• 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.
After reading and catching up in this thread I have now abandoned all meager hope that the two sides will be capable of reaching a working compromise.

No is really interested in compromise, but instead are interested in being right. Neither side is completely right and neither side is completely wrong, but I doubt that will be factored in.

Some are so radical that they propose ideals that would dump the elderly and infirm on the streets.

Some are so radical that they think that full blown socialism will fix things.

Overall it appears that things like education have less priority than military spending. This is the doorway to doom as a nation.

For a long term solution everybody will have to put some chips on the table. If only one side ends up with all the chips on the table we can uniformly expect an economic collapse. If neither side puts any chips on the table we can uniformly expect an economic collapse.

I see one side blame the other for loss of our freedoms, but when I look at facts and voting records I see equal guilt from both parties.

Yes, we truly have the government we deserve.

Compromise is rarely achieved on these sites. While it is nice when actual positive discourse happens, it is rare, like a precious jewel. All else is vanity.

:coffeepap
 
Compromise is rarely achieved on these sites. While it is nice when actual positive discourse happens, it is rare, like a precious jewel. All else is vanity.

:coffeepap

And the difference being, we few on this site do not represent an entire country. THEY need to set their differences aside. THEY need to get their **** together. For us. We, the People. Not their ****ing rich cronies.
 
Not to sound insulting, but you really need to value your labor more.

First, let echo BD Boop's welcome.

Now, no insult taken, however, let me as what makes you think I don't value my labor? Truck drivers are among the most independent group of employee blocks in the nation. We are constantly struggling to find better wages, and working conditions, or even striking out on our own. As evidenced by the number of truckers that are constantly changing whom they drive for.

I think it is a stretch for you to assume that someone doesn't value their own labor solely on such limited information of me as a person. do you think I am incapable of negotiating my own wage? Or that I need some liberal to do it for me?

The business owner would be absolutely no where without the work you and your fellow works put in. No business can exist without the workers that keep it running.

Absolutely, and the inverse is also the truth. Which is why I'd rather the control of that be left to those who know the business, and its requirements to succeed.

j-mac
 
And the difference being, we few on this site do not represent an entire country. THEY need to set their differences aside. THEY need to get their **** together. For us. We, the People. Not their ****ing rich cronies.

Quite true.
 
First of all, can we have a link to the original article. It is hard to comprehend something when it's just quotes selectively stripped out of an article. Secondly, lot of the public speeches from both sides are mere political moves, what they really talk about in private no one really knows, and they probably will never say. My guess is, during the talks, each side will cry foul on the other and try to push blame to other side to gain public support and political leverage during this negotiation. Look at Clinton years where they actually had a shutdown. They eventually got things patched up.

On a personal level, I think whenever we have a deficit, it means there has to be some tax collected to repay the money owed. He at this point is talking about closing tax loophole, meaning just collecting tax that should be paid but not. So he's not even talking about raising taxes. Besides, look at Reagan, look at Clinton, both ended up raising taxes to cover the deficit. Raising taxes should only be used when you have a deficit meaning the tax collected is less than money spent by the government. So you need to pay taxes equal to the amount your government spent. How can you spent money and pay nothing, who is going to pay it? the next generation? I mean the government shouldn't collect more taxes than needed to cover expense, but it needs to collect the exact amount to cover expense not a penny less or it becomes irresponsible. Or we can do it the Ron Paul way, just cut social programs, SS, military etc. each cut 1/2 budget problem solved, and you pay less taxes.
 
This may surprise you but the debt has nothing to do with money we haven't spent yet.

Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
Interesting chart.

Sadly, you'd have to double the length of the Y-axis to fit Obama's yearly contributions. CBO estimates suggest he's on track to add more debt than all those other presidents combined.
 
because the savings the middle class received were negligible in comparison to what the rich received
What do you know? That kind of goes along with the fact that the tax the middle class paid was negligible in comparison to what the rich contributed.

Funny how that works.
 
And the difference being, we few on this site do not represent an entire country. THEY need to set their differences aside. THEY need to get their **** together. For us. We, the People. Not their ****ing rich cronies.

agreed ... and we can only hope that they aren't as bigoted as most here .. including you
 
Interesting chart.

Sadly, you'd have to double the length of the Y-axis to fit Obama's yearly contributions. CBO estimates suggest he's on track to add more debt than all those other presidents combined.

Not really surprising. Though this does speak to the "fiscally sound" conservatives more than anything else. Always claiming less debt and smaller government; yet we rarely realize that during a Republican presidency. Now we have two big deficit spending parties. Woot.
 
Workers (code for unions) don't sign my paycheck, business owners do. My posts reflect that.

j-mac

First, let echo BD Boop's welcome.

Now, no insult taken, however, let me as what makes you think I don't value my labor? Truck drivers are among the most independent group of employee blocks in the nation. We are constantly struggling to find better wages, and working conditions, or even striking out on our own. As evidenced by the number of truckers that are constantly changing whom they drive for.
Thank you for the welcome!

I based my opinion partly on the comment you made regarding unions. Unions (historically speaking) were a major factor in the creation of the middle class.

The other part is your focus on business owners. If they are making over $250,000 in profit (profit is after all costs have been addressed and accounted for) you are in no danger of having your business fail due to a 3% increase in personal taxation. Those additional taxes will be much more helpful for the rest of the country through entitlement programs, education, infrastructure and research into new technologies to improve America. You are much more value than the business owner's 3% in profit taxation and the smart business owner is very much aware of that... you should be aware of that as well.

Fighting for the business owner to keep 3% of their profits for fear they'll fire people just doesn't make sense when the nation itself hangs in the balance.

You don't sacrifice benefits for the 98% for the benefit of just the 2%. That's simply illogical.
 
Not really surprising. Though this does speak to the "fiscally sound" conservatives more than anything else. Always claiming less debt and smaller government; yet we rarely realize that during a Republican presidency. Now we have two big deficit spending parties. Woot.

you are right ... the only difference I see ... is that one side is trying to change ... while the other side ... is trying to continue with the increased spending .. . I let you decide who is who .
 
Not really surprising. Though this does speak to the "fiscally sound" conservatives more than anything else. Always claiming less debt and smaller government; yet we rarely realize that during a Republican presidency. Now we have two big deficit spending parties. Woot.

The fact actually is, the only 2 Democrat presidents in recent history (Carter and Clinton) both were either very close to deficit neutral compared to the Republican administrations within that time frame.
 
The fact actually is, the only 2 Democrat presidents in recent history (Carter and Clinton) both were either very close to deficit neutral compared to the Republican administrations within that time frame.

just a simple question for you .... who acturally writes the budgets that the president signs ?
 
The fact actually is, the only 2 Democrat presidents in recent history (Carter and Clinton) both were either very close to deficit neutral compared to the Republican administrations within that time frame.

Yeah, they had a bit more "fiscal responsibility" than the Republicans. But it's not like it's that different. Obama is spending like a rocket and now the government can't even come up with a budget; which is their job and both parties fault. I see no functional difference between the two main parties. Neither serve the People.
 
just a simple question for you .... who acturally writes the budgets that the president signs ?
I already understand where you're trying to take this, but it's kind of worthless. Even when Republicans control all three branches of government they still run up massive debt and increase the size of government. The only difference has been the party controlling the white house.
 
Come this time next year Obama wants to be able to point at the GOP and say they raised taxes.

I say screw him, this is Obama's debt and recession lit him do what the people want and change his failed policies, of tax and over spend.

I challenge Obama tp a debate on any subject between Obama and any rock outside my back door and he gets to pick the rock. Of he knows what a rock is.

Obama gets the first question on economic history, If he gets it wrong , game over rock wins.

I put all my my money on the rock, and I can't lose.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the welcome!

I based my opinion partly on the comment you made regarding unions. Unions (historically speaking) were a major factor in the creation of the middle class.

Sorry, but I see this as boilerplate union propaganda. the unions did have a useful place in America at the turn of the 20th century in establishing some guidelines of out of control environments, however as of late, say the past 50 years they have morphed into a liability to American ingenuity, success, and prosperity all in the name of laziness, and their own greed for power.

The other part is your focus on business owners. If they are making over $250,000 in profit (profit is after all costs have been addressed and accounted for) you are in no danger of having your business fail due to a 3% increase in personal taxation. Those additional taxes will be much more helpful for the rest of the country through entitlement programs, education, infrastructure and research into new technologies to improve America. You are much more value than the business owner's 3% in profit taxation and the smart business owner is very much aware of that... you should be aware of that as well.

The premise you are laying out here is one where I don't get that 3% though, government does. And although the business might not fail due to a 3% increase in taxation, it doesn't have that money to reinvest in the business either, that makes it weaker. Why is it that you think government can spend that 3% wiser than the person earning it? Didn't the stimulus failure show us differently?

President Obama's 'Shovel-Ready' Stimulus Joke: The Joke's on Us - Interviews - FoxNews.com

Nah, sorry man, I don't think that the government can do that. So yes, keep the 3% in the hands of those that know how to use it.

You don't sacrifice benefits for the 98% for the benefit of just the 2%. That's simply illogical.

Explain to me how that 2% man/woman became in debt to the 98%? IOW, if I break your window, I owe you a debt to fix your window. How is the 2% owe anything to the 98% that didn't earn it?

j-mac
 
Yeah, they had a bit more "fiscal responsibility" than the Republicans. But it's not like it's that different. Obama is spending like a rocket and now the government can't even come up with a budget; which is their job and both parties fault. I see no functional difference between the two main parties. Neither serve the People.
Number wise it is... but as you say that's neither hear nor there honestly. Neither have been serving the people as they should.

I just find the claim that Republicans are fiscally conservative a bit lacking in historical evidence.
 
I already understand where you're trying to take this, but it's kind of worthless. Even when Republicans control all three branches of government they still run up massive debt and increase the size of government. The only difference has been the party controlling the white house.

Mind you I'm not saying they didn't ... but the point should be made ... that it hasn't only been republicans running up the debt .. . that last two years of Clintons term .. the house and senate was controled by the Republicans ... and for the majority of the time .. of Republcian presidents .. the house and senate have been controlled by Democrats
 
Interesting chart.

Sadly, you'd have to double the length of the Y-axis to fit Obama's yearly contributions. CBO estimates suggest he's on track to add more debt than all those other presidents combined.

CBO estimates are always wrong. Always have been.
 
What do you know? That kind of goes along with the fact that the tax the middle class paid was negligible in comparison to what the rich contributed.

Funny how that works.

Because it was true and the middle class pay a higher tax rate than the rich do.
 
Number wise it is... but as you say that's neither hear nor there honestly. Neither have been serving the people as they should.

I just find the claim that Republicans are fiscally conservative a bit lacking in historical evidence.

As compared to what? Liberal spending historically? Really?


j-mac
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom