• 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 aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

That is way above the typical liberal's head to comprehend. Their live for today attitude will be the death of this economy and nation.

Now there is a convincing argument. Those who disagree with you are just stupid, and probably mouth breathers too.
 
Now there is a convincing argument. Those who disagree with you are just stupid, and probably mouth breathers too.

The convincing argument comes from the results but it is fruitless to post those results as you ignore them.
 
So my question is to liberals that go on endlessly in what we need, and what we don't, and how conservatives must see it their way in order to even have a discussion, (which is BS but I digress),

What Cuts specifically are you talking about?

What taxes would have to be raised, and how much?

What are your thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment?

And what are your models to show that your proposals have actually worked and are sound?


j-mac

First, liberals see things no more this way than republicans. Some republiecans have said here that you either agree with them, or you're stupid. But I digress.

What cuts are we talking about?

No matter what party you're in, or not in, that is always the question. Neither party or anyone else for that wants to say. But cuts that don't address Medicaid / Medicare, SS and military spending are meaningless. That is where the discussion starts. For me, the first place to start is with the two wars and nation building we are currently involved in.

What taxes would have to be raised, and how much?

A retrun to the pre-Bush tax cuts rates would be a fine start. They were not oppressive then and wouldn't be now.

What are your thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment?

When it ever gets voted one, the exact language would matter, but in principle, paying for what you get is reasonable and responsible. Eventually, that has to be the goal.

And what are your models to show that your proposals have actually worked and are sound?

I'm kind of bouncing back and forth between things right now, and would want to be more specific on this question. So, I'll wait on it for a time. But I will say, there is much out there on this, and with as sound support and disagreement as what republicans promote now. Specifics are what will always need to be debated. And it has been shown that in the past, we've done well and poorly with no proof that taxes effected either significantly.
 
Last edited:
Please cite your experience in what other countries are doing and whether or not they are successful? You seem to like other countries so much better than what you have here so tell us what makes you an expert on foreign operations?

Experience? So, I can't point to others who have experience and use them? Are both of us exempt from doing that?
 
Experience? So, I can't point to others who have experience and use them? Are both of us exempt from doing that?

I posted a number of links yesterday to Sweden and Canada healthcare problems which you ignored. You claim Europe is doing well but ignore what Europe is doing. Why the passion for Obamacare?
 
First, liberals see things no more this way than republicans. Some republiecans have said here that you either agree with them, or you're stupid. But I digress.



No matter what party you're in, or not in, that is always the question. Neither party or anyone else for that wants to say. But cuts that don't address Medicaid / Medicare, SS and military spending are meaningless. That is where the discussion starts. For me, the first place to start is with the two wars and nation building we are currently involved in.



A retrun to the pre-Bush tax cuts rates would be a fine start. They were not oppressive then and wouldn't be now.



When it ever gets voted one, the exact language would matter, but in principle, paying for what you get is reasonable and responsible. Eventually, that has to be the goal.



I'm kind of bouncing back and forth between things right now, and would want to be more specific on this question. So, I'll wait on it for a time. But I will say, there is much out there on this, and with as sound support and disagreement as what republicans promote now. Specifics are what will always need to be debated. And it has been shown that in the past, we've done well and poorly with no proof that taxes effected either significantly.

How does going back to pre Bush tax rates help the economy and put 16 million people back to work?
 
How does going back to pre Bush tax rates help the economy and put 16 million people back to work?

Haven't we been through this before? Taxes, cut or increase, neither one, put anyone back to work. What it helps is the deficit.
 
I posted a number of links yesterday to Sweden and Canada healthcare problems which you ignored. You claim Europe is doing well but ignore what Europe is doing. Why the passion for Obamacare?

I don't recall seeing them. So, I guess by not seeing them I ignored them. But if you actually read what I write, you would see that I don't claim any system is perfect, so I would expect all of them to have problems. So do we. And I have spoken to Europe. Like the US, much of the world, including Europe, are having struggles, but to suggest that this is because of health care would be to lie, a bold faced lie. You can't divorce all the other factors from the total, and all of us are experiencing them. But, with these problems, and the fact that we spend more on health care, exactly why would you prefer spending more than less?
 
Haven't we been through this before? Taxes, cut or increase, neither one, put anyone back to work. What it helps is the deficit.

Yes, and still you don't understand incentive and human behavior, even your own. It is beyond your ability to even understand what you do when you get to keep more of what you earn and how that affects the economy. Until consumers spend more 16 million people will remain unemployed or not looking for jobs. Raising taxes won't help create consumer spending.
 
I don't recall seeing them. So, I guess by not seeing them I ignored them. But if you actually read what I write, you would see that I don't claim any system is perfect, so I would expect all of them to have problems. So do we. And I have spoken to Europe. Like the US, much of the world, including Europe, are having struggles, but to suggest that this is because of health care would be to lie, a bold faced lie. You can't divorce all the other factors from the total, and all of us are experiencing them. But, with these problems, and the fact that we spend more on health care, exactly why would you prefer spending more than less?

Nice diversion, you saw them but as usual ignored them. I suggest doing better research on your own as to what Europe is doing with their healthcare systems and how they are trying to unravel the massive costs of those systems. Now there you go again back to costs without actually defining costs. Which is it today, costs or access?
 
I don't recall seeing them. So, I guess by not seeing them I ignored them. But if you actually read what I write, you would see that I don't claim any system is perfect, so I would expect all of them to have problems. So do we. And I have spoken to Europe. Like the US, much of the world, including Europe, are having struggles, but to suggest that this is because of health care would be to lie, a bold faced lie. You can't divorce all the other factors from the total, and all of us are experiencing them. But, with these problems, and the fact that we spend more on health care, exactly why would you prefer spending more than less?

Read Post 490 and check out the links. You want more links?
 
Yes, and still you don't understand incentive and human behavior, even your own. It is beyond your ability to even understand what you do when you get to keep more of what you earn and how that affects the economy. Until consumers spend more 16 million people will remain unemployed or not looking for jobs. Raising taxes won't help create consumer spending.

Yes, you're response is always to say your opponent is stupid or doesn't understand, I got that. But somehow, we've manged to grow and achieve even with higher tax rates. Not sure how you explain that to yourself, but it is historical fact.

And yes, consumers need to spend more. Which has very little to do with what has been proposed in restoring the pre-Bush tax cut rates to those above $250,000. That group is not likely to change their spending habits either way.
 
Yes, you're response is always to say your opponent is stupid or doesn't understand, I got that. But somehow, we've manged to grow and achieve even with higher tax rates. Not sure how you explain that to yourself, but it is historical fact.

And yes, consumers need to spend more. Which has very little to do with what has been proposed in restoring the pre-Bush tax cut rates to those above $250,000. That group is not likely to change their spending habits either way.

LOL, yep, you want people to spend more with higher taxes thus less take home pay? That is liberal logic. Do you realize that taxes coming out of your paycheck affect how much spendable income you have?

Your continued focus on previous tax rates ignore actual taxes collected and the deductions available at those rates. How convenient!
 
Read Post 490 and check out the links. You want more links?

:roll: Nice chocie of sources. Let me provide a few others:

Sweden:

Sweden's government run healthcare system is constantly at the top of international rankings. This could be because of their fast and efficient treatment of patients.

Sweden's Healthcare System - Best Health Care Countries

Sweden tops the list of 94 countries in the State of the World's Mothers index examining 10 factors related to women's and children's health, education and political status.

Sweden ranks 1st, U.S. 11th on 'Mother's Index' - CNN


BBC NEWS | Health | How the NHS could learn from Sweden

These are after your paper says everything went to ****? Go figure.

Canada:

Yes, they protest cuts. So? We protest things here to. Our insurance companies cut our ebenfits as well. What exactly do you think you're saying?



The United States spends far more per capita on health care than any comparable country. In fact, the gap is so enormous that a recent University of California, San Francisco, study estimates that the United States would save over $161 billion every year in paperwork alone if it switched to a singlepayer system like Canada's.3 These billions of dollars are not abstract amounts deducted from government budgets; they come directly out of the pockets of people who are sick.

(snip)

The solid statistics amassed since the 1970s point to only one conclusion: like it or not, believe it makes sense or not, publicly funded, universally available health care is simply the most powerful contributing factor to the overall health of the people who live in any country. And in the United States, we have got the bodies to prove it.

Canadian Single-Payer Health Care Program: Is it Better than US Health Care?


Remember, Canada ranked 30th by WHO. The US 37th. France was number one.

And your vermont article is factually inaccurate. A single payer system does not involve itself in who provdes care, hire doctors, run hospitals. They function like a single insurance company for all. And here, the wealthy would be free to not only pay for more, but buy more and separate insurance. Your editorial simply isn't quite accurate.
 
LOL, yep, you want people to spend more with higher taxes thus less take home pay? That is liberal logic. Do you realize that taxes coming out of your paycheck affect how much spendable income you have?

Your continued focus on previous tax rates ignore actual taxes collected and the deductions available at those rates. How convenient!

Above the $250,000 dollar level, they would not likely even notice the difference much, and there is no evidence suggesting they would change their spending and saving habits at all.
 
:roll: Nice chocie of sources. Let me provide a few others:

Sweden:

Sweden's government run healthcare system is constantly at the top of international rankings. This could be because of their fast and efficient treatment of patients.

Sweden's Healthcare System - Best Health Care Countries

Sweden tops the list of 94 countries in the State of the World's Mothers index examining 10 factors related to women's and children's health, education and political status.

Sweden ranks 1st, U.S. 11th on 'Mother's Index' - CNN


BBC NEWS | Health | How the NHS could learn from Sweden

These are after your paper says everything went to ****? Go figure.

Canada:

Yes, they protest cuts. So? We protest things here to. Our insurance companies cut our ebenfits as well. What exactly do you think you're saying?



The United States spends far more per capita on health care than any comparable country. In fact, the gap is so enormous that a recent University of California, San Francisco, study estimates that the United States would save over $161 billion every year in paperwork alone if it switched to a singlepayer system like Canada's.3 These billions of dollars are not abstract amounts deducted from government budgets; they come directly out of the pockets of people who are sick.

(snip)

The solid statistics amassed since the 1970s point to only one conclusion: like it or not, believe it makes sense or not, publicly funded, universally available health care is simply the most powerful contributing factor to the overall health of the people who live in any country. And in the United States, we have got the bodies to prove it.

Canadian Single-Payer Health Care Program: Is it Better than US Health Care?


Remember, Canada ranked 30th by WHO. The US 37th. France was number one.

And your vermont article is factually inaccurate. A single payer system does not involve itself in who provdes care, hire doctors, run hospitals. They function like a single insurance company for all. And here, the wealthy would be free to not only pay for more, but buy more and separate insurance. Your editorial simply isn't quite accurate.

Isn't it wonderful that all that great healthcare in Europe and Canada is costing more than expected and causing problems within the country. Your rankings are irrelevant, so which is it today, costs or access. You still have so much faith in the Federal Govt. doing what they have never done and what apparently you cannot get done in your state. What will contribute to the health of this nation is personal responsibility, proper eating habits, less alcohol consumption, less drug usage. You want to contribute to those that abuse their bodies do so through your local charities not through forced redistribution by the Federal Govt.

It looks to me like you cannot convince your local state to do what you want the Federal Govt. to do and ignore anything that contradicts your point of view. Again, healthcare is a personal responsibility because you control what you do to your body. You have the ability to help people in your own state but choose not to instead wanting to force the U.S. taxpayer to fund your own personal choice problems. Seems to me you want the Europe system to be implemented here even with the European problems.
 
Above the $250,000 dollar level, they would not likely even notice the difference much, and there is no evidence suggesting they would change their spending and saving habits at all.

Neither would the Federal Govt. notice the difference. How much would that generate in revenue? We have a 14.5 trillion debt and this will be the third year of over trillion dollar deficits. how much will taxing the rich impact that deficit?
 
You also didn't have the government creating law to force banks to loan money for houses to people that could not afford to pay back said loans. ACORN activists and their agenda behind the devastating welfare program... including Barack Hussein Obama.

As noted in the vid below... it was a race-centric, social justice program forced on banks, with devastating results. Another illustration of the destructive nature of the socialists schemes.

In Kanuckistan isn't it the law you MUST put up 10% of the house price, or a specific percentage first? I'm not saying this should be law... but illustrates the Kanuckistani's are discriminating about who they loan money for housing. Rightly so... as the banks are not social programs.

Cuomo explaining how they were going to force banks as an Affirmative Action program. An affirmative action that undermined the economic pillars of the country. And now the idiot is the Gov. of NY?! Phew...


.

Blaming the CRA is idiotic,

Texas avoided the housing bubble for the same reason Canada did, strict banking regulations regarding mortgages. Texas faced the exact same rules from the CRA, but institution in Texas had to follow strict Texas regulations regarding mortgages (limiting cash outs and other aspects)

The banks wanted to lend money out to every tom dick and harry, and where they could they did, where they couldnt they didnt, and the results are clear

As for Canada

5% is allowed for downpayments, it used to be 10%. And for about 3 years zero down was allowed for insured mortgages. If you have less then 25% down you pay extra in insurance every month (as most institutions wont issue a mortgage without insurance for home with less then 25% equity. Most Can mortgages are renewed between 3-7 years and can have interest rates vary quite dramatically in that time frame. Most mortgages used to be paid off in 21-25 years, now the time frame has been extended to 30.

One more primary factor is that we do not have the income tax deduction for mortgage interest
 
Your continued focus on previous tax rates ignore actual taxes collected and the deductions available at those rates. How convenient!

No, I haven't. But regardless of those things, we did just find at the other rate.
 
Neither would the Federal Govt. notice the difference. How much would that generate in revenue? We have a 14.5 trillion debt and this will be the third year of over trillion dollar deficits. how much will taxing the rich impact that deficit?

Actually, the numbers have been presented to you before. It would help the deficit. It actually would.
 
Isn't it wonderful that all that great healthcare in Europe and Canada is costing more than expected and causing problems within the country. Your rankings are irrelevant, so which is it today, costs or access. You still have so much faith in the Federal Govt. doing what they have never done and what apparently you cannot get done in your state. What will contribute to the health of this nation is personal responsibility, proper eating habits, less alcohol consumption, less drug usage. You want to contribute to those that abuse their bodies do so through your local charities not through forced redistribution by the Federal Govt.

It looks to me like you cannot convince your local state to do what you want the Federal Govt. to do and ignore anything that contradicts your point of view. Again, healthcare is a personal responsibility because you control what you do to your body. You have the ability to help people in your own state but choose not to instead wanting to force the U.S. taxpayer to fund your own personal choice problems. Seems to me you want the Europe system to be implemented here even with the European problems.

More than expected? Less then we spend, but you say more than expected? By who? And is it more than expected, or a response to other problems that put pressure on their government, just as other factors put pressure on ours?

Are you sure health care is not a public health issue? But if it is a personal responsiblity as you say, are you willing to say hosptials can refuse to treat patients who can't pay, regardless of the consequences?
 
First, liberals see things no more this way than republicans. Some republiecans have said here that you either agree with them, or you're stupid. But I digress.


Ok, ok...You're right on this. Let me go waaaaay back to the old days when I first started posting on boards at all....

No matter what party you're in, or not in, that is always the question. Neither party or anyone else for that wants to say. But cuts that don't address Medicaid / Medicare, SS and military spending are meaningless. That is where the discussion starts. For me, the first place to start is with the two wars and nation building we are currently involved in.


Agreed. Pull out of both at this point and concentrate on our own problems, I get it Joe. Ok, let's say a 20% cut across the board of everything including defense, lord knows they probably have enough waste to cover that. Raise SS retirement age to 70 yrs old to be phased in for those entering the workplace now. Medicaid/Medicare is a losing proposition as it is now, problem is that other than shifting more of the cost to individual responsibility, I don't see how at this point it can remain solvent.

A retrun to the pre-Bush tax cuts rates would be a fine start. They were not oppressive then and wouldn't be now.

Right now my effective tax rate is about 35%, under a plan which you describe, it would jump effectively to over 43%, do you believe that at this time the economy could sustain that?

I don't.

When it ever gets voted one, the exact language would matter, but in principle, paying for what you get is reasonable and responsible. Eventually, that has to be the goal.


I agree, it is absurd to continue to run government like we are allowing it today.

I'm kind of bouncing back and forth between things right now, and would want to be more specific on this question. So, I'll wait on it for a time. But I will say, there is much out there on this, and with as sound support and disagreement as what republicans promote now. Specifics are what will always need to be debated. And it has been shown that in the past, we've done well and poorly with no proof that taxes effected either significantly.

I look forward to reading what you come up with.


j-mac
 
Actually, the numbers have been presented to you before. It would help the deficit. It actually would.

Sorry, but those numbers have not been presented but even if they were they would be suspect because the govt. success in projecting revenue hasn't been good at all especially when it comes to human behavior. I really suggest you learn human behavior and get your head out of the books that promote theory. How much will an increase in taxes on the rich add to the govt. revenue and then prove it?
 
Sorry, but those numbers have not been presented but even if they were they would be suspect because the govt. success in projecting revenue hasn't been good at all especially when it comes to human behavior. I really suggest you learn human behavior and get your head out of the books that promote theory. How much will an increase in taxes on the rich add to the govt. revenue and then prove it?

Yes, you have:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion to deficit, panel finds

Republicans want to extend all the cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion, according to the taxation committee.

Analysts Detail Tax Cuts
 
Yes, you have:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion to deficit, panel finds

Republicans want to extend all the cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion, according to the taxation committee.

Analysts Detail Tax Cuts

Again, you buy studies that ignore human behavior and still buy what you are told from an Administration that has yet to tell the truth on any issue. Where is the guarantee that 36 billion will be used to reduce the deficit and 36 billion if applied to the deficit will reduce the deficit from 1.3 trillion to 1.26 trillion? Certainly no downside in your world to raising taxes because again you don't even know how human behavior works.
 
Back
Top Bottom