• 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 ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

Well, the article said he was not going to prejudge and was going to leave everything on the table. This is what some people in this thread were actually mad about, he was considering taxing more than just the top 1%.



The largest amount of money from the bush tax cuts went to the top bracket. It is simple math. Compare 1% of $480,000 to 1% of $32,000. That is the difference between the top 1% bracket and the lower 50%.

I don't see where this notion that the lowest bracket does not pay any taxes comes from. Everyone pays payroll taxes up to the 1st $105,000 of there paycheck (at least for SS, its all of your income for medicare). This makes up the largest portion of income for the federal government.

Except the lower 40% don't pay income tax
 
What would you consider being cut?

SS, medicare, medicaid, and defense spending make up like 75% of our spending (excluding interest payments).

So make the middle class that were promised no rise in taxes and the retired pay on a fixed income.

Democrats do that and they will be gone.
 
Well, let's see....

Socialist Security is unconstitutional, so that has to go.

Medicaid...hmmmm, that's not in the Constitution either. Bye bye...

Defense is Constitutional, but the goals and budget should be defense, not social engineering or tinkering or any kind of World Cop bull****. Germany, France, Japan should expect to see US troops leaving, except for Okinawa, which was paid for with the blood of thousands of Marines. That does not have cash value.

There, I've cut 60% from the budget.

Next?

How do you repay the money paid in or do you just steal that from the people?
 
How do you repay the money paid in or do you just steal that from the people?

How do you repay the money people paid in to wage a war?

You don't.

It's pissed away.

And the reality is that Socialist Security can't be removed with a chainsaw, it will need Death by Pruning, one cut at a time, over years.

First Step: Tell the people under thirty they're not eligible for Socialist Security and allow them to keep their visible half of the FICA tax they pay. Establish a system so this money can be invested tax-deferred in some kind of IRA, that'll make the smarter ones very happy indeed.

Next Step: Tell people under fifty and over thirty that they're going to be means-tested for Socialist Security eligibility.

Then figure out a way to keep it solvent (this means taxes, people, lots and lots of taxes) until the people on the system finally die.

And hopefully that will be a lesson to all the god damned idiots who think "Progressivism" is superior to freedom.

OR

we can watch our government do absolutely nothing, the system implodes and takes the entire economy down with it.
 
Last edited:
How do you repay the money people paid in to wage a war?

You don't.

It's pissed away.

And the reality is that Socialist Security can't be removed with a chainsaw, it will need Death by Pruning, one cut at a time, over years.

First Step: Tell the people under thirty they're not eligible for Socialist Security and allow them to keep their visible half of the FICA tax they pay. Establish a system so this money can be invested tax-deferred in some kind of IRA, that'll make the smarter ones very happy indeed.

Next Step: Tell people under fifty and over thirty that they're going to be means-tested for Socialist Security eligibility.

Then figure out a way to keep it solvent (this means taxes, people, lots and lots of taxes) until the people on the system finally die.

And hopefully that will be a lesson to all the god damned idiots who think "Progressivism" is superior to freedom.

OR

we can watch our government do absolutely nothing, the system implodes and takes the entire economy down with it.

And what's your solution to the people who don't invest in their retirement and can no longer work but now have no money?
 
You see, the problem with this is that it does not look at the actual facts.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts



Additionally:
chart6_lg.gif




We are talking about income taxes here. If people pay for only Medicare and SS, then those are the only things they have a stake in.
You can quote us charts from every conservative think tank in existence and all their charts and graphs won't change history. Income-Tax cuts for the wealthy do not stimulate job growth, they reduce revenue. We have a history of economic growth with high upper end taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_progressivity_in_federal_income_tax
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm certainly glad you won't let petty things like facts get in the way of your prejudices.
So I should now post some charts and graphs from... I don't know, some liberal think tank, that disprove yours and you'll change your position?
 
you see, that's it, right there

you can argue til eternity about whether tax breaks for the productive class generate or depress tax revenues and you're just not real likely to get much movement, either way

if, in contrast, you go about things not by saying whether or not obama is wrong minded, errant in his thinking, or not, but instead if you posit the man is completely incompetent, there you get no argument

the man is completely incompetent

his entire agenda is DEAD

health care, cap and trade, reg reform, immigration reform, his formerly ambitious agenda, all pre massachusetts

since scott brown's truck ran him over, the president's platform is tiny stuff, his bank tax, his debt commission, his second stimulus which he can't call a stimulus

and they're all, as of today, DEAD too

wow, this guy is absolutely amazing

the bank tax was a no go from the get go, the debt commission died the DAY OF STATE OF THE UNION (LOL!) on the senate floor, 53 to 47...

and TODAY, just this awful afternoon, obama's JOBS BILL (that second STIMULUS), if it didn't outright die, it's real close

that one's gotta be done in a hurry, and harry just killed baucus-grassley

Reid kills Baucus-Grassley jobs bill - James Hohmann and Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com

poor baucus---max baucus has been the most abused senator i may ever have seen

that dude worked his butt off for obama on health care, going back to summer

his "back to the drawing board"

his "the president's not helping"

his tortured sessions with doug elmendorf, cbo

that poor dude, baucus, he must have aged 5 years

and all he's gotten repaid is grief, guff, gripes...

angst

no wonder he was so drunk on the floor last month

but, yeah, harry holed up the "jobs" bill today...

politically, huge

what's left with no agenda?

what's obtuse obama's foreign policy?

what's his answer for ahmedinejad?

almonds and arabica?

how's he gonna bring around putin and hu?

when's he gonna close gitmo?

politico (perhaps the best single source in the nation, foundation of msnbc's awesome morning politics) today has a piece: "left frets over fate of dadt"

Left frets over fate of 'don't ask' - Jen DiMascio and Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

which, who cares

except, they're right

and i sincerely believe YOU need to know it

obama has no intention of MOVING dadt

he'll INTRODUCE it

that's it

it WON'T move

and that's what politico and the "left" are learning

so we have NO ACTION on the LEADERSHIP front

what remains, then...

if not all these stunningly stupid utterances:

i don't begrudge the savvy bankers their bonuses

i'm agnostic (LOL!) about tax hikes

iraq is my great achievement

watch my press secretary do sarah palin shadow puppets with his hands

while i reach out to republicans to work together to solve problems

and if they don't come round they're a bunch of f'n ree-tards

etc

day after day, it just goes on and on

how do you all keep a straight face?

i've been rolling on the floor of my impregnable fortress, drawbridge raised, since summer 08

party on, progressives

be proud

represent
 
How do you repay the money people paid in to wage a war?

You don't.

It's pissed away.

And the reality is that Socialist Security can't be removed with a chainsaw, it will need Death by Pruning, one cut at a time, over years.

First Step: Tell the people under thirty they're not eligible for Socialist Security and allow them to keep their visible half of the FICA tax they pay. Establish a system so this money can be invested tax-deferred in some kind of IRA, that'll make the smarter ones very happy indeed.

Next Step: Tell people under fifty and over thirty that they're going to be means-tested for Socialist Security eligibility.

Then figure out a way to keep it solvent (this means taxes, people, lots and lots of taxes) until the people on the system finally die.

And hopefully that will be a lesson to all the god damned idiots who think "Progressivism" is superior to freedom.

OR

we can watch our government do absolutely nothing, the system implodes and takes the entire economy down with it.

The money for SS is it paid back of stolen. If paid back do we get the interest also.

Problem is it can't be paid back because the congress used SS as their personal piggy bank.
 
You can quote us charts from every conservative think tank in existence and all their charts and graphs won't change history. Income-Tax cuts for the wealthy do not stimulate job growth, they reduce revenue. We have a history of economic growth with high upper end taxes.

Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problem is thats a lie. If you paid taxes under Bush you got a tax cut.

Under Bush tax cuts the percentage of the money going to the IRS went up for the Rich.

On this link notice who pays what percent and go to 1999.

Under Clinton the top paid less and the bottom paid more


Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

Comparing Income Taxes: Clinton vs. Bush -- Seeking Alpha


The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.
 
So I should now post some charts and graphs from... I don't know, some liberal think tank, that disprove yours and you'll change your position?

Yes, that would be substantive debate. A think tank is a think tank, and data is data.
 
Problem is thats a lie. If you paid taxes under Bush you got a tax cut.

Under Bush tax cuts the percentage of the money going to the IRS went up for the Rich.

On this link notice who pays what percent and go to 1999.

Under Clinton the top paid less and the bottom paid more


Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

Comparing Income Taxes: Clinton vs. Bush -- Seeking Alpha


The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.

Your figures and links are misleading. If you'd like to move your post to the economics thread I'll give you a good thrashing over there. :lol: Otherwise, I call bull****.
 
Yes, that would be substantive debate. A think tank is a think tank, and data is data.
Move to the economics thread and we can have at it.
 
Your figures and links are misleading. If you'd like to move your post to the economics thread I'll give you a good thrashing over there. :lol: Otherwise, I call bull****.

Call it anything you want the tax cut for the rich is leftwing propaganda and talking points that is a lie.


My links give real figures to bad you do not like the truth.
 
And this is exactly why we have a perpetual deficit. Because people freak out ZOMG TAX INCREASE over any suggestion that we cut the deficit. And other people shriek ZOMG ENTITLEMENT CUTS over the same.

If we're ever going to balance the budget, we're going to need to rein in entitlement spending and increase taxes.

Why can't we just cut spending?
 
Why can't we just cut spending?

You could if prepared for the consequences

What is going to happen if welfare or food stamp funding is cut?

What will happen if medicare/medicaid is cut
What will happen if military spendingis cut


We are talking about a minimum of a 25% cut in government spending (not including stimulus.

That is a lot of people and business that will no longer have revenues or revenues that they are used to
 
You could if prepared for the consequences

What is going to happen if welfare or food stamp funding is cut?

The main consequence would be a reduction in our deficit, as well as the debt.

The secondary consequence would compel certain Americans to be more prudent and self-reliant than they previously were.

What will happen if medicare/medicaid is cut

Same consequences as before; they could be mitigated by other policy changes, though. Namely, a relaxing of regulations on the health care industry.

What will happen if military spendingis cut

Other countries will have to defend themselves.

We are talking about a minimum of a 25% cut in government spending (not including stimulus.

That is a lot of people and business that will no longer have revenues or revenues that they are used to

It doesn't have to happen overnight, you know. As long as we are on a sustained path towards paying down the debt and insuring our longterm solvency, things will be fine.

That will be impossible, though, if people like you can't live with the fact that cutting government spending will force certain people to live a more prudent lifestyle. God forbid!
 
Why can't we just cut spending?

What spending do you recommend cutting to balance the budget? And does the political will exist to make those cuts?
 
Last edited:
ask the party in power

i'll tell you tho, almost anything THEY do (being them, and all) people like ME are NOT going to like

politics really is so unfair, i say sincerely

opposition is so easy, leadership is so hard

you guys figure it out

meanwhile, i'll speak for millions of conservatives in advance:

"NO!"

party on, progressives

leadership's a bitch

grow up, deal with it

you never should have made a bid for it if you can't handle it

obama is the biggest baby at the national level i've ever seen, always whining, always making excuses
 
ask the party in power

Well that's my point. Why do the voters keep electing politicians (of both parties) who don't cut spending? At least occasionally, they elect politicians who raise taxes...but they NEVER elect politicians who cut spending. I think that gives a pretty good indication of their priorities.

If the voters flat-out don't WANT spending cuts, then it's only logical that we at least pay for the programs. I'm all for reining in entitlement spending by controlling the costs, but it isn't easy to do. Unfortunately, in this case the main obstacle is the voters themselves, not the politicians they happened to elect.

The Prof said:
you guys figure it out

That's the spirit. :roll:
 
Last edited:
I am not at all surprised at this response -- your faux concerns, designed only to misdirect the conversation away from The Obama's reversals of claims and statements and promised are well documented.

He's reneging on yet another campaign promise, and you give Him a pass.

Campaign promises are irrelevant. You can't make the American people happy anyway. You might as well just do what seems to be effective.
 
Last edited:
Well that's my point. Why do the voters keep electing politicians (of both parties) who don't cut spending? At least occasionally, they elect politicians who raise taxes...but they NEVER elect politicians who cut spending. I think that gives a pretty good indication of their priorities.

If the voters flat-out don't WANT spending cuts, then it's only logical that we at least pay for the programs. I'm all for reining in entitlement spending by controlling the costs, but it isn't easy to do. Unfortunately, in this case the main obstacle is the voters themselves, not the politicians they happened to elect.



That's the spirit. :roll:

cuz they don't want tax hikes even more

president obama, fix the economy or get out of the white house

and hurry up, you're a year behind
 
I think that gives a pretty good indication of their priorities.

If the voters flat-out don't WANT spending cuts, then it's only logical that we at least pay for the programs. I'm all for reining in entitlement spending by controlling the costs, but it isn't easy to do. Unfortunately, in this case the main obstacle is the voters themselves, not the politicians they happened to elect.

That's not true.

The problem is not with voters:
govt%2Bwaste.PNG


It is with politicians:
Concerned about the size of Uncle Sam’s budget deficit, you say that “It’s time for an adult conversation about federal taxes and spending” (“Obama’s big fiscal deficits reflect bipartisan failures,” Feb. 2). Yes. But no such conversation will take place where it matters most: in Washington.

Adults’ conversations about financial matters are mature and responsible because adults typically earn and spend their own money. Children’s conversations about financial matters are childish and irresponsible largely because children live off of wealth earned by adults. “Buy me this toy!” “Get me that dress!” “Take me to DisneyWorld!” – children too frequently issue selfish demands such as these precisely because children have little to lose by doing so. If these demands are met, other people foot the bills.

Politicians’ and interest-groups’ conversations about taxes and spending are childish for the very same reason: the money they spend belongs to other people.
Adults Are Responsible
 
Back
Top Bottom