• 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, you've never said that!! :roll:

And where is that plan?

There was one politician mentioning weaning Americans off Social Security, not ending it, and that was it.

Where is the plan to end Social Security?
 
And where is that plan?

There was one politician mentioning weaning Americans off Social Security, not ending it, and that was it.

Where is the plan to end Social Security?

I posted a link with hundreds of references.
 
His position is that his opposition was a political calculation, and not an opposition to debt.

wrong again

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Obama 2006 vs. Obama January 2011 vs. Obama April 2011 on the Debt Ceiling - Political Punch

you're amazing

my favorite was the bar graph where you forgot to LABEL THE AXES

LOL!

that'd flunk 5th grade

But yes, he is incompetent

he sure is

happy hanging, homeboy
 
Yes, you tried

You failed

Because you thought it was important enough to comment on, but not important enough to learn the facts

Sorry dude. If my posting is such a bothersome thing for you, then might I suggest you ignore it, rather than trying to troll a fight with me....I am in too good a mood for your childishness...Think I'll take a dip in the pool....with a ice cold Yuengling...AHHHHHHHH!

heh, heh

j-mac
 
You do realize we are talking about the 2011 budget, right? That was due before October 1, 2010. That budget wasn't submitted by either the President or the Democrat Congress prior to October 1, 2010, why? That is a cop out. McConnoll is saying like most responsible individuals we have a spending problem not a revenue problem and that is reality
Where do you get this nonsense from? Are you plucking these gems from some fruitcake rightwing site or do you simply make them up yourself?

Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Published: February 1, 2010
 

Thanks, Prof, that isn't going to sit well with liberals. The point always has been where is the 2011 budget that was due prior to October 1, 2010. Now we have a President complaining about the fact that there is a debt ceiling problem. As usual he wants the issue, never the solution or he would have handled it last year.
 
I will never accept the statement that tax cuts are an expense to the govt. I posted the line item expenses of the govt. and tax cuts isn't there. Tax cuts give people more spendable income and that scares the hell out of liberals. It makes economic growth easier because of consumer spending which always happens when people have more spendable income. GDP growth means more tax revenue and more employees. Happens every time unless there are economic conditions that prevent it, i.e. recessions, 9/11, and the financial crisis.
Since roughly 1/3 of the Stimulus was tax cuts, you shouldn't consider that spending either, right?
 
The Republican handling of this is just ludicrous. They are spending the entire week on "cap, cut and balance" which everybody- absolutely everybody- knows has a zero percent chance of passing. In fact, it was designed not to pass. A cap of 18% of GDP is just, frankly, insane. Not only would it mean massive, truly massive, cuts across the board, but it would devestate our ability to deal with recessions. Normally when the economy slows down, govenment spending automatically increases (because of things like food stamps) and taxation automatically decreases (because people make less income in a recession). When the economy booms, the opposite happens- revenues increase and spending decreases. That stabilizes the economy. It moves money from the peaks to the valleys. Every economist in the world agrees that is a very important function of government. But this crazy plan would force the government to do the opposite- cut spending every recession and only increase it during booms. That is economically insane. It amounts to intentionally destabilizing the economy... And then a requirement for a supermajority to eliminate special interest tax loopholes on top of that? It's just flat out ridiculous. No serious policy people on either side of the aisle actually want that. It would tank the country flat out and everybody knows it.

What the Republicans want is to make a big noise about balancing the budget, to get Democrats on record opposing their plan. They figure they can achieve both those goals without actually destroying the country by using the McConnell plan- just give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants... How anybody could possibly tolerate a politician spewing out this much rhetoric and causing a stir like this just for the politics of it is beyond me.

But, the bigger issue is all the actual deals that they turned down in favor of this dramatic performance. Plans involving cuts of up to $4 TRILLION in spending have been proposed by Democrats. Even the initial $2 trillion cuts Obama proposed right out of the gates would have been the biggest cut in government spending ever, but $4 trillion is huge. But the Republicans sunk those plans because they didn't want to distract from their big fake performance that everybody knows will result in nothing whatsoever. It is absurd. They are clearly putting political theater ahead of even their own policy goals...
 
Since roughly 1/3 of the Stimulus was tax cuts, you shouldn't consider that spending either, right?

No true tax cut is spending. Most of Obama's so called tax cuts were expenses thus weren't cuts. Calling it a tax cut doesn't make it one. The items highlighted in bold are tax cuts and that doesn't add up to 237 billion. All the items not in bold were funded by line items in the budget thus were expenses. Keep trying Pb

Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
 
The Republican handling of this is just ludicrous. They are spending the entire week on "cap, cut and balance" which everybody- absolutely everybody- knows has a zero percent chance of passing. In fact, it was designed not to pass. A cap of 18% of GDP is just, frankly, insane. Not only would it mean massive, truly massive, cuts across the board, but it would devestate our ability to deal with recessions. Normally when the economy slows down, govenment spending automatically increases (because of things like food stamps) and taxation automatically decreases (because people make less income in a recession). When the economy booms, the opposite happens- revenues increase and spending decreases. That stabilizes the economy. It moves money from the peaks to the valleys. Every economist in the world agrees that is a very important function of government. But this crazy plan would force the government to do the opposite- cut spending every recession and only increase it during booms. That is economically insane. It amounts to intentionally destabilizing the economy... And then a requirement for a supermajority to eliminate special interest tax loopholes on top of that? It's just flat out ridiculous. No serious policy people on either side of the aisle actually want that. It would tank the country flat out and everybody knows it.

What the Republicans want is to make a big noise about balancing the budget, to get Democrats on record opposing their plan. They figure they can achieve both those goals without actually destroying the country by using the McConnell plan- just give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants... How anybody could possibly tolerate a politician spewing out this much rhetoric and causing a stir like this just for the politics of it is beyond me.

But, the bigger issue is all the actual deals that they turned down in favor of this dramatic performance. Plans involving cuts of up to $4 TRILLION in spending have been proposed by Democrats. Even the initial $2 trillion cuts Obama proposed right out of the gates would have been the biggest cut in government spending ever, but $4 trillion is huge. But the Republicans sunk those plans because they didn't want to distract from their big fake performance that everybody knows will result in nothing whatsoever. It is absurd. They are clearly putting political theater ahead of even their own policy goals...

Good, veto it, defeat it in the Senate and let the people decide who is right.

You haven't been paying much attention so here it is, the Obama record. Enjoy? Still brainwashed? 2 trillion over 10 years is 200 billion a year which would pay the debt service. Thanks, Obama, now how are you going to put 24 million unemployed and underemployed Americans back to work actually paying full taxes? How about the 65 million working Americans that aren't paying any taxes? If you think we have a revenue problem then there is a good place to start in raising revenue, not on those of us that do pay net taxes.

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
 
Haha, where do you keep finding this crap?
  • Are we supposed to believe that a 38.6% tax creates almost no jobs, but a 39.6% tax creates huge amounts of jobs?
  • That 35% is the magic number for no jobs, and 28-31% will get you some jobs?
And what's up with these ranges anyway?
  • Why do you bother to but the 38.6% number on the chart (in effect for one year) -- and not put the 92% tax bracket on the chart, which was in effect for two years?
  • Is it because at 92% tax, there was negative job growth (-1.0), so you hide that in a 90+ category?
  • You wouldn't be using ranges for the high income tax brackets because you know that job creation goes up predictably with a few blips during recessions, and by averaging out over long periods of time you're guaranteed a nice, high value... nahh, couldn't be.
Why 1950-2010?
  • Is it because including the 63% and 73% tax brackets from the 1930's and the pitiful growth associated with that period would destroy the illusion you're trying to put together?

Those folks at the Center for American Progress are a real class act.

Or if you really want to go back before WW2, you could go to Hoover's oh-so-wonderful 20% tax rate that led immediately to the collapse of our economy.

Hoover cuts taxes, income inequality soars, economy collapses.

Bush cuts taxes, income inequality soars, economy collapses.

See a pattern here...
 
Or if you really want to go back before WW2, you could go to Hoover's oh-so-wonderful 20% tax rate that led immediately to the collapse of our economy.

Hoover cuts taxes, income inequality soars, economy collapses.

Bush cuts taxes, income inequality soars, economy collapses.

See a pattern here...

The economic collapse? GDP growth from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion is a collapse? The credit market collapsed but not the economy, it still grew. We seem to have a lot of very misinformed people here. Go to BEA.gov and see that economic collapse you are claiming happened.
 
Good, veto it, defeat it in the Senate and let the people decide who is right.

Why would anybody vote for a party that is intentionally putting political appeal ahead of their own policy agenda? What would you even be voting for? Nothing? Just a brand with no actual policy? That's bizarre.

As for the nonsense about Obama, obviously you aren't paying close attention... For example, the number of new unemployment claims shot up every month for the last two years of Bush until it was around 700,000 new people unemployed every month. That number began falling immediately after Obama took office and more jobs have been created than lost each month for months now. Of course the economy doesn't turn around in just a year or two after the kind of devestation Bush created. it takes a long time. But all the numbers have been moving the right direction ever since Obama took office. The stock market, for example, is up 80% since he took office. 80 freaking percent. It was actually DOWN over Bush's ENTIRE TERM... And you guys want to go back to Bush? Come on.
 
No true tax cut is spending. Most of Obama's so called tax cuts were expenses thus weren't cuts. Calling it a tax cut doesn't make it one. The items highlighted in bold are tax cuts and that doesn't add up to 237 billion. All the items not in bold were funded by line items in the budget thus were expenses. Keep trying Pb

Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

I'll grant you a tax credit is a give-a-way on the spending side because the tax filer has to "qualify" for the credit. As such, tax credits are the opposite of tax deductions which allow you to "reduce" the amount of your taxable income based on the amount of the deduction. Both have the same multiplier affect: they remove money from the Federal reserve. One gives it away, the other let's you keep more of what you earn, but both require you to "qualify" in order to get the benefit.

Now, let's be fair if we can...

If Republicans say that small business employ the most Americans AND you say unemployment is high AND you say that cost of living has increased, doesn't it makes since to use both taxing measures to help stimulate the economy since both methods put money back into the pockets of consumers since we are in a consumer-driven economy?

Think it through, folks...

Back to the thread topic...

Seems the Senate is more willing to compromise on the President's secondary budget proposal - the one offerring $4 trillion in spending cuts. But I wouldn't count the House out yet. For, it seems Boehner's looking for that "Plan B".

Meanwhile, those Tea Partiers are looking for GOP blood calling both Boehner and McConnell RINOs. This is gonna get ugly, folks. But hey! The GOP wanted hardnosed penny pinchers on their side. Well, looks like they got far more than you bargain for.
 
Last edited:
Of course Bush is responsible for the debt on his term, 4.9 trillion in 8 years. Obama has generated 4 trillion in three. President's get a lot of help on the debt, they cannot spend a dime without Congressional approval. Congress was under Democrat control from January 2007-January 2011
Obama hasn't "generated 4 trillion" debt, we have a revenue problem because of the downturn.
 
teamosil;1059666173]Why would anybody vote for a party that is intentionally putting political appeal ahead of their own policy agenda? What would you even be voting for? Nothing? Just a brand with no actual policy? That's bizarre.

I don't and didn't vote for Obama, the guy who has created 4 trillion in debt in three years.

As for the nonsense about Obama, obviously you aren't paying close attention... For example, the number of new unemployment claims shot up every month for the last two years of Bush until it was around 700,000 new people unemployed every month. That number began falling immediately after Obama took office and more jobs have been created than lost each month for months now. Of course the economy doesn't turn around in just a year or two after the kind of devestation Bush created. it takes a long time. But all the numbers have been moving the right direction ever since Obama took office. The stock market, for example, is up 80% since he took office. 80 freaking percent. It was actually DOWN over Bush's ENTIRE TERM... And you guys want to go back to Bush? Come on.

There are more people unemployed today than when Obama took office and the total unemployment and underemployment number is over 24 million. There is a net job loss so I don't want to hear about any jobs created because they were offset by unemployment. Obama tells you part of the story and you buy it. Tell me how many months we had with 700,000 unemployed and where was the Democrat controlled Congress to prevent it?

Glad the stock market is up, how about those evil corporations, now where are the jobs?
 
A continuing resolution isn't a budget.
Uh, yeah, it is ...

Congress Passes Budget for 2011, Sends to Obama for Signature
Published April 14, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Congress on Thursday passed a long-awaited budget funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year, though dozens of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle voted against the compromise proposal.​

It wasn't a full budget since we were roughly halfway through FY2011; all that was needed was budget coverage for the remainder of the fiscal year, hence the term, "continuing resolution."

I am really concerned about your total incompetence yet claims of brilliance.
Spits the poster who just said Obama didn't submit the FY2011 budget ... followed saying by the FY2011 budget still isn't passed ... followed by saying the resolution passed wasn't a budget ... :roll:

I am really concerned about your total incompetence yet claims of brilliance.
I appreciate that you think I'm brilliant, but that is a claim I have never made.
 
Obama hasn't "generated 4 trillion" debt, we have a revenue problem because of the downturn.

I am done with you Pb, you don't read or comprehend anything posted to you. Your statement has been refuted and "your" President has done nothing to reverse the downtrend.
 
I don't and didn't vote for Obama, the guy who has created 4 trillion in debt in three years.

You're dodging the question. Why would you vote for a party that is turning down opportunities even to advance their own policy goals in favor of political theater like this? How is that defensible? Does the reality of policy matter to you less than the image of your party?

There are more people unemployed today than when Obama took office

Yeah, that's true. We continued losing jobs for about 18 months after Obama took office, but we lost fewer and fewer each month until eventually we were gaining jobs:

Unemployment%20Chart.JPG


It isn't like the president has a switch on his desk that he can flip to "make jobs" and boom, the entire economy immediately reverses direction you realize. It's a long, slow process. First you stop the bleeding. That takes something like 12-24 months. Then you can start to heal the damage done. That takes a heck of a long time when the damage is that extensive.
 
You're dodging the question. Why would you vote for a party that is turning down opportunities even to advance their own policy goals in favor of political theater like this? How is that defensible? Does the reality of policy matter to you less than the image of your party?



Yeah, that's true. We continued losing jobs for about 18 months after Obama took office, but we lost fewer and fewer each month until eventually we were gaining jobs:

Unemployment%20Chart.JPG


It isn't like the president has a switch on his desk that he can flip to "make jobs" and boom, the entire economy immediately reverses direction you realize. It's a long, slow process. First you stop the bleeding. That takes something like 12-24 months. Then you can start to heal the damage done. That takes a heck of a long time when the damage is that extensive.

Here we go again, different thread same misinformation. Jobs have been created and should have been created by spending over a trillion dollars. BLS shows the net affect is a job loss. there were 142.2 million people employed when Obama took office and there are 139.3 million now. Where are those jobs?

When Obama took office there were 12.6 million unemployed and now there are 15.1 million, so where are the jobs?

BLS.gov
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom