grahamhgreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-14-11 11:13 PM
Original message |
What did Obama mean by "spending reduction in the tax code"? |
|
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 11:19 PM by grahamhgreen
". If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road."
|
Abukhatar
(32 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-14-11 11:22 PM
Response to Original message |
1. spending reductions in tax code |
frazzled
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-14-11 11:24 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It was "tax expenditures" |
|
Meaning, money the government technically pays out (i.e., loses) for deductions on things like mortgages and charitable donations. The government essentially pays people for the interest they pay on their home mortgages. This is fine for middle class people, but it's a giveaway to the wealthy.
Thus, for example, if someone is carrying a $4 million mortgage, Obama thinks they shouldn't be able to deduct all of the interest on that mortgage--only a certain portion of it.
|
OhioBlue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-14-11 11:30 PM
Response to Original message |
3. eliminating some of the things that businesses |
|
or people can write off as deductions or claim tax credits for - some make sense and some can be good incentives... but some are just used by the wealthy and corporations who have the money to hire tax attorneys and strategists to avoid paying their fair share in taxes.
|
phleshdef
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-14-11 11:32 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I'm pretty sure that was his fancy way of saying "raise taxes" in some form or fashion. |
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-15-11 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. According to Jon Stewart it is. |
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-15-11 12:45 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Sounds like obtuse gobbledygook |
|
that can be interpreted in a number of ways
|
Romulox
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-15-11 12:47 AM
Response to Original message |
7. May I suggest an interpreter? |
TheWebHead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-15-11 01:08 AM
Response to Original message |
8. he should have said raise taxes or at least raise revenues |
|
that was too cute with words and erodes credibility. If you believe in a policy, say it, don't hide behind weasel words.
|
grahamhgreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-15-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. I fear that it's a phrase that will be seen by liberals to mean "raise taxes on the wealthy", then, |
|
he'll have an easy out claiming he never meant it.
|
WinkyDink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-15-11 07:11 PM
Response to Original message |
razorman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-16-11 08:05 PM
Response to Original message |
robcon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-16-11 08:12 PM
Response to Original message |
|
His terminology is ridiculous, though.
|
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-16-11 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. It's a tongue-in-check homage to GOP horseshit like "premium support" (aka: vouchers). |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:30 PM
Response to Original message |