• 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

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.

Again, there is logic to your post. I too subscribe to the political pendulum theology. True the pendulum had swung the Conservatives’ way until ’06. Then the Democrats took Congress then the WH in ’08 THEN ‘rammed’ though healthcare, good or bad is yet to be seen. I believe the PPACA forced the pendulum back to the GOP for the ’10 elections. This past November appears to have been the pendulum in midstroke…but which way it goes in ’14 is still uncertain…as we both have previously stated.

Yes, they must compromise but unfortunately the ideas currently on the table amount to trying to pay a $100 tab by throwing pennies at it or merely ‘platitude-ing’ it to death …as you said ‘It’s about the country’…but our electoral options have been incredibly limited, on both sides, and considering the figurative hari kari (often imposed by VARIOUS media sources) associated with seeking public office I predict our choices to remain challenged.
 
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.

I too have wondered this or at least write up some 'loophole deduction' bill and pass it. My current belief is that BOTH the President and the House are conspiring to allow ALL the BTC's to expire. The President is pandering to his base by continuing the 'tax the rich' mantra from the campaign. The GOP is playing dumb thus not showing their cards and hope the blowback is not too damaging, we’ll see. I believe this ‘conspiracy’ is based on the perceived opinions of the credit agencies. I think they will see a +/-$80b annual increase in revenue and not addressing spending will repeat the ‘credit downgrade panic’ which will shock the marked and sending us into a deeper depression that the one that WILL occur if tax increases/sequestration occurs…it seems stupidly logical but I could be wrong.
 
Ambiguous…please clarify. What did I say that was pertinent to the presidential race?

These are the similarities I noticed in your poll assessment methods:

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.

"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."
 
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?
They did.

House passes Republican tax-cut plan - CNN.com

But you are right taxes go up on everyone Jan 1, so they might as well cave in now and use it as leverage to get cuts they want. If republicans are willing to give Obama the rate hike he wants in exchange for spending cuts, Obama will have to decide whether to accept the deal or be seen as responsible for going over the cliff.
 
They did.

House passes Republican tax-cut plan - CNN.com

But you are right taxes go up on everyone Jan 1, so they might as well cave in now and use it as leverage to get cuts they want. If republicans are willing to give Obama the rate hike he wants in exchange for spending cuts, Obama will have to decide whether to accept the deal or be seen as responsible for going over the cliff.
I think one of the issues is that history has shown us that the taxes do go up,
but the cuts never seem to materialize.
Kind of a bait and switch.
 
I think one of the issues is that history has shown us that the taxes do go up,
but the cuts never seem to materialize.
Kind of a bait and switch.

All the GOP has to do is name the cuts they demand, and then push hard for those cuts.
 
I think one of the issues is that history has shown us that the taxes do go up,
but the cuts never seem to materialize.
Kind of a bait and switch.

Not sure how you missed the last 30 years of tax cuts, that together with increased spending, is where our national debt came from.
 
Not sure how you missed the last 30 years of tax cuts, that together with increased spending, is where our national debt came from.
Sorry for not being clear, I was talking about spending cuts,
of which many have been promised but few realized.
And our national debt came from spending too much.
 
Sorry for not being clear, I was talking about spending cuts,
of which many have been promised but few realized.
And our national debt came from spending too much.



You are ignoring one whole side of the ledger and US history. The US never really had a debt to GDP ratio that was bad until, the era of Reaganomics where tax rates were cut drastically for the wealthy and spending was increased drastically. Except for a brief period in the 90's we have continued the policy of Reaganomics.

As noted, it took 30 years of too small tax rates for the rich and too much spending. It will take 30 years of the opposite to fix the problem.
 
You are ignoring one whole side of the ledger and US history. The US never really had a debt to GDP ratio that was bad until, the era of Reaganomics where tax rates were cut drastically for the wealthy and spending was increased drastically. Except for a brief period in the 90's we have continued the policy of Reaganomics.

As noted, it took 30 years of too small tax rates for the rich and too much spending. It will take 30 years of the opposite to fix the problem.
Our Government should live within it's means, they are not taxing too little,
they are spending too much.
This problem cannot be fixed through tax increases alone, They must cut spending, real cuts, not reductions in planned increases.
Our real spending problems started in 1968, When both side figured out they could steal from SS and not have to pay it back.
I am not talking about the bonds, but the surplus SS receipts, which about $3T
have disappeared.
 
Our Government should live within it's means, they are not taxing too little,
they are spending too much.
This problem cannot be fixed through tax increases alone, They must cut spending, real cuts, not reductions in planned increases.
Our real spending problems started in 1968, When both side figured out they could steal from SS and not have to pay it back.
I am not talking about the bonds, but the surplus SS receipts, which about $3T
have disappeared.


No one has suggested the problem can be fixed through tax increases alone. We need to cut our wasteful military spending. We can no longer afford to spend as mush as the rest of the world combined on the military. I do agree that SS needs to be paid back the $3 trillion dollars it is owed, increase the cap to make it self-sufficient for the long term and lock those funds from general fund use.
 
No one has suggested the problem can be fixed through tax increases alone. We need to cut our wasteful military spending. We can no longer afford to spend as mush as the rest of the world combined on the military. I do agree that SS needs to be paid back the $3 trillion dollars it is owed, increase the cap to make it self-sufficient for the long term and lock those funds from general fund use.
It is not just Military spending that needs to be cut.
I think we should do an across the board cut.
Our Federal Government spending is out of control, and needs a big correction.
As to the $3 T, it is not owed to SS, it is just gone.
The surplus receipts were used to offset the deficits.
 
It is not just Military spending that needs to be cut.
I think we should do an across the board cut.
Our Federal Government spending is out of control, and needs a big correction.
As to the $3 T, it is not owed to SS, it is just gone.
The surplus receipts were used to offset the deficits.


I think we should cut what is most wasteful. And your notion that the money owed to senors through SS treasury notes is just gone is laughable to anyone who understands that conservatives cannot win elections without the support of seniors.
 
Not sure how you missed the last 30 years of tax cuts, that together with increased spending, is where our national debt came from.

You're history is laughably flawed

Every time taxes have been cut, (especially Capital Gains) revenue to the Treasury has increased. Even Charlie Gibson made this point during an interview with Obama

I like Levin's idea. The Republicans should write up legislation right now that cut taxes for the middle class, and leaves tax rates where they are at for the top 2%

Then they can hand the legislation over to Harry Reid and go take a vacation. Let the Collectivists/Socialists figure it out

Spending as a % of GDP has increased more than 35% since 2010

Obama is spending 5.60$ for every real dollar of wealth/GDP created in the private economy

Obama is borrowing 46 cents for every dollar he spends

Clinton's budgets = around 1.5T per year. Obama's is 3.8T PER YEAR

Obama is running yearly trillion dollar deficits going on 5 years in a row

We have a spending problem. Not a tax problem.
 
You're history is laughably flawed

Every time taxes have been cut, (especially Capital Gains) revenue to the Treasury has increased.

Then how did Reagan increase the debt more than all the presidents before him combined, if Reaganomics (tax cuts + increased military spending) didn't produce debt?
 
...We need to cut our wasteful military spending. We can no longer afford to spend as mush as the rest of the world combined on the military...

That's pretty vague. The "military budget" covers quite a bit, including quite a few union jobs. What would you cut, and how many jobs do you think your hack, and slash the military would eliminate?
 
Or, you know, the President is being realistic and facing the stone
cold fact that we can't balance the budget without raising taxes.

Oh what total bs.

If he was being " realistic " he would cut spending and entitlments immediately.

Tax increases do not add revenue and there are already tax increases on people in Obama Care.

The whole tax the rich narrative is a lie from a pathological President who said himsf its about "fairness".

I want for Christmas for every liberal to get the rest of their brain that was left out by a God with a great sense of humor
 
Then how did Reagan increase the debt more than all the presidents before him combined, if Reaganomics (tax cuts + increased military spending) didn't produce debt?

'In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the GDP was $2.79 trillion, and the debt was 32.6% of GDP. In the last full year of Ronald Regan’s tenure in 1988, GDP was $5.1 trillion, and the debt was 51% of GDP.

So notice that the GDP increased by a whopping 82% over just 8 years under Reagan. That is a huge leap. Under Obama between 2008 and 2010, it increased only about 3%.

Reagan did cut taxes on “the rich” from 70% to 28%, a drop of 60%. By liberal accounting, that should have caused revenues to the government to fall by 60%. But revenues to the federal treasury went from $517 billion in 1980 to $991 billion in 1989, increasing by 91%. Wow! So indeed, tax cuts on the wealthy did what they always do – they produced economic growth. In 1921, cuts in the top rate from 63% to 25% produced The Roaring 1920s.

The liberals never, ever want you to know about the huge surge in the economy in the 1980s, and huge gains in employment, more than 20 million jobs. They only like to point out that during Reagan’s presidency the debt increased from $909 billion in 1980 when Reagan was elected to $2.857 trillion by 1989 when Reagan left office. So they always say, “Reagan tripled the national debt because he lowered tax rates”.

Technically, they can say that that is true, that he tripled the debt. But if you consider the debt increase as a percentage of the whole national wealth (GDP) went from 32.6% to 51%, that is a 59% increase relative to the whole economy, not a 300% increase (tripling) like liberals say. And still, after defeating the Soviet Union with a huge military buildup, the final debt of the Reagan years was only about half (51% of GDP) of what it is today (100% of GDP).

Yet even this 59% increase in the debt was caused mostly by the Democrats in Congress. Here is how:

Reagan cut top tax rates which set off an economic boom, causing huge inflows to the treasury. He then spent some of that money on the military to defeat the Soviet Union – certainly some of the best-spent dollars in American history.

But at the same time, the heavily-Democrat Congress went on a wild spending spree after promising not to, like typical Democrats (the agreement was called TEFRA. You can search it on the internet to read about it). So it was not tax cuts that caused the debt – they caused the boom. And while military spending did cause the debt to rise somewhat, it was the Democrats’ massive spending that really caused the spike.

Yet Reagan policies have historically been blamed by Democrats like Obama only for the bad things but never for the really big accomplishments which were a booming economy and, most significantly, the defeat of Soviet communism.'

About That ‘Reagan Debt’ | RedState
 
That's pretty vague. The "military budget" covers quite a bit, including quite a few union jobs. What would you cut, and how many jobs do you think your hack, and slash the military would eliminate?

While there is not much I agree with Libertarians about, I agree with them that we should go back to defense only, as proscribed in the Constitution. We have much need for infrastructure in this country for those leaving the military.

Its time to do some nation building here at home.
 
That's pretty vague. The "military budget" covers quite a bit, including quite a few union jobs. What would you cut, and how many jobs do you think your hack, and slash the military would eliminate?

Oh no, you screwed up. You admitted that Govt. spending creates jobs. That is a no no. Shame on you, RINO
 
While there is not much I agree with Libertarians about, I agree with them that we should go back to defense only, as proscribed in the Constitution. We have much need for infrastructure in this country for those leaving the military.

Its time to do some nation building here at home.

That is not an answer....Here I'll ask it again for you....Could you specify what cuts to the military budget you would make, and how many you foresee becoming unemployed due to your cuts?
 
Yet Reagan policies have historically been blamed by Democrats

Spin all you like, the debt under Reagan was more than all the presidents before him combined. And most of that was due to two of Reagan's policies - tax cuts combined with drastically increased spending on the military. Yes, congress passed those policies that Reagan pushed. But it was those policies he pushed that created our debt, and continues to create our debt.

That was the main theme of the whole presidential election we just went through! Whether we wanted to continue Reaganomics, or try building a strong middle class that creates consumer demand so that our economy can prosper.
 
Only defense is constitutional.


this may help you understand where conservatives are coming from concerning defense.

"The President’s entire defense role is confined to Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
But Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress in 17 separate clauses. Six of these pertain to national defense. These include raising and supporting armies and a navy, making the rules that govern the armed forces, and organizing, arming, and disciplining the state-level militia as well as the army and navy.

Unfortunately, current budget discussions are lopsided when they place military spending on the same priority level—or worse—as other spending. It is the height of irony that social spending is considered “mandatory” whereas defense spending is considered “discretionary.”

snip

"Defense spending is now 20.1 percent of federal outlays.[3] Yet some, such as President Obama, want the brunt of spending cutbacks to come from the military. Obama’s revised (but not detailed) plan for fiscal year (FY) 2012 calls for $400 billion in defense cuts over the next 10 years, mostly by canceling or delaying over 50 major weapons programs."

snip

"Defense spending is about to enter a steep decline that may force the Pentagon to abandon some military missions, shrink the armed forces and perhaps limit America’s role in the world, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.… [Gates] said he has already reduced or eliminated spending in the most obvious areas. “The ‘low-hanging fruit’—those weapons and other programs considered most questionable—have not only been plucked, they have been stomped and crushed,” he said.[6]
Policymakers should avoid the temptation to design America’s national security to meet an arbitrary budget and instead find the budget to meet its security needs. This process is known as defining the requisite “force structure,” which is done every four years by the Pentagon in its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The most recent version was compiled in 2010 but was tainted by an effort to align it with the Obama Administration’s philosophy more than with military security needs.[7]

Finding that the QDR therefore was “inadequate to protect vital U.S. national interests,” The Heritage Foundation commissioned its own bottom-up look at the U.S. military and presented a highly detailed report of the manpower, ships, planes, logistics, and equipment that are needed.[8] The conclusion is that funding the core defense program would cost an average of approximately $720 billion per year for the five-year period from FY 2012 to FY 2016. This covers not only traditional military but also force structure to address cyberwarfare and terrorist threats."

The Constitutional Charge to Defend America
 
Back
Top Bottom