• 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!

White House Concedes on Upper Income Tax Cuts

The White House had better concede with its idea to end mortgage interest deductions, too, or we're going to have massive foreclosures in the near future.
Never mind breaking His promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $250K.

That's -inarguably- breaking his promise, just to be clear.
 
This is very sad that the WH has conceded this important point. Very very sad for the nation.
Yeah - it kills me, knowing that my taxes arent going to go up.
The rates, anyway.
 
Do you honestly believe any additional taxes collected will be applied to the deficit? C'mon.
Every extra dollar in tax revenue will be met by the Dems proposing we spend an additional $1.50
 
Do you honestly believe any additional taxes collected will be applied to the deficit? C'mon.

It just might prevent it from growing. Progress sometimes comes slowly - one step at a time as they say.
 
Never mind breaking His promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $250K.

That's -inarguably- breaking his promise, just to be clear.

was that promise what got your vote for him?
 
ask 50 million others
 
http://assets.nationaljournal.com/pdf/fiscal_commission_draft_11.10.2010.pdf

would you rather look at the actual proposal (linked above).

you failed to paste the link until now

look at option one, the zero option, as reported by the spin artists (LOL!) from abc:

The President's Debt Commission Proposal

One, called the zero option, would:

•Consolidate the tax code into three individual rates and one corporate rate;
•Eliminate the AMT, Pease, and PEP;
•Eliminate all $1.1 trillion of tax expenditures -- requiring income tax to be paid on the money you spend on health insurance coverage, charitable contributions, mortgage interest deductions and employer contributions to employee 401(k)/pension plans;
•Dedicate a portion of savings to deficit reduction and apply the rest to reduce all marginal tax rates; and
•Add back in any desired tax expenditures, and pay for them by increasing one or all of the rates from their zero-expenditure low.

either way, touching the mortgage deduction, especially in times like these, with this housing market, is non starter

as is the limiting of write offs for charitable giving

as is a 15 cent increase in the federal gas tax

as is the elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes

why, catch the uptake from the palsied speakeress and the afl-cio's trumka, again, via tapper:

"This proposal is simply unacceptable," said outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren’s economic security as well as for our nation’s fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare. And it must strengthen America's middle class families--under siege for the last decade, and unable to withstand further encroachment on their economic security.”

AFL-CIO chairman Richard Trumka said that “the chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to ‘Drop Dead.’ Especially in these tough economic times, it is unconscionable to be proposing cuts to the critical economic lifelines for working people, Social Security and Medicare…This deficit talk reeks of rank hypocrisy: The very people who want to slash Social Security and Medicare spent this week clamoring for more unpaid Bush tax cuts for millionaires.”

admittedly, the speakeress and the boss are coming at bowles-simpson from a radically different perspective than you and i

however...

it is what it is

even undoing deductions for home equity borrowing is a bust

sorry
 
Honestly reading some of the posts, I am surprised people seem to be that surprised by this. Especially after the election.

who's surprised?

outside of leadership, that is?
 
Yes, it will definately extend this time of peace and proseperity that it has led us to... :rolleyes:

libs think tax cuts are the problem because all wealth belongs to the government

they ignore that it is spending that is the problem but spending other peoples' money is how dem politicians gain wealth, power and office
 
The mortgage deduction is not being axed by the fiscal commission in any scenario. However, it does limit the deduction in all three tax reform options. Just thought I'd put the facts out there.
Limit mortgage deduction to exclude 2ndresidences, home equity loans, and mortgages over $500,000
Not sure how that's supposed to work. Most of those affected (the upper middle class) will simply choose to buy a cheaper home to avoid the massive tax penalty. The very rich are unaffected - if they want a house they buy it outright. This leaves what must be a very small segment of people who take out $1,000,000 mortgage loans but who have no real wealth.

And talk about unintended consequences... If people tend to borrow 80-90%, won't demand plummet for homes in the 600-800 range? And won't that depress values of cheaper homes? What's it going to do to the economy and real estate in places like San Francisco, where even the crappy houses cost over 500k?
 
I thought you folks were concerned about the deficit and debt?

Former Ronald Reagan (remember him) money man David Stockman talked about this on Sunday and nobody else has said it better.

Mr. STOCKMAN: Utterly disingenuous. I find it unconscionable that the Republican leadership, faced with a 1.5 trillion deficit, could possibly believe that good public policy is to maintain tax cuts for the top 2 percent of the population who, after all, have benefited enormously from this phony boom we've had over the last 10 years as a result of the casino on Wall Street.

$1.5 million? Ain't that about how much Obama has spent on dumb **** in the past couple of years?

Gee whiz and the tax cuts are the problem???
 
libs think tax cuts are the problem because all wealth belongs to the government
I think you have it backwards. Spending is completely free, it's the tax cuts we can't afford. ;):lol:
 
My vote... for The Obama?
You -clearly- haven't been here long enough.

and you totally missed the point.

You were complaining like a jilted lover ......... which you clearly never were. That was the point. Crocodile tears and the worlds smallest violin for your feigned outrage.
 
and you totally missed the point.
You were complaining like a jilted lover ......... which you clearly never were. That was the point. Crocodile tears and the worlds smallest violin for your feigned outrage.
I'm sorry that you dont expect people to live up to their promises, especially when they're trying to get your vote, and that you dont hold them accountable for same.

AND a mule.
 
I'm for cutting spending and allowing people to keep more of their own money. This is no time to raise taxes. We need jobs and more people to pay income taxes. Not a few people to pay more.

Cutting spending on what exactly? Social security? Defense? Infrastructure? Education?

How do you suggest job creation? By tax cuts? It certainly hasn't worked in past decade or so.

People want tax cuts for the wealthy top 2% (dumb poor people advocating for this makes it laughable), they also want government services and they also want the deficit to be paid for. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Even a 2 year old knows this.

RIP America. I will watch from afar as you crash and burn.
 
Last edited:
Cutting spending on what exactly? Social security? Defense? Infrastructure? Education?

How do you suggest job creation? By tax cuts? It certainly hasn't worked in past decade or so.

People want tax cuts for the wealthy top 2% (dumb poor people advocating for this makes it laughable), they also want government services and they also want the deficit to be paid for. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Even a 2 year old knows this.

RIP America. I will watch from afar as you crash and burn.

people who aspire to be wealthy might not get there but they are better than the tapeworms who won't try but want others to feed them. anyone who desires to be a winner sure won't support laws or politicians who have waged jihad against success
 
Cutting spending on what exactly? Social security? Defense? Infrastructure? Education?
The only meaningful way to address run-away spending is to address the area in which spending is runnign away -- that is, entitlements.

How do you suggest job creation? By tax cuts? It certainly hasn't worked in past decade or so.
It works better than taking money from those that create jobs thru the production of wealth and redistributing it to those that produce nothing.

People want tax cuts for the wealthy top 2% (dumb poor people advocating for this makes it laughable), they also want government services and they also want the deficit to be paid for. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Even a 2 year old knows this.
A 2-year old also knows you cannot spend more than you have.

RIP America. I will watch from afar as you crash and burn.
Careful what you wish for - the other side will not be kind to you.
 
The only way to meet the budget challenges now and in the future is for Americans to act responsibly and allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire; there's a reason why those tax cuts were passed through Congress under reconciliation rules and thereby were time constrained, and, that reason is staring us right now straight in the eyes: unrelenting red ink for decades to come. It is shameful that so-called conservatives fail to acknowledge that.
 
The only way to meet the budget challenges now and in the future is for Americans to act responsibly and allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire;
Then The Obama will have broken his promise that no one under $250k/yr will have a tax increase.

there's a reason why those tax cuts were passed through Congress under reconciliation rules and thereby were time constrained, and, that reason is staring us right now straight in the eyes: unrelenting red ink for decades to come
Tax cuts, alone, cannot cause 'red ink'.
 
The only way to meet the budget challenges now and in the future is for Americans to act responsibly and allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire; there's a reason why those tax cuts were passed through Congress under reconciliation rules and thereby were time constrained, and, that reason is staring us right now straight in the eyes: unrelenting red ink for decades to come. It is shameful that so-called conservatives fail to acknowledge that.

how much do you pay in FIT each year. within 5K is sufficient
 
The only way to meet the budget challenges now and in the future is for Americans to act responsibly and allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire
No... the only way to the balance the budget is to reduce spending. Raising taxes would offset a small portion of our excesses, but would fall far, far short of "meeting budget challenges." Raising taxes would also slow what is already an anemic recovery.
 
Back
Top Bottom