• 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!

House passes huge GOP budget cuts

yes, cuts make sense, but on the GOP side the cuts are just redirected as tax breaks for the wealthy.
Its just another transfer of wealth hustle, don't be fooled
 
if we don't immediately restructure medicare, medicaid and social security (as well as state pensions) they won't be there for the next generation

do something, harry
 
I think your comments lose credibility when just try to complain about tax breaks for just one group of people. If people were serious that the bush tax cuts can no longer be afforded then have some consistency in that view and abolish all of those cuts,not just the ones that do not effect you.

Sure, I'm willing to give up my microscopic tax break provided by Bush to once again have the wealthy paying their fair share.
 
Sure, I'm willing to give up my microscopic tax break provided by Bush to once again have the wealthy paying their fair share.

I've heard a lot about a fair share from you Catawba - what in your opinion is the wealthy's "fair share"?
ten times the resources the consume from the government? twenty times?
 
If they were getting a special break, it would make sense that they were paying more than everyone else and they are not.

I don't understand your statement. The large tax breaks the wealthy have enjoyed for the last 30 years is something they are getting that everyone is not.

The government is not entitled to a specific portion of your income.

Income taxes are the law of the land and the progressive tax rates we had for 80 years is what created the middle class. If we have no interest in continuing to have a middle class than we should continue in our regressive tax direction we began under Reagan. For myself, I think the middle class is what made our country strong and I have no desire to see to disappear.
 
I don't understand your statement. The large tax breaks the wealthy have enjoyed for the last 30 years is something they are getting that everyone is not.



Income taxes are the law of the land and the progressive tax rates we had for 80 years is what created the middle class. If we have no interest in continuing to have a middle class than we should continue in our regressive tax direction we began under Reagan. For myself, I think the middle class is what made our country strong and I have no desire to see to disappear.

A special break implies they are getting something FROM THE GOVERNMENT everyone else is not. They are getting a little more of what they earned. They are not getting government handouts and are still paying both a higher % and a higher # of taxes than everyone under them.

If the wealthy have a tax break now, everyone else has even MORE of a tax break because they are paying even less than they are.
 
when you have hi debt and refuse to touch it...

I am all for cutting our military spending that is almost as much as the rest of the world combined, as well as our optional wars. But why would you reduce your income if you are having trouble paying your bills. It will take both spending cuts and elimination of the tax breaks for the wealthy to ever balance the budget.


so joe sixpack has to pay for bureacratic larceny?

thanks a lot, delano

Joe Sixpack doesn't make $250,000 a year, and has enjoyed 30 years of tax breaks beyond what the middle class got.
 
americans on medicaid fare worse---longer stays, higher costs and mortalities---than their neighbors with NO INSURANCE

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

Ask any person on medicaid if they prefer it to unaffordable health care. I don't hear people on Medicaid asking to have it taken away.

And, you didn't answer my question. Show me any private insurance company that administers health insurance more cheaply than the govenment administers M/M?
 
Actually, I'd like to give back this special tax deal the government gave me. I'll give back those "tax breaks beyond what the middle class got" and just pay the same top marginal rate as someone who makes 82,400 - I'll pay 25%. There, my "super special deal" is gone.

Somehow, I felt like this special deal I got from the government was screwing me over.
 
I am all for cutting our military spending that is almost as much as the rest of the world combined, as well as our optional wars.

tell it to khadafi and karzai

But why would you reduce your income if you are having trouble paying your bills.

ask the slasher and hurryup harry

but be prepared to wait for their answer

Joe Sixpack doesn't make $250,000 a year

joe sixpack is gonna have to pay his share of the more than three quarters of a trillion dollars in new taxes contained in obamacare, according to cbo early this year (link above)
 
I hope the Republicans succeed. Their notion that a smaller government is a better government is just as annoying and naive as the liberal's notion that a bigger government is a better government. Nothing would awaken this country to the idiocy of leading by blind ideology than a flood of starving poor, elderly, and sick unlike has been seen since the Great Depression.
 
joe sixpack is gonna have to pay his share of the more than three quarters of a trillion dollars in new taxes contained in obamacare, according to cbo early this year (link above)


As I see it we have been presented two options:

Option A: Cut spending and raise taxes on the rich.
Option B: Draconian cuts to entitlement programs and tax cuts for the rich.

It's funny when you are talking about paying a "fair share". If we knew how to calculate fair shares, then life would be quite simpler. If I have a billion dollars, then I could ask my company to pay me 12 cents a year and I'll live an incredibly comfortable life off of the company perks but project very little income. What would be my fair share of taxes? Joe sixpack certainly doesn't have the options I have and he may actually end up paying more taxes than I do.

I think what we have to do when it comes to an economic crisis is look at distribution of wealth. If 400 people own half the wealth of the country, then arguing about who pays more taxes on the bottom half won't make a lot of difference.
 
Last edited:
I hope the Republicans succeed. Their notion that a smaller government is a better government is just as annoying and naive as the liberal's notion that a bigger government is a better government. Nothing would awaken this country to the idiocy of leading by blind ideology than a flood of starving poor, elderly, and sick unlike has been seen since the Great Depression.

I think you are naïve if you think draconian cuts in government spending aren’t absolutely essential right now. The recession is going to get worse no matter what we do but if we don’t cut spending in a massive way, it won’t just be the poor, elderly and sick who are starving. Guess where that will leave the poor, elderly and sick?

Libertarinan?…yeah right
 
that is unadulterated crap.

If so, prove me wrong by showing that the middle class got bigger tax breaks than the top tax class over the last 30 years if you can?

I love how the socialists want to compare marginal rates with the confiscatory top margins due to WWII and ignore the share of the tax burden the rich shoulder and Ignore the fact that for more than half our country's history the tax rates on the rich's income was far far far lower than it is today

As of Sept 2010 we had spent $1.121 trillion dollars on our wars on terror, not counting the long term health costs for the tens of thousands wounded. Why should the rich get a by on supporting theses wars as they didn't for WWII?
Powered by Google Docs

the people getting a break are the people who have the exact same citizenship benefits as we do and don't pay any federal income taxes

You want to trade places with them? I didn't think so. Than stop whining about how hard the rich people have it, when they have enjoyed massive tax breaks for the last 30 years.
 
If so, prove me wrong by showing that the middle class got bigger tax breaks than the top tax class over the last 30 years if you can?



As of Sept 2010 we had spent $1.121 trillion dollars on our wars on terror, not counting the long term health costs for the tens of thousands wounded. Why should the rich get a by on supporting theses wars as they didn't for WWII?
Powered by Google Docs



You want to trade places with them? I didn't think so. Than stop whining about how hard the rich people have it, when they have enjoyed massive tax breaks for the last 30 years.

Those tax breaks still make them pay more than everybody else.

If you want to claim the tax breaks were unjustified, first show that the outrageous and disparate initial tax rates were justified.
 
Because this is NOT about you as an individual. It is about a societal program for America and Americans. 93% of American workers pay FICA tax on 100% of their earnings. All workers should.

That may be fair but its just not going to happen, and is not necessary to solve the SS problem. It would only take raising the cap by a small percentage along with locking the funds legislatively so they can't be used to offset other government spending.
 
Where did it say that?
It said that they would freeze payments this year and reduce them gradually over time.

So will those reduced payments to the Advantage insurers result in an increase or decrease in benefits?

Just so we are clear, I'm quoting directly from the story.
" Medicare Advantage payment rates will be frozen in 2011 and then gradually reduced giving companies time to adjust to the changes."

Q+A: How does healthcare overhaul affect Medicare? | Reuters

"WILL THE LEGISLATION CUT MEDICARE BENEFITS?

There are no cuts to the traditional Medicare benefit. The lion's share of spending cuts are in Medicare Advantage -- a program that uses private firms such as Humana and UnitedHealth Group to deliver Medicare benefits. Many of these providers offer extra coverage and some of those extras could be dropped as Medicare Advantage subsidies are bought more in line with the cost of traditional Medicare benefits. Medicare Advantage payment rates will be frozen in 2011 and then gradually reduced giving companies time to adjust to the changes.

ARE THERE ANY MEDICARE BENEFIT CHANGES IN THE BILL?

Yes. Medicare will begin paying for annual wellness visits and increase reimbursements for primary care physicians. Currently Medicare only pays for a general checkup when someone first enters the program and many health analysts believe regular check ups would help improve the overall health of elderly people and provide for better coordination of care.

Also the bill provides for an improvement in the Medicare prescription drug program. The current program includes a significant coverage gap that the legislation will eventually close. Currently people fall into this so-called doughnut hole falls after a total $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage begins again after $6,154 is spent.

In 2010, people who fall into the doughnut hole will get a $250 rebate. In 2011, they will get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs. By 2020, the doughnut hole will have been closed and 75 percent of drug costs will be covered.

HOW DOES MEDICARE ACHIEVE OTHER SAVINGS?

The legislation aims to capture productivity savings in the health system to save Medicare money.

Studies have shown huge cost variations in different parts of the country with little difference in health outcomes. The legislation provides for Medicare to test payment systems that are thought to promote better coordination and efficiency of care while maintaining or improving the quality of care.

Lawmakers hope the program will save billions of dollars by avoiding duplication of services and by providing better coordination of care for people with chronic conditions. The main aim of these delivery system reforms is to reward a quality of care rather than a quantity of services."

Frankly, I don't see the downside.
 
That's because they are looking ahead...under Obamacare there will no "Private" companies within a decade

You mean we will finally become a first world nation as far as health care for all its citizens? Better late than never I suppose.
 

"On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation. Table 1 (on page 5) provides a broad summary and Table 2 offers a detailed breakdown of the budgetary effects of the two pieces of legislation. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions. Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations (those are discussed on pages 10-11 of the cost estimate).

CBO and JCT estimate that by 2019, the two pieces of legislation combined will reduce the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured by about 32 million, leaving about 23 million nonelderly residents uninsured."Congressional Budget Office - Health Care
 
I've heard a lot about a fair share from you Catawba - what in your opinion is the wealthy's "fair share"?
ten times the resources the consume from the government? twenty times?

What would be fair and what would be realistic are two different things. To be fair everyone should pay the the same percentage of their total wealth in taxes. That was the progressive tax system that for 80 years created the strongest middle class in our history. What is realistic are the tax rates under Clinton, and closing the loopholes that allow some to avoid their taxes.
 
What would be fair and what would be realistic are two different things. To be fair everyone should pay the the same percentage of their total wealth in taxes. That was the progressive tax system that for 80 years created the strongest middle class in our history. What is realistic are the tax rates under Clinton, and closing the loopholes that allow some to avoid their taxes.

So if a flat tax is fair, call it their realistic share, not their fair share.

If a wealthy man's fair share is 50% of his income, so is a poor man's.
 
Back
Top Bottom