• 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

where do you get off claiming those who pay more than 40% of the income taxes and all the federal death taxes somehow have a duty to pay for stuff like this? the middle class got tax breaks too and unlike the "rich" they aren't paying more of the FIT than their share of the income. The RICH are

seems to me its the middle class who got stuff you should be whining about

You remain clueless to the end. And we are all tired of explaining to you how it is impossible to tax the middle class anymore without throwing the economy back into another recession.
 
You remain clueless to the end. And we are all tired of explaining to you how it is impossible to tax the middle class anymore without throwing the economy back into another recession.

no one has ever proven that claim. the reason why the obama admin does not want to restore the clinton tax hikes on the middle class is that the MC would punish his party in 2014

that is the only reason

and what makes someone making 200K a year a "rich person" even if its in NYC and why is someone making 198K a year in say Arkansas Middle class

I love how those dependent on government call us who are not "clueless"
 
Even in red states from 35% to 45% of the people are democrats, many of whom are on some form of welfare or another; so don't be so quick to judge since you don't know why the red states receive so much federal money. Oops, that should have been directed to Wiggen

I was just fixin' to tell you that you're preacing to the choir...lol!
 
no one has ever proven that claim. the reason why the obama admin does not want to restore the clinton tax hikes on the middle class is that the MC would punish his party in 2014

that is the only reason

and what makes someone making 200K a year a "rich person" even if its in NYC and why is someone making 198K a year in say Arkansas Middle class

I love how those dependent on government call us who are not "clueless"


We have more proof that letting the tax increase expire for the middle class will be harmful to consumers, and thus the economy, than we do that the tax cuts for the wealthy have done anything at all to improve the lives of the middle class for the last decade.

As we have all tried to tell you, over and over, there is simply no benefit for the country to continue to allow your tax cuts!
 
We have more proof that letting the tax increase expire for the middle class will be harmful to consumers, and thus the economy, than we do that the tax cuts for the wealthy have done anything at all to improve the lives of the middle class for the last decade.

As we have all tried to tell you, over and over, there is simply no benefit for the country to continue to allow your tax cuts!

NO you don't. the president made an artificial line drawing based on votes and his class warfare idiocy. there is no sound economic reason to draw the line where he did or to say tax cuts are good for most people (after telling us 4 years ago that the Bush tax rates BENEFITED ONLY THE RICH) but not good for those who actually pay the lion's share of the federal income taxes.

there is no benefit to the country for people like you using our tax dollars to pay for stuff you are unwilling to pay for yourself. and you don't speak for anyone other than yourself and other extreme haters of the successful
 
NO you don't. the president made an artificial line drawing based on votes and his class warfare idiocy. there is no sound economic reason to draw the line where he did or to say tax cuts are good for most people (after telling us 4 years ago that the Bush tax rates BENEFITED ONLY THE RICH) but not good for those who actually pay the lion's share of the federal income taxes.

there is no benefit to the country for people like you using our tax dollars to pay for stuff you are unwilling to pay for yourself. and you don't speak for anyone other than yourself and other extreme haters of the successful

You will never be able to understand until you learn what makes a consumer economy prosper for the majority of the country, and not just those at the top.
 
I don't think that anyone, let me repeat, anyone is saying not to have those safety nets for the old, sick, or people genuinely fallen on hard times. In fact in terms of helping those groups over and above governmental mandated taxation, is squarely overachieved by conservatives over liberals in terms of charitable giving in this country.

What is out of whack is exactly what you and other progressives are advocating, and started in motion by your own declared heros like FDR and his ponzi schemes not to actually help those you claim his programs do, but to keep them on the plantation, subservient to a democrat agenda of vote for us, or starve.

We fought a war with the British for our independence over such pervasive taxation at the time, and rejection of a centrally planned government ruling from on high in London by force. We not only won that war, but showed that a different model could succeed, to become the most powerful, richest nation ever on the face of the earth. Will we be done in by those who perpetually want their mommy to take care of them?

Those liberal progressives that only want to hear their way, or the highway, and could care less about any kind of unity in the country are tearing this country apart, and destroying an era of prosper that may never be captured and harnessed again if they have their way. The guilt of America's success as a nation, and the jealous rage toward those that have achieved financial prosper, and acclaim if palpable. What they don't see is given too fierce a condition in this trend those with the means will simply leave, and take their wealth with them. Then everyone can suffer equally in a "just society"..... Not something I want to see happen. But, progressives obviously do....How sad.

Sorry but the cat is out of the bag and it certainly is that "safety net" that is the main objective of the GOP and the 1%. They don't want to cut defense it is too lucarative for their friends, they don't want to cut oil subsidies or farm subsidies or anything else they can get a piece of. Listen to some of your cohorts. They say Social Security and Medicare are the main drivers of the debt even though NEITHER has contributed one dime to the debt.
So you can stop your charade, and pick a side. Either you think the top 2% should pay more or you want to turn Medicare into a voucher and "privatize" Social Security. Sadly there is no middle ground.
 
Last edited:
Do you know how much money would be gained if all the rich were taxed 100% of their income versus how much money is being borrowed or printed annually by the government, beyond what they bring in?

I know that a 15% wealth tax with a million dollar deductable would raise nearly 8 Trillion dollars and pay back half our debt. Does that count?
 
Sorry but the cat is out of the bag and it certainly is that "safety net" that is the main objective of the GOP and the 1%. They don't want to cut defense it is too lucarative for their friends, they don't want to cut oil subsidies or farm subsidies or anything else they can get a piece of. Listen to some of your cohorts. They say Social Security and Medicare are the main drivers of the debt even though NEITHER has contributed one dime to the debt.
So you can stop your charade, and pick a side. Either you think the top 2% should pay more or you want to turn Medicare into a voucher and "privatize" Social Security. Sadly there is no middle ground.

GOP doesn't want to cut farm subsidies?
The $3.5 trillion budget plan put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has grabbed headlines because of its proposed changes to Medicare and Medicaid and its tax cuts, but it also would slash spending on agriculture and a range of other programs.

It awaits a floor vote in the House but has no chance in the Democratic controlled Senate.

GOP budget proposes $30B in cuts to farm subsidies - USATODAY.com

And er, the House passed this bill...what is its status in the DEMOCRATICALLY held Senate? And WHO is it that doesn't want to cut farm subsidies...try again.
 
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
Then no fiscal deal.
 
no one has ever proven that claim. the reason why the obama admin does not want to restore the clinton tax hikes on the middle class is that the MC would punish his party in 2014

that is the only reason

and what makes someone making 200K a year a "rich person" even if its in NYC and why is someone making 198K a year in say Arkansas Middle class

I love how those dependent on government call us who are not "clueless"

Someone earning $200k would not pay more if the House would pass the bill in front of them.
You're problem is you got spoiled by those TEMPORARY Tax cuts and now you think the party will go on forever.
The parties over and we are broke because of it. Stop the whining
 
Then no fiscal deal.

And guess what? No deal and taxes on the wealhty go up 2%. Isn't funny how we really don't need the Republicans anymore.
That's what happens when you are AWOL for 4 years. You learn to live without them.
 
I know that a 15% wealth tax with a million dollar deductable would raise nearly 8 Trillion dollars and pay back half our debt. Does that count?

You know this? Do you have any data to support this claim?
 
We have more proof that letting the tax increase expire for the middle class will be harmful to consumers, and thus the economy, than we do that the tax cuts for the wealthy have done anything at all to improve the lives of the middle class for the last decade.

As we have all tried to tell you, over and over, there is simply no benefit for the country to continue to allow your tax cuts!

How about a government adjusting its spending to the income it receives ? Would that help?
 
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

That's not playing politics -- that's Obama sticking to his principles.
 
And guess what? No deal and taxes on the wealhty go up 2%. Isn't funny how we really don't need the Republicans anymore.
That's what happens when you are AWOL for 4 years. You learn to live without them.
I don't recall being either republican or awol, but I know that we haven't had a Conservative in the office since Reagan, and that's the problem.
 
How about a government adjusting its spending to the income it receives ? Would that help?

I am all for cutting our wasteful military spending, but if you are talking about abandoning the debt we owe to SS, you did not pay attention to the presidential election.
 
That's not playing politics -- that's Obama sticking to his principles.

Principles?

What has raising the 2% got to do with principles?

The man called George Bush "unpatriotic" for having a public debt which was much less than his, and said he should be out of a job if he couldn't turn it around. If he had any principles he would not have resigned and if the electorate had any sense they wouldn't have voted for him.
 
Principles?

What has raising the 2% got to do with principles?
It's about reducing the deficit.

The man called George Bush "unpatriotic" for having a public debt which was much less than his, and said he should be out of a job if he couldn't turn it around. If he had any principles he would not have resigned and if the electorate had any sense they wouldn't have voted for him.
The difference between his debt and Bush's is that Bush generated most of his debt. Bush inherited a structurely sound economy with debt growing at it's lowest levet in years; then cut taxes while fighting two wars and turned a 10 year projected 6 trillion dollar surplus into an 8 trillion dollar deficit. Whereas Obama inherited a structurely doomed economy where debt was already increasing at over a trillion dollars a year.

If he had any principles he would not have resigned and if the electorate had any sense they wouldn't have voted for him.
Your sour grapes are noted.
 
I am all for cutting our wasteful military spending, but if you are talking about abandoning the debt we owe to SS, you did not pay attention to the presidential election.

What has the Presidential election got to do with the public debt? It is there no matter who is President and will grow dramatically over the next few years.. A way has to be figured out how to get spending under control and obviously Barrack Obama cannot do the job because he just doesn't have any managerial experience. Do you think the American electorate figured they could vote themselves rich and independent by electing Obama???

He should have at least tried to get the debt under control, which he did promise to do during his first campaign, but failed miserably. He didn't even try this promise during his second campaign because he knew he didn't know how to do it. No one on his staff knows, or genuinely cares. They just don't mention the debt anymore and for obvious reasons.

Now it is 'right wing' to even talk of presenting an honest budget, must less balancing one.
 
It's about reducing the deficit.


The difference between his debt and Bush's is that Bush generated most of his debt. Bush inherited a structurely sound economy with debt growing at it's lowest levet in years; then cut taxes while fighting two wars and turned a 10 year projected 6 trillion dollar surplus into an 8 trillion dollar deficit. Whereas Obama inherited a structurely doomed economy where debt was already increasing at over a trillion dollars a year.


Your sour grapes are noted.


War time is such a great time to lower taxes! NOT
 
It's about reducing the deficit.

Do you seriously believe that the 2% will reduce the deficit, or even that Barrack Obama will use whatever money he gets to pay down the deficit? That's a remarkable statement, given Obama's history.

The difference between his debt and Bush's is that Bush generated most of his debt. Bush inherited a structurely sound economy with debt growing at it's lowest levet in years; then cut taxes while fighting two wars and turned a 10 year projected 6 trillion dollar surplus into an 8 trillion dollar deficit. Whereas Obama inherited a structurely doomed economy where debt was already increasing at over a trillion dollars a year.

Bush inherited a $5.8 trillion dollar debt and a recession. You can look it up.

Your sour grapes are noted.

LOL! We'll know the truth soon enough.
 
What has the Presidential election got to do with the public debt? It is there no matter who is President and will grow dramatically over the next few years.. A way has to be figured out how to get spending under control and obviously Barrack Obama cannot do the job because he just doesn't have any managerial experience. Do you think the American electorate figured they could vote themselves rich and independent by electing Obama???

He should have at least tried to get the debt under control, which he did promise to do during his first campaign, but failed miserably. He didn't even try this promise during his second campaign because he knew he didn't know how to do it. No one on his staff knows, or genuinely cares. They just don't mention the debt anymore and for obvious reasons.

Now it is 'right wing' to even talk of presenting an honest budget, must less balancing one.

Revenue is at 15% of GDP (the lowest % since 1950) and spending is at 24%. We need to meet near the middle and a first step is ending those cuts for those who don't need them. If the GOP wants to hit everyone with an increase they will also get the full $800 billion cut from defense. I am liking that idea more and more.
 
Back
Top Bottom