• 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 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.


Yes, it does require spending cuts, however, are you aware of the wording in the Presidents offer, as given by Tax cheat Giethner to the repubs on this? It said...

$400 Billion in unspecified cuts to be hashed out next year, (and the important part) with NO guarantees.....

Now, we repubs have seen this before, and frankly don't trust a word a demo says that has this sort of scenario in it.

It would be nice to get passed the hyperpartisan bull, maybe you should try it Joe....Just take a look at how you approach even the the beginning of this reply, basically talking down to me, which in person would lead me to tell you to go * yourself, however, in here I'll give the benefit of the doubt and address the actual point of your post which is above.
 
Yes, it does require spending cuts, however, are you aware of the wording in the Presidents offer, as given by Tax cheat Giethner to the repubs on this? It said...

$400 Billion in unspecified cuts to be hashed out next year, (and the important part) with NO guarantees.....

Now, we repubs have seen this before, and frankly don't trust a word a demo says that has this sort of scenario in it.

It would be nice to get passed the hyperpartisan bull, maybe you should try it Joe....Just take a look at how you approach even the the beginning of this reply, basically talking down to me, which in person would lead me to tell you to go * yourself, however, in here I'll give the benefit of the doubt and address the actual point of your post which is above.

Yes, I am aware, and I think Republicans should make a firm counter offer, saying cut here and here. I think this is how it should work.

BTW didn't you guys like Giethner under Bush? Anyway, where were you asking about the tax burden of UHC. I'm at a computer now.
 
Yes, I am aware, and I think Republicans should make a firm counter offer, saying cut here and here. I think this is how it should work.

And this was already done. I don't have the specific bill, but there was a bill out of the house that 'Dirty' Harry Reid killed on arrival to the Senate, that laid out cuts. See, this is all the demo's do now, never a specific from them, just vagueness, and obfuscation.

The repubs have laid out what they want, and it isn't up to them to deal with themselves...Either Obama, and co. are serious, or they aren't...My personal thought is that I don't think Obama wants a deal.

BTW didn't you guys like Giethner under Bush?

Couldn't tell ya, I didn't know who he was until Obama appointed him.

Anyway, where were you asking about the tax burden of UHC. I'm at a computer now.

Yes. You were going on about how much cheaper UHC would be, and I asked how much of a tax hike would be needed to support such a program.
 
And this was already done. I don't have the specific bill, but there was a bill out of the house that 'Dirty' Harry Reid killed on arrival to the Senate, that laid out cuts. See, this is all the demo's do now, never a specific from them, just vagueness, and obfuscation.

The repubs have laid out what they want, and it isn't up to them to deal with themselves...Either Obama, and co. are serious, or they aren't...My personal thought is that I don't think Obama wants a deal.

I don't think they have since the election, but if they have, show me. if not, they should lay it out again.



Couldn't tell ya, I didn't know who he was until Obama appointed him.

I could be wrong but I think he's a left over.

Geithner was also closely involved in the design and execution of the Bush administration's $700bn banking bailout . . . .

Timothy Geithner to be appointed Obama's treasury secretary | World news | guardian.co.uk


Yes. You were going on about how much cheaper UHC would be, and I asked how much of a tax hike would be needed to support such a program.

I linked a few things on that thread. I'll be leaving soon, but can discuss those tomorrow if you have any follow up questions.
 
tax hikes, like spending, is nothing more than vote buying
 
tax hikes, like spending, is nothing more than vote buying

Who was the last Republican Administration ever came close to balancing the budget???
 
Another rightwing noise machine lie, but I wish it were true. We need to spend now while rates are low to restore the infrastructure Bush neglected, and thus keep our economy modern. I know, the word "modern" scares conservatives. Seek counseling on that one.

8 years is not neglect, now if Clinton had done nothing and Bush 41 had done nothing, that would be neglect. But we have to listen to the constant drone of leftwing childish hackery on a daily basis feeding us lie after lie.
 
8 years is not neglect, now if Clinton had done nothing and Bush 41 had done nothing, that would be neglect. But we have to listen to the constant drone of leftwing childish hackery on a daily basis feeding us lie after lie.

Well, the childish hackey and lie after lie is not limited to the left wing. Have you heard Coulter, Beck, Rush, Fox, and many of the childish hacks who lying hyperbole so dominates what passes for conservative discussion on these threads?
 
Yes, it does require spending cuts, however, are you aware of the wording in the Presidents offer, as given by Tax cheat Giethner to the repubs on this? It said...

$400 Billion in unspecified cuts to be hashed out next year, (and the important part) with NO guarantees.....

Now, we repubs have seen this before, and frankly don't trust a word a demo says that has this sort of scenario in it.

It would be nice to get passed the hyperpartisan bull, maybe you should try it Joe....Just take a look at how you approach even the the beginning of this reply, basically talking down to me, which in person would lead me to tell you to go * yourself, however, in here I'll give the benefit of the doubt and address the actual point of your post which is above.

Here is the reality, which is what counts. The GOP backed themselves into a corner when they negotiated the sequester earlier this year. They came up with the idea because they thought they could hang Obama with it. Now it has come back to bite them on the ass. Here is what the GOP is up against now.............

2012-12-12-fiscal-cliff.jpg
 
Here is the reality, which is what counts. The GOP backed themselves into a corner when they negotiated the sequester earlier this year. They came up with the idea because they thought they could hang Obama with it. Now it has come back to bite them on the ass. Here is what the GOP is up against now.............

2012-12-12-fiscal-cliff.jpg
Did that poll give any clue as to in what those people polled believed Boehner was handling the negotiations poorly and in what way Obama was handling them well? Since these negotiations are largely happening in private, who cares what an uninformed public thinks at this point.
 
Did that poll give any clue as to in what those people polled believed Boehner was handling the negotiations poorly and in what way Obama was handling them well? Since these negotiations are largely happening in private, who cares what an uninformed public thinks at this point.

Because the public, uninformed or not, will be going back to the polls in 2 more years. You had better care, and at least attempt to overcome the perception that prevails that it is the GOP wrecking the economy, lest you want to become irrelevant.
 
Because the public, uninformed or not, will be going back to the polls in 2 more years. You had better care, and at least attempt to overcome the perception that prevails that it is the GOP wrecking the economy, lest you want to become irrelevant.
So what is Boehner doing that is so bad?
 
So what is Boehner doing that is so bad?

Typical type of question from you, and my point has gone over your head. Let's try this again. Doesn't matter if what Boehner is doing is good or bad. The vast majority of the voters in this poll don't like what he is doing. To win elections, you need to win a majority. If the GOP was willing to compromise with the 51% majority of the population that voted for Obama, they would stay a major party. To go with their scorched earth policies means political suicide for them. If the GOP shuts down the government this time, they are doomed.
 
Typical type of question from you, and my point has gone over your head.
Typical? Really? Gosh, I wasnt aware that I had asked that many questions of you in the past. But if by typical you mean that my goal was to flush out and clarify your position, then, yes, that is what I was doing. And that is typical of me. If that annoys you, well, too bad.
Let's try this again. Doesn't matter if what Boehner is doing is good or bad. The vast majority of the voters in this poll don't like what he is doing.
Well, thats why I asked what it is he is doing that is so unpopular. Your answer, I gather, is that he may not be doing anything wrong and may in fact being doing a terrific job. You dont know and like the respondents in the poll, dont care. Your only interest is what people without knowledge of what is truly going on feel about what is going on.
To win elections, you need to win a majority. If the GOP was willing to compromise with the 51% majority of the population that voted for Obama, they would stay a major party.
What would that compromise look like? (Or is that one of those 'typical' questions of mine that trouble you so)
To go with their scorched earth policies means political suicide for them. If the GOP shuts down the government this time, they are doomed.
I think you are confused about what is really going on here. The individual and the party that benefits most from no agreement is Obama and the democrats. If there is no agreement, they get everything they want: higher taxes, cuts in defense, and the ability to blame republicans if anything goes wrong. Obama, if you really think about it, has no reason to compromise or even make a serious proposal--and he has not done so, nor will he. In case you hadnt noticed, Boehner has already agreed to come up with the $800 billion that Obama wanted confiscated from the rich. So whats holding up the deal? (sorry, last question)
 
Typical type of question from you, and my point has gone over your head. Let's try this again. Doesn't matter if what Boehner is doing is good or bad. The vast majority of the voters in this poll don't like what he is doing. To win elections, you need to win a majority. If the GOP was willing to compromise with the 51% majority of the population that voted for Obama, they would stay a major party. To go with their scorched earth policies means political suicide for them. If the GOP shuts down the government this time, they are doomed.

All you say could come true but watching politics for the last 40 years has created my incredible cynicism in the majority of the electorate, especially when it comes to polls. It is quite similar to the weather changing on a dime all the time. Two years is a century away and MANY things can happen to either sweeten or sour the GOP…or the Democrats for that matter. Did anyone predict the shellacking in 2010? One would have thought with the pitiful approval rating of Congress we would see more shift in November but it didn’t move much, either way.
 
All you say could come true but watching politics for the last 40 years has created my incredible cynicism in the majority of the electorate, especially when it comes to polls. It is quite similar to the weather changing on a dime all the time. Two years is a century away and MANY things can happen to either sweeten or sour the GOP…or the Democrats for that matter. Did anyone predict the shellacking in 2010? One would have thought with the pitiful approval rating of Congress we would see more shift in November but it didn’t move much, either way.



Ah......the Karl Rove method......

"Karl Rove: “At least 279 electoral votes.” “It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney,” Rove wrote in a WSJ op-ed ignoring the fact that most polls showed growing momentum for the president. He predicted that Romney will win 51 percent of the popular vote and “at least 279 electoral votes.”

The Ten Worst Predictions Of The 2012 Election | ThinkProgress
 
Ah......the Karl Rove method......

"Karl Rove: “At least 279 electoral votes.” “It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney,” Rove wrote in a WSJ op-ed ignoring the fact that most polls showed growing momentum for the president. He predicted that Romney will win 51 percent of the popular vote and “at least 279 electoral votes.”

The Ten Worst Predictions Of The 2012 Election | ThinkProgress

Ambiguous…please clarify. What did I say that was pertinent to the presidential race?
 
Here is the reality, which is what counts. The GOP backed themselves into a corner when they negotiated the sequester earlier this year. They came up with the idea because they thought they could hang Obama with it. Now it has come back to bite them on the ass. Here is what the GOP is up against now.............

2012-12-12-fiscal-cliff.jpg
Hey now, not fair! Dick Morris has been heard complaining that the poll you posted over-sampled Democrats!
 
All you say could come true but watching politics for the last 40 years has created my incredible cynicism in the majority of the electorate, especially when it comes to polls. It is quite similar to the weather changing on a dime all the time. Two years is a century away and MANY things can happen to either sweeten or sour the GOP…or the Democrats for that matter. Did anyone predict the shellacking in 2010? One would have thought with the pitiful approval rating of Congress we would see more shift in November but it didn’t move much, either way.

Since you gave an intelligent response, without resorting to getting personal, you deserve a response back from me. BTW, thanx.

When the Democrats attempted to ram a hard left agenda down the throats of Americans, America responded, and Jimmy Carter got the ass whipping of his life. Since then, until 2006, America trended Conservatively. That could all change if Republicans keep attempting to ram their own extremist agenda down the throats of Americans. The majority of Americans are MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE TO MODERATE. This is why they are turned off by the slash and burn tactics that the GOP is engaging in. For Christ sake, this is not about party, Republican or Democrat. It's about the country. OK, so Obama beat Romney by 4%. That tells me Republicans are in no position to push. They MUST compromise the best they can or else they will be the ones to blame when we go over that fiscal cliff. Bush beat Kerry by about 2%, and then claimed a mandate. You can't have this both ways. It won't work. You will lose, and lose hard.
 
Obama, if you really think about it, has no reason to compromise or even make a serious proposal--and he has not done so, nor will he. In case you hadnt noticed, Boehner has already agreed to come up with the $800 billion that Obama wanted confiscated from the rich. So whats holding up the deal? (sorry, last question)
What's holding up the deal is that Obama already compromised once with Republicans and extended the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, which went against what he campained on in 2008. He's not doing so again, nor does he have to since he won the election. If Republicans don't want to accept that, then everybody's taxes go up and it will be the Republicans' fault for not accepting Obama's deal which keeps taxes on the middle class where they are now. Republicans are screwed no matter what they do. Taxes are going up no matter what. The only question is whether or not that applies to everyone or just those in the top bracket. Either way, Republicans will get the blame. What I don't get is why the Republican-led House hasn't passed a bill that extends the Bush tax cuts for everyone?
 
What's holding up the deal is that Obama already compromised once with Republicans and extended the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, which went against what he campained on in 2008. He's not doing so again, nor does he have to since he won the election. If Republicans don't want to accept that, then everybody's taxes go up and it will be the Republicans' fault for not accepting Obama's deal which keeps taxes on the middle class where they are now. Republicans are screwed no matter what they do. Taxes are going up no matter what. The only question is whether or not that applies to everyone or just those in the top bracket. Either way, Republicans will get the blame. What I don't get is why the Republican-led House hasn't passed a bill that extends the Bush tax cuts for everyone?

That's a good question. With their own bill, House Republicans would at least have a dog in this fight.
 
That's a good question. With their own bill, House Republicans would at least have a dog in this fight.
And such a bill would certainly get shot down in the Senate, or if it made it past the Senate by some miracle, by the president.

Either way, Republicans could at least show their base that they tried to keep the Bush tax cuts for them and keep their word about not raising taxes; but that it was the Democrats who caused their taxes to go up. Anything short of that and they get the blame. I'm amazed they haven't done that.
 
Back
Top Bottom