• 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.
It is a lie to say that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy caused the deficit. Here are the actual facts:

Following is a breakdown on some of the key measures and their costs, based on revenue estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, unless otherwise noted.

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.


Source: Bush tax cut deal and surprise stimulus - what they cost - Dec. 7, 2010

As you can see, if the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit, the increase came primarily from tax cuts for the non-"wealthy." As you can see, I have chosen a highly conservative news organization for my numbers. NOT!

There you go-posting facts in the face of emotobabbling class envy nonsense
 
Read my lips!! All politicians lie

Only the hyper partisans would try to deny it

As I said, we know that Democrats have lied and you agree with that. There is no reason to trust the Democrats with any effort to raise taxes. It should be a non-starter.
 
Wrong again. SS reduces the budget deficit. That's why the rightwing wants to kill SS

Not really. It builds up a huge stack of unfunded mandates.
 
As I said, we know that Democrats have lied and you agree with that. There is no reason to trust the Democrats with any effort to raise taxes. It should be a non-starter.

Are you seriously implying that Republicans or Independents, or any party, group of people or person does not lie or has not been dishonest at one point or another? Seriously?
 
It is a lie to say that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy caused the deficit. Here are the actual facts:

Following is a breakdown on some of the key measures and their costs, based on revenue estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, unless otherwise noted.

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.


Source: Bush tax cut deal and surprise stimulus - what they cost - Dec. 7, 2010

As you can see, if the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit, the increase came primarily from tax cuts for the non-"wealthy." As you can see, I have chosen a highly conservative news organization for my numbers. NOT!

1-25-05bud-f1.jpg
 
I've already provided documention to show the total amount of cuts. The average total cuts for the rich was $58,000 per year per household. The avereage total cut for the middle class was just a little over $1,000 per year per household.

I understand that English is often difficult to understand. That's okay. I have now posted the numbers. Have a nice day!
 
and those who constantly whine about the rich are really pissing on themselves with the urine of defeat. Populist rantings are useless-why not tell us what your alternative to the alleged trickle down system is

and those who constantly whine about the poor are really pissing on themselves with the urine of greed. Elitist rantings are useless
 
As I said, we know that Democrats have lied and you agree with that. There is no reason to trust the Democrats with any effort to raise taxes. It should be a non-starter.

As I said, everyone but the hyper partisans know that the republicans lie too, but you can't admit that. There is no reason to trust any politicians but the hyper partisans on the right think IOKIYAR
 
Are you seriously implying that Republicans or Independents, or any party, group of people or person does not lie or has not been dishonest at one point or another? Seriously?

No, even he isn't tht shameless. He's just desperately trying to avoid the issue of republican lies
 
Wrong. SS has run a surplus in nearly every year in the last several decades. That surplus is used to reduce the budget deficit

Our children and grandchildren will love the liberals for that one.
 
Are you seriously implying that Republicans or Independents, or any party, group of people or person does not lie or has not been dishonest at one point or another? Seriously?

Not in the least. Some do. On the other hand, and the crux of my point, is that there have been two specific times that Sangha has agreed that Democrats lied about cutting expenses in exchange for raising taxes. This is part of the reason that the GOP is not backing down from maintaining tax rates as they are. We must not trust the lying Democrats when they say that they are willing to cut $3 for each $1 increase in taxes.
 
Not in the least. Some do. On the other hand, and the crux of my point, is that there have been two specific times that Sangha has agreed that Democrats lied about cutting expenses in exchange for raising taxes. This is part of the reason that the GOP is not backing down from maintaining tax rates as they are. We must not trust the lying Democrats when they say that they are willing to cut $3 for each $1 increase in taxes.

And TD can say this, and still beleive that it's the dems who are being stubborn. :roll:
 
Can't you read that graph? It's pretty clear. It's even in picture form

I can read it just fine. It says that tax cuts were partly the cause of deficits. And, while it doesn't say it [go figure], it was primarily a tax cut for the non-"wealthy." The like is still a lie, Sangha, no matter how much you try to sugar-coat it.

And, that chart would not exist if both parties would have done their part and cut expenses so that the budget would have been balanced. That's what I want to see done.
 
Last edited:
And TD can say this, and still beleive that it's the dems who are being stubborn. :roll:

They are. They need to give up the lie this time and do the right thing.
 
If you haven't noticed....the party of NO has been suggesting that the main cuts be to medicare, social security and medicaid, and have fought against the wealthy shouldering ANY of the burden. In other words, finance it on the backs of the poorest and the elderly....just protect the weatlhy from having to pay for any of it.

In fact "the wealthy" are already paying their share and more.

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?

The "poorest and the needy" , which would seem to be almost 50% of the population, don't pay any federal taxes at all.

Going after 'the wealthiest" might work for a little while but money and people can cross borders easily enough and that's just what's happening. Companies can just leave, which is what they are doing, and then Americans will complain about that.

Unless taxation is fairly distributed people will just leave and 'the wealthy' who remain will eventually just run out of money. Then where will "the poorest and the needy" go?

In fact America prospered without these programs for a couple of centuries, and were in an international class of their own. Now they cant survive without the government looking after them.

What happened?
 
They are. They need to give up the lie this time and do the right thing.

It has been my experience that when a dispute cannot be resolved, it is not solely one entities fault. The Dems and the Repubs are both not willing to compromise. However, this doesn't mean that one party may not be being more stubborn than the other. Regardless of lies etc., they need to reach a solution, perhaps no solution is there solution right now. I kind of see politicians as misbehaving kids who can't learn to play nice.
 
In fact "the wealthy" are already paying their share and more.

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?

The "poorest and the needy" , which would seem to be almost 50% of the population, don't pay any federal taxes at all.

Going after 'the wealthiest" might work for a little while but money and people can cross borders easily enough and that's just what's happening. Companies can just leave, which is what they are doing, and then Americans will complain about that.

Unless taxation is fairly distributed people will just leave and 'the wealthy' who remain will eventually just run out of money. Then where will "the poorest and the needy" go?

In fact America prospered without these programs for a couple of centuries, and were in an international class of their own. Now they cant survive without the government looking after them.

What happened?

This is definitely a morbid thought .. and a reason why some other countries likely started disallowing people to leave their country. Greedy people will always try to find ways to exploit others and if that means moving to another immoral country, they'll likely do it.
 
In fact "the wealthy" are already paying their share and more.

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?

The "poorest and the needy" , which would seem to be almost 50% of the population, don't pay any federal taxes at all.

Going after 'the wealthiest" might work for a little while but money and people can cross borders easily enough and that's just what's happening. Companies can just leave, which is what they are doing, and then Americans will complain about that.

Unless taxation is fairly distributed people will just leave and 'the wealthy' who remain will eventually just run out of money. Then where will "the poorest and the needy" go?

In fact America prospered without these programs for a couple of centuries, and were in an international class of their own. Now they cant survive without the government looking after them.

What happened?

No. In fact "the wealthy" are paying a lower effective tax rate than the middle class.

The "poorest and the needy" , which would seem to be almost 50% of the population, don't pay any federal taxes at all because they don't make enough income. The wealthy, who earn the lions' share of the money in our economy, think the middle class should shoulder the entire burden of keeping our economy going

Going after 'the wealthiest" will work, because where else will they go? They won't go to other nations because their taxes are higher than the US. Unless taxation is fairly distributed jobs will just leave and 'the wealthy' who remain will eventually own everything

In fact America suffered without these programs for a couple of centuries, and were in underdeveloped backwater without them. The rich cant survive without the government looking after them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom