• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Taylor said:
It was just a few months ago, at the state of the union address, that Obama called for a "revenue neutral corporate tax reduction." Now he wants to raise taxes on oil and private planes (7.5% of GDP) in a blatant political gesture to make the republicans "the party of the rich."

Can we believe anything this man says?
Click to expand...

its in the campaign planner.. probably around chapter 3.. :p
 
The Barbarian said:
5% profit margin …. price at the pump $1.75 = 8.5 cents profit
5% profit margin …. price at the pump $3.50 = 17 cents profit

yep made a bigger profit selling the same product at twice the price .. go figure …
Click to expand...

Thank you for illustrating my point. They are double dipping, we are paying the price, they are making record profits. Isn't it just plain common sense that it's time to remove the tax subsidies from them? Why are the American taxpayer be the ones bent over the barrel here?

As an American being forced into bankruptcy, you'll have to forgive me for not feeling sorry for big corporations making huge profits and paying obscene bonuses. It's the average person, working and spending, that makes the economy work. Now we are being forced to spend more of our 'disposable' (whatever the hell that is) income at the pump and on food.

If you want a healthy economy, quit screwing regular Americans so they can go spend and thus create jobs.

Giving corporations more money will not create jobs if nobody is buying their product.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
The GOP are the ones who made it into a campaign issue. During Bush's eight years, the debt ceiling was raised seven times. Only after Obama took office did it become a political football.
Click to expand...
Only after Obama took office did the size of the debt limit jump to almost 100% of GDP. The raises that occurred under Bush maintained the debt at about 63% for the vast majority of his presidency. It's not the number of times, it's the leaps and bounds by which it's increased under Obama.

Obama's own 2012 budget calls for 9.5 trillion in debt over the next 10 years... piling on more debt in 10 years than we accumulated in over 220 years.
 
At least it is clear to the American public, exactly who is trying to build the economy and who is only concerned about keeping the pockets of their wealthy base fully lined....that is....if it wasn't already clear, is certainly is now.
 
disneydude said:
At least it is clear to the American public, exactly who is trying to build the economy and who is only concerned about keeping the pockets of their wealthy base fully lined....that is....if it wasn't already clear, is certainly is now.
Click to expand...

If you ask the partisan, as we've seen, anything less then surrendering 100% to them isn't compromise. So, the only way Obama can be seen as compromising is if he throws up his hands and says "you win, do it your way." After all that is the texbook definition of compromise.


Was that over the top? :coffeepap
 
Thunder said:
closing tax loopholes is not a tax-hike.

a tax-hike is where the tax-rate is increased for certain income levels.
Click to expand...

Semantics. When people pay more taxes, it's a tax hike. Marco Rubio put it perfect when he said that we don't need more taxes, we need more taxpayers.
 
apdst said:
Semantics. When people pay more taxes, it's a tax hike. Marco Rubio put it perfect when he said that we don't need more taxes, we need more taxpayers.
Click to expand...

tax-hike traditionally means an increase in their PIT rate.
 
WhyteRash said:
IMO, to raise revenue by closing loopholes/exemptions/freebies/welfare/etc., isnt raising taxes.
and where the hell are the so called "job creators".. theyve had these breaks for about a decade, so where's the jobs? or should i ask 'in what country are they creating the jobs?'
Click to expand...

Post a list of what you would like to see done away with.
 
Thunder said:
tax-hike traditionally means an increase in their PIT rate.
Click to expand...

That's what Libbos want people to think, but it's not reality.

Taking more money out of peoples's pockets, right now, is a bad idea. Personally, I can't afford to pay more taxes. I sure as hell can't afford to pay taxes on money that I don't have, anymore.
 
Taylor said:
Only after Obama took office did the size of the debt limit jump to almost 100% of GDP. The raises that occurred under Bush maintained the debt at about 63% for the vast majority of his presidency. It's not the number of times, it's the leaps and bounds by which it's increased under Obama.

Obama's own 2012 budget calls for 9.5 trillion in debt over the next 10 years... piling on more debt in 10 years than we accumulated in over 220 years.
Click to expand...

but IIRC, GDP growth had been stalled for years while spending was still climbing at a normal rate(out of control without restriction or retribution).. we barely missed meeting the requirements for a recession for a long time before obama..
 
Thunder said:
you're taxes are not going to be raised, trust me.
Click to expand...

if I pay more, my taxes are being raised. Play all the word games you want, but at the end of the day, it means less money in my pocket.
 
Thunder said:
indeed, demanding ONLY spending cuts and NO tax-increases, doesn't suggest you are willing to compromise much.
Click to expand...

In the last 23 years we have raised taxes from 28 to 35% increase of 25%

in the last 23 years we have raised our deficit spending from 1.5 billion to 1.5 trillion increase of 1000%

Now maybe to liberals they see this as a problem with taxation, but with common people , they might say we seem to have a spending problem … and it getting to be a severe one .. for 23 years in a row they have outspent what they have taken in, let start with cuts ... and show that they can tighten the purse stings first ..... then we can look at revenue .
 
The Barbarian said:
In the last 23 years we have raised taxes from 28 to 35% increase of 25%

in the last 23 years we have raised our deficit spending from 1.5 billion to 1.5 trillion increase of 1000%

Now maybe to liberals they see this as a problem with taxation, but with common people , they might say we seem to have a spending problem … and it getting to be a severe one .. for 23 years in a row they have outspent what they have taken in, let start with cuts ... and show that they can tighten the purse stings first ..... then we can look at revenue .
Click to expand...

Nope. Have you ever heard a segment on the radio called ". . . The rest of the story"? If these numbers told the entire story, you might have a point. But they don't. Not sure I have the time to link it all for you now, but you should at least understand this.
 
The Barbarian said:
In the last 23 years we have raised taxes from 28 to 35% increase of 25%

in the last 23 years we have raised our deficit spending from 1.5 billion to 1.5 trillion increase of 1000%

Now maybe to liberals they see this as a problem with taxation, but with common people , they might say we seem to have a spending problem … and it getting to be a severe one .. for 23 years in a row they have outspent what they have taken in, let start with cuts ... and show that they can tighten the purse stings first ..... then we can look at revenue .
Click to expand...

Or, we could close loopholes and cut spending both, and possibly even get things back on track even faster. I know, I'm supposed to be on one side or the other screeching about how the other side is doing it wrong.

I fail.
 
Polotick said:
Or, we could close loopholes and cut spending both, and possibly even get things back on track even faster. I know, I'm supposed to be on one side or the other screeching about how the other side is doing it wrong.

I fail.
Click to expand...

You're nto alone. As I've said before, best to cut spending and raise taxes. If we're serious, this is what we argue.
 
Your Star said:
Compromise is a two way street, we have to raise taxes to solve the deficit. Period.
Click to expand...

why do the class warfare dems only want to raise taxes on the people who already pay far too much of the tax burden?
 
Polotick said:
Or, we could close loopholes and cut spending both, and possibly even get things back on track even faster. I know, I'm supposed to be on one side or the other screeching about how the other side is doing it wrong.

I fail.
Click to expand...

Care to tell us what those loopholes are? It's been my experience that anyone harping about, "loopholes", is actually talking about legitimate tax deductions that they don't agree with.
 
cpwill said:
"Raising taxes in a recession is the last thing you want to do." - President Barack Obama



we are willing to compromise on plenty. whatever the President wants to cut, we'll cut. but raising taxes will not bring in any revenue, it will hurt the country's struggling economy, and it's not a political possibility. we might as well demand that Obama pass the Ryan Plan, and then accuse him of refusing to compromise when he doesn't.



At best, Obama wants to hike taxes, but doesn't want the blame for it, so he wants to make Republicans his enablers. At worst, Obama knows that this won't pass the House, and so he wants to go past the Aug 2 deadline to see how much he can scare the American public about the "eeeeevil Wepubwicans" [/Elmer Fudd Voice].
Click to expand...


why do the dems demand compromise on tax hikes? do they honestly believe that all the spending is necessary?

it seems to me if there is a compromise needed it should be with the GOP allowing some cuts on government programs they like combined with the dems allowing other cuts
tax hikes have nothing to do with the matter
 
Polotick said:
Thank you for illustrating my point. They are double dipping, we are paying the price, they are making record profits. Isn't it just plain common sense that it's time to remove the tax subsidies from them? Why are the American taxpayer be the ones bent over the barrel here?

As an American being forced into bankruptcy, you'll have to forgive me for not feeling sorry for big corporations making huge profits and paying obscene bonuses. It's the average person, working and spending, that makes the economy work. Now we are being forced to spend more of our 'disposable' (whatever the hell that is) income at the pump and on food.

If you want a healthy economy, quit screwing regular Americans so they can go spend and thus create jobs.

Giving corporations more money will not create jobs if nobody is buying their product.
Click to expand...

While I might agree with some of what you say … there are two things I would like to point out … first, who do you think that middle class is working for ? Might it not be for those evil filthy corporations making all that money ? You don't have to like it, but they are the ones that create jobs, that increases the middle class, that allow people to spend more to create more jobs, the simple truth of this is you can't have a middle class with out them .. . and they can't expand without a larger middle class. It's a circle .. we need both …... rather then just taxing them .. might a better solution be to sit down with them .. find out what is holding them back from hiring and expanding .. and work on those things that are holding them back …...

Point two …. …. when you tax them more (that includes taking away subsidies) that money just goes into the equation as a cost,, their profit margin is going to remain the same, and what you will see at the pump is a increase in cost …. which in turn is going to mean higher profits for the oil companies .. because again .. there is always going to be people buying gas and oil products at least in the foreseeable future
 
apdst said:
Care to tell us what those loopholes are? It's been my experience that anyone harping about, "loopholes", is actually talking about legitimate tax deductions that they don't agree with.
Click to expand...

When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.

With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.



We can start here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom