• 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

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
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Conservative said:
Wrong, if you spend 3.7 trillion this year and 3.8 trillion next year, is that a cut?
Click to expand...

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.

Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gill said:
Then how do you explain that California has the highest population of illegals of any state ??
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
Try to comprehend this statement
Click to expand...
If someone earns income in this country they should be paying something in FIT before raising the taxes on those paying the most.
Click to expand...
I comprehend the statement, but I disagree.

Now you try to comprehend the following statement:


Elizabeth Warren said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
I could have sworn that thread topic was,
Click to expand...

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.
 
pbrauer said:
I comprehend the statement, but I disagree.

Now you try to comprehend the following statement:
Click to expand...

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:
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's just crazy talk... You're contending that unless they have like actual dollar bills stuffed away somewhere they don't have any actual assets? They're bonds. Just like you have. There is a thriving bond market. Bonds have a real value... We don't live in a barter economy... Bonds have a fixed term, at the end of that term the government pays them out and sells new bonds to cover it. That's what our national debt is. Social security's bonds are just the same as the debt China holds, the debt private citizens that have bonds hold, etc... I mean, seriously, you don't believe bonds have value? Is that the position you are taking? Contrary to every financial adviser in the universe that considers them the safest, most conservative, way to hold your assets?

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

It seriously doesn't seem like you're understanding. Bonds ARE the trust fund. That's where the money is stored- in bonds... Just like if you set up a trust fund for somebody- it would be stored in some kind of asset. Maybe a bank account, maybe stocks, maybe bonds. They use bonds because they're the safest...

Explain to me how you think they should store it. It seems implausible that you mean they should store it as like paper money...

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm?

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't come close to balancing the budget:

Education- $77 billion
Energy- $29 billion
Transportation- $13 billion
EPA- $8 billion
5% of remaining budget minus SS and Medicare- $119 billion

Total cuts you're proposing: $246 billion. Remaining deficit: $1.354 trillion.
 
teamosil;1059817476]That's just crazy talk... You're contending that unless they have like actual dollar bills stuffed away somewhere they don't have any actual assets? They're bonds. Just like you have. There is a thriving bond market. Bonds have a real value... We don't live in a barter economy... Bonds have a fixed term, at the end of that term the government pays them out and sells new bonds to cover it. That's what our national debt is. Social security's bonds are just the same as the debt China holds, the debt private citizens that have bonds hold, etc... I mean, seriously, you don't believe bonds have value? Is that the position you are taking? Contrary to every financial adviser in the universe that considers them the safest, most conservative, way to hold your assets?
Click to expand...

Bonds have to be converted to cash, where is that cash going to come from? Bonds have value only based upon the ability to pay so let me know where the money is going to come from to repay them and why was that even necessary in the first place?


Hmm?
Click to expand...

That the best you can do? figure it out, what is baseline budgeting?


So you wouldn't come close to balancing the budget:

Education- $77 billion
Energy- $29 billion
Transportation- $13 billion
EPA- $8 billion
5% of remaining budget minus SS and Medicare- $119 billion

Total cuts you're proposing: $246 billion. Remaining deficit: $1.354 trillion.
Click to expand...

My cuts amounted to a budget of 1.4 trillion dollars after removing SS and eliminating departments. I gave you examples

Defense 600
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health 150.0
Medicare
Income Security 300.0
Social Security
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest 196.9


Total 1386.2

Current Budget

Defense 696.1
International Affairs 45.2
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy 11.5
Natural resources/env 41,6
Agriculture 23.2
Commerce -82.9
Transportation 92.5
Community Dev 24.9
Education/Train/Social 125.1
Health 369.0
Medicare 451.6
Income Security 624.0
Social Security 706.7
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice 55.2
General Govt. 18.1
Net Interest 196.9


Total 3496.4
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Bonds have to be converted to cash, where is that cash going to come from? Bonds have value only based upon the ability to pay so let me know where the money is going to come from to repay them and why was that even necessary in the first place?
Click to expand...

I mean, seriously man, this conversation is just silly. The claim that bonds have no value is just crazy talk. I already told you how it works. Bonds expire, the government pays them out and issues new bonds. It's always done it for the entire history of the modern era. It never defaults. It doesn't cost the government anything to cash them in because it just issues new bonds. You can sell bonds for cash on the open market any time you want. They're the closest thing you can get to actual paper money except paper money...

Conservative said:
My cuts amounted to a budget of 1.4 trillion dollars after removing SS and eliminating departments. I gave you examples
Click to expand...

Oh lol. You're saying you won't count social security up when you're totaling the budget, and you're counting that as a spending cut... No... lol. That isn't how that works... If you don't count social security you can't count social security taxes, so it washes out. Just changing what items you count in your list, without actually changing any revenues or spending, doesn't change the deficit...

If you have any other cuts you want to make, list them off and we'll add them to your total. So far you're at $246 billion and you've created a series of nuclear meltdowns, forced states to jack up property taxes to pay for schools stopped the trains from running and allowed corporations to push their costs on to the public through pollution.
 
Last edited:
teamosil;1059817533]I mean, seriously man, this conversation is just silly. The claim that bonds have no value is just crazy talk. I already told you how it works. Bonds expire, the government pays them out and issues new bonds. It's always done it for the entire history of the modern era. It never defaults. It doesn't cost the government anything to cash them in because it just issues new bonds. You can sell bonds for cash on the open market any time you want. They're the closest thing you can get to actual paper money except paper money...
Click to expand...

You are right, this conversation is silly, guess we just go out to the money tree and take off what we need.



Oh lol. You're saying you won't count social security up when you're totaling the budget, and you're counting that as a spending cut... No... lol. That isn't how that works... If you don't count social security you can't count social security taxes, so it washes out. Just changing what items you count in your list, without actually changing any revenues or spending, doesn't change the deficit...

If you have any other cuts you want to make, list them off and we'll add them to your total. So far you're at $246 billion and you've created a series of nuclear meltdowns, forced states to jack up property taxes to pay for schools stopped the trains from running and allowed corporations to push their costs on to the public through pollution.
Click to expand...

I took SS out of revenue and out of expense and put it where it belongs. My govt. budget is 1.4 trillion
 
Conservative said:
You are right, this conversation is silly, guess we just go out to the money tree and take off what we need.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand. If social security had just kept paper cash instead of bonds everything would be the same except more of our debt would be in the hands of foreign countries and the trust wouldn't be gaining interest... The government decides how many bonds it needs to sell and whoever wants to buy them buys them. It isn't like they made more bonds just for social security or something... The legislature could have the SSA just sell off its bonds on the open market tomorrow and get a different kind of asset. Nothing would change.. The SSA would still have the same amount of assets (approx $2 trillion) and the federal government would still have the same debt. I think you aren't clear how it works.

Conservative said:
I took SS out of revenue and out of expense and put it where it belongs. My govt. budget is 1.4 trillion
Click to expand...

By taking the SS revenue out you reduced the revenue by the same amount as you reduced spending... That doesn't change anything about the deficit just because you are splitting it into two tables instead of one... If only life were that easy. LOL.
 
teamosil said:
I don't think you understand. If social security had just kept paper cash instead of bonds everything would be the same except more of our debt would be in the hands of foreign countries and the trust wouldn't be gaining interest... The government decides how many bonds it needs to sell and whoever wants to buy them buys them. It isn't like they made more bonds just for social security or something... The legislature could have the SSA just sell off its bonds on the open market tomorrow and get a different kind of asset. Nothing would change.. The SSA would still have the same amount of assets (approx $2 trillion) and the federal government would still have the same debt. I think you aren't clear how it works.


By taking the SS revenue out you reduced the revenue by the same amount as you reduced spending... That doesn't change anything about the deficit just because you are splitting it into two tables instead of one... If only life were that easy. LOL.
Click to expand...

Read the budgets I posted and get back to me. You might just learn something. All I posted was expense cuts. Govt revenue excluding SS would equal 1.2 trillion today in FIT, Corporate taxes, and Excise taxes so we would be short 200 billion dollars and that is without puting 25 million people back to work full time and collecting something from income earners that pay zero FIT. Cutting the budget down to 1.4 trillion is a great start and that would tell business we don't need any more tax revenue from you or those evil rich people.
 
Conservative said:
Read the budgets I posted and get back to me. You might just learn something. All I posted was expense cuts. Govt revenue excluding SS would equal 1.2 trillion today in FIT, Corporate taxes, and Excise taxes so we would be short 200 billion dollars and that is without puting 25 million people back to work full time and collecting something from income earners that pay zero FIT. Cutting the budget down to 1.4 trillion is a great start and that would tell business we don't need any more tax revenue from you or those evil rich people.
Click to expand...

Oh I see what you're saying. All those ones with no numbers next to them you just want to cancel. So you basically just want to eliminate the government entirely except for the military... Yeah, that's what I said would happen if you tried to get all the cuts from just cutting domestic spending. Obviously no sane person would actually support that of course. It would mean the US would immediately become a third world nation... So that's one option. Collapse the country down to third world status.

Another option would be to make cuts in the military, cuts domestically, and raise revenues. That would be kind of tough. We'd need to do some serious adjusting. But we would certainly still remain first world.

I don't see why we would opt for the third world anarchy option...
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

No thanks, I don't want your money. You could send it to IRS to help pay for Bush's war in Iraq.

Elizabeth Warren just entered the race for U.S. Senator from Massachusetts and she's already ahead of Scott Brown in the polls.
 
Thunder said:
save the hyperbole.

the whiny wealthy can afford to pay more in income taxes, while the poor & middle-class really can't.
Click to expand...
Yes my Marxist buddy. Or as Radical Karl put it, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)."

Understood.
 
Grant said:
Do you accept that the President of the United States lied when he said "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. ... We can't afford these special lower rates for the wealthy. ... Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires" or do you feel he was mistaken, or do you feel he only misrepresented the situation?

In other words is he stupid, does he believe the American people to be stupid, or is he just a liar?
Click to expand...

He's a lying POS. that is the only possible conclusion
 
randel said:
what was your experience? you didnt make the big decisions, you didnt produce any products or provide any service, you were a low level lackey who took orders from the higher ups....your misrepresenting yourself...
Click to expand...

that is oh so interesting a charge coming from a union member
 
TheNextEra said:
I love it when conservatives bring up freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness.

TheNextEra said:
You mean of course the freedom and liberty for gays to have their marriages recognized by the state? Do you mean the freedom and liberty to take marijuanna? Do you mean the freedom to protest instead of "free speech" zones implemented? Do you mean the freedom and liberty to burn a flag? Do you mean the freedom and liberty to not have television censored?
Click to expand...
Quandary. You have it somewhat right. Shall we take them one at a time?
- Freedom of the various states to define marriage through their legislatures. Yes. Mandated by the courts. No.
- Freedom to protest. No. Freedom to peaceably assemble to redress grievances against the state? Yes.
- Freedom to burn a flag. Given that the right to speak freely includes symbolic speech I absolutely agree that you have the right to burn a flag you own.

TheNextEra said:
Oh you just meant freedom and liberty for YOUR ideas only right?
Click to expand...
Insofar as the freedoms and liberties are the ones that guarantee me the lowest possible interference from the state, yes. May I point you toward the founding documents, beginning with the US Constitution? Let us start there as that is the binding agreement we have.

TheNextEra said:
Face it, conservatives really don't have a leg to stand on with freedom and liberty since the majority of the have NO problem themselves with using government to enforce their anti-freedom and anti-liberty acts.
Click to expand...
I think you have a misunderstanding of conservatism.
 
Grant said:
Do you accept that the President of the United States lied when he said "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. ... We can't afford these special lower rates for the wealthy. ... Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires" or do you feel he was mistaken, or do you feel he only misrepresented the situation?

In other words is he stupid, does he believe the American people to be stupid, or is he just a liar?
Click to expand...

Where did the President of the United States lie?
 
TurtleDude said:
He's a lying POS. that is the only possible conclusion
Click to expand...
To a Marxist the ends justifies the means. Lying is just a means to his despicable end. He is doing enormous damage to this nation. Even after we defeat him and send him packing, I am no longer certain we can overcome the amount of damage he has done and will continue to do.

But we have to try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom