• 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!

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Apple shields most of its profits overseas, and therefore it is not taxed in the US the first time, let alone twice. If we are not taxing it at the corporate level, then we need to be taxing it at the stockholder level. My preference would be to reign in corporate largesse and tax them more heavily and not tax cap gains at all, but since the both parties are bought and paid for by the corporations, one of which having convinced many of its poor voters that it is in their best interest that rich people pay no taxes, it will never happen.

There you go again worried about how much Apple Pays in taxes, why? You don't think the govt. has enough tax revenue for what it truly needs? Why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt?

Why is it people like you never address spending and always focus on taking money from those who earn it? How did some rich person or company prevent you from joining them?
 
The good fight must be fought. :) I just don't think there's any question that the timing of these "proposals" has everything to do with the fact that his approval numbers absolutely suck. He's begging to regain the love that he lost from his pinko base. He's just trying to reignite the romance with the freestuffers that once thought of him as "The Messiah".

Careful, I don't think you're aware of the context of his approval #'s at this point of his presidency.
 
There you go again worried about how much Apple Pays in taxes, why? You don't think the govt. has enough tax revenue for what it truly needs? Why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt?

Why is it people like you never address spending and always focus on taking money from those who earn it? How did some rich person or company prevent you from joining them?

I would be more than happy to cut our military in half, but that is not the issue of the thread, taxes are. Put a flat corporate tax in place sufficient to cover the government budgetary needs, and eliminate the personal tax system altogether, including the EIT, for all I care. I am more than capable of becoming significantly wealthier than I am. My bills get paid and will realistically always be paid on my current trajectory. I just prefer the free time over the money. I am bohemian like that.
 
Careful, I don't think you're aware of the context of his approval #'s at this point of his presidency.

I'm aware that the democratic party's 2016 chances hinge heavily on just how popular or unpopular Obama is.
 
What his approval numbers prove is that Gruber was absolutely correct in his assessment of the American electorate. It really is a shame at how ignorant most of the Obama supporters are and how dependent they have become on the taxpayers to basically exist. Liberalism is a disease that has infected far too many and they really need help. Taking from someone else and redistributing it takes away incentive on both ends and does nothing but grow bureaucracies
 
:lamo..

taxing , at the federal level, removes the money from the economy.

Where does it then go? Does it vanish or vaporize or simply disappear?
 
There you go again worried about how much Apple Pays in taxes, why? You don't think the govt. has enough tax revenue for what it truly needs? Why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt?

Why is it people like you never address spending and always focus on taking money from those who earn it? How did some rich person or company prevent you from joining them?



why is it people like you use (oooh scary) big #'s like "3.9 Trillion" without putting them in context? Do you have a 35 year history of decrying that federal spending at 20% of GDP? Or, is this pseudo-outrage somehow timed magically to a convenient say... the last 6 years only?
 
I'm aware that the democratic party's 2016 chances hinge heavily on just how popular or unpopular Obama is.


So you're unaware that within the margin of polling error, he is right now equal with Reagan and LBJ, better than Bush2, better than Truman, and worse than only Ike and Bill Clinton among modern Presidents?


Also, you're unaware that popularity =/= approval?
 
Maybe it goes to the same place liberals think the rich take it to.

No, our government is prohibited from investing in the black hole that most people call the "stock market".
 
This man just keeps coming up with one crappier idea after the next...

Obama and I share many goals on the economic front but it is the way he attempts to achieve them which has me unsettled.

Unsettled to the point of opposing the end result due specifically to the means in which he attempts to get us there. (which it won't get us there, but that's a different point)

I don't know how one man can have so many horrendous ideas.
 
This man just keeps coming up with one crappier idea after the next...

Obama and I share many goals on the economic front but it is the way he attempts to achieve them which has me unsettled.

Unsettled to the point of opposing the end result due specifically to the means in which he attempts to get us there. (which it won't get us there, but that's a different point)

I don't know how one man can have so many horrendous ideas.

I suspect that he is looking for bargaining chips. He proposes some things that he claims he is going to push for, then he settles with what he really wants. That's what every good negotiator does.
 
No, our government is prohibited from investing in the black hole that most people call the "stock market".

LOL. They've certainly found unique ways to get around that provision.

Seriously though. People think the rich squirrel away their loot in some vault somewhere. They think they have mattresses stuffed with gold coins, and the economy can't get it's hands on it.
 
I would be more than happy to cut our military in half, but that is not the issue of the thread, taxes are. Put a flat corporate tax in place sufficient to cover the government budgetary needs, and eliminate the personal tax system altogether, including the EIT, for all I care. I am more than capable of becoming significantly wealthier than I am. My bills get paid and will realistically always be paid on my current trajectory. I just prefer the free time over the money. I am bohemian like that.

Of course you would because you believe it is the role of the FEDERAL GOVT. to provide for those social problems in your community. If you cut the military in half down to 400 billion dollars you would still have a deficit. What next?

Govt. budgetary needs? What exactly would those be? Do you have any idea what the line items in the budget are? Did you know that we have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt today and debt service is the fourth largest budget item? Do you even know what your taxes fund? You want to eliminate the payroll taxes which fund SS and Medicare? Ok, think that will pass?

You don't seem to truly understand the role of the Federal Govt or what your taxes fund. Suggest you do some better research
 
So you're unaware that within the margin of polling error, he is right now equal with Reagan and LBJ, better than Bush2, better than Truman, and worse than only Ike and Bill Clinton among modern Presidents?


Also, you're unaware that popularity =/= approval?

I'm very well aware of the fact that he's about as unpopular as it is possible for him to be. And I know full well that the pinko left is NOT happy with his performance. They just can't actually SAY it. The fact that the left, which has remarkable solidarity, has abandoned him to the point they have speaks volumes. Let's face it. Where that thrill running up the pinko legs are concerned, the truth is....... The thrill is gone.... Sing it with me now....





He just wants the thrill to come back.
 
:lamo..

taxing , at the federal level, removes the money from the economy.

Tax revenues from the rich are not transferred to the poor or middle class in any shape ,form ,or fashion.

If Obamas desire is for the middle class to keep more of their money in the economy, he simply needs to cut their taxes...
cutting the tax on the middle class I get...but I'm not understanding what he thinks the benefit of raising the taxes on the rich is supposed to be....economically speaking, his actions make no sense.

Politically speaking, I get it...but econonically?...nope..no sense at all.

We can't cut middle class taxes without paying for it. That is the reason for raising the capital gains rate. Cutting taxes without paying for it is how we got into large deficit spending. To keep revenue the same we need to get it from somewhere. Do you think we should increase our deficit or raise taxes on unspent income? It is not about politics or the lame "war on the wealthy" meme it is about economic reality. If we want to increase consumer spending and GDP growth without increasing our deficit we need to leave more income to those that spend it all and make it up from those that don't. It is not rocket science and such a plan benefits all. The wealthy get higher profits from increased sales and the rest of us get a better life.
 
Last edited:
why is it people like you use (oooh scary) big #'s like "3.9 Trillion" without putting them in context? Do you have a 35 year history of decrying that federal spending at 20% of GDP? Or, is this pseudo-outrage somehow timed magically to a convenient say... the last 6 years only?

You want context? In 1965 our budget was 250 billion dollars with 175 million people, today Obama is proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget for 312 million Americans. You don't seem to comprehend context or the true role of the Federal Govt. You want Federal Spending to be 20% of the GDP, Why? Do you realize that the GDP of this country includes federal spending? Most of the GDP however is generated by the private sector and the states so why should the Federal Govt. even spend close to 20%?
 
For what reason? Boehner bends over for him at will...

Obama's and Boehners negotiating style is similar. They make a nice couple.

Both are willing to create the appearance that they are pushing for what the extremists desire (more or less pretending to be puppets to appease the extremists), and both are smart enough to realize that the controlling parties will not ultimately allow any extremist positions to actually become policy. So once their pretend efforts failed, they are able to get more or less what they really wanted to begin with.

An example of Obama doing this is when he was proposing that we don't extend the Bush tax cuts for the top two income brackets, then he settled with not extending the cuts for just the top bracket. An example of Boenher doing this is when he spearheaded the government shut down a couple of years ago, and then as the republican party was getting the blame for the shutdown, he said "OK, we fought the good fight, it's not working, so we give".

At least that's the way I see things.
 
Good post. Those who complain about the super rich are almost always those who have not exhibited the single-minded drive to become super-rich themselves. They are usually people with mediocre grades, who don't try to excel, maybe even smoke a doobie every now and then, and then snivel when purpose-driven success-oriented people get rich. Its sheer envy and sniveling.

Then idiots like Obama come along and want to punish such single-minded, driven, success-oriented people so he can give free phones to bums and buy the votes of the lazy and the mediocre. It is decidedly UN-American

You spelled Reagan wrong


Stupid.


. . . . Yet job growth seemed to be picking up, the closer we got to the employer mandate. . . . .

Correction: Part time job growth. - - Under Obama around 85% of jobs that have been created for the last six years are part time. They do not contribute to revenue since they pay too little, and they cannot support a family. Obamacare is the killer of GOOD jobs that families need.
 
That is not an income tax, nor was it far reaching and abused on daily bias.
1.)the income tax is not the only way to "redistribute wealth"
2.)"levied a tax from the wages of sailors" and it gave them healthcare!!! Oh my god! socialism!
 
You want context? In 1965 our budget was 250 billion dollars with 175 million people, today Obama is proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget for 312 million Americans. You don't seem to comprehend context or the true role of the Federal Govt. You want Federal Spending to be 20% of the GDP, Why? Do you realize that the GDP of this country includes federal spending? Most of the GDP however is generated by the private sector and the states so why should the Federal Govt. even spend close to 20%?


In 1965 a new car cost around $2500. In 2015 it costs around $20000

Inflation, ever heard of it? People who attended school past the 4th grade usually analyze these things in either constant year $s, or in % of gdp. Maybe you can try as well.





Now with that said, do you also like making #'s up?
Historical Tables | The White House
 
Of course you would because you believe it is the role of the FEDERAL GOVT. to provide for those social problems in your community. If you cut the military in half down to 400 billion dollars you would still have a deficit. What next?

Govt. budgetary needs? What exactly would those be? Do you have any idea what the line items in the budget are? Did you know that we have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt today and debt service is the fourth largest budget item? Do you even know what your taxes fund? You want to eliminate the payroll taxes which fund SS and Medicare? Ok, think that will pass?

You don't seem to truly understand the role of the Federal Govt or what your taxes fund. Suggest you do some better research

Eliminate the department of transportation and I am running surpluses. What exactly are you willing to eliminate and how would you pay for the difference?
 
Back
Top Bottom