• 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!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

How about at the same time? Believe it or not, laws can be written in whcih it happens.

No! Been there, seen that fail. You libs hold up your end first, then we will get to the rest of it. But, in this exact scenario liberals in congress have proven themselves untrustworthy.

You miss the point and repeat a falsehood. I don't care who you are; that's funny.

So you have no rebuttal....Noted.

j-mac
 
Don't deny that. If you're apying attention, I suggest we cut spending and rasie taxes. A two pronged approach. It takes both. The trouble with both sides is the tendency to focus too much on only one prong. Do you think I'm wrong about this?

Nope. I'm actually okay with a slight raise in taxes and said so here. However, not until the Government actually enacts and STICKS TO real CUTS...not simply agreeing to raise the amount they spend the following year a bit less than they would normally raise it. I mean actually leave it where it is and then begin to CUT it.

The government has shown as recently as the 90's it has no issues in raising taxes on us, and in more recent times raising taxes on other non-income related things. What it hasn't shown is any significant, honest ability to cut its spending and STICK to that cut in spending.

Additionally, tax increases hit immedietely while spend plans like Obama has put forward cut a little spending now (and I use "cut" loosely) and primarily backload the cuts 5 to 10 years down the line making it questionable if the cuts will even see the light of day.

Show me the government can actually be serious about spending cuts, and then give me a tax increase. If you're going to spread that spending cut over multiple years and back load it, then that tax increase better start small and tier itself to a higher level as the increaes in spending cuts increase. And the tax increase should touch EVERYONE. I'm fine with it being progressive and affecting the higher incomes more than the lower incomes, but EVERYONE should at least feel some of the pressure when taxes are increased to make it a tangable thing and not seemingly "Free money" at someone elses expense.

I've advocated a while that I'd be fine, once the economy smooths itself out some, with implimenting a 2% national sales tax whose money revenue doesn't go into the general fund but rather goes directly to paying down our debt thus decreasing our interest payment over time and saving us money.

Unfortunately, time and again, our politicians have shown that increase in revenue is just an excuse for them to jusitfy increase in spending rather than something to offset and possibly provide a surplus over the amount they've managed to cut spending to.
 
So far it's worked out pretty well, despite nearly uniform opposition from the side that left us this mess to begin with.

Yes, we can see how well it has worked out, there are more people unemployed today than when Obama took office, businesses are NOT hiring, 4.4 trillion has been added to the debt, the misery index is rising and "your" President has had total control of the govt. his first two years when those results were generated
 
How about at the same time? Believe it or not, laws can be written in whcih it happens.

I'd give you this...

Give me a 3:1 ratio in cuts to increased tax revenue...IE, if the new tax is expected to bring in $100 million in new revenue, give me $300 million in cuts. AND, by "Cuts" I mean a cut from the CURRENT spending. I don't mean "Cut" as in "We are going to increase it 8% but we'll just increase it at 8% - $300 million now".

Place in the law that if government spends more than they budget for, and that additional spending...INCLUDING emergency spending...goes over the amount of [current budget - $ in cuts], then the following year the tax increase is wiped from the books.

Again, as I said before, said tax increase if its an INCOME tax increase should apply across the board in a progressive manner.

That would make the Revenue to Budget gap close by 4x's whatever the base number is each year.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we can see how well it has worked out, there are more people unemployed today than when Obama took office, businesses are NOT hiring, 4.4 trillion has been added to the debt, the misery index is rising and "your" President has had total control of the govt. his first two years when those results were generated

Actually business ARE hiring -- it's government that is shedding jobs, which I believe your side considers a positive. As I said, considering where Obama started, and where we could be if he hadn't generally made the right moves, and the level of wrong-headed opposition he faces, it's worked out pretty well so far.
 
Zyphlin

I wouldn't accept just an agreement either. But, written into the law, enacted, with the increase at the same time seems quite proper.

You might also understand spending largely comes from us, the people. We demand services and actions. What do you think would have happened to congress had they not passed any stimulus?

Taxes, espeically target tax increases, won't really be felt or noticed int he economy. They would only bring in ore revenue. Going back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, for example, would not be noticed in any real way.

You and I closer than Conservative and me, but compromise may be a way away yet. ;)
 
You might also understand spending largely comes from us, the people. We demand services and actions. What do you think would have happened to congress had they not passed any stimulus?

This is why we don't have a direct democracy. The individual citizens can't be in charge of the purse strings. Basic human nature is one where you look out for yourself and your loved ones first and foremost. Basic human nature is that if you can get things given to you that betters your lot in life and do so without cost to you, you'll do it. Which is what "taxing the rich to demand services and action" basically is..its finding a way for you to better yourself without you actually having to pay for it.

Just like parents don't give their Children cookies at will and allow them to play xbox every moment of their free time, Congress shouldn't be just giving the people whatever free services or actions they want simply because they want it.

Taxes, espeically target tax increases, won't really be felt or noticed int he economy. They would only bring in ore revenue. Going back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, for example, would not be noticed in any real way.

That's nothing but a guess however, and one I don't necessarily agree with (And neither did Obama in December).
 
So you think that the Republicans have been absolutely unreasonable in their debt negotiations so far, give that Democrats have offered plans with as much as 6:1 cuts/revenue?

Democrats Offer Significant Concessions — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

1. The Democrats plans have largely been back loaded in cuts. IE, its not 6:1 spending vs revenue every year but rather that's the over all plans set up. As I noted in my previous post...that's bull****...as its enacting the full tax increase now while backloading "spending cuts" to between 5 and 10 years down the line when there's no garauntee those will actually happen.

2. One of the large "cuts" is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will end, which is not really a cut as they are inevitably ending things anyways that are exceptions, not continued expenses. Would the honest alternative be that if we didn't pass the spending cuts Obama or the next President would just keep them going on forever and ever? No. This is like being out of your house due to it flooding and having to live in a hotel room for a few weeks, and convincing your wife to let you buy that new Motorcycle you want by saying "Honey, if you let me buy this new motorcycle then we'll move out of this hotel room and we'll save $100 a day!".

3. Its not a "Cut", its a reduction of the amount that they'll increase the budget every year. That's not a CUT, that's a reduction in the amount of INCREASE.

4. Also, as I've previously stated, if the bill doesn't have some mechanism that if the cuts DON'T occur the tax increase will be revoked then its rather useless as the tax increase goes on the board but then they just use some emergency spending or alternative bill to ramp the spending back up while leaving the tax on the board.

5. I may be wrong, but this is again a plan where the increase in income tax burden would be on one group and one group alone. If you're going to increase taxes, everyone should feel it to some extent to remove the notion of "free money". It can be progressive, but it should be felt by all if its going to occur.
 
Last edited:
This is why we don't have a direct democracy. The individual citizens can't be in charge of the purse strings. Basic human nature is one where you look out for yourself and your loved ones first and foremost. Basic human nature is that if you can get things given to you that betters your lot in life and do so without cost to you, you'll do it. Which is what "taxing the rich to demand services and action" basically is..its finding a way for you to better yourself without you actually having to pay for it.

Just like parents don't give their Children cookies at will and allow them to play xbox every moment of their free time, Congress shouldn't be just giving the people whatever free services or actions they want simply because they want it.

But people are paying a larger role today. Policiticans keep constant regard for polls, and they reacted based on what we want. While I agree policiticans shouldn't. Fact is they will.

That's nothing but a guess however, and one I don't necessarily agree with (And neither did Obama in December).

I think it is little more than a guess. We have history at higher rates, and they have largely made no difference at all. As for Obama, a politician I might add, he says what he has to say for good policitics, like any other politician.
 
Any plan that offers so called cuts that are not to take effect until up to 10 years down the road where there is no guarantee that a congress of that time will pass what is agreed to now, or that is not containing real spending cuts, and not baseline are lies from demo's. We have a track record of that to plainly see.


j-mac
 
Actually business ARE hiring -- it's government that is shedding jobs, which I believe your side considers a positive. As I said, considering where Obama started, and where we could be if he hadn't generally made the right moves, and the level of wrong-headed opposition he faces, it's worked out pretty well so far.

Private sector jobs are less now than when Obama took office so stop buying the liberal spin. I posted the bls.gov data. It does seem that nothing is going to change the mind of a leftwing ideologue including verifiable facts.

Private sector employment by month and after spending trillions.

2009 110981 110260 109473 108700 108374 107936 107649 107434 107221 106971 106937 106835
2010 106793 106772 106916 107145 107193 107258 107351 107461 107570 107713 107841 108008
2011 108102 108363 108582 108823 108922 108997 109153 109170

Obama inherited a private sector economy with 110.9 million private sector jobs that is 109.2 million in October 2011. Where is that private sector growth?
 
Any plan that offers so called cuts that are not to take effect until up to 10 years down the road where there is no guarantee that a congress of that time will pass what is agreed to now, or that is not containing real spending cuts, and not baseline are lies from demo's. We have a track record of that to plainly see.


j-mac

Then make them for now. Don't whine about your side being unable to write a law that happens now. Simple propose the law goes into effect as the increases go into effect.

You do understand both sides lie, right?
 
1. The Democrats plans have largely been back loaded in cuts. IE, its not 6:1 spending vs revenue every year but rather that's the over all plans set up. As I noted in my previous post...that's bull****...as its enacting the full tax increase now while backloading "spending cuts" to between 5 and 10 years down the line when there's no garauntee those will actually happen.

It depends on which plan we're talking about. I think that some have been back loaded on both cuts and tax hikes. In any case, I think it would be suicidal to immediately enact both spending cuts and revenue hikes when what the economy needs is additional stimulus. It makes perfect sense to back load the plan, preferably with triggers linked to unemployment and/or GDP growth.

2. One of the large "cuts" is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will end, which is not really a cut as they are inevitably ending things anyways that are exceptions, not continued expenses. Would the honest alternative be that if we didn't pass the spending cuts Obama or the next President would just keep them going on forever and ever? No. This is like being out of your house due to it flooding and having to live in a hotel room for a few weeks, and convincing your wife to let you buy that new Motorcycle you want by saying "Honey, if you let me buy this new motorcycle then we'll move out of this hotel room and we'll save $100 a day!".

That's a bit of semantics. It's a cut from current funding levels, whether it's inevitable or not.

3. Its not a "Cut", its a reduction of the amount that they'll increase the budget every year. That's not a CUT, that's a reduction in the amount of INCREASE.

The budget has increased every year, and it will continue to increase every year, simply as a function of population growth, inflation, and the cost of debt repayment. We don't need a literal reduction in spending. We just need to balance spending and revenue.

4. Also, as I've previously stated, if the bill doesn't have some mechanism that if the cuts DON'T occur the tax increase will be revoked then its rather useless as the tax increase goes on the board but then they just use some emergency spending or alternative bill to ramp the spending back up while leaving the tax on the board.

Unfortunately these kinds of triggers, whichever way they run, cannot be guaranteed short of a constitutional amendment. But that's not going to happen, so I think we have to proceed as best we can.

5. I may be wrong, but this is again a plan where the increase in income tax burden would be on one group and one group alone. If you're going to increase taxes, everyone should feel it to some extent to remove the notion of "free money". It can be progressive, but it should be felt by all if its going to occur.

I'm not sure of the exact details of the plan, but AFAIK you're right. It includes spending cuts that would largely impact the poor and middle class, and tax hikes that would largely impact the wealthy. I agree with you, though, that there should be a progressive, accross-the-board hike. Personally I would like to see the Bush tax cuts go away altogether.
 
Private sector jobs are less now than when Obama took office so stop buying the liberal spin. I posted the bls.gov data. It does seem that nothing is going to change the mind of a leftwing ideologue including verifiable facts.

Private sector employment by month and after spending trillions.

2009 110981 110260 109473 108700 108374 107936 107649 107434 107221 106971 106937 106835
2010 106793 106772 106916 107145 107193 107258 107351 107461 107570 107713 107841 108008
2011 108102 108363 108582 108823 108922 108997 109153 109170

Obama inherited a private sector economy with 110.9 million private sector jobs that is 109.2 million in October 2011. Where is that private sector growth?

Thanks, the numbers you posted confirm what I wrote: businesses ARE hiring. As your data points out, private employment has increased for 18 months running.
 
Thanks, the numbers you posted confirm what I wrote: businesses ARE hiring. As your data points out, private employment has increased for 18 months running.

The numbers I posted confirm that we have a net privare sector job loss in the first three years of the Obama Administration
 
The numbers I posted confirm that we have a net privare sector job loss in the first three years of the Obama Administration

Yes, but that's not what I was addressing. I said that private employers ARE hiring, and that is undeniable. Private employment has increased for 18 months in a row.
 
Yes, but that's not what I was addressing. I said that private employers ARE hiring, and that is undeniable. Private employment has increased for 18 months in a row.

Private business will always hire just not enough to make a difference in the total which is the problem. You want to give him credit but never any blame for the actual results generated.
 
Private business will always hire just not enough to make a difference in the total which is the problem. You want to give him credit but never any blame for the actual results generated.

Obama should get neither. Presidents don't hire for private companies. :2funny:
 
The numbers I posted confirm that we have a net privare sector job loss in the first three years of the Obama Administration

And if a Republican were Prez do you think it would be any different?
 
Obama should get neither. Presidents don't hire for private companies. :2funny:

You really don't know how private companies work. Economic policies affect company profits and the way companies operate. Since they cannot print money they have to do it the old fashion way, earn it. You really are naive if you believe the govt. doesn't affect hiring of the private sector. How do you think that small corner business is going to pay for the increased costs associated with Obamacare?
 
It depends on which plan we're talking about. I think that some have been back loaded on both cuts and tax hikes. In any case, I think it would be suicidal to immediately enact both spending cuts and revenue hikes when what the economy needs is additional stimulus. It makes perfect sense to back load the plan, preferably with triggers linked to unemployment and/or GDP growth.

If both are equally backloaded I have less of an issue with it. If one is massively back loaded and the other isn't, that's a problem. From the plans I've seen, its typically the later not the former.

That's a bit of semantics. It's a cut from current funding levels, whether it's inevitable or not.

You call it semantics, I call it reasonable common sense. You don't bargain things that are already going to happen regardless of whether or not your bargained for deal happens and expect that to be considered a serious contribution. You asked why I think the Republicans refusal to go with that plan is reasonable...this is one such reason. The number is a bit of an illusion in regards to real cuts the plan itself would be causing as opposed to actual additional cuts that the plan itself is causing.

The budget has increased every year, and it will continue to increase every year, simply as a function of population growth, inflation, and the cost of debt repayment. We don't need a literal reduction in spending. We just need to balance spending and revenue.

Fine and dandy, but don't quote one portion of my post while ignoring the other point and then act like I should be condemning the Republicans for not taking a deal that doesn't equate to the one I stated if looked at in full.

If they want to adjust for inflation, then I could accept that as the one type of increase. Inflation isn't 8% a year which is the typical increase of the budget. The average increase in inflation is 2.6% over the past 20 years. Our population growth rate is less than 1% a year. The budget itself increases by roughly 8% a year I believe.

If you'd want to say adjust the current number for inflation, then cut...fine by me. But this "we'll only increase it by 4% instead of 8%" type of thing is not a "Cut" to me and if you're going to claim "semantics" on the other thing, I'd say claiming a reduction in the amount of increase is a "Cut" is playing semantics as well. If you get a 2% raise at work instead of an 8% raise the company is not "cutting" your pay. At best its "cutting" the amount of your normal raise.

Unfortunately these kinds of triggers, whichever way they run, cannot be guaranteed short of a constitutional amendment. But that's not going to happen, so I think we have to proceed as best we can.

Honestly not sure of the validity in this. I know sunsets are placed in laws routinely, I don't see how such a trigger would not be possible. Someone could also attempt to vote to remove/amend the trigger, or other such thing...but at least in that case it'd be a clear and obvious attempt of circumventing the original agreement.
 
You really don't know how private companies work. Economic policies affect company profits and the way companies operate. Since they cannot print money they have to do it the old fashion way, earn it. You really are naive if you believe the govt. doesn't affect hiring of the private sector. How do you think that small corner business is going to pay for the increased costs associated with Obamacare?

Not that much, no. I'm sorry that you government is the answer, but frankly business adjusts just fine and has managed to prosper even with high tax rates. History shows this.

:coffeepap
 
Private business will always hire just not enough to make a difference in the total which is the problem. You want to give him credit but never any blame for the actual results generated.

There has been positive job growth in the private sector for 18 months, and of course it has made a difference. Unfortunately it has been offset in significant part by layoffs in the public sector, which is something your side applauds.
 
Back
Top Bottom