• 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 proposes a record 4.1 trillion dollar Budget

Conservative said:
What do you believe the fair share is that the rich should pay? I keep hearing that statement over and over again but what Obama proposed wouldn't fund the government for 3 days
Click to expand...

ludin said:
top 50% wage earners in this country pay 98% of the taxes.
where do you wish more to come from?

the top 1% already pay 37% of the income tax.
the top 10% pay 55%
and the top 25% pay 80%.

seems they are paying their fair share.
Click to expand...

We had 90% tax rates on the top 1% back in the 1940s and 50s and we had one of the most successful economies in American history
 
ThaiBoxer said:
We had 90% tax rates on the top 1% back in the 1940s and 50s and we had one of the most successful economies in American history
Click to expand...

I get so sick of hearing this BS.

you evidently don't know what you are talking about. while the marginal rate was 90% no one came close to paying that.
why? before the Reagan administration passed their tax budget you could basically write off everything under the sun.

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ

it's myth. no one pay 90%. so please stop this false lie. I know you can't because you are a liberal but at least educate yourself
before you start spewing things.

the success of the 40-50's had little to do with the tax rate and more to do with the post war boom.
the US was literally making everything for everyone. why? half of Europe was still rebuilding from the war.

the US was basically the only economy set to do anything.

you are committing a huge correlation to causation fallacy but I doubt you will see it.
 
Conservative said:
For those who are taking victory laps over Obama cutting the deficit in half down to still record high deficits here is another indication that Obama doesn't care about the deficit, doesn't believe the economy is as strong as supporters want to believe, and continues to promote his European style socialist economic model

Obama sends Congress record $4.1T budget plan | Fox News
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about the deficit. Has the word even been uttered yet so far this election?
 
ludin said:
Umm yea no, you don't get to sky rocket the deficit and then claim you lowered it when well you didn't
really lower it. t
Click to expand...
Obama did not skyrocket the deficit.
 
Camer☑n;1065543187 said:
Nobody cares about the deficit. Has the word even been uttered yet so far this election?
Click to expand...

Of course that is the case with people who have no problem spending someone else's money
 
Deuce said:
Obama did not skyrocket the deficit.
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on your definition of skyrocketing the deficit. Mine would be having trillion dollar deficits four years in a row but then again I could be wrong
 
mmi said:
Another stupid lie you repeat ad nauseum. Those programs are pay-as-you-go. There's no vesting, so by definition there can be no "unfunded liability."
Click to expand...

Then why do we pay in extra and create a surplus?
Why not pay out all the money collected?
What is the purpose of keeping track of the surplus?
Why issue treasury bonds for a surplus that does not exist?
Why pay interest on the surplus that doesn't exist?
Who will pay back these treasury bonds (IOU) when they are needed?

Here is the link to the trust fund and the extra paid in.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a1.html

The facts are simple. The taxpayer pays SS tax. We pay in billions even hundreds of billions of dollars extra almost every year. The money not allocated to recipients is put into the general fund (which is a -trillions of dollars) and a special treasury bond (IOU) is issued for the money. When the time comes when we need this money the taxpayers (our children) will be taxed again for this money plus interest. Our children will not only have to pay our Social Security but the surplus that we already paid in.

Where did the surplus go?

Most likely to fund the government workers retirement fund which is invested in gold, silver, stocks, and bonds.

Why is there retirement invested and ours is not?

They say because it is not safe to invest our money in a diversified retirement fund that every investment company recommends. Only their money.
[/QUOTE]
 
Conservative said:
You are right, you are a legend in your own mind, SS and Medicare Fund has trillions in IOU's which of course don't matter to people like you until you demand the dollars for those IOU's. I don't understand and never will understand people like you whose loyalty to liberalism has been proven to be an absolute failure and yet you continue to support the ideology.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Your precious "private sector economy" only has a heartbeat because its buttressed by government goodies.
 
Napoleon said:
Oh please. Your precious "private sector economy" only has a heartbeat because its buttressed by government goodies.
Click to expand...

Yep, the liberal ideology of sucking at the govt. teat paid for by the people who actually pay taxes.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, the liberal ideology of sucking at the govt. teat paid for by the people who actually pay taxes.
Click to expand...

Well if the conservative children could be trusted to play with their toys responsibly then the adults wouldn't have to intercede with liberal ideology. Sadly for you, such a scenario exists only in the imagination. The conservative babies never want to listen to reason, but they're always the first to come crying to mommy Congress to alleviate the consequences of their disastrous choices.
 
Last edited:
MrT said:
No, you could attribute the expansion to a rider attached by a Republican senator if you wish, but Obama signed a law that allowed guns into federal parks and lands. This was a repeal of a limitation put into place during Reagan.
Click to expand...
Which had little to do with Obama.


Federal government to lift restrictions on guns in national parks

"The Bush administration had lifted the ban on concealed weapons in its final months, after pressure from gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association. But a federal judge blocked the move last year. The Obama administration declined to appeal the ruling, and Congress passed the law. President Obama signed the measure without comment as part of a credit card reform package."
 
ludin said:
yet he didn't avoid it interesting.
Click to expand...

So yer saying we did have a worldwide depression under Obummer. Now that's "interesting."

>>in fact 4 years of trillion dollar deficits did little.

Again, … helped avoid a worldwide depression.

>>you don't get to sky rocket the deficit and then claim you lowered it

Obummer did not skyrocket the deficit. The SSE policies you continue to support did.

>>the deficit was 450b when he came into office.

That's a lie. CBO reported in Jan 2009, before the Negro was inaugurated, that the deficit for FY2009 would be $1.2 trillion.

>>if anything the deficit only went down 11b dollars largely in part to the republican congress not allowing Obama to continue his wild spending spree.

"Largely in part"? OK. I don't know where you get this $11 billion from, and I assure you I don't care.

>>so you can actually thank republicans for keeping the deficit lower than what it should have been.

You can if you wish. I'll continue to live in reality.

>>the federal government owes the SS fund about 2.7 trillion dollars.

The Trust Fund holds treasury bonds. If you want to say money is "owed," I'll drop the subject because this is just semantics.

>>yet you are claiming the exact opposite that it isn't owed anything. you were proven wrong.

My position is that we are the federal gubmint. I'm not concerned about money we owe ourselves.

ludin said:
top 50% wage earners in this country pay 98% of the taxes.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. In 2013, the top fifty percent paid 97% of federal income taxes. That makes sense, given that they collected 89% of the income. Otoh, the bottom 60% paid 17% of "the taxes" while collecting 21% of the income. Yes, there is a small degree of progressivity in our tax system.

income_and_taxes_paid_by_quintile_2015.jpg

share_of_taxes_paid_2014.jpg

Share_of_income_earned_and_taxes_paid.gif

>>where do you wish more to come from?

Something along the lines of another one percent from households above $400K, then another one percent from those above one million, then another one percent from those above five million, then another one percent from those above twenty million, then another two percent from those above one hundred million.

>>seems they are paying their fair share.

Those with incomes above one million dollars should certainly pay more. Fairness isn't the issue in my mind. We need the money, and they've got it.

PIPEWRENCH said:
Then why do we pay in extra and create a surplus? Why not pay out all the money collected?
Click to expand...

Prudence.

>>Why issue treasury bonds for a surplus that does not exist? Why pay interest on the surplus that doesn't exist?

I never said there isn't a surplus.

>>Who will pay back these treasury bonds (IOU) when they are needed?

We will. (WOO) If you don't like it, why do you support SSE policies that have created almost all of the national debt?
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Well if the conservative children could be trusted to play with their toys responsibly then the adults wouldn't have to intercede with liberal ideology. Sadly for you, such a scenario exists only in the imagination. The conservative babies never want to listen to reason, but they're always the first to come crying to mommy Congress to alleviate the consequences of their disastrous choices.
Click to expand...

So you believe you know what is best for everyone else? Where did you get this gift?
 
Conservative said:
For those who are taking victory laps over Obama cutting the deficit in half down to still record high deficits here is another indication that Obama doesn't care about the deficit, doesn't believe the economy is as strong as supporters want to believe, and continues to promote his European style socialist economic model

Obama sends Congress record $4.1T budget plan | Fox News
Click to expand...

Does not really matter. As with most of Obama's proposed budgets it ends up dead on arrival.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Does not really matter. As with most of Obama's proposed budgets it ends up dead on arrival.
Click to expand...

It should matter since it shows intent and no interest in getting our debt under control. If the economy is as good as Obama and supporters claim why do we need this massive budget?
 
Conservative said:
It should matter since it shows intent and no interest in getting our debt under control. If the economy is as good as Obama and supporters claim why do we need this massive budget?
Click to expand...

That is a card that no political party gets to use... "interest in getting our debt under control." It is just simply untrue that modern politics really cares at all about deficits and debt. And the only reason for such a massive budget is the size and scope of government these days, also bipartisan in design.

I'm sorry, I no longer buy that there is some political opposition to Obama that gives a single **** about debt. Usually, we only hear concerns about debt from Republicans when opposition is guiding new debt in a way contrary to what Republicans would propose in new debt.
 
Napoleon said:
Well if the conservative children could be trusted to play with their toys responsibly then the adults wouldn't have to intercede with liberal ideology. Sadly for you, such a scenario exists only in the imagination. The conservative babies never want to listen to reason, but they're always the first to come crying to mommy Congress to alleviate the consequences of their disastrous choices.
Click to expand...

Well if the liberal babies could be trusted to play with their toys responsibly then the adults wouldn't have to intercede with conservative ideology. Sadly for you, such a scenario exists only in the imagination. The liberal babies never want to listen to reason, but their always the first to come crying to mommy Congress to alleviate the consequences of their disastrous choices.

Demonstrating what a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid post is to Napoleon. I sincerely hope he gets it.
 
OrphanSlug said:
That is a card that no political party gets to use... "interest in getting our debt under control." It is just simply untrue that modern politics really cares at all about deficits and debt. And the only reason for such a massive budget is the size and scope of government these days, also bipartisan in design.

I'm sorry, I no longer buy that there is some political opposition to Obama that gives a single **** about debt. Usually, we only hear concerns about debt from Republicans when opposition is guiding new debt in a way contrary to what Republicans would propose in new debt.
Click to expand...

You could very well be right which is why I support states' rights and responsibilities knowing that states like TX gets it. Here we have a part time legislature that makes laws and then goes home to live under them, a balanced budget requirement, as well as term limits that prevent career politicians buying people's votes by creating dependence

I don't see that happening with any Democrat today and I grew up a Democrat but that party has spent money in the name of compassion yet never getting results that actually solved a problem this being compassionate.

The guide to spending is in the Constitution and until all people learn basic civics and understand the Constitution then nothing is going to change and the size of govt. will grow. Too many people don't understand the Bush debt at all and what comprises it and notice that liberals here tout Obama cutting the deficit down to continued record high deficits exceeding historical deficits. Part of the Bush deficit was 9/11(1 trillion dollars according to GAO) which still left the debt too high but still manageable as it was still 70% of GDP not 100% as it is now
 
Camer☑n;1065543187 said:
Nobody cares about the deficit. Has the word even been uttered yet so far this election?
Click to expand...

I had to go check because I couldnt beleive it, but youre right. In the last debate, no one mentioned it.
 
Conservative said:
You could very well be right which is why I support states' rights and responsibilities knowing that states like TX gets it. Here we have a part time legislature that makes laws and then goes home to live under them, a balanced budget requirement, as well as term limits that prevent career politicians buying people's votes by creating dependence

I don't see that happening with any Democrat today and I grew up a Democrat but that party has spent money in the name of compassion yet never getting results that actually solved a problem this being compassionate.

The guide to spending is in the Constitution and until all people learn basic civics and understand the Constitution then nothing is going to change and the size of govt. will grow. Too many people don't understand the Bush debt at all and what comprises it and notice that liberals here tout Obama cutting the deficit down to continued record high deficits exceeding historical deficits. Part of the Bush deficit was 9/11(1 trillion dollars according to GAO) which still left the debt too high but still manageable as it was still 70% of GDP not 100% as it is now
Click to expand...

I am not sure I agree that "TX gets it." Last I checked Texas State Debt was in the $340 billion range, ranking in the top 5 in total Debt and right in the middle of the pack for debt per capita. And for whatever the "balanced budget requirement" is worth, the budget for 2015 for Texas still saw spending above income. 2016 is looking to be the same.

What people really do not understand is adding new debt for whatever reason still results in that new debt.

No matter your political lean, neither Bush 43 nor the 107th - 110th Congresses (and the 108th and 109th Congresses were Republican controlled) were fiscally responsible by any means. Every budget proposed included deficits and new additions to Total Debt without exception. In the end Bush 43' years saw an additional $4.9 trillion added to Total Debt. Under Bush 43 we simultaneously saw increases in spending then headed into a couple of war combined with tax cuts. Mandatory spending did go up during Bush 43's years, but so did just about everything else. Including total Government size and scope. That does not elevate any other debt added under any other President, but do not feed us some nonsense that Bush 43 was responsible.

Lastly on the Constitution, there was no interest in the Constitution by Republicans during Bush 43's time or presently under Obama's time. At all.
 
mmi said:
The deficit as a percentage of GDP is down by 75% under Obummer.
Click to expand...

Here is another example fooling people with statistics. The GDP includes government spending. So if the government spends more the deficit will go down just because of the math. Moreover, there isn't a budget so talking about a deficit is fairly silly in the first place. The statistics are designed to make people think that spending is under control when exactly the opposite is true.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I am not sure I agree that "TX gets it." Last I checked Texas State Debt was in the $340 billion range, ranking in the top 5 in total Debt and right in the middle of the pack for debt per capita. And for whatever the "balanced budget requirement" is worth, the budget for 2015 for Texas still saw spending above income. 2016 is looking to be the same.

What people really do not understand is adding new debt for whatever reason still results in that new debt.

No matter your political lean, neither Bush 43 nor the 107th - 110th Congresses (and the 108th and 109th Congresses were Republican controlled) were fiscally responsible by any means. Every budget proposed included deficits and new additions to Total Debt without exception. In the end Bush 43' years saw an additional $4.9 trillion added to Total Debt. Under Bush 43 we simultaneously saw increases in spending then headed into a couple of war combined with tax cuts. Mandatory spending did go up during Bush 43's years, but so did just about everything else. Including total Government size and scope. That does not elevate any other debt added under any other President, but do not feed us some nonsense that Bush 43 was responsible.

Lastly on the Constitution, there was no interest in the Constitution by Republicans during Bush 43's time or presently under Obama's time. At all.
Click to expand...

Would love to debate the TX economy and budget with you but on another thread. The issue here is the Obama budget and what he proposed and what he has done. I agree with you that Bush spent too much but that didn't stop with Obama although the much bigger issue is getting new taxpayers thus creating jobs. Attracting new jobs and creating new jobs comes from the private sector, not the govt.

If one doesn't provide incentive to the private sector through taxes and regulation reform it is going to lead to what we have today too much dependence on the Federal Govt. and dependence is what drives liberalism. That has to change

I wonder how long people are going to blame Bush for the problems we have today. It has been 7 years and no one yet is facing the Obama results and performance issues.

I have posted the link to the debt by day and those who have done the research on that link will find that never during the Bush term did we have debt exceeding our annual GDP and some don't think that is a problem but I do. Debt only becomes a problem when it is created to generate entitlement programs and more dependence which is what keeps liberals in power.

Now don't get me wrong but I agree with you to a point but do know that Bush left Obama with a 10.6 trillion dollar debt including 350 billion in TARP spending which was a loan that was repaid but not paid back by Obama and a 14.7 trillion dollar economy that is now a 19 trillion dollar debt on a 18 trillion dollar economy. there is the disconnect that many want to ignore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom