• 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

I do recall the house was controlled by Dems in the last half of Reagans presidency.
During the last half? The Democrats controlled the house for 40 years straight, including the entirety of Reagan and Bush Sr.'s presidencies.
 
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:

To clarify, when Reagan started he cut taxes and revenue fell, then he raise taxes and revenue increased.
 
Then you are for the confiscation of private property. A "wealth tax" is just that, and not just unconstitutional, but communist in nature.

I was merely repeating what David Stockton suggested. I don't think we need to pay off the debt anyway. We didn't pay off the WWII debt either.
 
During the last half? The Democrats controlled the house for 40 years straight, including the entirety of Reagan and Bush Sr.'s presidencies.

And the point is??
 
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.

Mostly liberals? Name 5 liberal Republicans who are still in office.
 
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.

But we at least are going in the right direction. We need to end the Republican idea that deficits don't matter if they come from tax cuts.
 
You can't talk cuts or increases without a base line. Show me a working budget, then we can talk adjustments. Without one there is nothing to talk about, it's a waste of time to even try.
 
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?

Don't blame me. It was a Republicans idea. The one who cut taxes on the wealthy way back in the 80's, he now believes he made a huge mistake and the wealth tax is the only way to fix it. But David Stockton is a Republican and he is obssesed with the debt that the low tax rates ran up. Do you agree with him that we need to pay off the debt?
 
But we at least are going in the right direction. We need to end the Republican idea that deficits don't matter if they come from tax cuts.

My post clearly points out that federal spending increased by 20% under Obama, that is not a federal revenue problem. Obama wants to fully fund about 8 days of gov't spending and to increase federal spending.
 
Don't blame me. It was a Republicans idea. The one who cut taxes on the wealthy way back in the 80's, he now believes he made a huge mistake and the wealth tax is the only way to fix it. But David Stockton is a Republican and he is obssesed with the debt that the low tax rates ran up. Do you agree with him that we need to pay off the debt?

Yes, but by decreasing the massive federal spending and letting GDP growth raise the revenue "naturally". Start by cutting out DOEd, foreign aid, crony capitalism, PPACA and decreasing crippling regulations, military spending and social welfare (income redistribution) programs. Entitlement reform is a must as well, but that can wait until we get a real president.
 
Yes, but by decreasing the massive federal spending and letting GDP growth raise the revenue "naturally". Start by cutting out DOEd, foreign aid, crony capitalism, PPACA and decreasing crippling regulations, military spending and social welfare (income redistribution) programs. Entitlement reform is a must as well, but that can wait until we get a real president.

Name me one industrialized nation that runs their Govt. on revenue of less than 15% of GDP. These low tax rates are unsustainable.
 
Name me one industrialized nation that runs their Govt. on revenue of less than 15% of GDP. These low tax rates are unsustainable.

You omit state, county and city taxes and the fact that Obama has decreased federal revenue by creating the SS "contribution holiday" (yet more borrowing from future generations). Many spend far less than 35% of GDP, yet have far higher standards of living to show for it. Name me one industrialized nation that spends even half of our "defense" budget as % of GDP.
 
Financial woe, and extended threat of collapse is exactly what he wants. He, and his disciples hate the wealthy, they think it is unfair that free people succeed at their own rate, and path. And the cynical thing is that Obama, and his progressive allies in congress, know full well what Emmanuel let slip early on, and that is the canard about not letting a good crisis go to waste....In that vein, he will not only call everything a crisis, but extend that which is critical to invent more crisis' in order to rule like a dictator.

I sure hope America comes to it's senses and finds a way to remove this mans power, and these progressives from office.

You might like this guy. He really gets it. Bill Whittle: Why we need an army of serious people » The Right Scoop -
 
You omit state, county and city taxes and the fact that Obama has decreased federal revenue by creating the SS "contribution holiday" (yet more borrowing from future generations). Many spend far less than 35% of GDP, yet have far higher standards of living to show for it. Name me one industrialized nation that spends even half of our "defense" budget as % of GDP.

You wont' hear me argue that we don't greatly over spend on defense. But a modern nation needs to collect a minimum of 18 to 20% of GDP to pay their bills. We need to stop believing that deficits don't matter if they come from tax cuts.
 
No it was Mitch McConnels idea and as usual any idea the Republicans have that Obama likes they are against it. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with new spending. One would think that has been made real clear. However, knuckle draggers cant get the concept.

Nice try. The "knuckle draggers" are paying all the damn taxes, which you love, and your POS president is deliberately trying to destroy the country's economic system. Not exactly sure what he wants to replace it with, but I'm sure it'll be just grand.
 
Name me one industrialized nation that runs their Govt. on revenue of less than 15% of GDP. These low tax rates are unsustainable.

You're talking of the federal Government here and completely ignoring State governments. Since the feds have taken over much of what should have been State rights, naturally the expenses have risen, as well as their aloofness from the electorate. They have become a power unto themselves.
 
Can anyone answer the questions below that Grant could not?



"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?
 
All I could think of after watching Bill Whittle was Spiro Agnews comment....

"In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club -- the "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history."

If you are going to keep up with the ad homs rather than point out where you disagree with any issues mentioned, then there is no need to respond. Ad homs are for juveniles.
 
Nice try. The "knuckle draggers" are paying all the damn taxes, which you love, and your POS president is deliberately trying to destroy the country's economic system. Not exactly sure what he wants to replace it with, but I'm sure it'll be just grand.

Oh really how so such a bold statement with nothing to back it up. Oh by the way how is that whole one term thing working out for ya! Thhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaats what I thought!
 
Nice try. The "knuckle draggers" are paying all the damn taxes, which you love, and your POS president is deliberately trying to destroy the country's economic system. Not exactly sure what he wants to replace it with, but I'm sure it'll be just grand.
It's sheer lunacy to claim the "knuckle draggers" are paying "all" of the taxes. I do not fit taraanne's definition of "knuckle dragger" and yet I pay taxes. And I am certainly not the only tax-paying non-knuckle dragger.
 
It's sheer lunacy to claim the "knuckle draggers" are paying "all" of the taxes. I do not fit taraanne's definition of "knuckle dragger" and yet I pay taxes. And I am certainly not the only tax-paying non-knuckle dragger.

I pay a ton of taxes with alomost no deductions. Does this make me a knuckle dragger I have pretty hands
 
We need to stop believing that deficits don't matter if they come from tax cuts.

This is a perfect example of how progressives believe that the money a person makes belongs to the government, and that government only allows you to keep some of it....

It is NOT your money.
 
This is a perfect example of how progressives believe that the money a person makes belongs to the government, and that government only allows you to keep some of it....

It is NOT your money.

I guess it I should let that pass, but that's just a poor reading of what he said. We are the government, and everyone should be concerned about deficits. Paying for the deficit requires spending cuts and an increase in taxes, revenue. Noting that lowering taxes contributed to the increase in the deficit is not equal to saying you think someone elses money is yours. At some point it would be nice to get beyond partisan silliness and stereotypes.
 
Back
Top Bottom