• 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.
No, it was the rightwing extremists who demand spending cuts or they will take down the economy

Here is a clue Oso, The economy is going down because of all the spending.

But I'm not worried. Not raising the debt ceiling would hurt Big Business, which owns the RNC. The repubs will do what their corporate masters tell them to do

more class warfare... sweet.
 
No, the RNC and the teabaggers are the party of No. The rest of us understood that without explanation.

Teabaggers, not teabaggees....you got it right :mrgreen:
 
The Good Reverend isn't "blessed" at all. Hard work, smart decisions, and a savvy for getting things done..... In this regard, I am not blessed at all.

Some guys are blessed with good looks, some with intellect. I'm cursed with both. Still, I attribute most of my success to penis size.

...The American people, by and large, are irresponsible people. They do not spend their own money within their means. That are sadly up to their eyeballs in debt. And, they have not saved enough money for retirement. Frugality, self-discipline, self-sufficiency, and personal responsiblity are no longer the AMERICAN way. And, our Congressmen are no different. It's truly a sad state of affairs...

I think the FairTax would go a long way towards changing that.
 
No, the RNC and the teabaggers are the party of No. The rest of us understood that without explanation.



I've outlined three instances where the teabagged hasn't acknowledged three positions where Obama is not compromising. Why do you hide from this fact?
 
yes, raise taxes on the rich, at the least we should go back to the pre-Bush TEMPORARY TAX CUTS era....

Why should anyone pay higher taxes because the Federal Government has been irresponsible? That's like saying that we should take money away from parents if their teenagers spend too much. Is this how you raised or plan to raise your teenagers?

Maybe we would be better off passing a constiutional amendment that says if the budget is not balanced in a given year, the President, Vice President, and members of Congress can take no pay or benefits, or campaign contriubtions for the next year and expenditure must be cut by the amount of the deficit from the previous year. We need to discipline the right party.
 
Could you please provide a breakdown with regards to the Bush tax cuts as far as how much went to the "wealthy" and how much went to everyone else?

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline."

Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households.

But the Congressional study offers additional insight because it incorporates information about what people paid in 2004, the first year in which taxpayers could take full advantage of the cuts on stock dividends and capital gains.

The study estimates that the effective federal income tax rate, which excludes payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, declined modestly for people in the middle- and lower-income categories.

Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.

Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000."

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times
 
Go back and read what I actually said. I said it will take 30 years of spending cuts and eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy to reverse our debt problem created by 30 years of spending too much and our tax cuts for the wealthy.

Maybe you should draw picture.

Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
 
It's those with less money who are being greedy and wanting more, not the rich.

I disagree. From an economic perspective, everybody is equally greedy. It really doesn't matter the position, everybody wants more. This is the principle that the libertarian conception of the free market rests on, that everybody acts in their own economic self interest. This is also the principle by which communism fails; people will always exploit an incentive system to gain as much as they can rather than simply "giving according to their ability and taking according to their needs." The equal distribution of greed is the reason the free market works.
 
And, don't forget what they did to President George H.W. Bush. They said $3 cuts per each $1 tax. Taxes were raised and the lying Dems cut 27 cents.

You know that you can trust a Democrat to be a Democrat.

And the republican boobs keep falling for it :lol:

No wonder they can't run an economy; they can only ruin it
 
Good....I hope that you are right. And the Party of NO will pay dearly for their incompetence and childishness. The American people expect Congress to work to find solutions....all that the GOP is offering is continuning to be the party of No ideas.
The GOP seems to be the only one offering solutions.

From the Democrat side, we have sweeping generalizations, and we have...

NObama:
NO deal that doesn't raise taxes
NO short term deal to keep the country running
NO deal that cuts in any way his massive new entitlement
NO deal that touches rail initiatives... (and on and on)
 
No, it was the rightwing extremists who demand spending cuts or they will take down the economy

But I'm not worried. Not raising the debt ceiling would hurt Big Business, which owns the RNC. The repubs will do what their corporate masters tell them to do

If Americans want to hurt Big Business then they should not complain when these businesses move. They are certainly being welcomed elsewhere, and with far less onerous corporate taxes.

If you don't care for big business try to order your computer or a car from the little shop on the corner, but it might be wise to first ask how much it might cost you.
 
Actually, it's the republican way.

No! No! No!

When it comes to spending, the entitlements make up far more than half of the Federal Government's expenditures. These were Democrat plans.
 
I disagree. From an economic perspective, everybody is equally greedy. It really doesn't matter the position, everybody wants more. This is the principle that the libertarian conception of the free market rests on, that everybody acts in their own economic self interest. This is also the principle by which communism fails; people will always exploit an incentive system to gain as much as they can rather than simply "giving according to their ability and taking according to their needs." The equal distribution of greed is the reason the free market works.

But the equal distribution of greed is not what's at play here. Those with less want an equal distribution, in fact more than an equal distribution, from those who have more. It is the mob, being encouraged by unscrupulous politicians, wanting something for nothing.
 
As we have seen first hand through the last 30 years, there was no qualification to be successful, or even to produce jobs or invest in this country, to get your tax cut. The only stipulation was that your income be over a certain amount. It actually would have made some sense to provide tax cuts to only those that invest in new jobs or businesses in this country, but that was not the case.

As in reduced capital gains taxes and not taxing dividend income? Both are tangible proof of investment in companies and therefore jobs.
 
As in reduced capital gains taxes and not taxing dividend income? Both are tangible proof of investment in companies and therefore jobs.

More of the failed "Trickle down economics" propoganda. Trickle down economics has never worked.
 
In other words, you agree with the Republicans idea that it should be solved solely by cuts to the elderly and pooerest among us, and leave the wealthiest alone. Talk about class warfare.

There are programs for the poorest already, as well as many volunteer agencies and they've been around for generations now.

Where's the problem?
 
"WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline."

Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households.

But the Congressional study offers additional insight because it incorporates information about what people paid in 2004, the first year in which taxpayers could take full advantage of the cuts on stock dividends and capital gains.

The study estimates that the effective federal income tax rate, which excludes payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, declined modestly for people in the middle- and lower-income categories.

Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.

Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000."

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times

Terrific! Now, how about providing what the amounts of the cuts were in total for the "wealthy" and others? In case I am not clear, what amount did all of the "wealthy" get and how much did all of the others get?
 
I disagree. From an economic perspective, everybody is equally greedy. It really doesn't matter the position, everybody wants more. This is the principle that the libertarian conception of the free market rests on, that everybody acts in their own economic self interest. This is also the principle by which communism fails; people will always exploit an incentive system to gain as much as they can rather than simply "giving according to their ability and taking according to their needs." The equal distribution of greed is the reason the free market works.

That's not even a little bit true. Everyone is not "equally greedy". Many are content with what they have, or at least close to what they have. Very few must have it all. And even fewer are willing to do what is required to have it all. You are aware of the term "corruption" right? That is when someone's greed causes them to do things they would not otherwise do. Many people do not succumb to corruption, because they are not as greedy. Greed is not equally distributed, and it boggles my mind to hear religious people, especially Christians to whom greed is a major sin, defend it. It is ignorance and folly to think that we are all equivalent in our willingness to sacrifice the good of others for our own gain, and even stupider to think that somehow it will all balance out if we just let everyone tear into each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom