serve the economy that well. [editline]13th September 2011[/editline] This will also effect electricity bills in areas with gas and oil power plants, making people pay more for electricity(this is bad). [editline]13th September 2011[/editline] Other than that it's a good idea.[/QUOTE] I accidentally agreed with this... Actually you are somewhat right, it may not be the best idea at first, but it should wake people up. The subsidy is a temporary solution right now, and people should take notice that gas is not affordable and wont be in a few more years. The subsidy's hide the people from the truth that gas is not a sustainable method of transportation. As for the poor needing gas, it's true a lot of the poor are dependent on gas themselves, it hurts them the most too because when gas gets more expensive they will not be able to afford it at all (subsidized or not). This applies to the middle class as well, and eventually the rich. The solution is not original, it has existed for hundreds of years prior to most notably, white flight. [img]http://www.billpeduto.com/wp-content/uploads/mixed-income-development1.jpg[/img] In the back ground you can see a decent sized single family home, this is the equivalent of the typical suburban home right now but notice that the architecture matches the town a bit better. To the right are a couple of apartments, probably quite cheap, the price will go down as these living arrangements become more common, they are already very desirable. [img]http://www.billpeduto.com/wp-content/uploads/pedestrian-street.jpg[/img] This is a pedestrian street, it is within walking distance of the homes pictured above. In this urban community there are many small independently owned businesses (Jobs!). For teenagers there are many part time jobs available. For example, imagine a small furniture store, if someone only lives a few blocks away and needs a sofa, there would be a job moving this to the persons house and moving it inside for them. Same goes for grocery stores. If you were an older person, instead of moving to a retirement home because you can't drive, you could simply live in a neighborhood with everyone else, and simply give a call to the local grocery store with a list of what you need, and a delivery boy/girl would drop it off for you. It creates lots more jobs, little to no dependence on oil, less racism, the neighborhoods are taken care of by the more wealthy because it's a place that they care about etc. Rather than excluding the poor to the projects, or the elderly to special homes, or children (under driving age) from their friends or favorite places to hang out, they can all be included in one big community.
[QUOTE=coilgunner;32271322]I accidentally agreed with this... Actually you are somewhat right, it may not be the best idea at first, but it should wake people up. The subsidy is a temporary solution right now, and people should take notice that gas is not affordable and wont be in a few more years. The subsidy's hide the people from the truth that gas is not a sustainable method of transportation.[/QUOTE] Most people know that oil is not sustainable. It doesn't matter. Why punish the people who have absolutely nothing to do with finding a solution to our energy problem? We aren't in charge of trying to find a working alternative energy, so why should we pay more money?
The great thing is, this will really show which republicans really care about creating jobs and which ones are just hypocrite slaves for the rich; and EVERYONE will see this. Unlike lowering the Rich's income taxes, payroll tax cuts and public jobs have a clear effect on decreasing the unemployment rate.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;32271521]The amazing thing is, if the Republicans reject this even Fox News will turn on them.[/QUOTE] I thought Republicans think this bill is an unaffordable stimulus bill, in which case tax cuts don't matter because spending outstrips any possible revenue completely?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32271481]Most people know that oil is not sustainable. It doesn't matter. Why punish the people who have absolutely nothing to do with finding a solution to our energy problem? We aren't in charge of trying to find a working alternative energy, so why should we pay more money?[/QUOTE] Re read my post, we already know how to fix it, we just need some people to complain about it that way private developers will start building to their demands. If we keep subsidizing fuel no one will care about the problem, developers will continue to build suburbs, and the problem will never be solved.
Since the Republicans supported the jobs bill until he mentioned this part, he could also say "Look, the Republicans were fine with spending $400 billion but they don't want to pay for it, [i]they're[/i] the crazy out-of-control spenders!"
This won't pass.
[QUOTE=Night-Eagle;32270657] You're clearly the expert at this. How much should the top 5% pay?[/QUOTE] Whining about the share of federal income tax they have doesn't carry much weight when the only reason the numbers are so slanted is because of our country's outrageous wealth inequality. [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---warren-buffett-vs--wealthy-conservatives[/url] [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over[/url] That $750 billion accounts for half of the net worth of the bottom 50% of our entire population, do you suggest trying to take it out of them? Instead of a hike on the top few percent who will suffer absolutely no discernible change to their lifestyles as a result? Hell, their effective tax rate is LOWER than the middle class because they have access to far more resources for evading taxes than the rest of us do. I believe we could go a long way to solving our problems if we made real effort at closing the loopholes in our Swiss cheese tax code. Our top tax rate is 35%, but the top 5% of rich people only pay an effective rate of 20%? Corporate taxes are a complete mess of corruption and overseas tax havens. Given how little most people in this country actually have, you're damn right I'm in favor of taxing more from the few people have have all the wealth. Someone making $1.5 million a year instead of $2 million a year is going to suffer a [b]lot[/b] less than someone that finds themselves making $7.50 an hour instead of $10. If you want the tax burden spread over more people, then maybe we should make sure the fucking wealth is spread enough to match.
the upper class's tax burden is the lowest it's been in a lot of decades some people(not even the rich, just people who white knight for the rich) need to stop being babies about raising it
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32272425]Whining about the share of federal income tax they have doesn't carry much weight when the only reason the numbers are so slanted is because of our country's outrageous wealth inequality. [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---warren-buffett-vs--wealthy-conservatives[/url] [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over[/url] That $750 billion accounts for half of the net worth of the bottom 50% of our entire population, do you suggest trying to take it out of them? Instead of a hike on the top few percent who will suffer absolutely no discernible change to their lifestyles as a result? Hell, their effective tax rate is LOWER than the middle class because they have access to far more resources for evading taxes than the rest of us do. I believe we could go a long way to solving our problems if we made real effort at closing the loopholes in our Swiss cheese tax code. Our top tax rate is 35%, but the top 5% of rich people only pay an effective rate of 20%? Corporate taxes are a complete mess of corruption and overseas tax havens. Given how little most people in this country actually have, you're damn right I'm in favor of taxing more from the few people have have all the wealth. Someone making $1.5 million a year instead of $2 million a year is going to suffer a [b]lot[/b] less than someone that finds themselves making $7.50 an hour instead of $10. If you want the tax burden spread over more people, then maybe we should make sure the fucking wealth is spread enough to match.[/QUOTE] I was waiting for you to reference that Daily Show bit. Rarely do stop laughing when I'm watching Stewart. But during that bit, I stood up and fucking applauded. Whoever their research team is, they don't get paid enough.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32272774]I was waiting for you to reference that Daily Show bit. Rarely do stop laughing when I'm watching Stewart. But during that bit, I stood up and fucking applauded. Whoever their research team is, they don't get paid enough.[/QUOTE] Stewart does good work.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32272774]I was waiting for you to reference that Daily Show bit. Rarely do stop laughing when I'm watching Stewart. But during that bit, I stood up and fucking applauded. Whoever their research team is, they don't get paid enough.[/QUOTE] Good to have you back, mate. :dance:
[QUOTE=coilgunner;32271993]Re read my post, we already know how to fix it, we just need some people to complain about it that way private developers will start building to their demands. If we keep subsidizing fuel no one will care about the problem, developers will continue to build suburbs, and the problem will never be solved.[/QUOTE] No we don't. There are no feasible alternative energy sources that can replace oil for cars.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32275465]No we don't. There are no feasible alternative energy sources that can replace oil for cars.[/QUOTE] The solution doesn't solely rest on replacing oil. Like coilgunner and I stressed earlier, dependence can be lessened by urban redevelopment and investing in our public transportation infrastructure. We lag behind in both areas compared to our European counterparts. Also are cars still comparably inefficient, all of this can be fixed if oil subsidies were slowly phased out.
[QUOTE=Night-Eagle;32270657]According to [url=http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html]the IRS tax statistics[/url] concerning [url=http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls]tax revenues by income percentile[/url] in 2008, the top 5% income rates account for 58.72% (or $600 billion) of all income tax with an effective tax rate of 20.70%. If we increased the effective tax rate to 21.70% for the top 5% in 2008 and assume the increase would have no other effects, we would have an additional $29 billion in revenue for that year. In comparison, the Debt Deal [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people]cut, at the very least, $350 billion over 10 years[/url] from DoD spending alone so far; a cut of $35 billion per year. Means that an additional $750 billion cuts in DoD spending and $750 billion cuts in non-"Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs" discretionary spending cuts in deficit reduction (if an agreement isn't reached to reduce the [i]deficit[/i] by December 23, 2011. If I've read all this correctly and politicians can't cut the deficit by Dec 23, that means the debt deal ended up with a cut of $110 billion a year from DoD spending. Anyway, increasing tax on the rich is fine and all, but it can't solve all our problems - ignoring cuts just takes options off the table. ([url=http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls]2008 stats[/url]:) Should the top 5% still be paying 59% of all income tax? Would you be more comfortable with 70%? After all, they [i]do[/i] receive 35% of U.S. adjusted gross income, and it's not like they would want to leave the U.S. or anything. You're clearly the expert at this. How much should the top 5% pay?[/QUOTE] You're not factoring in capital gains. Rich people have very low Incomes cause they make money with money. [editline]13th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;32271481]Most people know that oil is not sustainable. It doesn't matter. Why punish the people who have absolutely nothing to do with finding a solution to our energy problem? We aren't in charge of trying to find a working alternative energy, so why should we pay more money?[/QUOTE] We shouldn't subsidize oil companies, even if we don't pay it at the pump, we still pay it long term as it adds to our national debt. Gas will never rise above 6-7$ in the united states because then other technologies are able to match that price. [editline]13th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;32275465]No we don't. There are no feasible alternative energy sources that can replace oil for cars.[/QUOTE] The tesla roadster seems to be doing a good job, it's 100% electric, sure it's charged from a mostly oil/coal powered grid, but why not drop the subsidies and cause one of two scenarios. A: Oil companies charge more money to make up for lost profits, creating a much more competitive market for alternative grid energies such as wind and solar. B: Oil companies still make outrageous profits and keep their hold on society by decreasing the cost per barrel to keep competition at bay. [editline]13th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=TParlour;32276012]The solution doesn't solely rest on replacing oil. Like coilgunner and I stressed earlier, dependence can be lessened by urban redevelopment and investing in our public transportation infrastructure. We lag behind in both areas compared to our European counterparts. Also are cars still comparably inefficient, all of this can be fixed if oil subsidies were slowly phased out.[/QUOTE] Honestly I don't see a need for this to occur, I feel the ability to live in a nice detached house in a quiet neighborhood is something that makes America unique. We still have our cities where you can live without a car and walk everywhere you would want to go. I definitely don't see American society wanting to give up their cars. It's fun to drive. Sure cars could use a radical redesign and efficiency breakthrough, but I feel we're held back by the low cost of oil.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.