• 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: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal

When everything you just claimed has been blown out of the water, I guess making up crap to try and discredit the person who showed all the flaws in your comments is all you got left.

It wasn't blown out of the water. NBice try though. Obama's gonna join the ranks of the unemployed in 2012, then spend the rest of his life as the Next Jimmy Carter.
 
It wasn't blown out of the water. NBice try though. Obama's gonna join the ranks of the unemployed in 2012, then spend the rest of his life as the Next Jimmy Carter.

Funny, you have failed to counter anything I said. You just make wild claims and straw men.
 
The question asked in the poll you reference is: "As part of legislation to raise the debt ceiling, should congress and the president raise taxes?" which is worded in such a way that it is sure to get a low number.

Another poll with some what more telling numbers: On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

The question: "as you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you like to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit(and the five options are rotated here)".

The results:

Only with spending cuts: 20 %
Mostly with spending cuts 30 %
Equally with spending cuts and tax increases: 32 %
Mostly with tax increases: 7 %
Only with tax increases: 4 %

That is 73 % that favor some tax increases. By the way, this is the poll that Obama took his number from, but he just subtracted the 20 % who said spending cuts only from 100 %, which is inaccurate.

So 82% (Or 89% if I use Obama Math) of the Country feels that Spending cuts should be as much the focus if not more the focus of this issue than tax hikes. And 50% of American's feel like it should be significantly dealt with with spending cuts

And yet Obama's plan is to cut a few trillion out over more than TEN YEARS in a horribly backloaded system that is not guaranteed to even happen a few years from now but to jack up taxes on a number of individuals immediately.

Yeah, his funky math may've been relatively correct regarding an specifically poll, but even then the numbers he's quoting don't exactly jive with the proposal he's putting forth.

Tax hikes IMMEDIATELY and spending cuts over more than a decades worth of time that are horribly back loaded is not "EQUALLY" with spending cuts and tax increases, that's mostly with tax increases. Congratulations Obama, 82% (Or 89% using your Math) of American's disagree with your approach. You would however fit right in with the diminutive dim wit that runs the local football team, your plan is a wonderful mimic to the contracts he shoves out at people. Come to think of it, he believes you can just throw money at **** and fix problems too.
 
a salient point---Tax hikes IMMEDIATELY and spending cuts over more than a decades worth of time that are horribly back loaded is not "EQUALLY"

even bigger picture:

The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

bottom line---if you wanna tax go ahead and tax

at 61.6T, growing 5.3 per year, there's not enough revenue in the galaxy

ie, drops in oceans

spin, anyone?
 
Last edited:
if that's true, we need only look at republican rule to see republicans spent, in john McCain's words, like drunken sailors. Now that is a grand center of gravity. :coffeepap

That's true.

You've got borrowers and spenders in Washington debating how much they will continue to borrow and spend.

No one wants to lend the US money so they are now lending it to themselves.

It seems clear that while many Americans claim they want fiscal responsibility, they really don''t. The United States is screwed for many years to come and may never recover to the nation the world once knew.

Despite the greatest armies in the world, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the United States couldn't protect themselves from within. Now they are turning on each other, as well as their grandchildren (those who survive the astounding abortion rates anyway) because they couldn't behave like responsible adults. The once great United States, like Britain, will become a common study of how democracies perish.
 
Last edited:
However, I still think there is a disconnect to people wanting services but not wanting to do the things required to pay for them.
Which is when asked whether they'd choose to cut their services or raise their taxes, they prefer to cut.
 
The question asked in the poll you reference is: "As part of legislation to raise the debt ceiling, should congress and the president raise taxes?" which is worded in such a way that it is sure to get a low number.

Another poll with some what more telling numbers: On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

The question: "as you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you like to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit(and the five options are rotated here)".

The results:

Only with spending cuts: 20 %
Mostly with spending cuts 30 %
Equally with spending cuts and tax increases: 32 %
Mostly with tax increases: 7 %
Only with tax increases: 4 %

That is 73 % that favor some tax increases. By the way, this is the poll that Obama took his number from, but he just subtracted the 20 % who said spending cuts only from 100 %, which is inaccurate.
Bad poll question. It doesn't even have an option that describes the Republican position. Ask them about an approach that mixes spending cuts and increased revenue without tax increases and I bet the support for taxes evaporates.
 
So 82% (Or 89% if I use Obama Math) of the Country feels that Spending cuts should be as much the focus if not more the focus of this issue than tax hikes. And 50% of American's feel like it should be significantly dealt with with spending cuts

And yet Obama's plan is to cut a few trillion out over more than TEN YEARS in a horribly backloaded system that is not guaranteed to even happen a few years from now but to jack up taxes on a number of individuals immediately.

Yeah, his funky math may've been relatively correct regarding an specifically poll, but even then the numbers he's quoting don't exactly jive with the proposal he's putting forth.

Tax hikes IMMEDIATELY and spending cuts over more than a decades worth of time that are horribly back loaded is not "EQUALLY" with spending cuts and tax increases, that's mostly with tax increases. Congratulations Obama, 82% (Or 89% using your Math) of American's disagree with your approach. You would however fit right in with the diminutive dim wit that runs the local football team, your plan is a wonderful mimic to the contracts he shoves out at people. Come to think of it, he believes you can just throw money at **** and fix problems too.

Your extending it to far past what I said. I was simply pointing out the flaws with MrV's post. You know, just as I do, that I disagree with the plan Obama proposes.
 
Bad poll question. It doesn't even have an option that describes the Republican position. Ask them about an approach that mixes spending cuts and increased revenue without tax increases and I bet the support for taxes evaporates.

How are you raising revenue then?
 
Which is when asked whether they'd choose to cut their services or raise their taxes, they prefer to cut.

With words, not actions. There actions are that they will spend, always have. So, do you judge a man by what he says, or what he does?
 
That's true.

You've got borrowers and spenders in Washington debating how much they will continue to borrow and spend.

No one wants to lend the US money so they are now lending it to themselves.

It seems clear that while many Americans claim they want fiscal responsibility, they really don''t. The United States is screwed for many years to come and may never recover to the nation the world once knew.

Despite the greatest armies in the world, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the United States couldn't protect themselves from within. Now they are turning on each other, as well as their grandchildren (those who survive the astounding abortion rates anyway) because they couldn't behave like responsible adults. The once great United States, like Britain, will become a common study of how democracies perish.

I like to be more optomistic than this, but I mostly agree with you.
 
First Read - Ryan budget plan passes House; only 4 GOP reps vote no

6.2 tril is a lot of action

remember?

on the other hand, barack the slasher promised to cut the deficit in half, his team promised unemployment would cap at 8% and be down to about 6.5 by now...

judge away, judy

Interesting that this "news" article only got the opinion of one side on how this will be tackled going forward? No statement from someone working to replace (D) congressmen to offset the one opinion they did get?
 
Passing a bill that is dead on the water is not doing anything.
 
LOL!

when you only control one chamber...

it's all that can be done---SIX POINT TWO TRILLION

in contrast, the party in power: President's budget sinks, 97-0 - TheHill.com

two and a half years and counting since the party in power in the white house and the us senate passed a budget---in times like these

leadership, anyone?
 
Your extending it to far past what I said. I was simply pointing out the flaws with MrV's post. You know, just as I do, that I disagree with the plan Obama proposes.

Wasn't disagreeing with you that mr.v is wrong, was simply pointing out that Obama is misrepresenting the numbers as if the are support for his plan, when in reality according to that poll a better argument could be made over 80% disagree with the president
 
Wasn't disagreeing with you that mr.v is wrong, was simply pointing out that Obama is misrepresenting the numbers as if the are support for his plan, when in reality according to that poll a better argument could be made over 80% disagree with the president

Uh, no.Since the plan calls for a mixture of cuts and tax increases, he actually has a much larger percentage actually agreeing with him. It's not 80 %, but it's much more than 20 %.
 
The results:

Only with spending cuts: 20 %
Mostly with spending cuts 30 %
Equally with spending cuts and tax increases: 32 %
Mostly with tax increases: 7 %
Only with tax increases: 4 %

That is 73 % that favor some tax increases. By the way, this is the poll that Obama took his number from, but he just subtracted the 20 % who said spending cuts only from 100 %, which is inaccurate.

You can spin that to say anything you want … but the only honest way to intrepid those results is that 39 percent agree with what Obama stated .. thats 32% that believe equally with spending a tax increases … and the 7% that believe mostly with tax increases
.

To make a statement that 80% of the people agree with his way of doing things …. is very misleading to say the least … . for someone to defend that figure .. shows how easily they will bend to kiss is ass no matter what is said .
 
.

To make a statement that 80% of the people agree with his way of doing things …. is very misleading to say the least … . for someone to defend that figure .. shows how easily they will bend to kiss is ass no matter what is said .

For some one who points out the flaw in the figure to be told they are defending it is kinda one of the stupider things some one could do.

Here, let me show you the words I used to refer to Obama's use of 80 %:

which is inaccurate.
 
How are you raising revenue then?

because revenue isn't a function of tax rates - its a function of GDP.

hauser.gif


so you need to grow GDP. one of the quickest, least painful ways to do that is effective-rate-neutral-tax-simplification. An option so powerful and blindingly positive that everyone from Obama, to Clinton, the the Simpson-Bowles Commission, to Paul Ryan has come out in favor of it in some flavor or another.
 
.

To make a statement that 80% of the people agree with his way of doing things …. is very misleading to say the least … . for someone to defend that figure .. shows how easily they will bend to kiss is ass no matter what is said .

Misleading?

Why is everyone *****footing around the fact that this man is a liar. He's been lying since he campaigned for president and he's lying now. That must be said.

Let's not be hypocrites about this and try to cover up the truth ourselves or every honest person will become participants in this game..
 
because revenue isn't a function of tax rates - its a function of GDP.

hauser.gif


so you need to grow GDP. one of the quickest, least painful ways to do that is effective-rate-neutral-tax-simplification. An option so powerful and blindingly positive that everyone from Obama, to Clinton, the the Simpson-Bowles Commission, to Paul Ryan has come out in favor of it in some flavor or another.

Are you still touting that failed law? First off, a law that is not experimentally proven is not a law, it's a theory at best. Second off, this year and last both disprove it. Third off, the variations in it represent hundreds of billions of dollars. Trying to claim only one factor drives revenue is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
 
because revenue isn't a function of tax rates - its a function of GDP.

hauser.gif


so you need to grow GDP. one of the quickest, least painful ways to do that is effective-rate-neutral-tax-simplification. An option so powerful and blindingly positive that everyone from Obama, to Clinton, the the Simpson-Bowles Commission, to Paul Ryan has come out in favor of it in some flavor or another.
Exactly right. If you want to soak the rich, don't raise taxes, get the damn economy rolling.
 
Are you still touting that failed law? First off, a law that is not experimentally proven is not a law, it's a theory at best.

:lol: you're coming out with the "theory" argument?

:D okay. it's only a theory. like evolution.

Second off, this year and last both disprove it.

incorrect; the last three years demonstrate that when you drastically increase the size of government as a percentage of GDP, revenue drops as a percentage of GDP. Revenues themselves dropped roughly down to 2004 levels:

Federal-Revenue.jpg


Relative size of government was fairly constant throughout the period we discussed as well - averaging at a little under 20% of GDP

gdp-exp.gif


but we have shot government up to 24.5% as a percent of GDP. Now, government doesn't tax itself as much as it does labor, investment, and production; so when you increase government as a size of GDP, you decrease revenue as a percent of the same. you will observe, for example, a rough inverse effect:

fy2012+spend%2526rev.jpg


Third off, the variations in it represent hundreds of billions of dollars.

true, it's a general point that people are rational decision makers, and will move to protect their income from taxation. however, as the incentives to do so lessen, so does the amount of resources and time which people are willing to devote to that task.

that is why you will note that after Kennedy started cutting taxes, slowly over time revenues increased as a percentage of GDP. Note that this was despite a minor increase in the size of government that was bettered by impressive reductions in tax rates. Within the trend, revenues appear to be rather elastic.

Trying to claim only one factor drives revenue is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

the dominant factor in revenues is GDP, not tax rates. from there it can be driven up or down by the relative size of government, how onerous the tax rates are, and numerous other smaller factors. but those first two are the biggies if you are looking at fixing a deficit. If you want to increase revenues, increase economic growth. If you want to reduce the deficit, reduce the relative size of government.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom