• 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

Grant said:
How can you seriously expect lower employment rates when people are too concerned about the extra taxes and regulations that they hacve to face. It is more beneficial for businesses just to move their companies elsewhere if they are not making a go of it at home. many are complaining about corporations and companies leaving but are doing everything they can to insure that will happen.

The only one hiring is the government, and BHO wants the States to hire more people as well. That's his economic plan.
Click to expand...
The government is barely increasing in employment and the private sector is growing at healthy levels. Where do you get your information from?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's about math, not faith. Increased revenue can decrease deficits. If spending goes up and cancels out that decrease, Republicans are just as much to blame as Obama since they control the House and the House controls spending.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's all about who's to blame now. It ends with a whimper, not a roar.
Click to expand...
 
Grant, How could we possibly repay the $2.6 trillion dollars to SS without letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire?
 
Grant said:
It doesn't matter. that 2% will not be enough to cover SS.

The boomers are aging, and people are living longer than ever, and there will be fewer working adults to support them. There are more Americans on disability now than there have ever been before, and that's a habit that's hard to break. The government has added health care to the social platter and the boomers will expect to be looked after there as well. Plus there is the accumulating interest on the debt, as well as the debt itself.

I doubt that the American people can pull themselves out of this mess, largely because they are no longer serious or even understand that a very serious problem exists. I have always been very pro American, and defended her wherever I went, because the world needs America and what it represents. But I no longer have confidence in the American people. This generation, my generation, has squandered it all away.

American Cities Going Bankrupt | Global Research
Click to expand...



"The cost of closing Social Security’s 75-year shortfall is equal to the revenue lost from the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans."
Social Security FAQ | Strengthen Social Security


What I was asking though was how do you propose the country repay the money it owes to SS? Or, do you think we should just abandon our financial obligations for the first time in the history of this country? And what effect do you think that would have on the country's credit rating?
 
iguanaman said:
Especially Defense spending, right?
Click to expand...
Right!

If my deployment taught me nothing else it's that the US has no business being in Afghanistan. I understand that Obama is following the Bush withdraw plan but we should never again over extend out troops like that. Let the civil war occur. It's natural and, dare I say, healthy for the indigenous people in the long run.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Where do you get your information from?

Grant said:
Federal Workforce Continues to Grow Under Obama Budget
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ahh, a reality-spinning biased rightwing blog. Nice of you to admit you're not interested in facts.

Here are the problems with what you claimed ("The only one hiring is the government"); with what you tried to confirm it with (Heritage Foundation).

1. That article is two years old. How on Earth do you rely on an article from 2 years ago to make a claim on the state of growth today?

2. That article doesn't include all government agencies. Just the ones with which they can establish their biased numbers on.

3. The article starts counting from the end of 2007, 14 months before Obama was even sworn in.

4. It bears no resemblence to reality in terms of government employment growth under Obama.

In reality, there are fewer government employees today than there were when Obama became president. So for you to make the falacious claim that the only one hiring is government only serves to reflect your knowledge based on where you get your information from, which you readily confess is biased rightwing blogs. Hopefully, this will serve as an eye opener for you.

Jan-2009: 22,576,000
Nov-2012: 21,962,000

BLS: Government

That's a decrease of 614,000 government employees. In fact, the number of government employees has decreased every year under Obama, including this year (so far). Yet here you are claiming that the government is the only one hiring. Meanwhile, the private sector has added 5.1 million jobs over the last 33 months of consecutive growth. Reality dictates that it's the private sector growing, not the government.

Another thing ... under George Bush, when the government was doing the hiring your BS Heritage Foundation article claims, the government grew by over a million and a half jobs. Had the government increased like that under Obama instead of shrinking, the unemployment rate today would be somewhere around 6%.

You have a lot of nerve, I'll grant you that.
 
iguanaman said:
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?
Click to expand...


Then you are for the confiscation of private property. A "wealth tax" is just that, and not just unconstitutional, but communist in nature.
 
iguanaman said:
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?
Click to expand...

Just what, in our Constitution, allows for the federal gov't to simply take property from private citizens and "pay themselves back" for money borrowed and spent?
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Reagan was no conservative now Eisenhower was that was the last one! Pick up a history book and read. Reagan tripled the debt raised taxes 11 times and expanded the government. Oh and gave amnesty. Reagan would have been a Democrate today and probably be accused of being a socialist by thr whacko right wing that runs the party now.
 
TaraAnne said:
Reagan was no conservative now Eisenhower was that was the last one! Pick up a history book and read. Reagan tripled the debt raised taxes 11 times and expanded the government. Oh and gave amnesty. Reagan would have been a Democrate today and probably be accused of being a socialist by thr whacko right wing that runs the party now.
Click to expand...

If all that is true, why isnt Reagan a leftist icon?
 
iguanaman said:
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
Click to expand...

so you want everyone to pay more-that at least is more honest than those who think the middle class have no duty to pay more

the party goes on for ever for everyone but the rich. The rich are paying much of your load and much of the load of everyone else
 
j-mac said:
Then you are for the confiscation of private property. A "wealth tax" is just that, and not just unconstitutional, but communist in nature.
Click to expand...

most wealth is nothing more than taxed income converted to property. IT is a disgusting concept to have a wealth tax. it should be an immediate career ending event for a politician to promote such a concept
 
TaraAnne said:
Reagan was no conservative now Eisenhower was that was the last one! Pick up a history book and read.
Click to expand...

You have this wrong.

Reagan tripled the debt raised taxes 11 times and expanded the government.
Click to expand...

Who in our government is responsible for spending?

Oh and gave amnesty.
Click to expand...

On a 'Lucy and the Football' deal from liar demos.

Reagan would have been a Democrate today and probably be accused of being a socialist by thr whacko right wing that runs the party now.
Click to expand...

And you want those that disagree with you to 'pick up a history book'? Good Lord woman, I'd tell you to put down the propaganda pamphlet.
 
iguanaman said:
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
Click to expand...

Everyone that thinks that simply raising federal taxation, from 17% of GDP to 18% of GDP, will "fix" the federal defict ignores the fact that the federal gov't now spends 24% of GDP and that spending is headed sharply up as more boomers retire and PPACA kicks in.
 
j-mac said:
You have this wrong.



Who in our government is responsible for spending?



On a 'Lucy and the Football' deal from liar demos.



And you want those that disagree with you to 'pick up a history book'? Good Lord woman, I'd tell you to put down the propaganda pamphlet.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you havent pick up a history book in awhile.
 
TaraAnne said:
Because Democrats know that him and his neocon buddies piled on the debt and continued the practice for 20 years! Thats why
Click to expand...
How is the Reagan debt different from the Obama debt?
 
Fletch said:
How is the Reagan debt different from the Obama debt?
Click to expand...

The debt was 854 when Regan took office! So it was controlable when Regan left office it was almost 3 trillion and I am being nice. I figured you would knwo this since you are a Reagan fan. Plus Reagan was not dealing with two unpaid for wars, a give away to big Pharma, and huge tax cuts that bloated the defecit.There is a huge differance and you know it but refuse to even admit that 20 years of Republicans ruined this country. Anyone who mentions that a b movie actor was a great President is laughable in my eyes. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. Look at what he did in California.

Reagan's Forgotten Tax Record | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games
 
TaraAnne said:
Reagan was no conservative now Eisenhower was that was the last one! Pick up a history book and read. Reagan tripled the debt raised taxes 11 times and expanded the government. Oh and gave amnesty. Reagan would have been a Democrate today and probably be accused of being a socialist by thr whacko right wing that runs the party now.
Click to expand...
Reagan raised taxes where it helped, not simply because "the rich need to pay their fair share" bull****. Conservatives aren't against raising a tax when it makes good business sense to do so. Reagan also lowered many other taxes. Reagan's goal was to increase revenue, which he did, not play identity politics. Also, yes, Reagan spent a lot of money on viable infrastructure projects. Reagan's goal was to invest in the people, not nationalize industry as is Obama's stated goal. So far both Bush and Obama have wasted all the TRAP and Stimulus money they've been given. Also, yes, Reagan signed an amnesty bill, what you forget is what Reagan was supposed to get in return for amnesty from that bill, which the Left never delivered on, which is why the Left get's so much resistance on immigration policy today. You folks have lied time and time again, saying you'll deliver on a compromise, but you never do, so imo no more deals, no more compromises, nothing.
Way to forget the whole story, but then you folks never did operate on honesty to begin with :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Reagan raised taxes where it helped, not simply because "the rich need to pay their fair share" bull****. Conservatives aren't against raising a tax when it makes good business sense to do so. Reagan also lowered many other taxes. Reagan's goal was to increase revenue, which he did, not play identity politics. Also, yes, Reagan spent a lot of money on viable infrastructure projects. Reagan's goal was to invest in the people, not nationalize industry as is Obama's stated goal. So far both Bush and Obama have wasted all the TRAP and Stimulus money they've been given. Also, yes, Reagan signed an amnesty bill, what you forget is what Reagan was supposed to get from that bill, which the Left never delivered on, which is why the Left get's so much resistance on immigration policy today.
Way to forget the whole story, but then you folks never did operate on honesty to begin with :2wave:
Click to expand...

I see you talking but would love to see proof to back that many economist say it might have been break even. Reagan went on a wild spending spree on the military 30% plus that is not infastrure. Reagan wasted money! I do recall the house was controlled by Dems in the last half of Reagans presidency. However Republicans controlled the Senate so let be clear it just was not the Dems that did not deliver. Furthermore, Reagans deficts were so bad it casued another tax raise in Bush 1 presidency. You want to talk about honesty look at your own party and the last 20 years 75% of the debt is because of failed Republican policies. The game is up and if you didnt notice the last election was a sign of that. This country will only get worse if Republicans are in control and Hisrory proves that. Regardless if you want to see it.
 
TaraAnne said:
I see you talking but would love to see proof to back that many economist say it might have been break even. Reagan went on a wild spending spree on the military 30% plus that is not infastrure. Reagan wasted money! I do recall the house was controlled by Dems in the last half of Reagans presidency. However Republicans controlled the Senate so let be clear it just was not the Dems that did not deliver. Furthermore, Reagans deficts were so bad it casued another tax raise in Bush 1 presidency. You want to talk about honesty look at your own party and the last 20 years 75% of the debt is because of failed Republican policies. The game is up and if you didnt notice the last election was a sign of that. This country will only get worse if Republicans are in control and Hisrory proves that. Regardless if you want to see it.
Click to expand...
I don't support Republicrats, I support Conservatives. The GOP of today is mostly composed of Liberals. I'll vote for Conservative Democrat over any of the Liberals in the GOP any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom