• 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!

'Gang of Six' revives hope for big deal in stalled debt-ceiling talks

ptif219 said:
Show me compromise from Obama. We have seen nothing from Obama or the dems just talking points and speeches
Click to expand...

Huge spending cuts in return for eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy. Now your turn, what is the GOP willing to give up for huge spending cuts?
 
Thunder said:
The Democrats & Obama offered $4 trillion in spending cuts (wink, wink) & (immediate) tax-increases. GOP said "no".

The GOP says "no" to any tax-increases OR closing tax-loopholes.

who exactly, isn't willing to compromise?
Click to expand...

I added in context in bold.

Let's agree to spending cuts immediately with a promise of tax increases down the road, say never! Good plan?
 
Misterveritis said:
I added in context in bold.

Let's agree to spending cuts immediately with a promise of tax increases down the road, say never! Good plan?
Click to expand...

There are no tax increases proposed that I have seen. Please provide a source to back up your personal opinion. Thanks!
 
Thunder said:
did you read the article?

thought not.
Click to expand...
I did. He is lying. The one term Marxist president Obama sets a 4 trillion dollar spending reduction as a goal over the next 12 years.
He cannot be trusted. He must be defeated instead.

Walk away Republicans. Just walk away and let the Marxist self-destruct.
 
The "Gang of Six" proposal isn't going anywhere. For the most part, the only Republicans who are interested in compromise are in the Senate (as well as Speaker Boehner). If this proposal calls for spending cuts and tax increases, as it's expected to, then it's no different than any other proposal in the past few months which has been roundly rejected by House Republicans. There is no way that the House Republicans will compromise one iota on taxes; they'd rather punt and pass a relatively clean debt ceiling increase, than compromise on anything in order to drastically reduce the size of government. And that's exactly what I expect will happen: McConnell's "back-up" plan will be the solution.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Glad Boehner could help you make up your mind. So you prefer leaving spending levels where they are now........Got it!
Click to expand...
When the Republicans walk away the spending levels will be cut roughly in half.
 
Catawba said:
If there is no compromise, then spending and taxes stay as they are now.
Click to expand...
Really? How? The one term Marxist president won't be able to borrow more money. He will have to somehow survive on what already comes into the Treasury.
 
Misterveritis said:
Really? How? The one term Marxist president won't be able to borrow more money. He will have to somehow survive on what already comes into the Treasury.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Marxism doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Can someone get this guy a dictionary, and the brainpower nessecary to apply terms and definitions effectively?
 
Misterveritis said:
When the Republicans walk away the spending levels will be cut roughly in half.
Click to expand...

Walk away from what? The nations debt? The GOP will not throw the country into a depression and upset the entire financial system of the world simply over an ideological cause. If they do, we are looking at a whole lot of years of Democratically controlled government in our future. :sun
 
Catawba said:
There are no tax increases proposed that I have seen. Please provide a source to back up your personal opinion. Thanks!
Click to expand...

There are none proposed, that's correct, and we can thank the GOP Congress for that. I do not believe that would be true if the 2010 elections returned the congressional dems to power.

The budget BO proposed a few months back (assumably with a strait face) however, included 43 new tax hikes, according to The Heritage Foundation, including a repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a higher death tax, limited deductions, and higher taxes on businesses. No, not an increase in personal income tax rates, but higher tax bills for upper income families (who are not, mind you, all rich) and many businesses.

Obama's 2012 Budget: Higher Taxes, Slower Growth | The Heritage Foundation

Back in the real world, hasn't it been BO's insistence that these increased revenues remain a possibility after this deal is done that prompted his little "This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this" tantrum?
 
LuckyDan said:
There are none proposed, that's correct, and we can thank the GOP Congress for that. I do not believe that would be true if the 2010 elections returned the congressional dems to power.

The budget BO proposed a few months back (assumably with a strait face) however, included 43 new tax hikes, according to The Heritage Foundation, including a repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a higher death tax, limited deductions, and higher taxes on businesses. No, not an increase in personal income tax rates, but higher tax bills for upper income families (who are not, mind you, all rich) and many businesses.

Obama's 2012 Budget: Higher Taxes, Slower Growth | The Heritage Foundation

Back in the real world, hasn't it been BO's insistence that these increased revenues remain a possibility after this deal is done that prompted his little "This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this" tantrum?
Click to expand...


LOL! The biased Heritage Foundation is your source? The ones that ask, "What would Reagan do?" You are too ****ing funny!
 
Catawba said:
LOL! The biased Heritage Foundation is your source? The ones that ask, "What would Reagan do?" You are too ****ing funny!
Click to expand...

Do you dispute the points in my post? And are you really laughing? Or was that a rhetorical flourish?
 
Catawba said:
LOL! The biased Heritage Foundation is your source? The ones that ask, "What would Reagan do?" You are too ****ing funny!
Click to expand...

Here's a source I'm sure your comfortable with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-unveils-trillion-budget/

The other one-third of deficit savings would come from tax increases such as limiting the tax deductions taken by high income taxpayers, a proposal that Obama put forward last year only to have it rejected by Congress. Obama also proposes raising taxes on energy companies.
Click to expand...

His fiscal acumen is well on display here:

The president's 2012 budget projects that the deficits will total $7.21 trillion over the next decade with the imbalances never falling below $607 billion. Even then that would exceed the deficit record before Obama took office of $458.6 billion in 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office.
Click to expand...

Now that's funny, right there. But back to the tax increases you asked about:


The biggest tax hike would come from a proposal to trim the deductions the wealthiest Americans can claim for charitable contributions, mortgage interest and state and local tax payments. The administration proposed this tax hike last year but it was a nonstarter in Congress.

Obama's budget would also raise $46 billion over 10 years by eliminating various tax breaks to oil, gas and coal companies.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Huge spending cuts in return for eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy. Now your turn, what is the GOP willing to give up for huge spending cuts?
Click to expand...

Really show me the proposal. Obama campaign speeches of the last few weeks are not credibile
 
Catawba said:
Huge spending cuts in return for eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy. Now your turn, what is the GOP willing to give up for huge spending cuts?
Click to expand...

What should the GOP give up?
 
Catawba said:
Huge spending cuts in return for eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy. Now your turn, what is the GOP willing to give up for huge spending cuts?
Click to expand...

The luxury of not having to pass a balanced budget?
 
Catawba said:
LOL! The biased Heritage Foundation is your source? The ones that ask, "What would Reagan do?" You are too ****ing funny!
Click to expand...

At least heritage attempts to be truthful. Obama lies

I have looked at several sources and yes the gang of six let the top rate of Bush tax cuts expire. That is a tax increase
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
At least heritage attempts to be truthful. Obama lies

I have looked at several sources and yes the gang of six let the top rate of Bush tax cuts expire. That is a tax increase
Click to expand...

Since I posted here last I have read up on the plan offered by the Gang of 6 and can no longer support it. It puts too much additional hardship on the middle class to provide even lower tax rates for the wealthy.

If you get a temporary cut in your pay, and then it is restored, would you think you got a pay increase?
 
Catawba said:
Since I posted here last I have read up on the plan offered by the Gang of 6 and can no longer support it. It puts too much additional hardship on the middle class to provide even lower tax rates for the wealthy.

If you get a temporary cut in your pay, and then it is restored, would you think you got a pay increase?
Click to expand...

Nice try but after 10 years it is a tax increase
 
LuckyDan said:
Here's a source I'm sure your comfortable with.

Obama unveils $3.73 trillion budget for 2012 - politics - White House - msnbc.com



His fiscal acumen is well on display here:



Now that's funny, right there. But back to the tax increases you asked about:
Click to expand...


Kind of behind in the times aren't you? We have moved way beyond Obama's proposed 2012 budget. He replaced that proposal with his framework for deficit reduction which is based on the Bowles-Simpson report. That framework was used by the Gang of 6 to develop the bipartisan Congressional proposal, which brings us back to the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom