• 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!

Senate blocks Obama's tax plan

What a lot of people don't understand is how the rich can get breaks from several other things be it through investments, business expenses, etc.
 
My point was that its a little bit of a stretch to call it the will of the people when only 30-40% would support the full extension. Thats the only point I was trying to make. So unless you're going to argue that 30-40 is now a majority, or perhaps even the large majority or entirety of the people, then we aren't talking about the same thing.

See, the OP says its the will of the people. And I say no its probably somewhere between 30-40% who knows for sure, but its clearly not even close to a large majority which I'm assuming is what the OP says when it says "people."

I think it has a lot to do with how it is presented to the people.
The extreme left such as Pelosi. The Republicans want to give the richest people, millionaires and billionaires a tax cut. That is a cost of 700 billion that we can't afford. They are not willing to give those breaks to those making under 200,000 a yr and they want to cut off unemployment benifits during the holidays. Those people depend on those checks to buy food and toys. Millions of people are going to have an unhappy Christmas, because the Rep. refuse to vote on an extention at the cost of only 18 billion, but they want to give their wealthy friends 700 billion that they don't need.

Republicans say, This is no time to raise taxes on anyone, including the rich who are the job creaters. Unemployment benifits should be paid for the stimulous package.
 
I feel like I should be re-posting the exact same post again...
The 47% is a bull**** number. And the fact that you believe that funding the federal government is the same as paying a federal income tax really shows an ignorance of the issue.

Anyway the whole original point of my posts here was that the full tax cut extensions aren't supported by the majority of voters, which is the case, especially since you haven't sourced your statement that the numbers are actually in favor.

Don't you ever get tired of patting yourself on the back. I am also tired of morons who want to point to a gas sales tax or other such nonsense to say more people tax some sort of tax. Everyone understands that. However those people pay essentially NOTHING for the things they feel the country should pay for, like defending them, food stamps, education, etc.
 
Just some additional info. According to the acclaimed polling organization Gallup:

lmq-ao2beei3pnhudzs-vw.gif


You can find a link to this data here. Notably, there is greatest public support for keeping the tax cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans. Also, given that some form of tax cut will be renewed, a majority (57%) want the tax cuts to expire for the wealthy.

Addressing the claim by some on the "left" that the rich only want the tax cuts because they'll make money off it, there is little evidence for this within the general population.

apnuizogc0k5qwbp3prquq.gif


I hope this helps.

Am I reading this right? There are more Dems and independents who want all cuts to expire than Rep.? Why do dems hate the middle class? :)
 
Am I reading this right? There are more Dems and independents who want all cuts to expire than Rep.? Why do dems hate the middle class? :)

They're probably the ones concerned with the deficit/debt ;)

Not that I necessarily agree with them. We should cut spending as much as logically reasonable, then adjust tax rates so that a slight surplus is attained. There is a $685.1 billion dollar a year (and rising) expenditure that could be cut significantly :)
 
Am I reading this right? There are more Dems and independents who want all cuts to expire than Rep.? Why do dems hate the middle class? :)

there are more of them who don't pay any taxes and thus figure (perhaps wrongly) tax increases won't hurt them
 
They're probably the ones concerned with the deficit/debt ;)

Not that I necessarily agree with them. We should cut spending as much as logically reasonable, then adjust tax rates so that a slight surplus is attained. There is a $685.1 billion dollar a year (and rising) expenditure that could be cut significantly :)

That's bs-they are most likely the ones who want someone else to pay for the increased spending they want
 
That's bs-they are most likely the ones who want someone else to pay for the increased spending they want

Military spending is going up 12.7%, while total revenue (income tax, corporate tax, social security payments, etc) are estimated to decrease 11%. How much of this insane military spending do you suggest cutting? At least social security and other payroll taxes bring in $940 billion and cost $677 billion, military spending has no source of revenue.
 
Last edited:
Military spending is going up 12.7%, while total revenue (income tax, corporate tax, social security payments, etc) are estimated to decrease 11%. How much of this insane military spending do you suggest cutting? At least social security brings in $940 billion and costs $677 billion, military spending has no source of revenue.

I agree, we spend too much on the military. our deployment in many nations is excessive

however, I do note (as someone who takes the constitution and its restriction on government rather seriously) that military spending is clearly constitutional while many of the massive social spending are of dubious constitutional validity
 
Here's some problems with that logic.
1) That 47% is from a careful and selective reading of the real numbers, and the implication that 47% of people pay no taxes is completly false since there are all kinds of different taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html


2) The poll in no way says that it only polled those who paid federal income tax.
3) Even if you don't pay those taxes, you're vote still counts the same as someone who does so there's no reason for a poll place to divide people like that since it only leaves them with less accurate information.
4) 33% of 53% of the people is still a minority, in fact its a smaller minority than if you took 33% of all Americans.
5) The Federal government makes money in many many more ways than Federal income taxes, so one can still not pay those taxes but still support the government.

6) 33% is not a majority and certainly can't be called the will of the people.

This thread is about income taxes not consumption taxes. So for you to try and claim that consumption is a INCOME tax is the only falsehood I see.
 
I agree, we spend too much on the military. our deployment in many nations is excessive

however, I do note (as someone who takes the constitution and its restriction on government rather seriously) that military spending is clearly constitutional while many of the massive social spending are of dubious constitutional validity

Point out what you'd cut/increase in spending, and how much you'd like to cut/increase revenue, and which areas. I'm very interested to see your proposal.

Dubious constitutionality? Care to elaborate?

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2010 are $2.381 trillion, an estimated decrease of 11% from 2009.
$1.061 trillion – Individual income taxes
$940 billion – Social Security and other payroll tax
$222 billion – Corporation income taxes
$77 billion – Excise taxes
$23 billion – Customs duties
$20 billion – Estate and gift taxes
$22 billion – Deposits of earnings
$16 billion – Other

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
$677.95 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts


Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other
 
They're probably the ones concerned with the deficit/debt ;)

Not that I necessarily agree with them. We should cut spending as much as logically reasonable, then adjust tax rates so that a slight surplus is attained. There is a $685.1 billion dollar a year (and rising) expenditure that could be cut significantly :)

Concerned about the deficit ? Extending to tax cuts for the middle class will cost over $3 Trillion in the next ten years, more than four times the cost of extending it for those making over $200K, which are where virtually all the true job creators lie. We have unemployment at almost 10% !! The first best way to increase revenue is to get that number down !

The Democrat mantra of "the evil rich" is not about deficits and never has been. Its about class envy and the purchasing of votes with OPM. The Bush Tax Cuts did not make the system less progressive, as the ratio of percents not only stayed virtually intact, but many more actually became non-payers of income tax, and with that as its main effect on taxpayers, the Bush Tax Cuts made teh system even more progressive. To make the tax code more progressive than it currently is, which is what Obama wants, will be the death of us if we do not stop it.
 
Last edited:
What a lot of people don't understand is how the rich can get breaks from several other things be it through investments, business expenses, etc.

And people seem to not understand that the rich can move their money offshore when the tax system becomes to abusive. Then they only pay a consumption tax, which if you ask me is the fair way to tax people. Poor people consume less than rich, plus under the Fair Tax Plan would get a monthly rebate for necessaries to live.

There is huge popularity in favor of the Fair Tax plan but DC realizes that it takes power from them and puts it back in the hands of Americans.

Americans For Fair Taxation - The Fair Tax: Fair Tax wins CNBC Poll 74% to 26%

Action America

Americans For Fair Taxation: Rasmussen Poll Suggests FairTax Roadmap

Americans For Fair Taxation: Weekly Feature
 
Last edited:
This thread is about income taxes not consumption taxes. So for you to try and claim that consumption is a INCOME tax is the only falsehood I see.

Did I? Because I see that no where in what I said. Perhaps you can highlight it for me.
 
And people seem to not understand that the rich can move their money offshore when the tax system becomes to abusive. Then they only pay a consumption tax, which if you ask me is the fair way to tax people. Poor people consume less than rich, plus under the Fair Tax Plan would get a monthly rebate for necessaries to live.

There is huge popularity in favor of the Fair Tax plan but DC realizes that it takes power from them and puts it back in the hands of Americans.

Americans For Fair Taxation - The Fair Tax: Fair Tax wins CNBC Poll 74% to 26%

Action America

Americans For Fair Taxation: Rasmussen Poll Suggests FairTax Roadmap

Americans For Fair Taxation: Weekly Feature

The rich can spend well under 10% of their income, while the poor spend a significantly higher number. What do you suggest the FairTax being levelled at? And what does this mean compared to their current tax levels for the rich and the poor?
 
The senate blocking something is no longer newsworthy.
 
Point out what you'd cut/increase in spending, and how much you'd like to cut/increase revenue, and which areas. I'm very interested to see your proposal.

Dubious constitutionality? Care to elaborate?

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2010 are $2.381 trillion, an estimated decrease of 11% from 2009.
$1.061 trillion – Individual income taxes
$940 billion – Social Security and other payroll tax
$222 billion – Corporation income taxes
$77 billion – Excise taxes
$23 billion – Customs duties
$20 billion – Estate and gift taxes
$22 billion – Deposits of earnings
$16 billion – Other

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
$677.95 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts


Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

Care to use number from when the country is not in one of its worse recessions?

Why dont you use numbers from 2002-2008 when the country saw record growth and compare those receipts into the coffers. History has proven that when the govt cuts taxes they end up getting more revenue. Its a fact to to try and claim otherwise is dishonest.
 
The rich can spend well under 10% of their income, while the poor spend a significantly higher number. What do you suggest the FairTax being levelled at? And what does this mean compared to their current tax levels for the rich and the poor?

what part of the constitution was written to make being poor no disadvantage to being rich? THe Poor spend more of their income on a cheeseburger than I do. DO you suggest that merchants have a sliding scale of prices based on the buyer's income?
 
Care to use number from when the country is not in one of its worse recessions?

Why dont you use numbers from 2002-2008 when the country saw record growth and compare those receipts into the coffers. History has proven that when the govt cuts taxes they end up getting more revenue. Its a fact to to try and claim otherwise is dishonest.

His figures had nothing to do with the constitutionality of many of the governmental programs that could not pass the courts until FDR threatened to pack the supreme court
 
Sorry I don't quite see how that works. Care to explain it?

Also, the country IS in a recession. I'm asking what you'd change in the 2010 budget...

Then I asked you to elaborate on the constitutionality of programs...

745px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png


Where do you suggest we are?
 
Last edited:
The rich can spend well under 10% of their income, while the poor spend a significantly higher number. What do you suggest the FairTax being levelled at? And what does this mean compared to their current tax levels for the rich and the poor?
Who cares what the rich earn? Only the wealth envy crowd. Its what you spend. A rich people has more income to spend. Poor people usually only buy necessaries. They would get a prebate under the Fair Tax every month from the govt thus allowing them not to pay taxes the same as they do now.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/2010PrebateExplained.pdf
example.
Family of four

annual allowance $18,310
annual prebate $4,211
monthly prebate $351
 
Last edited:
Care to use number from when the country is not in one of its worse recessions?

Why dont you use numbers from 2002-2008 when the country saw record growth and compare those receipts into the coffers. History has proven that when the govt cuts taxes they end up getting more revenue. Its a fact to to try and claim otherwise is dishonest.

Why would you not want to use the most recent numbers, that is the best reflection of reality we have right now.

Also no history is not that simple, and without a source or at least an example you're arguement has no basis.
 
Why would you not want to use the most recent numbers, that is the best reflection of reality we have right now.

Also no history is not that simple, and without a source or at least an example you're arguement has no basis.

Because history has proven that in recessions the govt takes in less because there are less people earning a income to be taxed on.

Links? Its common sense and I dont see why two adults cannot understand basic economics. Do I need to link that the sun is hot?
 
yes, the government brings in less... and we're in that position now...

I'm asking what he'd do to the federal budget of 2010... Given reduced revenue.
 
he could start by having the guts to fulfill his responsibilities by proposing one

Dems won

for someone who guarantees political events ten years out you sure ask a lot of questions

LOL!
 
Back
Top Bottom