Obama Supporters...here you go... Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...hocked-angry-new-tax-increases/#ixzz2HKS8uEEx Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/
The almighty did say he wouldn't raise taxes on the MC but he did. If I had my way I wouldn't pay squat to SS as it won't be around when I can collect. Wait until they get a taste of what obamacare costs. EDIT little SS trivia: what political party/president moved Social Security from independent trust to the general fund so congress could rob it? what political party/president gave SS annuity payments to immigrants that never paid into the system? So what party is trying to take your SS away?
We taking sides here? I didn't realize political debates were allowed here. I'm so used to forums that disallow it. I'm a hardcore libertarian so I'm all about smaller government while both major parties seem to be about increased government lately. I've been asked "Are you better off or worse now?" and the answer is worse. Yeah, I've kept my job, and yeah I got a small raise - but the reality is that I am now paying almost double for gas and over double for food. So while I am making slightly more (not now that the new taxes are coming though) I'm worse off because of the government regulations and programs driving up costs of everyday objects that are required to live - mainly sustenance and energy.
Last year was my best year for income to date but I had less disposable income then normal due to jumps in cost of lots of daily/weekly expenses.Gas,milk, bread etc..I wish the Libertarians had a viable candidate because I agree that our biggest problem is our ginormous government.
so you bash Obama, but do you also recognize the incompetence of the Republican congress who pretty much said, 'let's not vote on the fiscal cliff bill on time, so we can say we LOWERED taxes'? and then Boehner said in regards to Hurricane Sandy aid, 'we don't want to vote on a big spending bill immediately after voting on the fiscal cliff/spending bill' bunch of douchebags
question from the ignorant political follower here... but how much of this is actually Obama's fault? I don't know much about this topic, nor do i honestly care, but I find it hard to believe that the president is to blame for this. Didn't the Bush tax cuts just come to an end? And from what very, very little I've read, aren't we still recovering from the faulty spending and policies of the Bush and previous administrations? Also, aren't we trying to get back to more of a balanced budget? From history, I believe that democrats have been the only ones to successfully balance it, and it seems like people always bitch when it requires higher taxes to do so. I'm not saying our spending on the government level is anything close to being responsible, but it is what it is. Finally, stop bitching about things like gas being the presidents fault. I don't believe there have been any additional excise taxes leveled on fuel, have there? We still have some of the cheapest quality fuel in the world. Gas prices went up because we've lost refineries due to natural disaster and antiquated technologies. The demand, especially in our gluttonous country, is obscene. When this demand drives up the base cost of something so common as fuel, wouldn't it be obvious that ALL other living expenses would also rise? So...how is that Obama's fault? I'm not taking sides, I think our entire national government system is complete shit. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Very good point Drew. I'm anti government and very anti Obama but the blame isn't entirely his. Now he could do much better than he has but in all fairness it's been a mess since Bush first started. As anti Democrat as I am, both the Republican and the Democrat parties are nothing but a bunch of moronic douchebags that ride on the expense of 'our' fruits and labor and burdens.
at work so I can't get into it as I would like. to Drew's comment, the house (republican majority) has dealt with the fiscal cliff...over a year ago! wait and last year and a few months ago. The senate (democrat majority) is shelving ALL their bills as it cuts gov't. on the gas side Obama has NOT issued any drilling permits on federal land he's cut them or let them expire and would not reissue. Production is up from drilling/fracking on private land which the Gov't cannot control. All of my buddies from Nawlin's no longer work off the US shores they now work off other countries shores. there is no reason what so ever that gas shouldn't be < $2 per gallon.
All of them are crooks I don't care which political party they align themselves with. Regulation is what keeps capitalism in check from human greed. Anybody that was surprised by the increase in taxes is an idiot and not paying attention. Keep drinking the kool-aid you'll be in paradise soon.
your facts are wrong buddy go do some research. That sandy bill had hundreds of millions of dollars of pork that had absolutely nothiing to do with the disaster relief. The senate dems sent that crap over and bolted for the holiday daring the house to vote it down. We have a system of checks and balances. for the record I would have gone off the cliff and I don't think we should raise the debt ceiling! We have a fucking spending problem NOT a revenue problem. Go look at the facts we've collected record revenue year after year but no amount of OUR money will EVER satisfy the spending of this Gov't. another for the record this gov't spending started under GWB, I hated it then and hate it even more now. Where is the outrage for over spending? I was pissed when bush went over by 180bil...LOL Obama has run over by 1.2 TRILLION year after year after year
i know we're getting off topic, but i thought gas prices of today are a prediction based off the current barrel cost of drilled crude. We have no shortage of crude, the middle east is pumping petrol down our throats at record speeds. The bottleneck on the consumer fuel line is the refining process. Didn't we lose 60% of our refining potential with Katrina? Point being, more drilling at home won't lower the cost of gas. It's hard to bitch about $3 / gallon when the rest of the world is paying more than 3x that much. Isn't gas in Britain around 1.5 BPS / litre? That's the equivalent of $7 / gallon here.
I've always said if people in the national government can't balance the budget, they should not receive bonuses or vacation time. It's hard to motivate incumbents...
the tree huggers and dems prevent any new refineries from being built as well and no production is back up from Katrina...that was a while ago. There are still neighborhoods that are gone. and there is a bill being drafted as we speak to freeze congress pay. The House I believe already reduced their pay after they took control from 2010 mid terms
I don't think it's a complete loss, just need to marginalize the Lobbyist and special interest groups.
When the president and the energy secretary both say "we want to drive fuel costs up to European levels" at the beginning of their term and then it starts to happen... That is anecdotal though. How about facts. Obama refuses to sign approvals on offshore drilling and has stopped renewals on leases that currently exist. So yes, Obama has directly been responsible for the decline of oil availability which drives up costs. The most recent refinery was built in 1976. The oil production has dropped 6% just between 2010 and 2011 to the lowest point in the past 9 years - according to the eia http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/federallands/ In March of 2012, Obama flat out lied about drilling being "up". He said that drilling has increased under him, while the truth is that he merely reissued 4 permits of the many that his administration had suspended in 2010 after the spill. http://www.instituteforenergyresear...s-slowly-reissuing-offshore-drilling-permits/ He is blocking 3 permits estimated at 19 billion, 10 billion, and another 10 billion from sites. And on land drilling? 2010 marked the lowest level of on land leases since 1984.
I'll have to argue on one thing you said: Regulation WAS what keeps capitalism in check from human greed. Now regulation is overstepping common sense. Der, a coffee cup is hot, but if I provide coffee in a waiting room, I better damn well have warning labels that hot stuff is hot. That is the state of the current regulation situation in a nutshell. The land of the free has become a legal minefield - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWdzrZdRa38
i know i'm going to catch flak for even hinting at this idea on a car forum, but is more efficient (which typically leads to more power) vehicles a bad thing? Is having a dependency on foreign oil a good thing? Is holding on to a technology that's 100 years old a good thing? There will be massive infrastructure and society changes once we completely switch from petrol, but I'm not really complaining about the price of gas in America. Again, we pay half of what the rest of the world does.
not at all the problem is that we aren't that far along so until we are lets keep petrol cheap. Obama pumped enough money into failed attemps at solar in one year that was equivalent to 100 years oil subsidies. you sir are right on, regulation is killing us now. Many know where I work, just getting rid of a battery is a hazmat nightmare. I think 6 pages of obamacare have created over 3500 reguations. speaking of which that is my only issue with everything staying the same for the next 4 years...we're stuck with obamacare.
big difference between 'Public' lands and 'Private' property. a 'lie' is a 'lie' and the entitled masses don't care that his lie was tied to the fact oil drilling is up overall but down on Public Land Leases. Oil companies don't want to pay private land owners if they can get it cheaper and with less headache on federal lands.
No one ever said more efficient cars are a bad thing. This is a common argument that because someone isn't "for" it they are "against" it. And we like to club seals. Want to know a bad thing? Forcing upon people what they can and cannot drive through the imperial powers of the federal government either by propping up failing companies and pushing a specific type of vehicle, or by making it extremely difficult to pay for the fuel of our existing vehicles through regulations and taxation. Everyone pays roughly the same for oil. It is a global market. the problem with other countries is the embedded taxes in each gallon of gas. Every gallon of gas we buy is 40% taxes and 60% the cost of gas. In addition, many other countries cannot refine their own gas and must buy it from other countries, also driving up the cost. So while we might be paying less per gallon than other countries, it doesn't mean we should be paying more. Maybe the argument is backwards... Ever think that other countries should be paying less?? Who made them the standard?
Funny thing is there has been a lot of advances made in alternate fuel sources....hydrogen comes to mind. IIRC wasn't there a few people who ended up dead or disappeared after finding things that could be powered with hydrogen?
I see your point, I think I just stand on the other side of the fence. I've lived in Europe, and I'm much more a fan of the mass transit they have setup over there vs. the drive 70 miles each way to work 250 days a year we have here. Again, getting into different topics here, but I would much rather pay $7 / gallon and be able to take a train to all the neighboring cities than continue to operate the way we currently do. So to answer your last point, no, I dont' think the argument is backwards. The gas tax subsidizes other transit plans that benefit the greater good of everybody.
Man why the heck do I drive 60 miles a day to work when I can do the EXACT same thing at home. I only need to be at work for meetings which is maybe 3 a week.
60 miles a day? bitch please. I fly 1400 miles a week, on top of driving another 150 or so every week...
while I think a public transit system is all well and good, we're talking about a country that is 62 million in population and 94,000 sq miles for a population density of 659.5 people per sq mile VS the US that is 311 million in population and 3,794,000 sq miles for a density of 81.9 people per sq mile. We just do not have the population density for a public transit system to be viable. We've already got public transit systems in the areas where the population density can support it, but anything else is going to be a huge loss to keep running - opposed to the minor loss that public transit systems are in ATL... Point being, a mass transit system in the US would not benefit the greater good. It would benefit the few at the cost of the many.
There are literally hundreds of cities in the US that have significantly better PTS --they all use less fuels on average than we do. Imagine if every city in the US were like NYC or Boston-very few people would be driving to work.
you can quote population per square mile all you want, that's not the point of this. I'm not advocating train stations TO every city, i'm advocating mass transit WITHIN every city. If there was a train from Atlanta to Savannah, for instance, I would probably go down there 10x a year. As it stands, I would rather chop off my hand than drive that 167 mile stretch of I-16...twice. How many people do you know that drive to work every morning? Now add up the number of people you know that take mass transit, walk or ride a bicycle. My guess is the sum of the latter doesn't come close to a fraction of the former. The problem lies more within our culture as a society, where mass transit tends to be looked down upon. Anyway, back to the topic...WOOHOO TAXES
Mass transit just would not work where I live. 80% of the people that work in the city live in rural areas and mass transit just can not cover that size area. However 80% of the general US population live in urban areas and the other 20% are rural so your point in general stands and is valid. I suppose it just depends on the geographic area in general.
I'm not putting a dog in political part of this fight as I have found that the less I talk about politics online the better I tend to get along with friends. You can not compare the mass transit systems of NYC or Boston to the rest of the US. In those cities (and some would argue DC as well), there are very densely populated areas in the city and surrounding areas where 90% of the people work and live. In Atlanta (and most other US cities), that is not the case at all. The reason that public transportation like Marta does not do well is because it ends up taking longer to get to work than driving. You have to take a bus, then take the train, then take a bus...when you can just get in your car and drive there without spending 3 hours trying to get there. We do not and will never have the infrastructure to reach everyone efficiently. There is already too much development (how much of a pain in the ass is it to just widen a road around here?) for it to happen...and even if there was...the entire system would be losing massive amounts of money on a daily basis because of the capital required to actually build it vs. how many people would use it. Add to that...the Atlanta (and other cities) mass transit systems are inherently known for high crime. To lower that, you would have to increase security which also costs more money. I LOVE NYC. I go there often and have family that lives there. Every time I go, I use the subways religiously. As awesome as that is, it is not something that makes sense for everywhere. In Europe, they can support public transportation due to the lifestyle that most of those countries live...they live and work in the cities. In the US, we work in the city and live in the suburbs which makes it so that you can not reach enough people to make it worth their time or the amount of money it takes to build, run and maintain it. Don't even get me started on high speed rail...what a waste of money that would be.
I don't need to change and move to the city. I enjoy living in the suburbs of Atlanta. Great schools for my son, lower housing prices, a lot more parks and outdoor recreation. It might not be for you, but that doesn't mean that I need to change everything about my life so you can have the buses and trains you want.
Heh I'm not giving up my 85 acres of country, peace, and quiet to live in a city plagued by noise, crime, and everything else detestable.
Completely understand. All life style choices some with pros and cons. If you want to live 40 miles from work, great! Be ready to pay the price in gas.
I feel this all still goes back to gas prices. Were the prices of gas $10 / gal, but $7 of that went to help subsidize stuff for the greater good, such as mass transit, they would have all the necessary capital and support to make it happen. The problem with society in general is everybody is out to only look out for themselves. I'm just as guilty as everybody else, and I take advantage of the loop holes as well. But, if everybody started putting the society first instead of themselves, this idea wouldn't seem as absurd. That said...i'd still probably pay $10 / gallon and all the tolls. Why? Jeremy Clarkson...
i can agree with most of what you're sayin Rick, i was pointing out the way Boehner said it. he didn't want to vote a spending bill after the fiscal cliff bill, and regardless of senate or house majority. the bill was going back and forth the last few weeks between the two, that was all over the news. the senate kept sending it back to the house and vice versa. and as far as gas goes, drilling here is only another temporary bandaid on the fuel issue. we're just kicking the can down the road for our kids and grandkids. sure our prices might go down and we say we'll use that time to research new fuel alternatives, but will we really? no, we get cheaper gas = problem solved
I thought taxes were only going up marginally for those making over 400k Pretty sure middle class ends way below that number. I'd even go out on a limb and say it doesnt impact anyone on this site. The only tax increase anyone here will see is the fica tax rate. Even that is is an end to a temporary tax cut that was made by the obahma administration.
I don't consider 400k rich. Maybe in salary but an LLC/LLP and the like with employees, regulations etc...May be pulling 6 figs but you are earning it.
If you are an llc making over 400k and filing as a sole proprietor you deserve to be taxed heavily. You should be filing as a scorp. A s a sole prop you have to recognize all income. As an scorp there are better ways to protect the income. Btw 400k a year is doing pretty well. what's rich to you?
One million seconds = 13 days One billion seconds = 32 years One trillion seconds = 31,700 years Just some perspective.
Pretty much everyone on here is rich compared to the world as a whole. We all have more than a vast majority. Perspective.......
400k is WELL into the 1% -- that is the definition of wealthy. If you have employees 1. You are a corporation 2. You would be deducting employee pay from the 400k. 3. You are only taxed on PROFITS. 4. If you dont want to pay profit taxes-- invest back into the business.
wrong again! $343,927 got you to the top 1% in 2009 and that has been dropping ever since. So its not WELL into the top. Let me approach a different way, how many people rich or NOT live below (standard of living) than they should? Not many I know of...most rich or not live at or above what they should. So you take the bottom of that scale and the rate up was just over 10K IIRC. This will affect their ability to maintain that living and whey they can't bye bye employee's. EDIT: we're getting a bit off topic since this is about taxes this is what REALLY matters: The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71% of ALL federal income taxes though they earned only 43% of all income. The bottom 50% paid 2% but earned 13% total. Half of tax filers paid NO federal income tax at all. The TOP is paying TOOOOO much period and unless this changes we are doomed! The rich or even close to rich don't have anywhere near enough money to cover the expenditures of this administration. Deficits 4 times larger than Bush...didn't know that was possible.
Truth. Taxes hikes or not the real problem is not the taxing itself. Its the ABSURD amount of spending on STUPID stuff that our government does. I also do not understand why the president (I would let the president slide) and congress/senate get salaries for life. I think that's absurd.
This is why I voted against tsplost (I know this doesn't effect you, delette, was a tax they proposed to help with road construction in metro atlanta). They may or may not have the money to do the requested projects, but until they can show my they're fiscally responsible, I don't want to pay more taxes. If you can show me you're fiscally responsible AND lacking funds, I'll be more than happy to pay the taxes.