Page 56 of 106 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 1060

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

  1. #551
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

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

    Synopsis of Obama plan:

    $1.4 trillion ……………………………. Actual deficit reduction through 10 years under the president’s plan, less than half the amount promised

    Zero ……………………………………… Percent of deficit reduction that comes from spending cuts

    $1.6 trillion ……………………………. Net tax increase over 10 years

    $146 billion ……………………………. Spending increase over 10 years above current law levels

    $9.7 trillion ……………………………. Additional gross debt that would accumulate over 10 years

    $1.3 trillion ……………………………. Projected deficit in 2012, a $300 billion increase over OMB’s last projection

    $293 billion ……………………………. Medicare “Doc Fix” cost that is assumed but not paid for

    $565 billion ……………………………. Projected deficit in 2021

    24 ………………………………………… Federal spending as a percent of GDP in 2021, a stunning 18 percent increase in the size of government relative to the historical average

    $47 trillion …………………………….. Total projected federal spending over 10 years

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  2. #552
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,490

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I could have sworn that thread topic was,
    so, as boo said, dont start something you don't want to discuss....not a difficult concept to grasp.

  3. #553
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Synopsis of Obama plan:
    That nails it, Thanks!!

  4. #554
    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 Conservative View Post
    Have you seen the two trillion? The trust fund consists of IOU's not cash. Stop buying the liberal rhetoric. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
    They're bonds dude. How else would social security store it's money? In its mattress? I mean, yes, technically a bond is just an IOU from the government. Cash is too. An account at a bank is just an IOU from the bank. A share of stock is just a promise by a company to give you part of its profits, etc.

    This whole meme is purely an artifact of the massive interests that want to convince the voters that social security is on the brink of collapse and hence needs to be privatized. But their argument has an obvious flaw- the social security administration is sitting on the largest accumulation of funds that any entity in human history has had. So, they came up with "it's just IOUs!" as their line... While technically that is true, so would any way they could store their money. Bonds are considered the absolute most conservative, safe, way to store your money there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Wrong, if you spend 3.7 trillion this year and 3.8 trillion next year, is that a cut?
    If the budget for next year was $3.9 trillion, then yeah, absolutely, spending $100 billion less is a cut relative to the status quo. Trying to map it just to this year's spending is just muddled. It confuses the issue. Real reductions in what we will spend in 2012 get ignored and money we were not going to spend anyways gets trumped as change. It isn't the logical way to evaluate proposals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    It is the role of the Federal Govt. to defend this nation thus defense is a requirement regardless of the amount. Promote domestic welfare was changed by politicians to provide for domestic welfare once they realized they could buy votes and stay in office for a career
    Well, if you refuse to either raise revenues or cut military spending, you're refusing to really address the deficit. We can't possibly address it just with domestic spending cuts. It just isn't mathematically possible. Personally, I think domestic spending is a million times more important than military spending to our future. I'd rather not cut there either. But if we're going to address the deficit we need to stop having all these sacred cows. The right needs to accept that the rich will have to do their part and that we will have to cut the military and the left needs to accept that we will have to cut military spending. So far, the left seems to be willing to go for all three, but the right refuses, so the right is preventing any actual solution of the deficit. Empty rhetoric like your quote above is preventing them from tackling the issue. Slogans. That's all they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    No, not complex at all, it is the taxpayer's money and it is state and local responsibility for social programs, not the Federal bureaucracy. Reagan and Bush cut taxes for ALL taxpayers and the percentage of taxes for the rich went up as did total revenue. How do you explain it? Ask your liberal friends to give you an answer.
    I dunno. It's a tougher point to grasp. It might be a bit too tough to go through with you here. Re-read my post and give it another shot if you like, but otherwise maybe better we just table this one for another day.

  5. #555
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    teamosil;1059817354]They're bonds dude. How else would social security store it's money? In its mattress? I mean, yes, technically a bond is just an IOU from the government. Cash is too. An account at a bank is just an IOU from the bank. A share of stock is just a promise by a company to give you part of its profits, etc.
    Ok, DUDE, take those bonds to the grocerty store and see if they are accepted? Those IOU's have to be funded by cash and where is that cash going to come from? You really are very naive. With a company if there are no profits you get nothing, if the company goes bankrupt you get nothing. With the govt. they are going to print or borrow money to fund your SS because it was spent. My have you been brainwashed.


    This whole meme is purely an artifact of the massive interests that want to convince the voters that social security is on the brink of collapse and hence needs to be privatized. But their argument has an obvious flaw- the social security administration is sitting on the largest accumulation of funds that any entity in human history has had. So, they came up with "it's just IOUs!" as their line... While technically that is true, so would any way they could store their money. Bonds are considered the absolute most conservative, safe, way to store your money there is.
    Right, just print more money! SS wouldn't be bankrupt had the govt. put the money where it belonged, into a trust fund instead of on budget. Do you understand what on budget means? Again where do you think the money is going to come from when you retire and those IOU's are cashed in?


    If the budget for next year was $3.9 trillion, then yeah, absolutely, spending $100 billion less is a cut relative to the status quo. Trying to map it just to this year's spending is just muddled. It confuses the issue. Real reductions in what we will spend in 2012 get ignored and money we were not going to spend anyways gets trumped as change. It isn't the logical way to evaluate proposals.
    That is the way baseline budgeting works, there will be a cut in the growth of spending that will be called a cut. It isn't as the debt service goes up.

    Well, if you refuse to either raise revenues or cut military spending, you're refusing to really address the deficit. We can't possibly address it just with domestic spending cuts. It just isn't mathematically possible. Personally, I think domestic spending is a million times more important than military spending to our future. I'd rather not cut there either. But if we're going to address the deficit we need to stop having all these sacred cows. The right needs to accept that the rich will have to do their part and that we will have to cut the military and the left needs to accept that we will have to cut military spending. So far, the left seems to be willing to go for all three, but the right refuses, so the right is preventing any actual solution of the deficit. Empty rhetoric like your quote above is preventing them from tackling the issue. Slogans. That's all they are.
    I have already posted what I would do, starting with cutting out total worthless departments like the Dept. of Education, Department of Transportation, Dept. of Energy, EPA and a few other depts. then cut the rest of the budget 5% across the board all after taking SS and Medicare off budget. Most of those functions are already handled by the states and that is where all social spending belongs.

  6. #556
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Then how do you explain that California has the highest population of illegals of any state ??
    Does it? Do you think there is one reason for everything? California has a lot of work for illegals. As does texas and a few other states.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #557
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Try to comprehend this statement
    If someone earns income in this country they should be paying something in FIT before raising the taxes on those paying the most.
    I comprehend the statement, but I disagree.

    Now you try to comprehend the following statement:


    Quote Originally Posted by Elizabeth Warren
    There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea—God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.


  8. #558
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I could have sworn that thread topic was,
    it is. Andf we're discussing whether this is valid or not, which led us to the wealthy getting more out of government so it is right that they pay more. You brought up texas as a response. Now you don't like that example, as it didn't hold up, and you're blaming others that your diversion wasn't strong enough. Go figure. Don't bring it up if you don't want to discuss it.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #559
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I comprehend the statement, but I disagree.

    Now you try to comprehend the following statement:
    LOL, spoken like a true liberal socialist professor. Tell that to Bill Gates and others then tell them they aren't paying enough in taxes to fund the services they use. Warren doesn't have a clue and if you buy that neither do you. Insinuation is that the factory owner isn't paying taxes that fund the roads. I doubt Warren has a clue how roads are funded, do you?

    The same is true for education, do you know how education is funded? Same for police and fire services? Put people like that in charge and this country really is in trouble. Obama is bad enough

    Pb, just tell me how much you want me to send to you and let's get on with it. Why waste time sending it to D.C. when I can eliminate the middleman and send it directly to you?
    Last edited by Conservative; 09-22-11 at 06:34 PM.

  10. #560
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    it is. Andf we're discussing whether this is valid or not, which led us to the wealthy getting more out of government so it is right that they pay more. You brought up texas as a response. Now you don't like that example, as it didn't hold up, and you're blaming others that your diversion wasn't strong enough. Go figure. Don't bring it up if you don't want to discuss it.
    You haven't proven that the wealthy get more benefits out of the govt. but the fact is the wealthy are paying more than their fair share which you have yet to define unless you believe that 38% of FIT revenue isn't enough.

    Are you telling me that the 47% of the INCOME EARNERS paying zero in FIT are not getting any services at all? Is their fair share ZERO? Do you realize how foolish you sound and what you are saying only makes sense to other liberals?

Page 56 of 106 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... 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
  •