• 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

iguanaman said:
We can't cut middle class taxes without paying for it. That is the reason for raising the capital gains rate. To keep revenue the same. Do you think we should increase our deficit or raise taxes on unspent income? It is not about a "war" on the wealthy it is about economic reality.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely true.

But where I get frustrated with Obummer is that he isn't offering middle class tax cuts. If he would have proposed a combo deal, like cutting the bottom three tax rate and "paying for it" by increasing capital gains or other taxes that tend to hit the rich harder, I would have been more supportive.
 
Conservative said:
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%?
Click to expand...

Is the dollar worth today what it was in 1965?

And did we have as many retirees in 1965 as we do today? I may be wrong, but I suspect that most of the growth in government spending since then, in terms of percent of GDP, has been in SS and Medicare. So do you think that we should screw our old folks?
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would make for a very interesting and educational thread.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
...
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.
Click to expand...


Our economy creates whatever type of jobs consumers demand. If we are demanding lot's of Big Macs, then we will have lot's of part time jobs. I dunno what Obamacare has to do with that.

Fortunately, the percent of people working part time who would prefer to work full time actually dropped last year, so all is not lost.
 
Papa bull said:
LOL. I'm in touch with reality and reality says you two haven't been speaking in some time.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is---

Presidential Job Approval Center
the "compare presidents" graph is too complex for you to understand?

Look at post WW2 presidents of 2 terms entering their 6th January and tell me you stand by your claims.
LOL.
 
imagep said:
That's absolutely true.

But where I get frustrated with Obummer is that he isn't offering middle class tax cuts. If he would have proposed a combo deal, like cutting the bottom three tax rate and "paying for it" by increasing capital gains or other taxes that tend to hit the rich harder, I would have been more supportive.
Click to expand...


Obama's goal is not revenue neutral in the least. His goal is an increase in federal spending and power - period.
 
imagep said:
That would make for a very interesting and educational thread.
Click to expand...


Well, this is way out of date, but I doubt the qualitative results don't hold (and I bet the quantitative results get--- worse---)
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2000/200052/200052pap.pdf

But it is wellllll known the significant increase in marginal propensity to save even below the top 1%.

I suppose you'd have some trolls that argue that saving/investment has a higher multiplier effect on our consumer-spending driven economy than consumer spending.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address | Fox News

Let's here it Obama supporters how does taxing the rich benefit the U.S. economy and how much money is going to be generated to fund the liberal spending appetite?

Class warfare is never going to solve the problems we face in this country and what ever happened to incentive to create more upper class individuals? Growing up I always strove to generate enough money to pay for a family that I hoped to have and fund charities that I want to support. My education process taught me the value of hard work and the desire to succeed. What happened to that philosophy in today's world? Why is it the Federal Government's role to tell the private sector where to spend its own money and on what?
Click to expand...
(chuckle)

"Class warfare"... When are you guys going to give up on the memes.

The new taxes are long overdue and I look forward to their attention, however, just because Obama says he's gonna do it doesn't make it so.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Obama's goal is not revenue neutral in the least. His goal is an increase in federal spending and power - period.
Click to expand...

Which would explain why he has presided over federal spending falling by ~16% relative to its peak in 2009 (not even HIS FY, but trolls claim it is) as a % of GDP. Which is why the budget deficit has declined by almost 66% since he took office. Right?
 
imagep said:
With in his peer circle, his statement is probably 100% correct. Obama probably could not be more unpopular.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's all that popular in the left, either. I don't think it is actually possible for Obama to poll any lower than he was polling. Watch and see. No matter what he does, the diehard pinkos will support him and that's pretty much all he's got right now. I consider the current state to be his solid floor as far as approval ratings and popularity go. I don't think there's anything he could do to make the remaining Obamaphiles abandon their support for him.

But pandering to the freestuffers will certainly help get those numbers up. Nothing ignites the base like promises of free stuff and punishing the rich.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Obama's goal is not revenue neutral in the least. His goal is an increase in federal spending and power - period.
Click to expand...

.... and also to play to his extremist OWS base.

As I said, tax increases will never pass Congress so its all hollow rhetoric, red meat for the Left.
 
Papa bull said:
I don't think he's all that popular in the left, either. I don't think it is actually possible for Obama to poll any lower than he currently is polling. Watch and see. No matter what he does, the diehard pinkos will support him and that's pretty much all he's got right now. I consider the current state to be his solid floor as far as approval ratings and popularity go. I don't think there's anything he could do to make the remaining Obamaphiles abandon their support for him.
Click to expand...


smh. He is polling at 46% approval on gallup right now.
at the same time in their terms, Truman and Bush were in the mid 30s.

"don't think it's possible" ? smh
 
The only taxes that should be raised are gas taxes, as the sharp decrease in oil and gas prices means drivers can afford an extra 25 cents per gallon to fix highways, bridges, and tunnels.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
smh. He is polling at 46% approval on gallup right now.
at the same time in their terms, Truman and Bush were in the mid 30s.. . . .
Click to expand...


2 months off but close enough. . . . . . .


Gallup: Voter opposition to Obama at 16-year high, worse than Bush, Clinton
Gallup: Voter opposition to Obama at 16-year high, worse than Bush, Clinton | WashingtonExaminer.com

Angry and frustrated voters are planning to use the midterm elections in one month to tell President Obama they oppose his agenda, the highest “no” vote percentage Gallup has measured in the past 16 years.

The polling outfit found that 32 percent of voters want to send a message of opposition with their vote, compared to just 20 percent who are sending a signal of support.

That is 13 points higher than in 1998 when former President Clinton was headed to impeachment for lying about his sex affair with a former White House intern and even a smidge higher — 2 points — than in 2008, when Americans were tired of President Bush’s military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 
Papa bull said:
I don't think he's all that popular in the left, either. ...
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But extremists are a small segment of our electorate, and they vote for their team even when their team disappoints them. That's why we often mistakenly refer to extremists as "the base".
 
SlevinKelevra said:
things I learned in this thread


46% of Americans are "die hard pinkos"
Click to expand...

No, not at all, and I don't think that was what he was suggesting. As a matter of fact, Papa Bull said that he doesn't think the "die hard pinkos" like Obama too much, so that would mean that the 46% who he is polling OK with are pretty much in the middle (although I suspect that Papa Bull doesn't want that fact pointed out).
 
imagep said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree for the most part with the exception of not seeing people of principle having a backbone as extreme. (I say this for both sides)

I think it is a mistake also to look at the middle as a compromise between the two "extremes" as you put it rather than a position of its own, fighting its own battle and unfortunately winning. It's called the status quo.
 
Last edited:
TerryOfromCA said:
2 months off but close enough. . . . . . .


Gallup: Voter opposition to Obama at 16-year high, worse than Bush, Clinton
Gallup: Voter opposition to Obama at 16-year high, worse than Bush, Clinton | WashingtonExaminer.com

Angry and frustrated voters are planning to use the midterm elections in one month to tell President Obama they oppose his agenda, the highest “no” vote percentage Gallup has measured in the past 16 years.

The polling outfit found that 32 percent of voters want to send a message of opposition with their vote, compared to just 20 percent who are sending a signal of support.

That is 13 points higher than in 1998 when former President Clinton was headed to impeachment for lying about his sex affair with a former White House intern and even a smidge higher — 2 points — than in 2008, when Americans were tired of President Bush’s military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...



funny thing. the topic was about the present . what IS he polling at NOW?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom