• 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!

No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

Ok, here is what you are not understanding. I don't care if Obama "said" it could be done and I don't really care if the GOP "says" it can be done, WITHOUT SPECIFICS ON HOW, IT'S JUST RHETORIC. Now do you understand or do you just "believe" it can be done like the rest?

I'm not saying Obama is not to blame, he is. I'm also pointing out the GOP is doing EXACTLY what they have complained about the Dems doing. ALL talk and no specifics on HOW. They just want you to "believe" it can be done without saying HOW it can be done. Sorry, I'm not buying it from ANY side.

So you don't think obama is being disingenuous now by saying it can't be done when he very recently proposed the exact same thing himself? This proves he is playing politics with this and has absolutely no intention of working with the other side of the isle to avoid the fiscal cliff. Say hello to a double dip recession.
 
So you don't think obama is being disingenuous now by saying it can't be done when he very recently proposed the exact same thing himself? This proves he is playing politics with this and has absolutely no intention of working with the other side of the isle to avoid the fiscal cliff. Say hello to a double dip recession.

Of course Obama is playing politics as is the GOP. This is the WHOLE problem with the government right now. BOTH sides care more about keeping their little empire and hurting the "other side" than they do about doing what's right for America.

The problem is that the voters of BOTH sides somehow think "their" side isn't to blame and continue to be little sheeple in voting these clowns back into office.

If people REALLY wanted change, they would stop voting Dem/Rep. However, the majority do not want real change, they just want "their" side to give them what they want.
 
Last edited:
of course obama is playing politics as is the gop. This is the whole problem with the government right now. Both sides care more about keeping their little empire and hurting the "other side" than they do about doing what's right the america.

The problem is that the voters of both sides somehow think "their" side isn't to blame and continue to be little sheeple in voting these clowns back into office.


Hear Hear!!!!!!

Both sides are equally to blame. Both Sides.
 
Obama is playing politics with the lives of us Americans he supposedly is in office to do good things for. His statement that he will not sign a bill that does not raise taxes on the rich proves he is more interested in destroying Republicans than he is in leading us out of this horrible economy. If Reps can find a way to meet his dollar requirements through closing loop holes the rich use then there should be a deal. What obama wants though is to weaken Reps with their base by forcing them to break their pledge not to raise taxes or to go over the cliff and blame it on Reps in order to turn the general public against them. Obama just may drag us into another recession, possibly even a new depression.


"President Obama today declared there would be no deal to avert the looming fiscal cliff unless Republicans agree to raise rates on the top 2 percent of income-earners."

No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says - ABC News
good for the president, stay strong obama.
 
Of course Obama is doing exactly the opposite, making more and more dependent upon it for their very existance. Yes he can!

"Lil Timmy G"......telling Boehner that Obama will let it go over the Fiscal Cliff. Do you think he is bluffing?

First Obama wanted like 800Bn. Repubs say okay we come up with 400billion with loopholes and deductions. Obama now comes back with he wants 1.6trillion. Boehner confers with House Repubs. They now counter they can come up with 600Bn but Obama has to cut spending and give up some meat on Entitlements. Team Obama says they are willing to do so.....but just not now. That they will give up some entitlements.

Do you think most should look at this smoke and mirror show being so crucial with all the talk of going over the Fiscal Cliff? Isn't the real issue for January the debt ceiling? Obama is a fool to think Congress should give him Control of the Debt Limit.

Why hasn't anyone said anything to Obama's putz-azz about those 76 major US cities with Economies that did not grow last year or the year before? They got that shiznit straight out of the Brookings Institute. Plus Obama got straight from bowles Simpson didn't he? What now he can't he listen to the people who he relied on before? That's 300 total cities in the World with economies. We have 76.....What is not sinking in for the Progressives?
 
"Lil Timmy G"......telling Boehner that Obama will let it go over the Fiscal Cliff. Do you think he is bluffing?

First Obama wanted like 800Bn. Repubs say okay we come up with 400billion with loopholes and deductions. Obama now comes back with he wants 1.6trillion. Boehner confers with House Repubs. They now counter they can come up with 600Bn but Obama has to cut spending and give up some meat on Entitlements. Team Obama says they are willing to do so.....but just not now. That they will give up some entitlements.

Do you think most should look at this smoke and mirror show being so crucial with all the talk of going over the Fiscal Cliff? Isn't the real issue for January the debt ceiling? Obama is a fool to think Congress should give him Control of the Debt Limit.

Why hasn't anyone said anything to Obama's putz-azz about those 76 major US cities with Economies that did not grow last year or the year before? They got that shiznit straight out of the Brookings Institute. Plus Obama got straight from bowles Simpson didn't he? What now he can't he listen to the people who he relied on before? That's 300 total cities in the World with economies. We have 76.....What is not sinking in for the Progressives?

Progressives still firmly believe in income redistribution and see the US as having a "poor" majority and a "rich" minority. Politically they see the opportunity to keep beating the "class warfare" drums and repeating the myth that taxation only of "the rich" will make their dreams possible. They are dangerously close to making that happen, PPACA just may seal the deal, as the republicants seem powerless to stop the deficit spending madness for fear of losing "popularity" among the voting public. With Obama, and the MSM, constantly pushing the notion that since the USA is a "rich" nation, simply reallocating that vast amount of money "correctly" (via gov't mandtaes) will somehow make the unproductive become productive and that the productive will continue to be equally so, profit or not. The era of big gov't is not over, it is just beginning. Yes they can!
 
Last edited:
[Obama is a fool to think Congress should give him Control of the Debt Limit.

Actually it's negotiating 101. Demand something outragous, so when the other side comes back and says "no way", you can say "ok, well I'll take that off the table, but I want <insert new demand here>.

I don't think Obama really thinks congress will give him that power, I think he is just playing politics.
 
Progressives still firmly believe in income redistribution and see the US as having a "poor" majority and a "rich" minority. Politically they see opportunity to keep beating the "class warfare" drums and repeating the myth that taxation only of "the rich" will make their dreams possible. They are dangerously close to making that happen, PPACA will seal the deal, as the republicants seem powerless to stop the deficit spending madness for fear of losing "popularity" among the voting public. With Obama, and the MSM, constantly pushing the notion that since the USA is a "rich" nation, simply reallocating that vast amount of money "correctly" will somehow make the unproductive become more productive and that the productive will continue to be equally so, profit or not. The era of big gov't is not over, it is just beginning. !

And do you beleive that the GOP do not like big government? HLS, Patriot Act, subsidies to farmers, rewarding companies that go overseas, corporate tax cuts, etc.

The GOP and Dems are just two sides of the same coin. The only difference is who their benefactors of the big government cheese is.

EDIT: and yes, I know the Dems have voted or agreed to many of that as well, which is why I say the GOP and Dems are just different sides of the same coin. Both sides like their power and both sides want to keep it at all costs, even if it hurts the American people or the U.S.
 
And do you beleive that the GOP do not like big government? HLS, Patriot Act, subsidies to farmers, rewarding companies that go overseas, corporate tax cuts, etc.

The GOP and Dems are just two sides of the same coin. The only difference is who their benefactors of the big government cheese is.

I agree with you here. In DC both parties are controlled by the need for massive campaign cash to keep their power. The left, however, has a big advantage, the "free" press is on its side, so it is currently using that to beat down the republicants. The TP (fiscal conservatism) scares the republicants much more than the demorats as they hold no such allegiance to their pork (yet). Neither party can (or will likely) present sufficient spending cuts, and both now seem to agree that they need more taxation to keep up all of the gov't spending madness but, as you say, having (sometimes) different sacred spending cows.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you here. In DC, both parties, are controlled by the need for massive campaign cash to keep their power. The left, however, has a big advantage, the "free" press is on its side, so it is currently using that to beat down the republicants. The TP (fiscal conservatism) scares the republicants much more than the demorats as they hold no such allegiance to their pork (yet). Neither party can (or will likely) present sufficient spending cuts, and both now seem to agree that they need more taxation to keep up all of the gov't spending madness; but as you say, having (sometimes) different sacred spending cows.

I don't really thing the left leaning media has that much of an edge anymore. Given the internet, right-wing talk radio, and cable television news like Fox Commentary and shows like "The Blaze", there is plenty of media for anyone's interest and it's the fault of the person for not seeking out different points of views.
 
Actually more than 80 percent agree with a tax increase for the "rich':



read more:

More than 80 percent of Americans want to tax the rich | SF Politics

Question.....So if the majority of people want something, does that mean we should do it?

Afterall, the majority of people in the U.S. (as a whole) do not want gay marriage legalized. The majority of people in the U.S. may not want abortion to be legal in the future. You get the point. Just because most people want something, doesn't mean it's right nor does it mean we should do it.
 
Actually more than 80 percent agree with a tax increase for the "rich':



read more:

More than 80 percent of Americans want to tax the rich | SF Politics


PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans break into two roughly evenly matched camps on the question of whether the government should enact heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth in the U.S. Forty-seven percent believe the government should redistribute wealth in this way, while 49% disagree, similar to views Gallup found four years ago.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/nhnrvip5s0ysl904sffkag.gif

Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.

The question also provokes different reactions from men compared with women, whites vs. nonwhites, and upper-income vs. lower-income Americans. Consistent with their more Democratic political orientation, women, nonwhites, and lower-income adults are all more supportive than their counterparts of government redistribution of wealth via taxes.

Bottom Line

While a solid majority of Americans, 57%, believe money and wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, fewer than half favor using the federal tax code to do so. The fault line in these views is distinctly partisan, with most Democrats championing redistribution and most Republicans opposing it.

However, these are philosophical views. In practical terms, as government programs and budgets sink in red ink, unions and Democratic leaders at the federal level and in the states are calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans specifically to help restore fiscal balance and stabilize entitlement programs. Gallup polling last year found two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes as a way to help keep that system solvent. Clearly, these attitudes are complex, and support for "taxing the rich" can run higher if framed in the context of specific benefits. Underneath it all, Americans are not "anti-rich," because most believe the country has either the right amount of or too few rich people.....snip~


Americans Divided on Taxing the Rich to Redistribute Wealth


GALLUP.
rolleyes.png
 
Last edited:
Have you faced the stone cold fact that he has not just no plan, but no intention to get even close to balancing the budget for even his next term?

Yes, and I didn't vote for him for exactly that reason. I just don't like it when people pretend the Republicans are any better, when they refuse to admit that we're going to have to raise taxes, and particularly that we're going to have to raise taxes on the wealthiest households more than we raise taxes elsewhere. Not because we hate the rich or wish to "punish success", but because that's where all the money is.
 
I don't really thing the left leaning media has that much of an edge anymore. Given the internet, right-wing talk radio, and cable television news like Fox Commentary and shows like "The Blaze", there is plenty of media for anyone's interest and it's the fault of the person for not seeking out different points of views.

Most Right Wing Talk Radio is off the Air by Midnight and does not Work the Weekends. In addition the Progressives Use the Comedy Channel and Hollywood, Broadway, and local Programming to keep the Assualt on. But you are correct about those thinking for themselves and discovering those sources of info and facts.

Still the MSM is a major part of the problem now. Since they are laid and played for the same bed. Therein lies part of the Solution tho. Purging the MSM and going after the Aristocrats.

I remembers the Old Westerns. Movies and Books. They all had a common theme when it came to dealing with what the Town didn't like. They ran "em" out of Town. I think it still works!
gangpunch.gif
 
Most Right Wing Talk Radio is off the Air by Midnight and does not Work the Weekends. In addition the Progressives Use the Comedy Channel and Hollywood, Broadway, and local Programming to keep the Assualt on. But you are correct about those thinking for themselves and discovering those sources of info and facts.

Still the MSM is a major part of the problem now. Since they are laid and played for the same bed. Therein lies part of the Solution tho. Purging the MSM and going after the Aristocrats.

I remembers the Old Westerns. Movies and Books. They all had a common theme when it came to dealing with what the Town didn't like. They ran "em" out of Town. I think it still works!
gangpunch.gif

And Hollywood has Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair at the RNC.
 
65 billion.

And we run yearly deficits in excess of $1 TRILLION. The amount generated would cover about .65% of what we OVER spend.
 
Most Right Wing Talk Radio is off the Air by Midnight and does not Work the Weekends. In addition the Progressives Use the Comedy Channel and Hollywood, Broadway, and local Programming to keep the Assualt on. But you are correct about those thinking for themselves and discovering those sources of info and facts.

Still the MSM is a major part of the problem now. Since they are laid and played for the same bed. Therein lies part of the Solution tho. Purging the MSM and going after the Aristocrats.

I remembers the Old Westerns. Movies and Books. They all had a common theme when it came to dealing with what the Town didn't like. They ran "em" out of Town. I think it still works!
gangpunch.gif

Yes, but ALL media is biased, and I'm not talking just about commentary. A news story could be 100% factual, but the fact they are reporting on that story and not another is bias in some fashion.

I don't think the blame can fall on the media, because afterall, if they didn't have a market (i.e. support from people) they wouldn't be there. I'm talking about ABC, NBC, Fox NEws, etc. Not like PBS.
 
The amount generated would cover about .65% of what we OVER spend.

Who is suggesting ONLY raising taxes as a solution to the debt problem. Even the president isn't suggesting JUST raising taxes would solve the debt problem.
 
Who is suggesting ONLY raising taxes as a solution to the debt problem. Even the president isn't suggesting JUST raising taxes would solve the debt problem.

His budget reduction is feeble.
 
If fully funding the federal gov't for 8 days is "the most" that they can do via taxation increases, then there is much more to discuss. Don't you agree? That is what this "fuss" in DC is about.

Please back-off these trite and disingenuous talking points. That one, in particular, is amongst the most shallow ever spoken by Fox and the Cons. It is meaningless and those that espouse it show equal shallowness in the command of the issue.

First, the gap is not 360 days, which this implies, but 100 days, against which the 8 days is meaningful. The gap is about $1T annually; half of which was created by the soft economy and which is going to have to be fixed by the economy firming up.

The tax rate increase accounts for about 8-10% of the problem; add in the second tax reform and you are 15-20% toward a solution. There is no other activity that can be done that will have so much impact with as little consequence. It is the low hanging fruit.
 
His budget reduction is feeble.

Not disagreeing, but people attempting to say the the president and the Dems think JUST raising taxes will solve the debt problem are either ignorant of their position or lying. Neither the Dems or OBama have said ONLY raising taxes will solve the debt problem.
 
Yes, and I didn't vote for him for exactly that reason. I just don't like it when people pretend the Republicans are any better, when they refuse to admit that we're going to have to raise taxes, and particularly that we're going to have to raise taxes on the wealthiest households more than we raise taxes elsewhere. Not because we hate the rich or wish to "punish success", but because that's where all the money is.

I don't like it when people pretend that cutting some spending isn't part of the equation either. Isn't where money is being spent also "where the money is"? Since I don't have any pretense to what you accuse me of and I presume you don't have the pretense I just accused you of, then what? Bring on the cliff and half of us pay more and some sacred spending cows also get cut. Genius.
 
Who is suggesting ONLY raising taxes as a solution to the debt problem. Even the president isn't suggesting JUST raising taxes would solve the debt problem.

The plans the president has put forward contains no guaranteed spending cuts. They mention possible future spending cuts, or guarantees of talking about future spending cuts, but nothing that is an actual spending cut.

To get something on the books before the 31st, they should agree on 18-19% GDP revenue and 19-20% GDP spending, with the details to be worked out next year.
 
Please back-off these trite and disingenuous talking points. That one, in particular, is amongst the most shallow ever spoken by Fox and the Cons. It is meaningless and those that espouse it show equal shallowness in the command of the issue.

First, the gap is not 360 days, which this implies, but 100 days, against which the 8 days is meaningful. The gap is about $1T annually; half of which was created by the soft economy and which is going to have to be fixed by the economy firming up.

The tax rate increase accounts for about 8-10% of the problem; add in the second tax reform and you are 15-20% toward a solution. There is no other activity that can be done that will have so much impact with as little consequence. It is the low hanging fruit.

My problem is the whole kicking the can down the road without any MEANINGFUL solution is ridiculous. BOTH sides are the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom