Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 125

Thread: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so
    the fact that the majority of people who make less than 50K a year voted for Obama and the majority of those of us who make more than 100K a year voted for Romney
    does not matter?

    true lots of extremely rich libertines, gays, Jews and others who typically support the dems for reasons other than taxes, voted for Obama

    but the majority of those wealthy despite the government did not
    Interesting statistic that shows why Reps want policies that make people wealthier and why Dem's want policies that keep people poorer.

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    I'd prefer taxes go up on no one.

    I'd prefer taxes going up on those making over $250,000 over going up on everyone.

    We had our chance as a nation to get the first option...we blew it in terms of the election. However, we didn't blow our chance to demand a reasonable compromise, because the nation voted Republicans back into control of the house.

    As I said in the other thread, this would be my suggestion to the President.

    Extend the tax rates for 5 years on those making $250,000 or less.

    Require 3:1 cuts to revenue increase to be done over each of the next five budgets years

    1 part of that cut must come from non-defense discretionary spending

    1 part of that cut must come from defense discretionary spending

    1 part of that cut must come from reform of entitlement spending.

    In a perfect world (well, perfect post-electoin world) I would actually, I would actually say the compromise should be that the bush tax cuts are extended 10 years and then the tax rate for those over making over $250,000 is increased for 5 years...that way, if Democrats don't uphold their end of the bargain in terms of cuts then in 5 years the increase expires and taxes revert to the current levels for all, thus giving them incentive to actually live up to their cuts. Unfortunately, I know in reality that is not something congress would do.

  3. #23
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,080

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    it proves what many of us have said all along

    revenue increase is not Obama's goal

    its pandering to class warfare
    Wow a thread about taxes where Turtledude comes in with his talking points loaded. Big surprise, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No. By the he said this he had already call republicans to the table. Laying your opening bid is not demanding you get yours before anything else. Republicans hold some power. Step up yo the table and begin negotiations.
    Him saying there are two options, my way, or nothing, is "demanding you get yours before anything else". I see nothing in that statement as to giving Republicans anything they want.

  5. #25
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,667

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I'd prefer taxes go up on no one.

    I'd prefer taxes going up on those making over $250,000 over going up on everyone.

    We had our chance as a nation to get the first option...we blew it in terms of the election. However, we didn't blow our chance to demand a reasonable compromise, because the nation voted Republicans back into control of the house.

    As I said in the other thread, this would be my suggestion to the President.

    Extend the tax rates for 5 years on those making $250,000 or less.

    Require 3:1 cuts to revenue increase to be done over each of the next five budgets years

    1 part of that cut must come from non-defense discretionary spending

    1 part of that cut must come from defense discretionary spending

    1 part of that cut must come from reform of entitlement spending.

    In a perfect world (well, perfect post-electoin world) I would actually, I would actually say the compromise should be that the bush tax cuts are extended 10 years and then the tax rate for those over making over $250,000 is increased for 5 years...that way, if Democrats don't uphold their end of the bargain in terms of cuts then in 5 years the increase expires and taxes revert to the current levels for all, thus giving them incentive to actually live up to their cuts. Unfortunately, I know in reality that is not something congress would do.
    That is a little step in defict reduction; clearly better than nothing but not by much. You suggest a total of about $400 billion per year be taken off of a current (it will surely increase simply with rising entitlement costs) $1,200 billion dollar annual deficit, still leaving a deficit of $800 billion that includes $200 billion simply in interest on the national debt, which also increses each year, especially when (not if) interest rates rise to attract more to buy into our debt. Also federal spending cuts ALWAYS include such nonsense as "savings from ending the Afghan war = $???", which is pure accounting trickery as it is scheduled to end in 2014 anyway, and should have ended as soon as "winning" was no longer the objective. Tax increases are immediate but spending cuts "spread over a decade" always seem to be "back loaded" into years beyond the current terms of office of those advocating them; insist that that all spending cuts are FLAT (in each budget year) and real, just like the tax increases are.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #26
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That is a little step in defict reduction; clearly better than nothing but not by much. You suggest a total of about $400 billion per year be taken off of a current (it will surely increase simply with rising entitlement costs) $1,200 billion dollar annual deficit, still leaving a deficit of $800 billion that includes $200 billion simply in interest on the national debt, which also increses each year, especially when (not if) interest rates rise to attract more to buy into our debt. Also federal spending cuts ALWAYS include such nonsense as "savings from ending the Afghan war = $???", which is pure accounting trickery as it is scheduled to end in 2014 anyway, and should have ended as soon as "winning" was no longer the objective. Tax increases are immediate but spending cuts "spread over a decade" always seem to be "back loaded" into years beyond the current terms of office of those advocating them; insist that that all spending cuts are FLAT (in each budget year) and real, just like the tax increases are.
    I agree, it's not much. I'd be tempted to bump that to a 6:1 cuts to revenue but was having trouble quickly finding what the "projected" revenue increase would be from the tax increases.

    I agree with you in terms of the "immediete tax cuts for future spending cuts" thing, it's why I mentioned my "perfect world" thought and it's also my issue in other areas of debate such as immigration. That's partially why I suggested the cuts needed to be made on the next five budgets. So a 1:1 cut to all three this year, a 1:1 cut on all three next year, and so on for the 5 year period.

    And I agree with you 100% about afghanistan. I expressed in another thread my disdain for that tactic. I agree, money we are spending specifically for a war doesn't need to stay on the books after said war is over. It should come off the books. But that's the thing...IT SHOULD COME OFF THE BOOKS. It's temporary money. It shouldn't be "invested" into infastructure at home or education or other such things, it should simply be money we no longer spend. And I agree that it shouldn't be considered part of a cost cutting measure because it is something that will happen REGARDLESS of any plans people put into effect. The cuts should come from things that would still be there if not for the cuts.

  7. #27
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,667

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I agree, it's not much. I'd be tempted to bump that to a 6:1 cuts to revenue but was having trouble quickly finding what the "projected" revenue increase would be from the tax increases.

    I agree with you in terms of the "immediete tax cuts for future spending cuts" thing, it's why I mentioned my "perfect world" thought and it's also my issue in other areas of debate such as immigration. That's partially why I suggested the cuts needed to be made on the next five budgets. So a 1:1 cut to all three this year, a 1:1 cut on all three next year, and so on for the 5 year period.

    And I agree with you 100% about afghanistan. I expressed in another thread my disdain for that tactic. I agree, money we are spending specifically for a war doesn't need to stay on the books after said war is over. It should come off the books. But that's the thing...IT SHOULD COME OFF THE BOOKS. It's temporary money. It shouldn't be "invested" into infastructure at home or education or other such things, it should simply be money we no longer spend. And I agree that it shouldn't be considered part of a cost cutting measure because it is something that will happen REGARDLESS of any plans people put into effect. The cuts should come from things that would still be there if not for the cuts.
    Exactly. A cut is getting rid of something (permanently) not a reduction in the proposed increase. The major demorat trick is to use 2009 as the "established baseline", but that included TARP/Stimulus 1 so they get to keep over $800 billion in "temporary", "emergency", "crisis" or "one time" spending boondoggles as permanent and then work from there, as opposed to any prior year's reality. That was the year when federal spending went from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP and the federal defict doubled. What we need, IMHO, is to establish a true target (limit?) of federal spending as a percentage of the REAL prior year's GDP and then "budget" that amount, rather than simply play games with fictional numbers and wishful "projections".
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Exactly. A cut is getting rid of something (permanently) not a reduction in the proposed increase. The major demorat trick is to use 2009 as the "established baseline", but that included TARP/Stimulus 1 so they get to keep over $800 billion in "temporary", "emergency", "crisis" or "one time" spending boondoggles as permanent and then work from there, as opposed to any prior year's reality. That was the year when federal spending went from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP and the federal defict doubled. What we need, IMHO, is to establish a true target (limit?) of federal spending as a percentage of the REAL prior year's GDP and then "budget" that amount, rather than simply play games with fictional numbers and wishful "projections".
    This is because they havent actually designed or passed a detailed budget where they specify where every dollar will go. They consider the debt limit deal which set a blind limit on discretionary spending their baseline.

    What they should do is write a budget and come up with a number they want to spend, and where it will go. Which coincidently is required by law.

    SEC. 301. (a) CONTENT OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE
    BUDGET.-On or before April 15 of each year, the Congress shall
    complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for the
    fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year .. The concurrent
    resolution shall set forth appropriate levels for the fiscal year beginning
    on October 1 of such year, and planning levels for each of
    the two ensuing fiscal years, for the following-
    (1) totals of new budget authority, budget outlays, direct loan
    obligations, and primary loan guarantee commitments;
    (2) total Federal revenues and the amount, if an~, by which
    the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be increased or
    decreased by bills and resolutions to be reported by the appropriate
    committees;
    (3) the surplus or deficit in the budget;
    (4) new budget authority, budget outlays, direct loan obligations,
    and primary loan guarantee commitments for each
    major functional category, based on allocations of the total
    levels set forth pursuant to paragraph (1);
    (5) the public debt;
    (6) For purposes of Senate enforcement under this title, outlays
    of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program
    established. under title II of the Social Security Act for the
    fiscal year of the resolution and for each of the 4 succeeding
    fiscal years; and
    (7) For purposes of Senate enforcement under this title, revenues
    of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program
    established under title II of the Social Security Act (and the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
    for the fiscal year of the resolution and for each of the 4 succeeding
    fiscal years.
    Last edited by jonny5; 11-15-12 at 11:49 AM.

  9. #29
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Him saying there are two options, my way, or nothing, is "demanding you get yours before anything else". I see nothing in that statement as to giving Republicans anything they want.
    I don't read him that way. He spoke to his point of beginning. Again, don't be victims. Step up and make a counter offer.

    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.

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I don't read him that way. He spoke to his point of beginning. Again, don't be victims. Step up and make a counter offer.
    Thats literally what he said

    "there are two pathways available...everybody’s taxes will automatically go up...the other option is to pass a law right now that would prevent any tax hike whatsoever on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income"

    There is no third pathway by which republican offer counter.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •