• 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 will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

It's a little hyperbolic, but artificially lowering the cost of care means care has to be rationed by some other method.

"A little" hyperbolic? It's outright fear mongering.

We already ration healthcare.
 
"A little" hyperbolic? It's outright fear mongering.

We already ration healthcare.

Through cost. How are you going to ration it if you're not going to do it through prices? You will determine if the cost of the operation makes sense given expected potential outcome on the patient. Basically, whether or not it is worth it to keep that person alive.
 
Through cost. How are you going to ration it if you're not going to do it through prices? You will determine if the cost of the operation makes sense given expected potential outcome on the patient. Basically, whether or not it is worth it to keep that person alive.


ie....death panels
 
You're really going to quote the serenity prayer? You're a hack, get over it. You're only saying it because it's a policy that you support. If republicans tried to cut taxes on the wealthy you'd be the first one complaining here. Remember that when the republicans try to pass a tax break for the rich when they win the House.


Having the house wouldn't be enough to pass a tax break for the wealthy. However, should the GOP attain even more power than that, they would definitely pass tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. They always do. I would say the same thing then: That there's nothing that I could do about it.

I don't drive a cab.
 
they would definitely pass tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. They always do.

typical liberal lie. the tax cuts affect everyone. except of course those that don't pay taxes...and I guess that is what upsets liberals the most.

"ooooh look, that greedy rich guy got $10K tax break and I didn't get anything."

no **** sherlock, that evil rich guy paid $200k in taxes and you paid zippo. of course you didn't get a tax cut. you can't cut taxes any lower than 0%.

(actually you can, earned income credit pays poor people more in refund than what they paid in.)

and that is what pisses me off the most. the biggest proponents of "tax the rich", "the rich aren't paying their fair share" are the very people who pay the least amount of taxes of anybody.
 
Last edited:
Having the house wouldn't be enough to pass a tax break for the wealthy. However, should the GOP attain even more power than that, they would definitely pass tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. They always do. I would say the same thing then: That there's nothing that I could do about it.

I'm sure. Then what are you even a part of this board?

I don't drive a cab.

What?
 
As to your first question, the answer is that for most small businesses the income of the company is considered income for the owner. So the two numbers are added together to get the same 500K.

On your second point for some it is a matter of equity. If you are going to get rid of the Bush tax cuts because we can't afford them, fine. But Obama is saying get rid of about 25% of the cuts and retain the other 75%. Others feel that at this stage of our economic recovery we can't afford to take any money out of the economy. Some will say that this will inhibit some small business owners from adding employees as they get to keep an ever decreasing amount of what they earn. Let's remember that this 4% is only one increase these people will be paying. In many states, which are also broke they have also raised the percent of income tax imposed on the highest earners.
Also remember that the health care bill calls for an additional 3.8% of certain income for upper income earners.
So Obama and company have done a nice job of isolating each increase and saying what's the big deal. Without having an hosest debate and putting all the increases together and explaining why that is the right way to go.

Hope this helps.

That portion of the health care legistlation doesn't take effect until 2014. Letting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire this year wouldn't have anything to do with that for another 3 years. Therefore, it's a baseless argument.
 
typical liberal lie. the tax cuts affect everyone. except of course those that don't pay taxes...and I guess that is what upsets liberals the most.

"ooooh look, that greedy rich guy got $10K tax break and I didn't get anything."

no **** sherlock, that evil rich guy paid $200k in taxes and you paid zippo. of course you didn't get a tax cut. you can't cut taxes any lower than 0%.

(actually you can, earned income credit pays poor people more in refund than what they paid in.)

and that is what pisses me off the most. the biggest proponents of "tax the rich", "the rich aren't paying their fair share" are the very people who pay the least amount of taxes of anybody.

we actually should make the working poor and middle class pay much more in income taxes. They use far more in government services (by sheer numbers) than the people who pay most of the taxes (the top 5%) and until we make this massive voting group pay more taxes, they will continue to vote for tax and spend dems. Their votes are bought by dem promises that the dems will give them more government goodies paid for by the "rich"

as long as that goes on, this group will keep voting for more goodies and more tax hikes on the group that cannot outvote them
 
It's their money, if they want to hold it it's none of your, or the Gov't business what they do with their wealth.

Not when 2% of the population is holding the economy hostage by holding 2 trillion dollars back from the American market unless they are given a few billion dollar tax credit. Also, there is nothing forcing them to invest that money in OUR economy anyway. They hate paying American wages and just keep sending OUR jobs overseas to places where people will work for $2 a day. Forget the Mexicans, the large corporations are the ones steeling our jobs.

Would you rather work in IT or cleaning toilets?
 
Not when 2% of the population is holding the economy hostage by holding 2 trillion dollars back from the American market unless they are given a few billion dollar tax credit. Also, there is nothing forcing them to invest that money in OUR economy anyway. They hate paying American wages and just keep sending OUR jobs overseas to places where people will work for $2 a day. Forget the Mexicans, the large corporations are the ones steeling our jobs.

Would you rather work in IT or cleaning toilets?

They're scared to invest because of people like you in office proposing onerous regulations and billions in new taxes.
 
Not when 2% of the population is holding the economy hostage by holding 2 trillion dollars back from the American market unless they are given a few billion dollar tax credit. Also, there is nothing forcing them to invest that money in OUR economy anyway. They hate paying American wages and just keep sending OUR jobs overseas to places where people will work for $2 a day. Forget the Mexicans, the large corporations are the ones steeling our jobs.

Would you rather work in IT or cleaning toilets?

Large corporations are not stealing your jobs. They are sending manufacturing jobs overseas because it is cheaper to make over their (makes sense) and they are hiring people here that are better at other service jobs (like engineering, health care, etc). It just takes time for the market to adjust, but it makes us all better off.

Take where I work for example, we do a lot of engineering work for big mines in south america. We are exporting a service. They are making the raw materials. We do a lot of analysis for data, but sometimes we need to have someone write a program, so we call up our programmers in india. If I have an IT question or need some software I call up our IT customer support from somewhere else.
 
I am neither threatening nor blaming them for anything, I am simply saying the easiest way to stimulate the economy is to tax the rich at the levels prior to 2001, when they were still rich by the way, and give credits to those who create jobs, that way they can be rewarded for creating jobs, and the rest of the breaks give to those who will buy more, that is the Middle Class who make-up 98% of the population and can buy more things as a whole. Then the economy moves and jobs are created and the wealthy see more money because more products are being sold.

Just one significant correction. The middle class even by the most optomistic estimates represents no more than 45% of the country.
 
Not when 2% of the population is holding the economy hostage by holding 2 trillion dollars back from the American market unless they are given a few billion dollar tax credit. Also, there is nothing forcing them to invest that money in OUR economy anyway. They hate paying American wages and just keep sending OUR jobs overseas to places where people will work for $2 a day. Forget the Mexicans, the large corporations are the ones steeling our jobs.

Would you rather work in IT or cleaning toilets?

And you have to look no further than Ronald Reagan to thank as the person who destroyed America's manufacturing base. No wonder he is the idol of Corporate America and the Republican party.
 
we actually should make the working poor and middle class pay much more in income taxes. They use far more in government services (by sheer numbers) than the people who pay most of the taxes (the top 5%) and until we make this massive voting group pay more taxes, they will continue to vote for tax and spend dems. Their votes are bought by dem promises that the dems will give them more government goodies paid for by the "rich"

as long as that goes on, this group will keep voting for more goodies and more tax hikes on the group that cannot outvote them

Clearly, you didn't take the time to think this through. How can a poor man pay anymore than he currently possess? If he has given of his last available cent, what more can he give? Asking the so-called "working poor" to pay more in taxes - a segment of society that as you've clearly stated relies heavily on government assistance in order to survive - is in effect pushing them into object poverty! You may as well make them all homeless now then to them to contribute economically.

Now, it is true that the poor will typically vote for any candidate they believe is for "them" - those who are struggling who really want to move up that economic ladder but just can't -- the deck is stacked heavily against them - but there are ways to help move them forward economically and, if done correctly, can prove to make a poor person more economically viable. My suggestion:

Tie social service programs w/education and training that lead to job placement. We do this with college students already, i.e., student graduate employment placement and referrals. Why not extend this same outreach to our state's welfare systems? In my state, Alamaba for example, this is done by marginally. People who lose their jobs and subsequently apply for unemployment benefits, for example, in some cases are offered "skills re-training," but what's missing is a pairing of one's current skills with the training OR informing and/or assisting individuals in transitioning from one professional skill into another especially where there is clear evidence that a specific skill or trade is being phased out, i.e., computer repair technician, and is being replaced by another, i.e., network engineer. To illustrate what I mean, consider the following:

Computers aren't the big, complicated machines they use to be from 15-20 years ago. It use to be that in order to repair them you had to know alot about the different motherboards, IRQ settings/switches, the various types of hard-drives, and know how to read tons of code. But now, computers are smallers, easy to assemble and change out compoments, and the software can pretty much diagnos itself and make those difficult IRQ settings themselves. Furthermore, plug&play and USB technology has made home computing so much easier. My 9-yr old daughter even knows how to plug in a USB thumb drive or mouse (not to mention they make those things wireless now...how 'bout that!?!)

It's no wonder most people who find themselves unemployed have no problem with staying home and collecting a paycheck. If the job market is sketchy, they're not going to pound the pavement that hard. If they are getting up in age and believe their skills aren't going to be utilized anyway, can you blame them for not trying to hard to find work again? And if they don't see an area in the jobs sector where they honestly believe an employer can use their skills either because that sector is saturated or is on the verge of going the way of the dinosour and they can't afford to go back to school and be re-trained, really...what's the use?

The system has it wrong and every state to its own needs to really reconsider "work-fare" and not "welfare". Our nation will always have poor people. It's just the way it is. The goal should always be to empower people so that they have access to meaningful education and skills training so that they can find meaningful work and, thereby, pay their own way through society thereby leaving our nation in better hands to the next generation that comes after. I don't think we're doing a very good job of that right now. The system needs to be changed. And that leads me back to the issue of taxes...

I came across these article today and found them quite shocking!!

"Senate Republicans unveil a plan to make Bush tax cuts permanent," By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post Staff Writer, dated Wednesday, September 15, 2010; 3:16 AM

Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made.

Aides to McConnell said they have yet to receive a cost estimate for the measure. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that a similar, slightly more expensive package that includes a full repeal of the estate tax would force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade and increase interest payments on the national debt by $950 billion. That's more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama's health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined.

And then there's the companion piece...

"Putting the $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts in context," By Ezra Klein dated September 15, 2010; 9:26 AM ET

(Graph not included herein; see article for details)

There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit.

The stimulus bill, at $787 billion, would do about a fifth as much damage. But that's actually misleading: The stimulus bill was a temporary expense (not to mention a response to an unexpected emergency). Once it's done, it's done. An indefinite extension of the Bush tax cuts is, well, indefinite. It will cost $3.9 trillion in the first 10 years. And then it will cost more than that in the second 10 years. Call that number Y. And then it will cost more than Y in the third 10 years. And so on and on into eternity. Comparatively, the stimulus bill is a tiny fraction of that. The bank bailouts, which were passed by George W. Bush and the Democrats in 2006, will end up costing the government only $66 billion. The health-care bill improves the deficit outlook.

Republicans and tea party candidates are both running campaigns based around concern for the deficit. But both, to my knowledge, support the single-largest increase in the deficit that anyone of either party has proposed in memory.

To get an even better understanding of Sen. Boehner's economic plan, read what the (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) had to say about his tax and budget proposals.

The plan would require immediate cuts of $101 billion — or 21 percent[1] — in funding for discretionary programs other than those funded by the defense, homeland security, and military construction and veterans appropriations bills, as compared to their current (fiscal year 2010) funding levels adjusted for inflation (in other words, compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline).

This would represent the deepest cut in funding for these programs from one year to the next in recent U.S. history .[2] Coming amidst the deepest economic downturn since the Depression, it would remove substantial purchasing power from the U.S. economy and thereby cost hundreds of thousands of jobs while heightening the risk of a double-dip recession. Rep. Boehner’s contrary claim that these cuts will “promote job creation” reflects a serious misunderstanding of basic macroeconomics under current economic conditions.

I'll hold off commenting further until the CBO scores Sen. Boehner's proposal, but so far what he has proposed doesn't look very good. The interesting thing here is for all his (and some Republican's) talk of "limited government" (in spending, federal employees and authority), it's interesting to read that the only programs Boehner won't touch all happen to resolve around - the government (i.e., military, defense spending, VA, homeland security, etc.)
 
Last edited:
That portion of the health care legistlation doesn't take effect until 2014. Letting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire this year wouldn't have anything to do with that for another 3 years. Therefore, it's a baseless argument.

You did not address the state income taxes which are also going up. Not sure why a new tax already on the books does not count, but are entitled to an opinion even I think it is wrong.
 
You did not address the state income taxes which are also going up. Not sure why a new tax already on the books does not count, but are entitled to an opinion even I think it is wrong.

State income taxes aren't the federal government's problem. Take that issue up with your respective state government. As to your argument against why income taxes shouldn't expire for anyone at this time, it's very simple. REVENUE!

Someway and at some time, this nation will need to start paying down it's debt. Of course, one way to do that is to cut some government programs and cut out fraud, waste and abuse. Certainly!! But with the country's economy the way it is currently and the profound need to stimulate productivity and, thus, create retail demands for goods and services, the government cannot afford have anything near a spending freeze except in those areas most Conservatives would like alone - defense, homeland security, Veteran's Affairs and the military. You have people out there without homes, without jobs, barely able to buy food. And then there are the natural and man-made disasters that have adversely affected portions of this country, and there's no way you can cut service programs right now. It just makes not sense whatsoever to do that! So, on compassionate and humanitarian standing alone, you just don't do that now. Instead, you retain those programs (unemployment, welfare, WIC, etc.), increase taxes on the wealthiest individuals because they are the ONLY viable revenuse source who can afford to contribute more, and use those funds to pay down the national debt. Once the country's economy has returned to some form of normalcy, you re-evaluate the tax issue. At that point, lowering those taxes of the wealthy would be the right thing to do.

Now, if you don't think such a compromise could be trusted by the left, you simply state that you will not yeild on this issue unless and until a firm date (year) is stipulated within the proposed bill and the only way you'd accept those taxes not being reduced by that time is if the economy hasn't improved by then. To me, that's the best compromise Democrates can hope to achieve their goal whether Republicans win the mid-terms or not.
 
State income taxes aren't the federal government's problem. Take that issue up with your respective state government. As to your argument against why income taxes shouldn't expire for anyone at this time, it's very simple. REVENUE!

Someway and at some time, this nation will need to start paying down it's debt. Of course, one way to do that is to cut some government programs and cut out fraud, waste and abuse. Certainly!! But with the country's economy the way it is currently and the profound need to stimulate productivity and, thus, create retail demands for goods and services, the government cannot afford have anything near a spending freeze except in those areas most Conservatives would like alone - defense, homeland security, Veteran's Affairs and the military. You have people out there without homes, without jobs, barely able to buy food. And then there are the natural and man-made disasters that have adversely affected portions of this country, and there's no way you can cut service programs right now. It just makes not sense whatsoever to do that! So, on compassionate and humanitarian standing alone, you just don't do that now. Instead, you retain those programs (unemployment, welfare, WIC, etc.), increase taxes on the wealthiest individuals because they are the ONLY viable revenuse source who can afford to contribute more, and use those funds to pay down the national debt. Once the country's economy has returned to some form of normalcy, you re-evaluate the tax issue. At that point, lowering those taxes of the wealthy would be the right thing to do.

Now, if you don't think such a compromise could be trusted by the left, you simply state that you will not yeild on this issue unless and until a firm date (year) is stipulated within the proposed bill and the only way you'd accept those taxes not being reduced by that time is if the economy hasn't improved by then. To me, that's the best compromise Democrates can hope to achieve their goal whether Republicans win the mid-terms or not.

You may have forgotten that the President has a working commission to reduce the deficit. Their report is due out in December. It is suppossed to cover all forms of revenues (taxes) and spending including entitlements.

So this effort by the President just seems to be grandstanding before an election to pit certain types of people against others. Exactly what he said he would get rid of if elected. Otherwise why keep harping on a piecemeal fix of the problem which will make it harder for the commission to do it's work.
 
And you have to look no further than Ronald Reagan to thank as the person who destroyed America's manufacturing base. No wonder he is the idol of Corporate America and the Republican party.

Who cares about manufacturing? Wealth does not come solely from manufacturing. Don't believe me? Then why do you tip your waiter?
 
You may have forgotten that the President has a working commission to reduce the deficit. Their report is due out in December. It is suppossed to cover all forms of revenues (taxes) and spending including entitlements.

So this effort by the President just seems to be grandstanding before an election to pit certain types of people against others. Exactly what he said he would get rid of if elected. Otherwise why keep harping on a piecemeal fix of the problem which will make it harder for the commission to do it's work.

How is advocating a proposal (campaigning) he believes can help improve the nation's economic problems grandstanding? I could understand if he delayed making any recommendations whatsoever until just after the commission came out with it's report but he did so without reviewing the report or claims his report was a better way that what the commission recommended, but that's not the case. Grandstanding implies you're trying to show someone up. Since there's no report to "out-do"...

Now, if folks didn't like President Obama before, they likely aren't going to vote for a candidate they believe would represent a contiuence of his policies. But if they like the candidate more, they'll likely come out and vote for that candidate again. It really comes down to do you hate the man that much, do you totally disagree with his policies or you just don't like your Democratic representative/alternative. In that, you'd certainly have to choose. But if you think the opposite in any respect, you owe it to yourself and your country to get out and vote (accordingly).
 
Class warfare at it's ugliest. More proof Obama isn't interested in getting the economy turned around. Why does he hate small business owners?

He doesn't. That;s Republican rhetoric. He hates big business assholes and useless wealthy ****ers who do not pay their fair share.
 
How is advocating a proposal (campaigning) he believes can help improve the nation's economic problems grandstanding? I could understand if he delayed making any recommendations whatsoever until just after the commission came out with it's report but he did so without reviewing the report or claims his report was a better way that what the commission recommended, but that's not the case. Grandstanding implies you're trying to show someone up. Since there's no report to "out-do"...

Now, if folks didn't like President Obama before, they likely aren't going to vote for a candidate they believe would represent a contiuence of his policies. But if they like the candidate more, they'll likely come out and vote for that candidate again. It really comes down to do you hate the man that much, do you totally disagree with his policies or you just don't like your Democratic representative/alternative. In that, you'd certainly have to choose. But if you think the opposite in any respect, you owe it to yourself and your country to get out and vote (accordingly).

It is grandstanding because it preempts the solutions that the commission may report.
He is not making a proposal he is asking for action before the election,before this commission which hopefully would have put together a balanced approach to cutting the deficit. Now, if they were going to ask for a change in taxes it will be harder because this would be in place.

As to your last para. I am not a hater and feel it is highly inappropriate for you to infer such. As to vote dem or repub congress now votes on the big issues. So people have to pick which view best represents them and vote that way.
 
He doesn't. That;s Republican rhetoric. He hates big business assholes and useless wealthy ****ers who do not pay their fair share.


Hmmmm....."Fair share"? What is their "fair share"? How much of their earning should be confiscated so that those who earn far less pay nothing?


j-mac
 
Hmmmm....."Fair share"? What is their "fair share"? How much of their earning should be confiscated so that those who earn far less pay nothing?


j-mac

Who should carry the heavy burden? Those who can. I know the evil poor should be burdened as much as possible. Scoodge understood that well. ;)
 
Who should carry the heavy burden? Those who can. I know the evil poor should be burdened as much as possible. Scoodge understood that well. ;)


Why should we adpot Marx's views for this country, they have failed every other time.....


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom