• 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

Goobieman said:
The only meaningful way to address run-away spending is to address the area in which spending is runnign away -- that is, entitlements.
Click to expand...

Ah..."entitlements". I guess it's "entitlements" when it's for others but it's a "right" when it's to your own benefit?

All tax cuts should be done away with then. For all income levels.

Taxes should be increased to create revenue to pay down the deficit.

Public schools are entitlements, hey not everybody went to school 300 years ago right?

We don't need roads either, third world countries operate just fine without them.

Financial aids and grants should all be abolished. Who needs college anyways.

State fundings should be cut or done away all together. The citizens can pay for their own services.

Do away with Medicare and Social Security entirely. They're all "entitlements" anyways right?

No need for such an extensive millitary, follow the lead of Canada!


Hmmm...sounds like North Korea is your ideal country then (except for the millitary part).



It works better than taking money from those that create jobs thru the production of wealth and redistributing it to those that produce nothing.
Click to expand...

"It works better?" Where did you get that from? If it "works better" then the economy would not be in the state that it's in now. So obviously it doesn't "work". I'm simply telling you what is.


Nobody "creates" wealth by waving a wand. That is a rather ignorant assumption. Wealth is created through an economy that's running smoothly and efficiently. The poor/middle class/upper middle class produce more value than the rich compared to what they're paid. The problem is that people are paid based on merit and not value.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with people who aspire to be wealthy. What I have an issue with are those who are already wealthy, and choose to be tapeworms, becoming part of the newest class of Americans - Those who squandered what they have, and become welfare queens, at the expense of the rest of us, all because they have political connections. These, of course, are the corporate welfare queens, supported by Republican and Democratic politicians alike, who continue to give them their wine and caviar, after they have run their businesses into the ground, while telling the rest of us to eat crap.

Class war? Not really. It's a war committed against mainstream America by the classless robber barons.
 
Last edited:
Hm...its the richest people in this country who pay most of the taxes, so if over the years they want to repay the hundreds billions of dollars that we are going to have to borrow from China in order to finance allowing the richest people to keep 100K of their money, then fine. Oh wait, no they are just gonna raise prices over time and pass the buck down to the middle class like they always do.
 
disneydude said:
You mean....Score one for the wealthy. Oh...I guess almost the same thing.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Another class-warfare soldat spouting ObaMarx's Second and Third Rule:
RULE 2:

Punish thy American enemies...​
Click to expand...
Wealthy, Bitter Clingers, Tea Party Activists, Rightward leaning public figures.

RULE 3:

Punish the American wealth creators...​
Click to expand...

The true Spirit of Amerika.

.
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
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



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:



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
Click to expand...

Sigh, even the zero plan gives the option to add back some of those tax deductions, I would think the mortgage deduction would be one of the first ones on the table since it's such a hot topic. But of course, your are correct that it is a possibility in the zero plan. I didn't post the link until now because it is available on about three different threads in this forum, didn't want to be redundant until necessary.

Overall, there are compromises that neither side likes. Yes, it does raise taxes but it reduces expenses by three times the amount that taxes will be raised.

The president's deficit commission: Nice try | The Economist

This is an ambitious response to America’s fiscal woes, perhaps overly so. Some Democratic members balked at the draft, which cuts spending three times as much as it raises taxes. Republicans were only a bit more open minded. The snag is that at least 14 of the commission’s 18 members, of whom 12 now serve in Congress, must approve it before it can be sent to the Hill. This will be tough, presaging a vicious fight if any of the proposals do reach the floor of Congress.
Click to expand...

Seems like a fairly realistic proposal to me overall. We are not going to get there by just reducing entitlements.
 
So Obama is going to extend the Bush tax cuts.

All I read is bitching about it by the GOP. Bitch if he doesn't extend, and bitch if he does. Stop crabbin and help build the cabin, for Christ's sake!
 
zimmer said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Another class-warfare soldat spouting ObaMarx's Second and Third Rule:

Wealthy, Bitter Clingers, Tea Party Activists, Rightward leaning public figures.



The true Spirit of Amerika.

.
Click to expand...

obama.jpg


I thought you would enjoy that.
 
Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

People like chappy are seduced by the Darth Democrats by social(ist) spending. those who suckle on the public teat want the hard working net tax payers to be milked more rather than having the teat run dry
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Yup score one for the GOP. They won. And now America loses. Thanks GOP! :roll:
Click to expand...

you are one strange libertarian if you are against tax cuts. of course this forum has its share of socialist class warfare waging "libertarians" who have declared a fatwah on the rich and successful
 
TurtleDude said:
you are one strange libertarian if you are against tax cuts. of course this forum has its share of socialist class warfare waging "libertarians" who have declared a fatwah on the rich and successful
Click to expand...

it's that bizzaro world european style libertarianism where you have some minor disagreements with Karl Marx, but want to pretend your something else entirely.
 
Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

May I add not only reducing spending by cutting, gutting and slashing that bloated piece of overreaching dung called the federal government, but reducing taxes to encourage economic activity... and increasing tax revenue. It's worked every time it is tried.

JFK knew it and tried to educate the nation about it. Think of that!!!
But today we have Marxists that aim to punish the wealth producers. It's sick... just like the sickly party that promotes this claptrap.

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset+Tree/Asset+Viewers/Audio+Video+Asset+Viewer.htm?guid={A138FFB8-5B6A-4C6A-A8CC-70C6E4FF39DA}&type=Audio
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
He doesn't understand that entitlements are where you cut the deficit... not taxes.
Click to expand...

Actually I understand that there are two sides to a budget - INCOME and EXPENDITURES. That is twice as much as some here appear to understand.
 
zimmer said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Another class-warfare soldat spouting ObaMarx's Second and Third Rule:

Wealthy, Bitter Clingers, Tea Party Activists, Rightward leaning public figures.



The true Spirit of Amerika.

.
Click to expand...

Its funny how its NOT "Class warfare" to you guys when Republicans come in a cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans which results in redistribution of wealth in favor of the top 2% of the country....yet it IS "Class warfare" to you guy when people seek to end those tax breaks.

You gotta love that right-wing way of thinking.
 
disneydude said:
Its funny how its NOT "Class warfare" to you guys when Republicans come in a cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans which results in redistribution of wealth in favor of the top 2% of the country....yet it IS "Class warfare" to you guy when people seek to end those tax breaks.

You gotta love that right-wing way of thinking.
Click to expand...


The tax cuts applied to all Americans that pay income tax. We gave to all classes of tax payers, you want to treat classes different.

Spaghetti logic at its finest. congrats
 
Animus said:
Ah..."entitlements". I guess it's "entitlements" when it's for others but it's a "right" when it's to your own benefit?
Click to expand...
Entlitlements are priviliges. Rights are rights.
THus, there's never any confusion between the two
:confused:

All tax cuts should be done away with then. For all income levels.
Click to expand...
Hmm. How do you expect middle-class families to absorb the $400 increase per child?

Taxes should be increased to create revenue to pay down the deficit.
Click to expand...
You;re confused...
Pay down the debt or reduce the deficit - the concepts are not interchanegable.

Public schools are entitlements...
Click to expand...
Entitlements pay a direct monetary benefit to anyone that meets the program requirements, regarless of available revenue, and thus, schools are not entitlements

We don't need roads either...
Click to expand...
Entitlements pay a direct monetary benefit to anyone that meets the program requirements, regarless of available revenue, and thus, roads are not entitlements

Financial aids and grants should all be abolished. Who needs college anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Entitlements pay a direct monetary benefit to anyone that meets the program requirements, regarless of available revenue, and thus, enducation grants are not entitlements

Do away with Medicare and Social Security entirely. They're all "entitlements" anyways right?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about doing away with these things entirely?
And yes - they are entitlements.

No need for such an extensive millitary, follow the lead of Canada!
Click to expand...
Entitlements pay a direct monetary benefit to anyone that meets the program requirements, regarless of available revenue, and thus, the military is not an entitlement.

Hmmm...sounds like North Korea is your ideal country then (except for the millitary part).
Click to expand...
Only because your response is filled with falsehoods.

"It works better?" Where did you get that from?
Click to expand...
The broad answer is 'history'. You cannot create wealth by taking money from people and giving it to those to produce nothing.

Nobody "creates" wealth by waving a wand. That is a rather ignorant assumption.
Click to expand...
Good think I didnt make that assumption.
 
If I pay into an arrangement with another party and fulfill all of my legal and financial obligations to them, is it my right to insist that they other party fulfills all of their legal and financial obligations to me when the time has arrived to do so per the agreement?
 
haymarket said:
If I pay into an arrangement with another party and fulfill all of my legal and financial obligations to them, is it my right to insist that they other party fulfills all of their legal and financial obligations to me when the time has arrived to do so per the agreement?
Click to expand...


In theory, yes.

But we aren’t going to be implementing debtor prisons anytime soon, so in practical reality, no.

And of course, we also have legal tender laws that exist today which make it acceptable to not truly fulfill contractual obligations.
 
This is no theory. I am asking about real life where the other party is still in business and still has money and still has ways of getting even more money.
 
Whovian said:
He doesn't understand that entitlements are where you cut the deficit... not taxes.
Click to expand...
Entitlemenat are where you HAVE to cut the defecit, as spending on entitlements, alone, exceeds available revenues.
 
haymarket said:
Actually I understand that there are two sides to a budget - INCOME and EXPENDITURES. That is twice as much as some here appear to understand.
Click to expand...
True -- liberals ignore expenditures.
 
haymarket said:
This is no theory. I am asking about real life where the other party is still in business and still has money and still has ways of getting even more money.
Click to expand...

you still have the issue of legal tender laws.

if they are contractually obligated to deliver x widgets, they only have to deliver legal tender financially equivalent to x widgets.
 
disneydude said:
Its funny how its NOT "Class warfare" to you guys when Republicans come in a cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans which results in redistribution of wealth in favor of the top 2% of the country...
Click to expand...
Tax cuts do not and can not, by defninition, redustribute wealth.
:shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom