Obama's New Year Surprise: A Tax Hike

[Politico]

It is an economic reality that we cannot run perpetual trillion dollar deficits. Obama refuses to talk about it while he clings to 8% unemployment, but this is reality. Obama also says that he will not cut spending. We also know that the Republican House will NOT raise taxes. How will the Obama Administration deal with this conundrum?

Answer: Regardless of what happens on Election Day, Obama will let the 2001 tax cuts expire for EVERYBODY at the end of the year even if it means having to use the veto pen. He will not sacrifice spending and he will not be able to get through a tax increase with a GOP House any other way, so this is what is going to have to happen.

For comparative purposes, Romney wants to reform the tax code by slaying layers of bureaucracy coupled with the elimination of various exemptions. Everybody will see their rates go down, but the overall tax burden will be largely unchanged when you account for the eliminated exemptions. To deal with the deficit, Romney will also cut layers of spending enacted over the last four years.

With Obama, YOUR taxes are going up in order to maintain Obama's spending levels.
With Romney, YOUR taxes do NOT go up but spending will go down.

Both plans work at getting the deficit into a manageable situation, but there is a difference: One of these plans works for you and the other works against you.

Discuss.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Assuming, of course, that you're a Rugged Individualist who don't need no gummint assistance.

[Brittain33]

krazen is so much more effective at this than you are.

[krazen1211]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

[Politico]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

True, but it will get the deficit into manageable territory. That is not to say that I support Obama's course of tax hikes without spending cuts, which will likely cause another official recession next year (albeit of a less severe magnitude than the last one since it will probably be more like the 2001 or 1991 recession). However, we obviously cannot have perpetual trillion dollar deficits.

FORWARD!

[Lief 🗽]

The plan is to let the Bush tax cuts expire. If the Republicans would then like to help pass the Obama tax cuts for the middle class (identical to those passed in 2002(?)), they can. Or they can choose to block tax cuts for the middle class. It's up to them.

[Politico]

The plan is to let the Bush tax cuts expire. If the Republicans would then like to help pass the Obama tax cuts for the middle class (identical to those passed in 2002(?)), they can.

Again, we cannot run perpetual trillion dollar deficits and the GOP House will NOT raise taxes (simply letting tax cuts expire for the wealthy does little with regards to the deficit; we would need to let the 2001 tax cuts expire for EVERYBODY to put a dent in the deficit if we refuse to cut spending). This is Obama's ONLY chance to raise taxes in order to get the deficit into a manageable situation, and he is going to take the opportunity with his re-election bid out of the way (even if he is re-elected, he is going to have to blow his political capital on a tax hike). This is the price he will have to pay for running trillion dollar deficits for an entire presidential term. Either that, or he will agree to spending cuts, which he says he will not do. He needs to raise taxes across-the-board or cut spending across-the-board. The math does not add up any other way.

FORWARD!

[Landslide Lyndon]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

True, but it will get the deficit into manageable territory. That is not to say that I support Obama's course of tax hikes without spending cuts, which will likely cause another official recession next year (albeit of a less severe magnitude than the last one since it will probably be more like the 2001 or 1991 recession). However, we obviously cannot have perpetual trillion dollar deficits.

FORWARD!

So that's how it looks when two retards are masturbating each other.

[Politico]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

True, but it will get the deficit into manageable territory. That is not to say that I support Obama's course of tax hikes without spending cuts, which will likely cause another official recession next year (albeit of a less severe magnitude than the last one since it will probably be more like the 2001 or 1991 recession). However, we obviously cannot have perpetual trillion dollar deficits.

FORWARD!

So that's how it looks when two retards are masturbating each other.

Here are 10,000 retards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rshdJZruH_0

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democratic bill that wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year was defeated in the House. The Republicans instead passed a bill that would raise the payroll taxes by 2% on almost everyone, but keep all of the tax cuts for the rich.

[Landslide Lyndon]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

True, but it will get the deficit into manageable territory. That is not to say that I support Obama's course of tax hikes without spending cuts, which will likely cause another official recession next year (albeit of a less severe magnitude than the last one since it will probably be more like the 2001 or 1991 recession). However, we obviously cannot have perpetual trillion dollar deficits.

FORWARD!

So that's how it looks when two retards are masturbating each other.

Here are 10,000 retards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rshdJZruH_0

There must be only 9999 because I can't see you anywhere.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

True, but it will get the deficit into manageable territory. That is not to say that I support Obama's course of tax hikes without spending cuts, which will likely cause another official recession next year (albeit of a less severe magnitude than the last one since it will probably be more like the 2001 or 1991 recession). However, we obviously cannot have perpetual trillion dollar deficits.

FORWARD!

So that's how it looks when two retards are masturbating each other.

Here are 10,000 retards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rshdJZruH_0

Only ten per cent of the protesters are of significantly below-average intelligence? Well that is remarkable.

[Politico]

The Democratic bill that wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year was defeated in the House. The Republicans instead passed a bill that would raise the payroll taxes by 2% on almost everyone, but keep all of the tax cuts for the rich.

I am talking about economics, not political games.

We cannot run perpetual trillion dollar deficits. The deficit needs to be brought back to reality. This can only be achieved via across-the-board tax increases and/or across-the-board spending cuts. Obama refuses to do the latter. Therefore, he will be forced to undergo the former. The GOP House will not allow across-the-board tax increases therefore Obama will be forced to simply let the 2001 tax cuts expire for EVERYBODY on December 31.

Of course, if you're not happy with the prospect of ringing in the new year by paying a higher tax rate on YOUR income you're more than welcome to support Mitt Romney.

[Politico]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

True, but it will get the deficit into manageable territory. That is not to say that I support Obama's course of tax hikes without spending cuts, which will likely cause another official recession next year (albeit of a less severe magnitude than the last one since it will probably be more like the 2001 or 1991 recession). However, we obviously cannot have perpetual trillion dollar deficits.

FORWARD!

So that's how it looks when two retards are masturbating each other.

Here are 10,000 retards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rshdJZruH_0

Only ten per cent of the protesters are of significantly below-average intelligence? Well that is remarkable.

Surely the number was not REALLY 100,000, and they simply made a typo there...

Greece is going up in flames, and this guy has the nerve to call krazen1211 and I retards while suggesting that he knows what is better for America than we do?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

True, but it will get the deficit into manageable territory. That is not to say that I support Obama's course of tax hikes without spending cuts, which will likely cause another official recession next year (albeit of a less severe magnitude than the last one since it will probably be more like the 2001 or 1991 recession). However, we obviously cannot have perpetual trillion dollar deficits.

FORWARD!

So that's how it looks when two retards are masturbating each other.

Here are 10,000 retards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rshdJZruH_0

Only ten per cent of the protesters are of significantly below-average intelligence? Well that is remarkable.

Surely the number was not REALLY 100,000, and they simply made a typo there...

Whatever you want to think.

[Lief 🗽]

But Obama says he will not cut spending.

lol wut

[Politico]

But Obama says he will not cut spending.

lol wut

You heard me. Are you suggesting that Obama is going to eliminate the spending he has undergone the past four years?

[LastVoter]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

True, but it will get the deficit into manageable territory. That is not to say that I support Obama's course of tax hikes without spending cuts, which will likely cause another official recession next year (albeit of a less severe magnitude than the last one since it will probably be more like the 2001 or 1991 recession). However, we obviously cannot have perpetual trillion dollar deficits.

FORWARD!

But the problem is that we need to more public spending, not less Politico.

[Politico]

A full expiration of the 2010 tax cuts isn't quite enough to pay all these welfare queens that obama has put on the public dole.

True, but it will get the deficit into manageable territory. That is not to say that I support Obama's course of tax hikes without spending cuts, which will likely cause another official recession next year (albeit of a less severe magnitude than the last one since it will probably be more like the 2001 or 1991 recession). However, we obviously cannot have perpetual trillion dollar deficits.

FORWARD!

But the problem is that we need to more public spending, not less Politico.

Not going to happen.

Seriously, guys...I don't want this thread descending into a hackfest. This is going to be THE issue after the election is over even if Romney wins.

[LiberalJunkie]

Actually it's Bush's tax increase since he made an ending date for his tax cuts in 2010. Obama actually cut taxes for two more years.

[Politico]

Actually it's Bush's tax increase since he made an ending date for his tax cuts in 2010. Obama actually cut taxes for two more years.

Not that any of this really matters, but the Republicans cut a deal with Daschle and the Democrats back in 2001 to have the cuts expire in 2010. Then another deal was cut to have them expire at the end of 2012. What matters is that they're expiring at the end of the year yet Obama refuses to pledge NOT to let them expire. It is telling, and Republicans are going to call him on this in a matter of days.

Romney ought to paint Obama into a corner over this in the debates. We know what Romney is going to do to get the deficit under control: Cut spending without raising taxes. We do not know whether or not Obama is willing to cut spending in order to achieve a manageable deficit (it is my understanding that he has promised not to cut spending, especially on programs such as the reportedly successful cell phone give-away in Cleveland, but I may be wrong. It appears Obama prefers raising YOUR taxes in order to fund "forward"-thinking cell phone give-away programs).

My bet: Obama and Co. are planning on letting the tax cuts expire for EVERYBODY at the end of the year, effectively raising taxes without signing a bill that raises taxes (so he can continue to say he has not raised taxes, and so he does not have to cut spending down the road since the GOP House will never authorize a tax hike). Since Obama prioritizes government spending over tax relief, and does not have to face re-election after November, it makes the most sense. Obviously we cannot run perpetual trillion dollar deficits for another presidential term, right?

FORWARD!

[LiberalJunkie]

Actually it's Bush's tax increase since he made an ending date for his tax cuts in 2010. Obama actually cut taxes for two more years.

Not that any of this really matters, but the Republicans cut a deal with Daschle and the Democrats back in 2001 to have the cuts expire in 2010. Then another deal was cut to have them expire at the end of 2012. What matters is that they're expiring at the end of the year yet Obama refuses to pledge NOT to let them expire. It is telling, and Republicans are going to call him on this in a matter of days.

Romney ought to paint Obama into a corner over this in the debates. We know what Romney is going to do to get the deficit under control: Cut spending without raising taxes. We do not know whether or not Obama is willing to cut spending in order to achieve a manageable deficit (it is my understanding that he has promised not to cut spending, especially on programs such as the reportedly successful cell phone give-away in Cleveland, but I may be wrong. It appears Obama prefers raising YOUR taxes in order to fund "forward"-thinking cell phone give-away programs).

My bet: Obama and Co. are planning on letting the tax cuts expire for EVERYBODY at the end of the year, effectively raising taxes without signing a bill that raises taxes (so he can continue to say he has not raised taxes). Since Obama prioritizes government spending over tax relief, and does not have to face re-election after November, it makes the most sense. Obviously we cannot run perpetual trillion dollar deficits for another presidential term, right?

Well if that is his plan I'm for it because I would love the tax rates to be like in the 90s where they didn't stop "job creators" from hiring 20+ million people.

[Politico]

Actually it's Bush's tax increase since he made an ending date for his tax cuts in 2010. Obama actually cut taxes for two more years.

Not that any of this really matters, but the Republicans cut a deal with Daschle and the Democrats back in 2001 to have the cuts expire in 2010. Then another deal was cut to have them expire at the end of 2012. What matters is that they're expiring at the end of the year yet Obama refuses to pledge NOT to let them expire. It is telling, and Republicans are going to call him on this in a matter of days.

Romney ought to paint Obama into a corner over this in the debates. We know what Romney is going to do to get the deficit under control: Cut spending without raising taxes. We do not know whether or not Obama is willing to cut spending in order to achieve a manageable deficit (it is my understanding that he has promised not to cut spending, especially on programs such as the reportedly successful cell phone give-away in Cleveland, but I may be wrong. It appears Obama prefers raising YOUR taxes in order to fund "forward"-thinking cell phone give-away programs).

My bet: Obama and Co. are planning on letting the tax cuts expire for EVERYBODY at the end of the year, effectively raising taxes without signing a bill that raises taxes (so he can continue to say he has not raised taxes). Since Obama prioritizes government spending over tax relief, and does not have to face re-election after November, it makes the most sense. Obviously we cannot run perpetual trillion dollar deficits for another presidential term, right?

Well if that is his plan I'm for it because I would love the tax [spending] rates to be like in the 90s where they didn't stop "job creators" from hiring 20+ million people.

Fixed.

A tax hike-induced recession will not create jobs. We need a business friendly environment that is conducive to entrepreneurs inventing the next great innovations (e.g., the 1990s information technology boom). Innovation in the private sector powers economic growth. We need more of it, not less. Now more than ever.

[LiberalJunkie]

Actually it's Bush's tax increase since he made an ending date for his tax cuts in 2010. Obama actually cut taxes for two more years.

Not that any of this really matters, but the Republicans cut a deal with Daschle and the Democrats back in 2001 to have the cuts expire in 2010. Then another deal was cut to have them expire at the end of 2012. What matters is that they're expiring at the end of the year yet Obama refuses to pledge NOT to let them expire. It is telling, and Republicans are going to call him on this in a matter of days.

Romney ought to paint Obama into a corner over this in the debates. We know what Romney is going to do to get the deficit under control: Cut spending without raising taxes. We do not know whether or not Obama is willing to cut spending in order to achieve a manageable deficit (it is my understanding that he has promised not to cut spending, especially on programs such as the reportedly successful cell phone give-away in Cleveland, but I may be wrong. It appears Obama prefers raising YOUR taxes in order to fund "forward"-thinking cell phone give-away programs).

My bet: Obama and Co. are planning on letting the tax cuts expire for EVERYBODY at the end of the year, effectively raising taxes without signing a bill that raises taxes (so he can continue to say he has not raised taxes). Since Obama prioritizes government spending over tax relief, and does not have to face re-election after November, it makes the most sense. Obviously we cannot run perpetual trillion dollar deficits for another presidential term, right?

Well if that is his plan I'm for it because I would love the [tax] & [spending] rates to be like in the 90s where they didn't stop "job creators" from hiring 20+ million people.

Fixed again.

[King]

But Obama says he will not cut spending.

lol wut

You heard me. Are you suggesting that Obama is going to eliminate the spending he has undergone the past four years?

Most of the stimulus spending has already expired and Paul Ryan's only use in this campaign has been to attack Obama for having $716 billion in cuts from Medicare.  Not to mention the attacks from Romney for cutting the defense budget.

Obama is more conservative than Mitt on this issue.  At least in real policy.  Mitt does have the rhetoric advantage in that say he wants to cut spending more often. 

But it's one of those "cut spending"s where he just outlines 2.6 billion on his website, says we'll think about it later, and then proposes $2 trillion in new spending and $5 trillion in tax cuts.