• 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 to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

Conservative said:
No more than you who wants everyone else to believe that there aren't dishonest people abusing the taxpayers. Pleae explain to me why we need a 3.7 trillion trillion dollar budget and how many of those getting taxpayer assistance are truly in need of that assistance and don't have the ability to earn it for themselves? The greatest lie in our society has always been "I am from the Federal Govt. and am here to help you!"

You want badly to believe what liberals tell you and even in the face of total failure you continue to buy the rhetoric. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty? What is the role of the Federal Govt. in your world?
Click to expand...

No-sir, no-sir, no-sir. I will not play these games with you. You completely dodged my answer and shifted the conversation. Which leads me to believe...AdamT and I were right.
 
sangha said:
Yes, they need the money so they can ship our jobs to China!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I actually held in my hand an Annual Report from a company circa the original Bush cuts, bragging about how they used the tax savings from that cut to capitalize moving operations to China. At no cost to the stockholders!

Yay! If only I could remember who it was...
 
danarhea said:
That was not the original question. Republicans originally claimed that tax cuts produced jobs. We had the tax cuts. So where are all those jobs? Again, it was a BS question to begin with, since it is demand that creates jobs, and it has zilch to do with tax rates.
Click to expand...

And Dems claimed that $800 billion in stimulus money would produce jobs. We had the stimulus but where are all the jobs????
 
danarhea said:
That was not the original question. Republicans originally claimed that tax cuts produced jobs. We had the tax cuts. So where are all those jobs? Again, it was a BS question to begin with, since it is demand that creates jobs, and it has zilch to do with tax rates.
Click to expand...

I can prove without a doubt that jobs increased AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were fully implemented. Tax cuts put more money into the economy and that grows the economy creating greater demand. It is easier creating economic growth when consumers have more money.

Right now the Bush tax cuts have been negated by Obama regulations and tax proposals, i.e. Obamacare. Individuals are still getting their tax cuts but businesses aren't hiring because of lack of confidence in this Administration and the potential for higher costs in the future.

Why do you have such passion for raising taxes? What is the role of the govt. in your world.
 
teamosil said:
No it's not. There are tons of proposals floating around to increase the estate tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, etc. But that is besides the point. You claimed that 95% don't pay their fair share. Obviously to know what share they're paying and whether it is fair requires looking at all taxes, not just cherry picking one of them. I don't want to have to go over this with you again. It is dishonest to keep repeating the same line feigning ignorance after you've been called out on it. Cut it out.
Click to expand...

Phys251 said:
No-sir, no-sir, no-sir. I will not play these games with you. You completely dodged my answer and shifted the conversation. Which leads me to believe...AdamT and I were right.
Click to expand...

Dishonest arguments are his forte. Conservative has once again made stuff up in order to have an argument. It's quite revealing
 
Phys251 said:
No-sir, no-sir, no-sir. I will not play these games with you. You completely dodged my answer and shifted the conversation. Which leads me to believe...AdamT and I were right.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove you are right as you continue to buy the Obama rhetoric and ignore the obama results. We don't need a 3.7 trillion trillion dollar govt and until you define what we need and actually provide cuts to spending, not another dime should go to politicians to waste and create more debt.
 
Conservative said:
I can prove without a doubt that jobs increased AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were fully implemented. Tax cuts put more money into the economy and that grows the economy creating greater demand. It is easier creating economic growth when consumers have more money.

Right now the Bush tax cuts have been negated by Obama regulations and tax proposals, i.e. Obamacare. Individuals are still getting their tax cuts but businesses aren't hiring because of lack of confidence in this Administration and the potential for higher costs in the future.

Why do you have such passion for raising taxes? What is the role of the govt. in your world.
Click to expand...

Another dishonest argument from you

Jobs increase after tax cuts and after tax increases.
 
Conservative said:
I can prove without a doubt that jobs increased AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were fully implemented.
Click to expand...

Even if you could prove that, you could not prove it did so BECAUSE of the tax cuts. As has been shown to you, we're had economic success with a higher tax rate and with a lower tax rate, and we've had hard economic times with higher tax rate and a lower tax rate.

You have also been shown studies that show taxes don't produce jobs, as well as states with higher tax rates having more jobs than states with lower tax rates. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Even if you could prove that, you could not prove it did so BECAUSE of the tax cuts. As has been shown to you, we're had economic success with a higher tax rate and with a lower tax rate, and we've had hard economic times with higher tax rate and a lower tax rate.

You have also been shown studies that show taxes don't produce jobs, as well as states with higher tax rates having more jobs than states with lower tax rates. ;)
Click to expand...

No, only logic and common sense kicks in as well as an understanding of the components of GDP. Consumer spending is 2/3 of the GDP and more spendable income helps that. Raising taxes today makes no sense except to leftwingers who don't believe the Federal Govt is big enough. Taxes affect personal income and that affects the economy, plain and simple.
 
Thunder said:
I prefer we cut the debt by at least $3 trillion over ten years.

and for every dollar of spending cuts, there should be 33 cents of revenue increase.

whether that extra revenue comes from tax-increases, closing loopholes, higher fees and tariffs, I don't care.

however. the 1:3 ratio must be stuck with. This is what Obama wanted a few months ago and I hope he adopts it again.

beyond this, we should also negotiate a plan, maybe next year, to cut the debt by half within 20 years. and again, using the 1:3 spending cuts to revenue increase ratio.
Click to expand...

$3 T in spending cuts + 1 T in tax increases = 4 T over 10 years, or 400 B per year. What about the other trillion in deficit spending?

Such a plan would add an additional ten teradollars to the national debt for a grand total of 25 trillion, or a quarter million apiece for 100 million taxpayers.
 
Conservative said:
No, only logic and common sense kicks in as well as an understanding of the components of GDP. Consumer spending is 2/3 of the GDP and more spendable income helps that. Raising taxes today makes no sense except to leftwingers who don't believe the Federal Govt is big enough. Taxes affect personal income and that affects the economy, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Seriously, not in the bracket we're discussing. Taxes really don't effect those incomes all that much. And we studies that show that as well. You really should read the things people link for you. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Seriously, not in the bracket we're discussing. Taxes really don't effect those incomes all that much. And we studies that show that as well. You really should read the things people link for you. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, upon what do you base your OPINION? What I read has been reported, bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. Nothing else provides as much valuable information. What you fail to understand is that Clinton didn't inherit a recession and what you further ignore are the tax cuts implemented by the GOP Congress in 1997 as well as the pro business agenda put in place in 1995 after the GOP took Congress. Reagan increased jobs by 17 million AFTER losing jobs during the recessionof 1981-1982 and Bush had over 6 million jobs created between January 2001 and December 2007 even with the recession of 2001 and 9/11. Raising taxes in the current economy serves what purpose?
 
sangha said:
Trying to change the subject won't work.
Click to expand...

I hate to break this to you, but my post was one of the few addressing the thread title. YOU are the one changing the subject.
 
teamosil said:
Whoa! No, that's not even close to true. Welfare is a program called TANF. It's annual budget is $16.6 billion. That is not even in the top 20 most expensive programs. Maybe not even in the top 100.



1 out of 7 tax dollars? Welfare is 1 out of every 164 tax dollars spent.
Click to expand...

Apparently you have not been paying attention....

As this report shows, means-tested welfare or aid to poor and low-income persons is now the third most expen*sive government function. Its cost ranks below support for the elderly through Social Security and Medicare and below government expenditures on education, but above spending on national defense. Prior to the current reces*sion, one dollar in seven in total federal, state, and local government spending went to means-tested welfare.
Click to expand...

Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion, upon what do you base your OPINION? What I read has been reported, bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. Nothing else provides as much valuable information. What you fail to understand is that Clinton didn't inherit a recession and what you further ignore are the tax cuts implemented by the GOP Congress in 1997 as well as the pro business agenda put in place in 1995 after the GOP took Congress. Reagan increased jobs by 17 million AFTER losing jobs during the recessionof 1981-1982 and Bush had over 6 million jobs created between January 2001 and December 2007 even with the recession of 2001 and 9/11. Raising taxes in the current economy serves what purpose?
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, you often misinterpt the numbers you pull off bls.gov and the like. This has been pointed out to you before. And I have linked for you quite a bit that supports my opinion. If you don't recall it, then this supports my concern that you've never even looked at it.
 
Phys251 said:
Dude, it's not that hard.

A CEO of a big corporation tends to rake in a lot of money. But by no means is he (it's usually a "he"; would you like to suggest that women don't have the same drive as men do?) able to do so alone. To keep his offices clean, he has to hire janitors, and I wonder how much they make? In addition, he probably has a lot of workers for him, especially he runs a manufacturing or energy company. Unless they're unionized, they probably don't make a lot; and if the laborers are overseas, they may make pennies every hour. His office has to have running water; that water is provided by public servants who don't make near what he makes. To get to his office, he had to take a car, or taxi, or limo, or perhaps helicopter. That consumes gas, and remember what I said about laborers in energy companies? Furthermore, those roads had to be paved and occasionally repaved, and that takes labor. To even get where he is in the first place, he had to be taught in a classroom, and don't even get me started about how badly teachers are underpaid.

And that's just for him. That does not include the building of society off the back of laborers. Or the building of our economy, if we go far enough back, off the backs of people who were paid absolutely nothing. Or the development of European society, which was built on the back of practically the entire continent of Africa.

Conservative, you guys want to make it sound like that the rich just magically work their way up to the top, and nobody takes a hit for it on the way up. I really do not understand how you have deluded yourselves so, but I can tell you this: It's one of the greatest lies in our society today.
Click to expand...

LMAO...wow are you confused.

Please, explain to us how the rich get rich....

I think it is you that has been lied to.
 
teamosil said:
LOL. Read your source. That is the total for all means tested spending. That means any spending program that doesn't charge poor people... Nice try though.
Click to expand...

Please, by all means tell us how "means tested" spending doesn't count when considering the amount of money actually spent on people who do not contribute. Should we just ignore this fact because you don't want to hear it? It doesn't matter what they call it, it is still spending and the facts are still the same. It is high time you stop discrediting actual figures to support your pathetic theory that people who have more money than you do owe you something.
 
Boo Radley said:
As has been pointed out, you often misinterpt the numbers you pull off bls.gov and the like. This has been pointed out to you before. And I have linked for you quite a bit that supports my opinion. If you don't recall it, then this supports my concern that you've never even looked at it.
Click to expand...

I have never misrepresented the numbers off BEA.gov for they are what they are, period. I doubt seriously that you have ever gone to bea.gov, bls.gov, or the U.S. Treasury sites for they don't support your position. Nor do I ever see a response to the question raised, how will raising taxes during these economic times put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work full time. As was pointed out but of course you ignored, Clinton didn't inherit a recession but Clinton did give us a GOP Congress.

"Your" President now wants to raise taxes with high unemployment as symbolism to anyone who is even considering showing initiative, taking risk that it just isn't worth it under this Administration.
 
Smokified said:
Please, by all means tell us how "means tested" spending doesn't count when considering the amount of money actually spent on people who do not contribute. Should we just ignore this fact because you don't want to hear it? It doesn't matter what they call it, it is still spending and the facts are still the same. It is high time you stop discrediting actual figures to support your pathetic theory that people who have more money than you do owe you something.
Click to expand...

Uh, you were talking about welfare. Now you've moved on to some vague category of spending on people "who don't contribute"? So I guess you concede that you were wrong about welfare? Welfare is programs that give people checks because they're living in poverty. That is TANF. That's what welfare is.

What do you mean by "people who don't contribute"? Everybody pays taxes, even those who are unable to get a job at all. Most everybody either works or is trying to find work. If you're just going to make a statement about spending on "people who don't contribute", you need to define that before we can even begin to see what a number would be.
 
winston53660 said:
Uhmm you have confused nominal and real numbers on more than one occasion.
Click to expand...

Nominal numbers are the only numbers that mattered during the time frame in question, period. Real numbers fact in inflation which puts Reagan numbers in comparison with 2005 numbers, hardly relevant in the 80's but nice try at spin.
 
Conservative said:
Nominal numbers are the only numbers that mattered during the time frame in question, period. Real numbers fact in inflation which puts Reagan numbers in comparison with 2005 numbers, hardly relevant in the 80's but nice try at spin.
Click to expand...

What you did was use nominal and compared them to real numbers in the same post.
 
winston53660 said:
What you did was use nominal and compared them to real numbers in the same post.
Click to expand...

Why do you constant divert from the thread topic by asking off topic questions? Probably a better question is why do I answer them just giving you a forum to troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom