Obama Will Seek to Raise Taxes on Wealthy to Finance Cuts for Middle Class

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by luvmymbpr, Jan 18, 2015.

  1. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
  2. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #2
    Sounds good to me. Seems more to me like you're against the actual plan and annoyed because you feel most Americans would be for it and that it would help the Democrats.
     
  3. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #3
    Nope. I'm annoyed that it was always shot down, quietly, and now he is using it as the center of his State of the Union address so he can then loudly proclaim the Republicans are to blame for the failure.

    It's dirty politics 101, and plenty of Americans will fall for it.
     
  4. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #4
    Not really. It's a usual Democrat move to relax taxes on the middle class, while raising it for the wealthy to compensate. Republicans tend to do the opposite. Clinton did it during his tenure, Bush reversed it, now Obama is attempting to do it again.
     
  5. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #5
    You're really not seeing how this is being used, only now, as a propaganda tool? It has been brought up every single year, and failed, but it is only now being brought to the front and center to be used as tool to blame the Republican party.

    If they wanted it so badly, they should have passed it when the Dems held majorities in all 3 branches.
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #6
    Government, through its policies directly and indirectly affects wealth and how it's distributed. For years it's policies have favored distribution towards the wealthiest Americans. It's high time those policies finally benefit the middle class.

    I don't understand why the OP is disgusted by this, or how the president is presenting the plan.
     
  7. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #7
    Welcome to modern American politics. Where nothing can be done unless without threat of blame. Don't pretend it's only the democrats that do this.

    And once again, having a majority, which was only slightly in favor of the dems, doesn't give any one party free reign to do as they please. There's always opposition, and a minority can stop the system entirely if they scream loudly enough.
     
  8. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #8
    The GOP loves rich people. This isn't news. The Dems also love rich people, but they keep their love hush-hush.

    I always thought a discussion on taxes was rather pointless without first discussing spending. No one wants to do anything about the insane spending the government does. When it comes for renewed spending, it gets shoved through. Even when they cry and moan about it, threatening a shut down, it's merely a big show. In the end, we spend more more more.
     
  9. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #9
    That's only 1.7% of the national debt.

    That's good. He should hike the inheritance tax, too.

    Of course, our broken tax code guarantees the super-wealthy will dodge most of these new taxes.
     
  10. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #10
    Who is pretending the dems are the only one that do this? Where did I ever say that? This thread is discussing one single topic, where it is the Dems that are so shamelessly pulling this garbage. At least you finally admitted it.


    It didn't stop them from passing several items with a super majority. It could have easily been accomplished then. Apparently it just wasn't a big concern.
     
  11. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #11
    Too late. Won't happen with the current Congress and Senate.

    Had his chance and blew it.
     
  12. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #12
    Indeed. Everyone knows it won't happen. His goal isn't to actually pass it. His goal is to use it against the Republicans. Gotta love politicians that focus more on trashing the other party and campaigning rather than focusing on something new or useful.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    You do. I do. I think a lot of people want to do something about it.

    UberLiberals, such as myself, have long advocated for a massive cut in military spending.
     
  14. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #14
    Of course most would be for it since it doesn't affect them. Why doesn't he close the loophole for carried interest that applies only to hedge fund managers? He's happy going after the top 1% but refuses to go after the top .1% that are his campaign donors.
     
  15. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #15
    Not necessarily. If it gets passed, he gets his way. If it doesn't, it has the potential to give a black eye to the opposing party. Modern American Politics.

    After all, he is going up against a party that blatantly stated their one goal was to make sure Obama's presidency was a failure before the man even had time to warm the seat in the office. I see this move as a petty tat for their petty tit. It's all petty. It's how the system works these days. You either blame the entire thing, or say nothing at all.
     
  16. kds1 Suspended

    kds1

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    New York, New York
    #16
    Can't agree with that. Between Putin, China and ISIS, no way.
     
  17. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    You don't need a trillion dollar a year army to deal with those issues.
     
  18. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #18
    Well, it's not a trillion. Secondly, what are you basing your conclusion on? Do you have experience in military strategy and intelligence?

    I think our military spending has historically been insane, but I'm not about to make a statement like that in which I have no expertise in.
     
  19. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #19
    You guys must be new to politics.

    EVERYTHING that comes out of the mouth of a politician is propaganda.

    Doesn't matter what party it is.
     
  20. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #20
    ISIS? A group we created due to our intervention in Iraq in 2003..... Putin? He was fine until we tried to install a puppet government right next to Russia. China? Not a threat given we're all vital trade partners.

    Notice how our military spending has created enemies more than defend our country.....
     
  21. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #21
    I'd love to look 20 years down the road and see what China will do when they absolutely destroy their industrial cities with pollution.

    Also, our military spending has not created enemies. It's our policies of fighting proxy wars, arming rebels, and trying to intervene in foreign governments.
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    You sure we're not spending a trillion a year these days? I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but I'll bet it has to be close to that ... if not more.

    And as for what I base my conclusion on, I have one word: alliances. The U.S. And our alliance with NATO makes us the strongest military force in the world even if we drastically reduce the size U.S. military.

    ----------

    They'll probably figure out a way to clean them up.

    Like we did.
     
  23. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #23
    It is amazing how much a good proposal can be damaged by the accusation that it is simply 'politics'. Besides, isn't politics the way we are supposed to run the government? What's the alternative?

    In any case, I find it amusing the the republicans are already calling this a tax increase – even though they have not seen the proposal in detail yet - when most news services are referring to this as a closing of tax loopholes. Politics indeed. One of the major problems affecting the sustainability of the US is wealth inequality. Redressing this by taxing income (which is not the same as wealth) is a start, but even then it's only a drop in the ocean.

    If the Republicans continue with their knee-jerk bias toward selfish, short-sighted policies favoring the rich, then GOP will come to mean 'government of the profiteers'.
     
  24. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #24
    Which we need military spending to do...... We wouldn't need a huge defense budget if we weren't intervening in everything because we have a superiority complex and want force our way of life on everyone since democracy!!!! Wouldn't need to spend the money to operate bases in other countries..... We wouldn't need to be spending how much on the F-35, Zumwalt Class, and Ford class?
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    In 2011 it was about $670 billion, currently it is $640 billion - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_expenditure#Budget_for_2011
     

Share This Page