17 thoughts on “Obama’s Tax-Rate Hikes

  1. Dennis Wingo

    Especially the $100 billion a year plus cut in spending for defense, brought about by that eeeeeviiilll Dick Cheney.

  2. Gregg

    It seems that the historically proven fact that higher rates do not result in higher revenues cannot penetrate the thick skulls of the libs.

    So they have to learn it the good and hard way

    1. Larry J

      So they have to learn it the good and hard way

      That would require them being intelligent enough to learn from experience. I see no evidence they have that ability. Anyone who advocates their policies is too ignorant to learn from experience.

      1. Cecil Trotter

        The libs will never learn that lesson, but maybe there is still hope for at least 51% of Americans learning it.

        1. Larry J

          When the liberals control the schools, popular culture and news media, how are they going to learn that liberalism doesn’t work? I hope I’m wrong but I believe the country has passed the tipping point that Franklin and others warned about. Our grandchildren are going to curse our names.

          1. Gregg

            Well I think some libs do actually learn the lesson temporarily. They see the destruction their policies cause and vote for reagan…..

            BUT when good times return, they forget the lessons by using the mantra:

            “THIS time we’ll do it right!”

            Meaning that the only reason it failed is that, while the theory is great, the plan wasn’t executed correctly. And they then play the class warfare game and here we are again.

            I actually experienced this: I was talking to a socialist and reminded her of the last 10 times socialism failed miserably – even in the US, and her reply was, exactly:

            “Next time we’ll get it right.”

          2. Josh Reiter

            “Next time we’ll get it right.”

            Funny, I said the same thing to my liberal public teacher friend and his reply was exactly the same.

    2. Rick C

      “It seems that the historically proven fact that higher rates do not result in higher revenues cannot penetrate the thick skulls of the libs.”

      Gregg, Obama knows, and doesn’t care. When asked about raising taxes, he said he’d do it for “fairness,” even if it didn’t raise money.

      1. Gregg

        Rick C:

        “Gregg, Obama knows, and doesn’t care. When asked about raising taxes, he said he’d do it for “fairness,” even if it didn’t raise money.”

        I know that. That’s why I said “libs”. Meaning the tardo voters who haven’t got the brains god gives gophers.

  3. DaveP.

    The point is to raise taxes, not to generate revenue. As long as taxes are in danger of going up there’ll be graft aplenty from people who want an exemption.

  4. Sigivald

    Hell, the “Clinton surplus” had nothing to do with the President (as the economy rarely has much to do with the President, nor the budget).

    The .com/Internet Bubble and the associated capital gains tax income – that was a one time thing probably did more than either reduced spending or “higher rates”.

    (I see nothing in that link about the causes of the “Clinton Surpluses”, rather a cogent argument against “Bush Ruined Them!”)

    1. Larry J

      Also, the national debt rose every year despite the so-called surplus. That’s because they borrowed from Social Security to make the general fund balance. If government had to do it’s accounting using the same rules and standards mandated for business, you’d either see a lot of people going to jail or budgets a lot better than we’ve had for the past several decades.

  5. Godzilla

    “Clinton’s budget surpluses were a result of spending cuts, not tax hikes.”

    More like both. Not spending resources on foreign wars with prolonged large scale ground campaigns certainly helped. I still fail to see the point of the war on Iraq. I was in favor of the war on Afghanistan but with Bin Laden dead the West should just declare mission accomplished pack up and leave. It is a pointless waste of resources to proceed any further. The point was already made that you can’t attack civilian targets with terrorist attacks without being retaliated in kind.

    Present sanctions on Iran are stupid. The Iraqi oil for food program worked better even with the corruption. The oil still flowed and main objective of reducing Iraq’s combat capability to threaten its neighbors was a success. These policies only mean China will be the sole buyer of oil from Iran and inflate world oil prices for everyone else in the near term.
    There should be a lot of room for reducing paper pushing positions in government with all the advances in automation and leaner business processes we have had. The whole system needs to be reevaluated.
    This misleading talk about death panels needs to stop. Any health insurance needs to rationalize resources. In the end you have to consider if it is worth it to prolong someone’s life for another couple of months at vast expenditure and personal suffering for the patient or not. Or if someone really needs to take Celebrex instead of ibuprofen or paracetamol. The patient should still be able to pay out of pocket or get separate private coverage for any specific treatments they wish which aren’t provided under the mandatory health care system.
    What Obama needs to figure out is how to get US corporate money back in the US and keep it that way while stopping the outflow of cash abroad as the trade imbalance worsens. The Fed’s solution to a leaky pipe is to push more water so you still get pressure out the other way. i.e. QE and more money printing. However a much better solution would be to plug the holes.

    1. Gregg

      zilla writes:

      “Not spending resources on foreign wars with prolonged large scale ground campaigns certainly helped. I still fail to see the point of the war on Iraq. ”

      Amazing how you turned a conversation about Obama-nomics as compared to clonton-omics, into a conversation about it’s all being Bush’s fault.

    2. George Turner

      According to the CBO, the Iraq War cost $806 billion, which includes operations, USAID, and VA expenses. Obama’s 2011 deficit was $1,300 billion, while Bush’s 2007 deficit was $161 billion, a difference of $1,139 billion dollars, or 141% as much as the entire Iraq war cost, from build-up to pullout.

      For the amounts Obama is blowing, and the rate he’s blowing it, we could invade Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, and Egypt on the credit card and still spend less.

      1. Cecil Trotter

        I had a guy I graduated high school with tell me straight up that the war in Iraq cost over $6 trillion during the Bush administration alone.

        And the dude is a LAWYER, he has a B.A. in history and his doctorate in law. Further proof that education does not equal intelligence.

Comments are closed.