Obamas 250K tax line? protests make no sense?

[Maverick74]

Quote from Gabfly1:

My apologies. I was not clear on that. I think it's important that we establish our reference points.

I think that what Obama has done, and what he wishes to do, is the right thing for your country. I don't have a say in the matter, of course. It is only my opinion as an observer. My understanding is that your economy was at risk of a major disaster unlike anything seen in generations, as determined by better minds than mine on both sides of the aisle. I am inclined to take such warnings seriously. Therefore, I think Obama can only be presently judged against the background of the quagmire he was handed. It is part and parcel. Only once this unprecedented matter is reasonably well in hand can we legitimately evaluate Obama without reference to the catastrophe that was still in the making while he was taking reign at the helm.

This has been a talking-point-free post.

I'll give you credit for a thoughtful reply.

 

[tomdavis]

The collapse of the US economy began in 1999 when Congress passed (overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans) the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that had, since 1933, separated legitimate banking activities from risky investment activities. On top of that, both Democrats and Republicans supported lowering credits standards so that more people could buy homes. In September of 1999, an article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html) predicted the banking collapse that began in 2006. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will tell you this information because then they would have to take responsibility for what they did.

 

[hermit]

Quote from tomdavis:

The collapse of the US economy began in 1999 when Congress passed (overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans) the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Not quite true.

"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives"

 

[tomdavis]

Quite true.

The final bill was passed 90-8 in the Senate. See below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act


After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions.

The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Quote from hermit:

Not quite true.

"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives"

 

[noob_trad3r]

The big problem I have is can I trust what the media folks say regarding tax issues, It makes it a little hard to trust these guys making millions a year obviously they have a vested issue when it comes to a tax increase. How do I know they are not being honest when it comes to reporting this tax issue?

 

[trefoil]

Quote from tomdavis:

Quite true.

The final bill was passed 90-8 in the Senate. See below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act


After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions.

The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

All too true.
But I would put it even further back: when the 1986 tax reform (also a bipartisan effort) went into law, a lot of tax shelters were done away with. But when it came to subsidizing housing, things actually got worse: while you could no longer deduct sales and gas taxes, you could continue to deduct property taxes and of course mortgage interest.
Middle-income people were basically forced to either buy a house or way overpay on their income tax.

 

[tomdavis]

Our tax code is way too complicated. As a trader and real estate investor I need both a trading specialist accountant and a real estate tax lawyer to do my taxes. I'd like to get rid of the complexity even though I'm someone who benefits from a lot of the complexity. I'd like to see a flat tax or a national sales tax that replaces income taxes and I'd eliminate all deductions. Anyone should be able to do their own taxes in an hour. It doesn't have to be complicated.

QUOTE]Quote from trefoil:

All too true.
But I would put it even further back: when the 1986 tax reform (also a bipartisan effort) went into law, a lot of tax shelters were done away with. But when it came to subsidizing housing, things actually got worse: while you could no longer deduct sales and gas taxes, you could continue to deduct property taxes and of course mortgage interest.
Middle-income people were basically forced to either buy a house or way overpay on their income tax. [/QUOTE]

 

[KINGOFSHORTS]

I wonder how it would effect the economy if we did away with all taxes and just put in a 20% consumption tax.

So lets say one gallon of gas costs 3.00, with the 20% flat consumption tax it would be 3.60 a gallon.

A Toyota Corolla that would cost 17K for example would not cost 20,400 bucks.

etc.

I suspect such a tax will not work in the US because our economy is based not on saving money but borrowing money from china, printing dollars and letting banks loan the money to americans at 18% APR so they can buy goods and services made overseas.

If people stop borrowing and start saving (Since saving will be rewarded by such a tax) it will make for an interesting situation.

 

[Trader666]

Like when you continued to claim that Heritage "made up" national debt projections that were in fact from Obama's budget, even after I gave you a link to the budget and told you specifically where to find them?

Quote from hermit:

making up stuff especially when it comes to facts is the new benchmark for debates.

 

[Trader666]

Wrong again Gayfly!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FCVZlLBchVE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FCVZlLBchVE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Quote from Gayfly1:

As for your inappropriate reference to the Iraq war, Bush Jr. had no reason to go into Iraq aside from his own agenda. What his father was engaged in, insofar as Iraq was concerned, was not an issue when W decided to invade. Stupid logic indeed.