ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
   
                 04/25/2014 10:18 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
White House Responds to Justin Bieber Deportation Petition
Tea Party Primary Challenger Says John Boehner Has "Electile Dysfunction"
Putin: Obama Would Save Me From Drowning
Louisiana Upholds Ban on Oral Sex
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
  2.282 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/12/2011 09:00 PM ID: 90767 Permalink   

President Obama´s Jobs Program Paid by Ending Tax Breaks for Wealthy

 

The jobs program that President Barack Obama plans to unveil is estimated to come in somewhere around $447 Billion. The White House is planning on paying for the program by ending tax breaks for big-oil, hedge funds, and people that earn more than $250.000.

Republicans plan on putting up a fight as they claim it will hamper economic growth to end these tax breaks. White House press secretary Jay Carney said the new measures, "the president is campaigning — for growth and jobs".

President Obama plans to send the jobs plan to the US Congress and urged members to pass the package. The President said in a speech in the Rose Garden, "We´ve got to decide what our priorities are. Do we keep tax loopholes for oil companies, or do we put teachers back to work? Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or should we invest in education and technology and infrastructure?"

 
  Source: online.wsj.com  
    WebReporter: slavefortheman Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  33 Comments
  
  We´d be happy just to have...  
 
...an actual plan/program that worked.

All Obama has done is taken his previous "Stimulus Plan", replaced the word "Stimulus" with the word "Jobs".

Despite the name camouflage, everyone, including Democrats, are already predicting its epic failure.

The only way we´re going to see improved economic conditions is when Obama is out of office.

In the 2012 elections, we can expect to see the Republicans maintain control of the House, gain majority control of the Senate, and witness the GOP´s presidential primary-winner take it all the way to the White House.

Just one more year...
Question is: Will America last that long under its current administration?
 
  by: carnold     09/12/2011 09:27 PM     
  @CA  
 
The way I see it, he´s finally stopping all the tax breaks the wealthy get and don´t need and using that money otherwise wasted for creating jobs.

How´s that the same as the ´stimulus´ package from before?

Further more, lets hope the tax breaks are stopped for the oil companies..including those kickbacks/extras they get and clearly never need.
 
  by: jediman3     09/12/2011 10:06 PM     
  @jedi  
 
"1) The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government — the highest percentage in modern history.

2) The share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

3) To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined."
http://blogs.reuters.com/...

What "tax breaks" are you referring to?


While I agree with you about the corporate tax rates, don´t expect to see that change.
GE is one of the largest corporations in the world. It paid no taxes, last year. Isn´t is a mighty coincidence that GE is also the parent company of MSNBC? MSNBC also happens to be Obama´s news newtwork.

As for oil companies, BP´s largest-ever one-time campaign contribution was made to... you guessed it: Obama.
 
  by: carnold     09/12/2011 10:26 PM     
  BO a big dud  
 
The Laws of Economics will yield the same result given the same stimulus.

The Jobs Plans speech is just words and carry no weight nor validity. This is FDR economy all over again. This so called plan is a repeat of other failed ones.

Is this Trickle Down Economics?
"...economists say, as workers spend the additional take-home pay that would result from a proposed payroll tax cut for employees. As consumers increase spending, that can prompt more hiring by retailers, washing machine makers, restaurants and more." http://www.nytimes.com/...

This is trickle down economics that Liberals said didn´t work. What´s up with that?
 
  by: Mr.Science   09/12/2011 10:49 PM     
  @CA - Bush Tax Cuts  
 
"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government — the highest percentage in modern history."


Yes, the Bush Tax Cuts under Republicans brought taxes down to lowest tax rate in 6 decades, while those same Bush Tax Cuts under Obama are soaring new historic highs never before seen in history of the United States.

Amen and spot on good sir. Low taxes in a republican administration = low taxes, while same low taxes in an Obama administration = holy shheeet socialism!
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   09/12/2011 11:01 PM     
  @ukcn  
 
Your observation is skewed. You’ve not once heard a Conservative label the Bush tax cuts as “socialism”.

What we *do* consider socialist (and fringing on Marxist) is the class-warfare that the Liberals (including Obama) are trying to invoke, and their questionable definition of “fair share”. As you can see from my last quote and link, the top 1-percent are carrying the brunt of the tax burden… yet Liberals whine that they’re not paying their “fair share”.
Puh-leeze.

If taxes are to be raised, then raise them equally across the board. Let’s see how many cry for higher taxes once the freeloaders have to contribute. You´ll see them backpedal faster than a Tour de France video-clip played in reverse.
 
  by: carnold     09/12/2011 11:45 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
they only pay that much of a percentage because they control an even greater percentage of the wealth and subsequent income. So to be fair as they gain the most from the current legal set-up of your nation they should pay to maintain it. As the bottom 60% are actually worse off under your current legal set-up why should they pay to keep themselves repressed???

If you took everything the bottom 20% (60 million people) owned, absolutely every cent, you would get less than 0.1% the total value of the US economy, if you took everything off the top 20 individuals you would get over 1% more than 10 times as much money from 1/3000000 the amount of people.

Maybe the reason the economy is so bad is that people like you obviously cant count cause there is simply not enough money in the bottom 40% of America to even make the slightest change to your debts. So targeting them achieves nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...
 
  by: veya_victaous     09/13/2011 01:57 AM     
  @veya  
 
"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men."
-- John F. Kennedy

I´m nowhere near the top 1-percent of tax-payers, but I feel that you should be able to keep what you earn and if you´re to be taxed, then spread that tax evenly across the board.

The US doesn´t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem.

The problem isn´t "not enough taxes". The problem is "not enough tax payers". This has been brought about by Obama´s destructive economic policies. He holds the record for the most people on foodstamps in *any* administration. He´s been in office for three years and has not shown any measurable progress towards stabilizing a stagnant economy. Last month´s unemployment figures reported that *no* new jobs were made in the month of August.

After 3 years of "tax and spend", Americans have finally seen the light. Obama promised change. We´re now saying, "Change it back."
 
  by: carnold     09/13/2011 06:11 AM     
  @CA  
 
Yeah CA, what the hell are you thinking? "lets hope the tax breaks are stopped for the oil companies."
That way we can pay more at the pump when they pass the increased taxes onto us. Doesn´t the oil companies supply home heating oil also?? Wow wonder how much that will go up to cover this cost?
 
  by: hellblazer     09/13/2011 06:20 AM     
  This sums up the Program!  
   
  by: hellblazer     09/13/2011 06:49 AM     
  @  
 
@hellblazer
You bring up an excellent point. It’s one that I’ve covered many times over the years.

@all
When Bush imposed higher taxes on imported steel to “level the playing field” and make imported steel more comparably priced with American steel, the price of steel went up. US manufacturers that used steel to create their products had to pay higher for steel. Those manufacturers didn’t eat the cost of those higher prices --- they passed it along to the consumers by raising the prices of their products. This created another huge mess for our economy because consumers didn’t want to spend more for a domestically produced product when they could purchase an import of equal quality for less money. The end result were companies that had to lay off *American* workers because they couldn´t compete with their foreign competition.

The same holds true for taxes.
Companies take all their overhead and operational costs into account when pricing a product or service. This includes the taxes they’ll pay. Who here actually believes that companies are going to allow their bottom line to be affected by higher taxes? If you said “I do”, then you’re naïve. Those taxes will be rolled into the cost of your gas, your television, your car, your hamburger… you name it. *You*, the consumer, will pay for those taxes by forking over more of your money to pay for the increases. With some of those items, you´ll have a choice to either buy the higher priced American-made product, or the lower priced import version. Which do you think most people will decide to buy? How many jobs will that cost? How much do you think that´ll further drive our economy into the dirt?

You won´t have that same choice with some of the items/services you pay for. Electricity and gasoline are prime examples. You´re just going to be stuck having to pay higher prices.

How do you feel about higher taxes, now?

[ edited by carnold ]
 
  by: carnold     09/13/2011 06:57 AM     
  I would like to say  
 
The comments about how there are record numbers of people on food stamps and blame Obama, I say shame on you!!! Under Bush´s watch the economy went to crap, and while the ship was going down in flames. The very people that caused the whole damn mess were rewarded greatly for their deeds. Some that had pissed away billions of dollars of other people´s money got nice fat checks from the government. And the second part of the ass rape of the country, was that many of those nice fat checks were not taxed. The money made from investments seeded with those fat checks is taxed at the lowest levels they have been in 60 years. Everyone in the country footed the bill for these crooks to make more money and not return anything to the system they pillaged. I have got to correct myself, how the system is right now with all the tax breaks for billionaires, odds are pretty good that the rich didn’t pay a dime towards the stimulus bullshit.
It is talking heads that spew bullshit, with catch phrases the weak and easily controlled to not only accept the ass rape, but to also convince others to bend over and take it. Class warfare, is not making the people that benefit from the system to pay back into that system. Warfare is involves taking arms against people and attempting to force a change. I seriously doubt they will actually send troops to Wall St. and force change.

This is how the talking heads work; they take strong words and warp it to mean something it truly isn’t. The above example of warfare is a prime example. The word loses its meaning, and they move onto another catch phrase, and leave the previous speech so diluted and warped the original meaning is lost.
I hear it all the time Obama is this, Obama is that, it’s all bullshit. Obama is not a socialist, he is not a communist, those terms are used to defame the man and avoid the whole point to anything. They did the same thing with Bush by calling him a Nazi, and a fascist. Sending troops into Iraq with what Bush knew was the right thing to do, because that information was incorrect, you can’t blame the guy for being deceived, and you can’t call him a f#&$ing NAZI. So quit calling people names and attaching labels that are totally false. I await your copy pasted self defense responses, because you always have a ton just sitting there.
 
  by: omegaprimus   09/13/2011 08:36 AM     
  I find it quite odd how  
 
republicans now think that the 8 horrifying years under Bush II were a magical time and pixies sprang forth and gave us riches we had never seen. Then democrats think that everything is peachy keen and just a few minor changes will solve everything.

Is it me or does this seem like a dumb Ettin arguing with itself? Both are wrong and both refuse to admit it.

The democrats and republicans are drinking the neo-con koolaid. If you really want to change things, you need to dump this Ettin based political system and start thinking for yourself. Republicans need to seriously consider voting for Libertarians and Democrats need to seriously consider voting for Greens. Get away from this system and start doing the right thing rather than blindly accepting these constant lies from both heads. The only way we will solve our political problems is to first kill the Ettin!
 
  by: slavefortheman     09/13/2011 01:49 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
You are right that people need to start thinking for themselves. There is a group of like minded people who believed that taxes are too high and that they are Taxed Enough Already = TEA Party.
We want politicians who are like that of Calvin Coolidge. He compared a government bureaucracy to Article 1 section 8 and ended it if it didn´t fit. Adam Smith economics was his guide as it was Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.

We are tired of the Progressives of both major parties. Bush was a Progressive and believed that Federal Government Stimulus Spending would fix the economy but all it did was suck a little more blood out and made us weaker.
 
  by: Mr.Science   09/13/2011 04:50 PM     
  Tea Party is Rightously right!  
 
The government needs to get its dirty government hands off our medicare, oil subsidies, and top tier ubber wealthy tax breaks.

CUT, CUT and CUT spending and entitlements! But the government has no business taking away entitlements that could potentially effect me and my luxurious lifestyle.

Oil Lobbyist spend more on buying up our politicians than any other industry, why shouldn´t they get the lions share of kickbacks?

The government wants to take that away along with removing tax breaks to those wealthy top tier bankers, hedge managers and oil tycoons that got us into this mess, reaped record profits, and pulled their golden chutes right before impact?

I say no, no and no!

I want things back to the way they were when Bush + republicans were in charge and riding the economy bareback into the sunset, over the hill and into the glorious ravine of riches that our economy is now reaping.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   09/13/2011 04:51 PM     
  Can we just  
 
implement a goddamned flat tax already?
 
  by: jediman3     09/13/2011 05:45 PM     
  every plan by our government,  
 
begings with a lot of money up front andd ten years or more to pay back. do teh math people, we will never get shit paid back that way! if they are in office, next election vote out teh crook! time money laundering by our government is stopped and congress is out where they belong!
 
  by: shannon853   09/13/2011 05:47 PM     
  @omegaprimus  
 
Interesting post. While I agree with your second paragraph, your first one seems to be a casual take on events with greater implications; like someone read a headline without reading the actual story and arriving to a conclusion.
Allow me to fill in those gaps…

"The comments about how there are record numbers of people on food stamps and blame Obama, I say shame on you!!!"

And I say that nobody should ever be shamed for feel shamed for speaking the truth.

"Government dependence, which is defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is at a staggering 47%, its highest level in American history, while 21 million households are reliant on food stamps. In fact, government spending on food stamps in 2010 ($68 billion) was double what it was in 2007, with the 2011 figure likely to be even higher."
http://www.americanthinker.com/...

Secondly, did you know that the Obama administration views welfare in a *favorable*light, as a way to boost the economy? Did you know that his administration has touted that welfare *creates* jobs? I’m not making this up. His administration has more-or-less admitted that putting people on welfare is part of their jobs plan. This is paradoxical thinking at its best, wouldn’t you agree?

On Aug. 10, White House Press Secretary got really testy with a Wall Street Journal reporter when he questioned the White House claim that welfare *produces* jobs. Carney’s first quip was:

“It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it, they’re going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually.”

Watch the exchange for yourself, here:
http://www.youtube.com/...

Bryan Preston at Pajamas Media addressed the backwards thinking of this administration the best:

“Here’s the thing. True, unemployment pays people money and they’re likely to spend it. But you’re also paying people not to work. Not to produce anything. The longer you pay them to not work, the longer they’re likely not to work. And the money to pay people not to work has to come from somewhere. Guess where (besides Jay Carney’s back side)?

That’s right — from people who are working, being productive, and who also are likely to spend the money. While unemployment insurance of some form and length is reasonable, the notion that it creates jobs is laughable on a Seinfeldian level. It’s a safety net, not an engine of our economic might.

Put it this way: If Carney’s logic held up, we should just carpet bomb the country in unemployment checks, forever. That would create a billion jobs and we’d all be swimming in prosperity.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/...


THEN…
On Aug. 15, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack went on MSNBC Tuesday morning to make the case that *food stamps* are job creators. Yes, Vilsack actually calls the food stamp program an “economic stimulus". Watch the interview for yourself, here:
http://www.youtube.com/...

In rebuttal, Ed Morrissey from HotAir.com comments on this administrations views towards welfare:

"So here’s the question. If food stamps create jobs, like Vilsack says here, and we’re putting record numbers of Americans on food stamps, then why aren’t we seeing record job creation? If every dollar spent on food stamps creates $1.84 in production, as Vilsack argues, and the number of food stamp recipients keeps rising, then why haven’t the GDP numbers reflected that fabulous growth?"

So what about that multiplier Vilsack claims? The one that says every dollar spent on food stamps leads to $1.84 in production? Yeah, Morrissey has something to say about that, too:

"The multiplier effect is completely bogus. For one thing, much of the money gets absorbed by the government bureaucracies that manage these programs. Second, as I alluded earlier, the evidence we see all around us shows us that we can’t get economic growth through government welfare programs. If what Vilsack said was true, we’d be better off seizing all income and handing out food stamps."
http://hotair.com/...

By this big-government reasoning, should we lighten up on bank robbers as they end up putting the $$ they steal back into the economy?

Shame on us for pointing out that Obama has been crowned the “Food Stamp President”?
No.
Shame on him and his administration for looking at the soaring number of welfare recipients as a *good* thing, instead of saying, “Wow. This is not good. We really need to rectify this problem and put people back to work."
 
  by: carnold     09/13/2011 06:20 PM     
  @jedi  
   
  by: carnold     09/13/2011 06:45 PM     
  @jediman3  
 
Herman Cain´s 9, 9, 9 plan is something I could back.

No tax breaks for any one.
No filing Federal Tax forms.
No more Progressive Taxation that punishes the hard workers and producers; the job providers.

Any one over the age of 18 working would pay a straight rate of 9 percent.

That is a FAIR tax plan, fair is treating everyone the same, charging everyone the same rate. This would make everyone more interested in who they vote for to represent them because they would have some skin in the game and their money on the line.
 
  by: Mr.Science   09/13/2011 07:43 PM     
  @ukcn001XYZ  
 
I don´t want things the way there were under Bush and the Blue Blood Republicans.

I want our economy the way it was under Coolidge, for his policies resulted in a six year average of unemployment of 3.3 percent with one at 1.8 percent.

His policies drove revenue from 74 million to over 124 million dollars that is money collected by the IRS. How? you might ask by reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government.

This is what the TEA Party wants.
 
  by: Mr.Science   09/13/2011 07:55 PM     
  well...  
 
I expect to see REPUBLITARDS attack this because of the taxes on the wealthy. and assholes like carnold who can not understand its needed will continue with their HYPERBOLE rhetoric.

asshole liek carnold will not provide proof that jobs and much needed money will magically appear when Obama leaves office.

BTW not 1 tax break for the wealthy has created jobs not did the extention of the bush tax cuts.
 
  by: smgordon1259   09/13/2011 09:21 PM     
  @smgordon1259  
 
"BTW not 1 tax break for the wealthy has created jobs not did the extension of the bush tax cuts." This is opposite of what PrezBO told us. Read:http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Oh, so you believe that people with less money can afford to hire? How does that work? Tell me how having less money equates to more employment?

What you need is Econ 101.
http://www.investopedia.com/...

Ever heard of this expression:
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
What part of that is it that you don´t understand?

A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.

Only a Marxist would disagree with it because that is how Karl Marx planned on the State owning everything under the sun including you. That is where you live, where you work, what job you will have, how much you make, etc. etc.

Just admit that BO is clueless on how jobs are created. If he is truly a "smart guy" then this is the economic condition he planned on having. If not, then he is clueless.

Either way, he is not fit nor qualified for the job in the Whitehouse.
 
  by: Mr.Science   09/13/2011 10:25 PM     
  ^--- Typical of SM Gordon  
 
Once more, Socialist Mooch Gordon (aka S.M. Gordon) has been skewered with the truth. And, once more, he proves he’s incapable of intelligible thoughts or comments.

Picture of Socialist Mooch Gordon:
http://www.politifake.org/...
 
  by: carnold     09/13/2011 10:31 PM     
  @jediman3  
 
And he´s doing exactly that....temporarily.

He´s trading short term employment for long term market volatility and downfall...which works just fine for his election bid, but not for the American people.

Same old same old. If a politician can sacrifice long term economic ruin for a short term ´solution´ leading to re-election, they tend to do it.

And that´s exactly what got us into this mess too, short term ´solutions´ leading to long term economic consequences.

When will human beings learn that evolution is the natural way of things?

When will human beings learn that in the vast majority of cases the market has the natural capacity to decide which industries need capital via supply and demand?

When politicians begin to replace natural demand for the demand that they imagine exists, that´s when long term recessions and depressions are inadvertently created.
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     09/14/2011 02:12 AM     
  @science  
 
"Oh, so you believe that people with less money can afford to hire? How does that work? Tell me how having less money equates to more employment? "

Let’s flip that argument, let’s say people have more money, does that mean they will hire more people?

Some employers, this is true. Some employers will take that extra money and add a new wing to their house, or horde the money away to get richer.

Everyone is all for helping employers that do the right thing and use that money to hire more people, its the other assholes that piss most people off on
 
  by: omegaprimus   09/14/2011 08:43 AM     
  @omegaprimus  
 
Thanks for acknowledging that some will add employees and I acknowledge that some will not.

PrezBO offer of a one time tax credit is totally short term, which sounds good but is not enough to spur hiring.

As for the guy that adds to his house, this is job creation in the Construction Industry. What´s the problem?

If this guy feels like waiting for a friendlier government to invest, why do you have a problem with that?

You come off sounding jealous and envious of some one that has done well in life. I don´t know if you are or not but it just sounds like it.
 
  by: Mr.Science   09/14/2011 07:43 PM     
  Typical carnold  
 
you Can´t Understand Normal Thinking
 
  by: smgordon1259   09/15/2011 01:40 AM     
  @Very Intelligent smgordon1259  
 
Don´t bother with CArnold. He´s brainwashed and stupid as his incompetent Republican heroes.
 
  by: Lurker     09/15/2011 01:52 AM     
  @Lurker  
 
The incompetent Republicans are Progressives just like the incompetent Democrats are Progressives and the glaring example is PrezBO.
 
  by: Mr.Science   09/15/2011 04:55 PM     
  Not filed yet...  
 
Congress cannot pass a bill unless it is filed. As of Wednesday the 13th of September 2011, no one has sponsored the bill.

"Congress should pass this bill right now," Jarrett said on MSNBC. No more than one minute later, Jarrett said the White House is still writing the bill and it will be submitted to Congress next week.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...

What a joke PrezBO is.
 
  by: Mr.Science   09/15/2011 07:38 PM     
  LOLz  
 
"No more Progressive Taxation that punishes the hard workers and producers; the job providers."
In other words, a lot of money for the rich.

The taxes are the lowest since 58 and the rich are richer than before the collapse. So start creating those jobs "job creators" and let it trickle down.
 
  by: Kaleid   09/15/2011 09:17 PM     
  Jobs Bill  
 
The "American Jobs Act of 2011" H.R. 2911 was filed by Rep. Gohmert
http://www.scribd.com/...

To repeal Corporate Tax.

What happened? Did PrezBo ever intend to file a bill by that name? or is it just more words, just more speeches aka B.S.?

So, now what is PrezBO going to do? He cannot use that name for a bill. He has to use a different name.

PrezBO is clueless that is why he failed to file because he did not have a jobs bill in the first place.

Gee whiz, PrezBO will have to give another Jobs Speech to introduce his new name for it. I can hardly wait...not really, just kidding, as I would rather watch an infomercial than watch PrezBO toss his head from left to right as though he is watching a tennis match.
 
  by: Mr.Science   09/15/2011 11:52 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com