• 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 Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

independent_thinker2002 said:
The answer to budget shortfalls is not increasing the amount they are short by. That also increases the national debt and is less stimulative to the economy. Letting Hershey's keep more money does not automatically mean that people will buy more candy bars.
Click to expand...

Letting Hershey keep more of their money isn't an expense to the taxpayer, paying unemployment payments is
 
j-mac said:
Repubs ain't got jack ****! Obama isn't a king althoughI know good union members like yourself would like it to be so. These proposals have to pass House and Senate, and because of your demo reps it doesn't look likely.

j-mac
Click to expand...
all praise obama, blessed be his name...:lamo ....like i said, repubs got what they wanted, now they are trying to figure out how obama screwed them...lol:mrgreen::lol:
 
Erod said:
No, that's the politically correct version of what is really meant.
Click to expand...


You must live in a cave. The PC version would be "recycle the rich"
 
SirPwn4lot said:
It was an analogy ffs. He's not saying the Republicans literally have Americans in a room with a gun to their heads, he's saying that in politics the other side naturally holds out to get things they want. Make one analogy and all of a sudden you're compared to mass murderers and Islamic fundamentalists. You got 10 times more than you should have gotten. A lot of house Dems are absolutely furious at him for supporting this (or at least they're acting that way, whether they're actually disappointed is another question). I won't be sad when Obama goes, that's for sure.

Personally I'll be glad to see politics go back to the Republican agenda actually being passed by Republicans.

:peace
Click to expand...

Alone it may have been, but when he has used "bitter clingers"... taped from a private fund raiser, and recently calling Repubicans "enemies" during the last election... on Mehikana TV... he's revealed his true self. It was absolute idiocy. Unpresidential. And this guy said he had tremendous judgment!!!!!!!!!!

Obama has jumped the shark.

Show soon to be canceled.

.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The lack of demand is what limits growth. If you don't need to produce more widgets, you won't hire more people.
Click to expand...

I don't have the first clue what a widget, but I want one...:)
and there is something to consider. If our economy is based solelly on NEED, it will be a poor economy. The profits, and the larger part of our economy, are in our wants....most of our needs are already accomplished.
 
Erod said:
Actually, things were much better before those tax cuts.
Click to expand...

And I suppose you liked those 18 percent interest rates on home loans in the early 80s, too?

Optimism spurned the 80s resurgence, not high taxes. Getting rid of Carter with a small-government platform gave business and investors reason to act; hence, the turnaround. Getting rid of trumped-up gasoline rationing helped. Showing the world we meant business (such as Iran) helped. Speaking openly of American exceptionalism helped.

As soon as we started putting the 60s liberals at bay, things started turning around.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking of the 90's. But if you want to go back to when we were arguably the most powerful nation, we can go back to the 50's if you would like. ;)
 
Erod said:
So you take taxpayer money, give it to somebody to spend, so it can be taxed as income and revenue again, so you can give it back to the same person.........

It's insanity. It's like paying your Visa bill with your Mastercard.
Click to expand...
Good point, that is insane...
But consider also the term stupid, because carrying credit card debt is exactly that, stupid...
I am willing to have pity for the insane, but not the stupid..
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
And I suppose you liked those 18 percent interest rates on home loans in the early 80s, too?

Optimism spurned the 80s resurgence, not high taxes. Getting rid of Carter with a small-government platform gave business and investors reason to act; hence, the turnaround. Getting rid of trumped-up gasoline rationing helped. Showing the world we meant business (such as Iran) helped. Speaking openly of American exceptionalism helped.

As soon as we started putting the 60s liberals at bay, things started turning around.
Click to expand...

What I love about liberals is they pick and choose the parts of any period of time that they like and ignore anything that refutes their feelings. You want to give Clinton credit but ignore that the Congress was controlled by the Republicans who repealed most of the Clinton tax increases and in fact cut taxes in 1997. Then you want to ignore the tough question, did Clinton sign GOP Budgets with more or less spending proposals? Clinton got credit for the what Republican Congress did and Bush got the blame for what the Democrat Congress did. Obama is not getting the blame for anything that happened the last two years with a Democrat Congress. That is liberal hypocrisy.

I was thinking of the 90's. But if you want to go back to when we were arguably the most powerful nation, we can go back to the 50's if you would like. ;)[/QUOTE]
 
Conservative said:
Letting Hershey keep more of their money isn't an expense to the taxpayer, paying unemployment payments is
Click to expand...

Ah, but running a budget deficit is an expense to future taxpayers. Tax cuts for the wealthy certainly don't address the debt. Remember, decreasing revenue is the most important thing to the GOP right now.

Take up the extension of unemployment payments with Boehner and McConnell. They support adding to the debt apparently. ;)
 
zimmer said:
Alone it may have been, but when he has used "bitter clingers"... taped from a private fund raiser, and recently calling Repubicans "enemies" during the last election... on Mehikana TV... he's revealed his true self. It was absolute idiocy. Unpresidential. And this guy said he had tremendous judgment!!!!!!!!!!

Obama has jumped the shark.

Show soon to be canceled.

.
Click to expand...

Happy Days aired for five seasons after the "Jump the Shark" episode. :rofl
 
UtahBill said:
I don't have the first clue what a widget, but I want one...:)
and there is something to consider. If our economy is based solelly on NEED, it will be a poor economy. The profits, and the larger part of our economy, are in our wants....most of our needs are already accomplished.
Click to expand...

Due to farm subsidies. Having a home is also a need. I get your point though. We do spend a lot on unnecessary items and services. That is why I say "want or need" a "widget".
 
Conservative said:
What I love about liberals is they pick and choose the parts of any period of time that they like and ignore anything that refutes their feelings. You want to give Clinton credit but ignore that the Congress was controlled by the Republicans who repealed most of the Clinton tax increases and in fact cut taxes in 1997. Then you want to ignore the tough question, did Clinton sign GOP Budgets with more or less spending proposals? Clinton got credit for the what Republican Congress did and Bush got the blame for what the Democrat Congress did. Obama is not getting the blame for anything that happened the last two years with a Democrat Congress. That is liberal hypocrisy.

I was thinking of the 90's. But if you want to go back to when we were arguably the most powerful nation, we can go back to the 50's if you would like. ;)
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

what were tax rates in the 50's ?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Ah, but running a budget deficit is an expense to future taxpayers. Tax cuts for the wealthy certainly don't address the debt. Remember, decreasing revenue is the most important thing to the GOP right now.

Take up the extension of unemployment payments with Boehner and McConnell. They support adding to the debt apparently. ;)
Click to expand...

Let the future take care of itself, so we can be greedy today....hope those conservatives have lots of well employed grandkids to pay the debt we incur today...:lol:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Ah, but running a budget deficit is an expense to future taxpayers. Tax cuts for the wealthy certainly don't address the debt. Remember, decreasing revenue is the most important thing to the GOP right now.

Take up the extension of unemployment payments with Boehner and McConnell. They support adding to the debt apparently. ;)
Click to expand...

Budget deficits result from spending more than the revenue generated so tax cuts for anyone have no affect on spending but I believe you know that. What I know is that you are doing your best to generate discussion here knowing well that allowing people to keep more of what they earn isn't an expense to the govt, thus has nothing to do with the deficit. I don't hear you or anyone asking where the money is coming from to fund another 13 months of unemployment payments, wonder why? I don't hear you or any one else asking where the money is coming from to fund Obamacare or any other part of the Obama agenda? I don't see you concerned about paying for the Middle class tax cuts or now their extension? Wonder why?
 

what were tax rates in the 50's ?[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to confuse somebody with actual facts and the historical record?
 

what were tax rates in the 50's ?[/QUOTE]

Don't remember nor do I care, what was the effective rate then and deductions?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I understand what you are saying. I think in the long run, you will lose out. Once you get done repairing the front end of your car because a giant pothole destroyed your wheel assembly and you get done paying the deductable because your car got stolen, I think you'll find that a small increase in taxes will be the better deal. This is of course assuming that you make $250,000+. Road repairs, police coverage, and housing criminals aren't free. Eucation isn't either. Cuts to education also have serious long term effects.
Click to expand...

And this is nothing but a ridiculous attempt at fear mongering that "OMG if we don't raise taxes on the top 2% essential portions of society will become destroyed!"

So the federal government can't give as much to states to do road work. Lets say we even accept your premise. States will then have to learn to be more efficient in what they spend their road money on or find other ways to finance it. Individuals may, gasp, have to actually pay attention to the road for potholes. And hey, at least I'll have more money in my pocket that I can choose to use myself for my repairs if need be.

Again, accepting your premise that somehow lawlessness will run amock, its assuming that police currently are running at maximum efficiency and thus any cuts at all will result in gross lawbreaking.

You make the typical, riduclous and idiotic fallacy of equating conservative with anarchist. Of comparing cuts in funding with removal of funding.

This is where the bigger problem is. What are we going to cut? The right says domestic individual welfare. The left says the military and corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

And neither side does the sensible thing and says cut it from all to some extent while identifying which programs and services and spending is considered legitimately "essential" to the function of government and what is a "luxury".

When you have hard financial times as a family you don't continue to buy expensive grocheries but cut out all luxuries. You also don't severely skimp on grocheries while buying a new X-Box game every week. You, if you're smart, cut back everywhere, though "luxury" things get a larger cut then essential ones. The government needs to do that as well.

Meanwhile, 2% of the population is controlling the issue of revenue.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, FAR more than 2% are controlling the issue of revenue. Go take a look at exit pollings on the amount of people for extending the Bush Tax Cuts for all...I assure you, its more than 2%. The mistake you're making here is thinking that everyone gloms onto class warfare and its only those evil 2% that are putting a stop to this. That's simply not the case.

Seriously, we need to cut spending and increase revenue. You can't just do one of these things to reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing. We KNOW the government has no problem raising taxes. George H.W. Bush implimented new taxes, Clinton implimented new taxes, Bush implimented new taxes, Obama implimented new taxes and wanted the tax rate for some to go up. The government has proven, time and time again, that is has ZERO issue with raising taxes utlimately.

What is hasn't shown though is that it is willing to make spending cuts, or interested in using the money that is gained from raising taxes for anything other than MORE spending.

You're right, we need to do both. We absolutely do. However, just doing one...raising taxes...and not the other, mixed with what we know historically happens with increased taxes (additional spending, not paying down the deficit with that money), is WORSE in my mind than doing neither of those two things.

Essentially for the current situation doing both > reducing spending alone > doing neither > just raising taxes.

Raising taxes and just raising taxes does nothing but feed the addiction. This is like saying that a person is having financial problems because they always are buying cartons of cigerettes, so since you can't get them to stop buying so many cartons you decide to give them extra money every month to help with their finances. However, if they end up going out and buying more cigerettes all you've done is given yourself less money and continued enabling their bad habit.

We haven't ALWAYS run a deficit. As long as people get the new community center or whatever in their hometown, they won't hold the politicians accountable. This explains the poor approval rating of Congress yet having an astronomical recitivism rate.
Click to expand...

However, outside of a short period of time during the perhaps the most prolific technological boom of the previous century while having a staunchly conservative congress and a center leaning democratic president, it has generally been the norm. And unless we're banking on a once in a lifetime type of economic miracle that was the technology explosion of the late 90's, then politicians are going to have to actively work towards a government that isn't running a gigantic deficit.

I won't speak for other Conservatives but I would be willing to accept a small tax increase, ACROSS THE BOARD, if it was tied directly with reductions in the federal budget. I'd even accept it to be "progressive" to your tax bracket as long as it was across the board and wasn't huge in disparity from the lowest to the highest percentage. But unless you're giving me some kind of guarantee that the government is going to do ITS part if we citizens do ours, and that our money will actually be going to fighting the deficit not just helping them add to it, then you will never get me on board with any sort of tax raise.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Due to farm subsidies. Having a home is also a need. I get your point though. We do spend a lot on unnecessary items and services. That is why I say "want or need" a "widget".
Click to expand...

But those unnecessay items do make a substantial part of a growing economy, as long as debt isn't incurred. Most USA citizens still have a lot of discretionary income.
 
haymarket;1059146433]what were tax rates in the 50's ?

Are you trying to confuse somebody with actual facts and the historical record?
Click to expand...

Any idea what the budget was for the United States in the 50's and the population? More importantly what was the actual tax rate paid by actual taxpayers?
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Budget deficits result from spending more than the revenue generated so tax cuts for anyone have no affect on spending but I believe you know that. What I know is that you are doing your best to generate discussion here knowing well that allowing people to keep more of what they earn isn't an expense to the govt, thus has nothing to do with the deficit. I don't hear you or anyone asking where the money is coming from to fund another 13 months of unemployment payments, wonder why? I don't hear you or any one else asking where the money is coming from to fund Obamacare or any other part of the Obama agenda? I don't see you concerned about paying for the Middle class tax cuts or now their extension? Wonder why?
Click to expand...

You should focus less on me and more on the GOP leadership. They are the ones that will be starting economic legislation. They are the ones that are supposedly fiscally responsible. Yet we both know that they won't cut that much spending. They prefer borrow and spend to tax and spend. Debt is an expense in the long run.

I see the argument for helping those who actually need help in this current economy. I don't see the top 2% as being part of that category.
 
Conservative said:
Any idea what the budget was for the United States in the 50's and the population? More importantly what was the actual tax rate paid by actual taxpayers?
Click to expand...

ask and ye shall receive

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

the first column is the year, the second is the percentage taken by the feds, the third is the level of income needed for that percentage to kick in



1950 84.36 400,000
1951 91 400,000
1952 92 400,000
1953 92 400,000
1954 91 400,000
1955 91 400,000
1956 91 400,000
1957 91 400,000
1958 91 400,000
1959 91 400,000
1960 91 400,000
1961 91 400,000
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
You should focus less on me and more on the GOP leadership. They are the ones that will be starting economic legislation. They are the ones that are supposedly fiscally responsible. Yet we both know that they won't cut that much spending. They prefer borrow and spend to tax and spend. Debt is an expense in the long run.

I see the argument for helping those who actually need help in this current economy. I don't see the top 2% as being part of that category.
Click to expand...

"They" aren't in charge yet, this is still a Democrat Congress. How much help should the unemployed get, how many years? Do you think that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom