calfoxwc Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Obama's plan to hike taxes meets fierce opposition Mar 3, 5:33 PM (ET) By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's call to raise taxes on high earners and greenhouse gas polluters met fierce opposition Tuesday from congressional Republicans and also a few Democrats. "I would never want to adversely affect anything that is charitable or good," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said of Obama's call to limit high-income taxpayers' itemized deductions for charitable donations and mortgage interest. Republicans said the president's plan to charge fees to industries that spew greenhouse gases amounts to a stealthy tax increase for all Americans that will far exceed the new $400 annual tax cut for workers that he wants to extend beyond 2010. "The president's budget increases taxes on every American, and does so during a recession," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner argued that the Obama proposal would reduce taxes for most Americans. Any increases, he said, wouldn't occur until 2011, when the economy is "safely into recovery." Geithner said Obama's plan would cut income taxes for 95 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses. Raising taxes on couples that make more than $250,000 would make the tax system more equitable, restoring the balance that existed before a series of tax cuts were enacted under former President George W. Bush, he said. "This budget targets tax relief to families that have lost ground the past eight years," Geithner said. Geithner and White House Budget Director Peter Orszag testified at separate congressional hearings Tuesday, giving lawmakers their first opportunity to publicly question administration officials about Obama's spending plan. Questioning was pretty much along party lines. Democrats for the most part praised Obama's proposal. "It is making the tax code more fair," Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., told Geithner. But the Treasury secretary acknowledged that consumers could face higher electric bills because Obama would impose fees on greenhouse gas producers, including power plants that burn fossil fuels, by auctioning off carbon pollution permits. The goal is to reduce the emissions blamed for global warming while raising a projected $646 billion over 10 years. "Now, if people don't change how they use energy, then they will face higher costs for energy," Geithner said. Most of the $646 billion from the pollution fees would be used to pay for Obama's tax credit, which provides up to $400 a year to individuals and $800 a year to couples. The plan also would raise money for clean-fuel technologies, such as solar and wind power. Geithner also said the administration plans to unveil a series of proposals in the coming months to limit the ability of international companies to avoid U.S. taxes. Obama plans to propose legislation to limit U.S. companies' ability to shelter foreign earnings from taxation, Geithner said. The president also will move to limit wealthy Americans' ability to use tax havens to avoid taxation, Geithner added. Obama's budget proposal last week included raising an additional $210 billion from "international enforcement" and "other tax reform policies" but provided few details. Geithner said those details will come in the next few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Higher taxes on energy companies means higher rates for all of us. Does Obammy care? He's a radical and doesn't understand the ramifications of all his emotional outburt decisions. Meanwhile, 6 of every 10 Americans now fear he will spend too much and doom us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnbc/w...dent_110203.asp White House Knocks Jim Cramer For Calling Obama Budget "Greatest Wealth Destruction By a President" NBC's Tom Costello, on duty at the White House today, asked press secretary Robert Gibbs about some comments made by his CNBC colleague Jim Cramer. On the Today show this morning, Cramer called Pres. Obama's budget a "radical agenda," adding, "This is the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a President." ************ That's CNBC, folks. Not Fox News. The Obama admin is making all the wrong moves on the economy. Go Marx yourself, Obama. Let go of our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 He's a radical and doesn't understand the ramifications of all his emotional outburt decisions. wrong....he does understand.... just doesn't xxxxing care, cause his priorities are not of the free markets. ya gotta have balls to raise taxes in a recession......but ya gotta pay for the peeps that wont pay for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Higher taxes on energy companies means higher rates for all of us. Does Obammy care? He's a radical and doesn't understand the ramifications of all his emotional outburt decisions. Meanwhile, 6 of every 10 Americans now fear he will spend too much and doom us all. Again I ask, what about the 800 million and the trillions spent on 2 "wars". I am not defending Obama one bit, just saying both presidents did it. Pot meet kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Screw Them, get off the grid with solar energy. http://www.homepower.com/home/ http://www.solarhaven.org/PVSystem.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Again I ask, what about the 800 million and the trillions spent on 2 "wars". I am not defending Obama one bit, just saying both presidents did it. Pot meet kettle. Here's a serious question. Can you differentiate between defense and welfare spending? Also is oil more important to the US economy than Afghanistan? And since I'm not accusing you of pimping Obama do you believe that the US would be better or worse off without a military presence around the globe and specifically the middle east and the robust international arms business we do? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 ya gotta have balls to raise taxes in a recession..... Hoover had some pretty big ones I guess. He whipped 'em out, then tripped all over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 gotta love the Hoovervilles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 gotta love the Hoovervilles. History repeats itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Screw Them, get off the grid with solar energy. http://www.homepower.com/home/ http://www.solarhaven.org/PVSystem.htm Check out Konarka for next generation solar products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Here's a serious question. Can you differentiate between defense and welfare spending? WSS So the best defense is a good offense? I don't by it. And yes the welfare spending also happened on Bush's watch. That money has yet to be used by the banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 So the best defense is a good offense? I don't by it. And yes the welfare spending also happened on Bush's watch. That money has yet to be used by the banks. No. What I mean is that defense spending is better for the economy than letting either homeowners or banks off the hook. Or paying for busywork. Or just handing it out. I think the current "everybody's bankrupt" craze is the danger. It doesn't promote responsibility for individuals or banks. As I said I gave the bank bailout lukewarm support BECAUSE if Gingrich AND Shumer agreed it might actually be needed. Now I'm less than lukewarm and I feel that seeing what happened there we should be more hesitant to flush twice that much again down the toilet. And opening up access to even shakier loans than before to spur things? C'mon fellas. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 As I said I gave the bank bailout lukewarm support BECAUSE if Gingrich AND Shumer agreed it might actually be needed. WSS Am I hearing this right, a Republican made a mistake? Nahhhh, can't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Am I hearing this right, a Republican made a mistake? Nahhhh, can't be. Sir, with all your blaring away about how you figured me out what is it that makes ytou thjnk I'm a staunch republican? One day I'll respond to your question "why do you vote one party or another" but that's the reason I asked you to peg me on a few issues. I can't stand Obama, but I don't think you can point to a single McCain pimping post. Actually I'd prefer Dick Cheney...... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 What I mean is that defense spending is better for the economy than letting either homeowners or banks off the hook. I'm not sure many economists would agree with you on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Sir, with all your blaring away about how you figured me out what is it that makes ytou thjnk I'm a staunch republican? One day I'll respond to your question "why do you vote one party or another" but that's the reason I asked you to peg me on a few issues. I can't stand Obama, but I don't think you can point to a single McCain pimping post. Actually I'd prefer Dick Cheney...... WSS Halliburton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Halliburton? Yes? Is that supposed to be Pavlovian? I'll bite. I should hate Haliburton because..........? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I'm not sure many economists would agree with you on that. Really? Why not? Actually why wouldn't you. At least in the defense world you get something for the buck. Soldiers have jobs. We sell arms. Oh it may be overpriced or inefficient but oh well. Letting everybody off the hook in a nationwide bankruptcy doesn 't seem to make anmybody more responsible. Does it? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Yes? Is that supposed to be Pavlovian? I'll bite. I should hate Haliburton because..........? WSS They swindled the American public out of tax dollars you hold so dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AdaM Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Really? Why not? Actually why wouldn't you. At least in the defense world you get something for the buck. Soldiers have jobs. We sell arms. Oh it may be overpriced or inefficient but oh well. Letting everybody off the hook in a nationwide bankruptcy doesn 't seem to make anmybody more responsible. Does it? WSS Steve you appear to be talking out of your ass here... I know you really really want to believe you know what you're talking about. But its just so obvious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Oh it may be overpriced or inefficient but oh well. WSS Ummmm, isn't this what your complaining about with Obama? Pot meet Kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Steve you appear to be talking out of your ass here... I know you really really want to believe you know what you're talking about. But its just so obvious... What is obvious AhhDumb, is that you have absolutely nothing worth typing today. And we all know that. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Ummmm, isn't this what your complaining about with Obama? Pot meet Kettle. No. Maybe I wasn't clear. Defense spending employs soldiers to do a specific task. Welfare doesn't. Admittedly those who work distributing the welfare are employed BUT I'd wager the military trumps that number. Defense spending helps out munitions plants and we profit by selling that to other nations. Also being the world's remaining superpower brings more in prestige than competing with other countries for largest number of citizens on the dole. But there are gray areas. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 They swindled the American public out of tax dollars you hold so dear. So do internet marketing firms......... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 So do internet marketing firms......... WSS Your right, good thing I don't work for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Defense spending helps out munitions plants and we profit by selling that to other nations. WSS Are you sure your name isn't Lucifer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Are you sure your name isn't Lucifer? Uh so we oughta stop that arms sales right now right? How about we just disband the army and turn the other cheek? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Uh so we oughta stop that arms sales right now right? How about we just disband the army and turn the other cheek? WSS I know, all the 5 NATO heads are ironically, the top 5 in weapons sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 The one benefit military spending has over domestic spending is that it doesn't crowd out private consumption; the gov't paying a soldier or buying a weapons system isn't going to prevent some private employer from doing the same (bc they never will). However, that benefit is completely washed away if you're spending that money as part of a destabilizing military conflict, like the one President Bush started in Iraq. And if you've got a global financial meltdown, you're probably better off spending money on restoring confidence and stability to the financial system, not on some new weapons system or another military conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.