Obama To Propose Plan To Screw Over Top Rate Earners

[red states rule]

So much for any NEW ideas from the manchild President. This is will make the far left loons like Virgil (aka beanerboy) very happy but it will make the Obama economy much worse

Also, Obama says the details of this "plan" will be announced laster

Boy that sounds familiar

I guess it never entered Obama's mind the best way to bring in more money to the government is to put people back to work in the private sector. Na, he thinks government creates jobs - like those "green" jobs he was always talking about





WASHINGTON — President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.


With a special joint Congressional committee starting work to reach a bipartisan budget deal by late November, the proposal adds a new and populist feature to Mr. Obama’s effort to raise the political pressure on Republicans to agree to higher revenues from the wealthy in return for Democrats’ support of future cuts from Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).

Mr. Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in a reference to Warren E. Buffett (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/warren_e_buffett/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Mr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise. But his idea of a millionaires’ minimum tax will be prominent in the broad plan for long-term deficit reduction that he will outline at the White House on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html?_r=2

[red states rule]

Reagan had a great common sense approach on the budget

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hDwCTKXCFW4" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[chloe]

I like it, "balancing the budget,it's like protecting your virtue you have to learn to say no." Ronald Reagan :salute:

[red states rule]

I like it, "balancing the budget,it's like protecting your virtue you have to learn to say no." Ronald Reagan :salute:


Sometimes you really do have to say "no" Chloe. For over 40 years libs have said "yes" to every effort made to spend more money and in doing that they royally screwed the US taxpayer

[J.T]

Reagan had a great common sense approach on the budget

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hDwCTKXCFW4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
Is that why he tripled the deficit while he was in office and had to raise the debt ceiling 18 times?

[fj1200]

Is that why he tripled the deficit while he was in office?

Do you need a civics lesson on Congress' role in spending?

[J.T]

I like it, "balancing the budget,it's like protecting your virtue you have to learn to say no." Ronald Reagan :salute:

Star Wars?


Do you need a civics lesson on Congress' role in spending?

How much of his deficit as congress overruling his veto?

I see, only Democratic presidents are responsible for their spending...

[chloe]

Star Wars?

OH Good Morning Brainiac. You look so nice today J.T I'm loving the fedora sir....your so nice and "giving" will you write my racism paper for me>>>?:rolleyes:

[Gaffer]

OH Good Morning Brainiac. You look so nice today J.T I'm loving the fedora sir....your so nice and "giving" will you write my racism paper for me>>>?:rolleyes:

He could give you a good example of how not to write a racism paper.

[chloe]

He could give you a good example of how not to write a racism paper.

I think he'd write an excellent one but if I used what he wrote I'd probably get an F :laugh2:.

J.T is smart whether we agree with his views or not at least he does his own homework.:cool:

[Gaffer]

I think he'd write an excellent one but if I used what he wrote I'd probably get an F :laugh2:.

J.T is smart whether we agree with his views or not at least he does his own homework.:cool:

True, but a skinheads view of racism wouldn't win any brownie points with a liberal teacher, so your right about the F.

[J.T]

Do you even know what a skinhead is, Gaffer?

You were a mod in your day, weren't you?

[fj1200]

I see, only Democratic presidents are responsible for their spending...

Did I say anything about Democrats?

Hint: The answer is "no."

[J.T]

Did I say anything about Democrats?

Hint: The answer is "no."

So you don't hold LBJ or Obama responsible for their spending?

[fj1200]

So you don't hold LBJ or Obama responsible for their spending?

Of course I do, they should be held responsible for their part in it. Although I don't recall how much deficit spending occurred under LBJ offhand. He did, however, greatly expand the scope of government under his watch so BO pretty much doubled down LBJ's contributions, expanding the scope of government on top of deficit spending.

[ConHog]

You know this could all be fixed so easily. Do away with ALL loopholes and credits. Just pay the percentage you owe according to your income level.

Oops that means bye bye EIC.

[J.T]

Of course I do, they should be held responsible for their part in it.

But not Reagan?

[fj1200]

But not Reagan?

Reagan had almost zero control over the actions of Congress with only a Republican majority in the Senate for his first two years. Tip had solid control of the House didn't he? LBJ and BO both had solid Congressional Dem majorities in both houses. Reagan also didn't propose expanding Government control into new areas of the economy unlike LBJ and BO and I maintain that tax rate cuts didn't lead to lower tax revenues long term.

[J.T]

Reagan had almost zero control over the actions of Congress
So how much of his spending was passed over his veto, exactly?


and I maintain that tax rate cuts didn't lead to lower tax revenues long term.
So you believe in the tax faery (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32642-Who-Here-Believes-in-the-Tax-Faery)?

[fj1200]

So how much of his spending was passed over his veto, exactly?

Right, ignore the rest of my post you mindless drone.

[red states rule]

Bottom line is this "new" plan from Obama is tax increases, with NO changes to Medicare and Social Security

Pretty much more of the same from the Failure in Chief

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu11090620110907103216.jpg

[logroller]

Right, ignore the rest of my post you mindless drone.

the other points are devastating to his argument.

[red states rule]

The state of MD passed a "millioaire tax" a couple of years ago and revenue went DOWN

So they passed more tax increases

Guess what, the budget is still facing a huge deficit

Libs never learn, and for some reason think punishing success is a good thing

[fj1200]

So you believe in the tax faery (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32642-Who-Here-Believes-in-the-Tax-Faery)?

The top marginal rate was over 10 points lower under Clinton than most of Reagan's two terms and revenues to GDP was higher so apparently you do believe in those fairies.

[red states rule]

I remember Obama once talking about his own "army" to take back America. Perhaps he ment an army of the unemployed

He is doing a great job of putting people OUT of work and his :new" jobs plan will only add to the already large army and take it to new heights