Page 24 of 106 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 1060

Thread: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

  1. #231
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,004

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    You can't tackle the deficit and the debt with cuts alone. It's just not possible.
    .
    I can agree with statement. Yet shouldn't the feds look at what spending can be reduced or elliminated, stopping porkbarrell spending, stop wasteful spending, aid to other countries, etc. If they had their fiscal house in order, they would know more on how much revenue they really needed to pay down the debt and function. What I won't accept is giving the feds more money without fiscal reform and discipline.
    While the following is a drop in the bucket, it shows how stupid the feds can be:

    A $16 muffin? Justice Dept. audit finds ‘wasteful’ and extravagant spending - The Washington Post

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is funding emission retrofits for many Mexican-owned trucks through the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. As of this week, the program had funded between 65 and 70 retrofits, which cost between $1,200 and $1,500 per unit.

    http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_ne...41411-01.shtml
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  2. #232
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    stop ... aid to other countries
    We already give a smaller percentage of our GDP in foreign aid of any first world country:

    foreign-aid-as-a-percentage-of-gni-among-major-countries.jpg

    That's only $18 billion. We can't possibly go lower than that. We ought to be aiming at, at least, coming in in the middle of the pack. We signed a commitment once that we would give 0.7% minimum, but here we are dragging up the rear at 0.13%... Pretty embarrassing for us IMO.
    Last edited by teamosil; 09-21-11 at 12:54 AM.

  3. #233
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Then the options are:

    a) continue living with the threat of inflation or stagflation looming overhead, or;

    b) accepting the fact that it will take decades to pay down the debt with spending cuts alone.

    Conservatives continue to press the false assumption that "if you can't pay off the debt tomorrow, what's the point of even trying"?
    Just when I thought we might be able to have a discussion....

  4. #234
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I disagree with Obama's plan.

    I also find the liberal hypocrisy regarding tax hikes for the wealthy to be lol worthy. So the liberal platform is typically "keep the government out of my bedroom!" "Keep the government out of women's wombs!" "Keep the government out of my lifestyle as it relates to marijuana!" "Keep the government away from the religious morals of the voting populace!"

    All that flips with "Keep the government in someone else's wallet who has more than me." The typical argument I've seen is "if something doesn't affect you, then you have no right to stop it or interfere with another's choices." Many apply this argument to marijuana usage, sexual ethics, and abortion. Why not be consistent and not dictate how much someone else should pay in taxes? Why should you intrude upon someone's finances with your beliefs (that affect someone else and not you) and demand that they have to pay more? Hypocrisy is silly

    I'm not sure there are many people, right or left who hold such a radical belief completely. We definitely interfere on behalf of children, even though it doesn't affect us personally. Secondly, you haven't demonstrated that tax policy doesn't affect the "liberals". What someone else pay in taxes affect how much I might need to pay in taxes either now or in the future. If someone pays less, I might have to make up the difference in the future or see a cut in the services I want the government to provide. And third, "liberals" see themselves as part of society, as a user of public goods and government services - roads, other infrastructure, parks, school, health, environmental and safety regulations, healthcare, protection by police, fire service and military etc. They believe that any changes to these affect them personally eventually which is why they are so vocal in how how these things should be structured.
    Last edited by nonpareil; 09-21-11 at 01:01 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  5. #235
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    As Einstein purportedly said, a good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
    QE3 anyone?

  6. #236
    Student Smokified's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-11 @ 09:56 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    166

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Well if cost of living is your issue then taxes rather than spending cuts is definitely in your interests. Spending cuts would come out of your pocket where tax increases would come out of the pockets of folks that can afford them. For example, a cut in social security means you need to save more for retirement starting tomorrow. If they cut college loans, you need to save more for your education or your kids' education. If they cut education spending you are more likely to have to pay for your kids' school. Everything they cuts means firing people which means more people competing with you for jobs. Etc. Spending cuts equate to taking it out of the middle class's pockets.

    As for being responsible for the money we do have, I see it differently. Societies that reinvest a significant portion of their GDP in maintaining their foundations like a strong education system, good chances to get out of poverty, strong scientific research, etc, do much, much better and everybody tends to live much better. So to me the question is more about being responsible about chipping back in to cover those expenses. Trying to save a few bucks in the short term in taxes and trading in the future to get it, that is what I consider irresponsible.
    The disconnect we have here is that you are pointing out public "necessities" while I am pointing out entitlement programs. I fully agree that we should continue to invest as much as we can afford into education. Funding education will reduce the amount of money that we spend on entitlement programs significantly. There are far too many things that we could afford to not fund with public money before we get to important things like education and scientific research (which is essentially redundant). We don't need the government to support and fund everything to make it easier for people. We need the people to start working and supporting the country that they expect so much out of. Raising the "tax rate" is a stupid idea compared to promoting better education and harder work (which will generate more taxes naturally) which will also promote more spending NATURALLY which will just better our economy without a bunch of political BS and partisan fueding over which stupid method is less stupid.

  7. #237
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,724

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    The rich may have to pay a little more in taxes. WAAAAAAAAAA!

    The divide between the rich and the poor might actually close a tiny morsel. WAAAAAAAAAAA!

    "Class warfare." WAAAAAAAAAAA!

    The top tax bracket might actually nudge a bit closer to the Nixon tax rates or the Eisenhower tax rates. WAAAAAAAAAAAA!

    The rich may have to start buying slightly smaller yachts. WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

    ===========

    Christ! What is up with the crybabiness??
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  8. #238
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Smokified View Post
    The disconnect we have here is that you are pointing out public "necessities" while I am pointing out entitlement programs. I fully agree that we should continue to invest as much as we can afford into education. Funding education will reduce the amount of money that we spend on entitlement programs significantly. There are far too many things that we could afford to not fund with public money before we get to important things like education and scientific research (which is essentially redundant). We don't need the government to support and fund everything to make it easier for people. We need the people to start working and supporting the country that they expect so much out of. Raising the "tax rate" is a stupid idea compared to promoting better education and harder work (which will generate more taxes naturally) which will also promote more spending NATURALLY which will just better our economy without a bunch of political BS and partisan fueding over which stupid method is less stupid.
    You seem to only be talking about people on welfare? That's less than 1% of the country and less than 1% of the federal budget. It is only available to people who have young kids and only for a maximum of 5 years and what the hell else are we going to do? Let these kids live on the streets? Forget about that. Lets talk about the other 99% of the country.

    We have a huge deficit. There are three ways to fix it- we can increase taxes, we can cut domestic spending or we can cut military spending. Realistically none of these is enough alone. In fact, no two of these are even enough. We can't cut $1.6 trillion out of domestic spending. That would be nearly ALL domestic spending. That means collapsing into a third world country with no decent highways or safe food and whatnot. Nobody wants that. Same with the military. To cut that much in military spending you would need to cut everything from veteran's benefits to all of our personnel, everything. Tax hikes you could theoretically get $1.6 trillion a year, but you'd need to set taxes so high that the economy would be severely undermined.

    So, our only option that isn't totally disastrous is to do all three. But the GOP refuses to agree to two of the three. They're blocking action on the deficit. They know as well as everybody else does that we can't come close to closing the deficit just with domestic cuts.

    Now, the military spending cuts actually have a pretty narrow impact compared to the others. We have to back out of some military commitments, but frankly our military has been misused too often anyways. It will hurt military families though and that is rough and means a lot more unemployment. The domestic spending cuts would have a brutal impact on the middle class. People who were relying on medicare for example, suddenly need to pony up a lot more money, people who have kids heading towards college suddenly need to save a ton more, laying off a million or so people means unemployment shooting up and jobs being harder to find for everybody, etc. So all those things are huge sacrifices for the middle class to be making. They'd be putting a ton of skin in to the game.

    So, when we're looking at how to divide up the tax hikes, isn't it only fair that those would go to the rich, since they didn't have to pitch anything in yet? I don't see how we can possibly put the whole weight of the deficit on the shoulders of the middle class. It would pretty much crush it... Already the middle class is struggling and the rich are rapidly pulling away consuming more and more of our GDP every year. To put a $1.6 trillion weight around the neck of the middle class at a time like this and put nothing on the rich, that would be all she wrote for the middle class. We'd be headed towards just having 1% absurdly rich and 99% poor.
    Last edited by teamosil; 09-21-11 at 01:59 AM.

  9. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Centrist Dems Already Trying To Put The Brakes On Obama’s Tax Increases

    President Obama's deficit-reduction plan--complete with tax increases on the wealthiest Americans--won high marks from his liberal base encouraged to see Obama back in fighting mode, but the plan is set to hit a brick wall in Congress -- even in the Democratically controlled Senate and the bipartisan super committee.

    Centrist Dems Already Trying To Put The Brakes On Obama's Tax Increases | TPMDC

    Will the fringe be able to carry the day?

  10. #240
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,910
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    We already give a smaller percentage of our GDP in foreign aid of any first world country:

    foreign-aid-as-a-percentage-of-gni-among-major-countries.jpg

    That's only $18 billion. We can't possibly go lower than that. We ought to be aiming at, at least, coming in in the middle of the pack. We signed a commitment once that we would give 0.7% minimum, but here we are dragging up the rear at 0.13%... Pretty embarrassing for us IMO.
    How does GNI relate to GDP?
    I may be wrong.

Page 24 of 106 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •