• 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 Makes New Budget Sales Pitch; GOP Strikes Back

"the Ryan plan would generate nearly two-thirds — about $2.9 trillion — of its $4.5 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years from programs for people of modest means, while making permanent all of President Bush’s tax cuts for high-income Americans as well as a new estate-tax giveaway in the December 2010 tax package.

Ryan has said that he borrowed some ideas from President Obama’s fiscal commission, which was chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. But in a sharp departure, it stands a core principle of the Bowles-Simpson plan on its head. The co-chairs called for policymakers to set, as a basic principle, that the deficit should be reduced in a way that does not increase poverty and inequality; they called for protecting low-income and vulnerable Americans. The Ryan plan, in contrast, aims by far its most severe blows at those people — even as it drops all of the Bowles-Simpson revenue-raising measures that would secure their largest revenue increases from people at higher income levels.

On the tax side, the Ryan plan would make permanent all of the Bush tax cuts for high-income Americans, as well as the striking estate-tax giveaway included in the December 2010 tax package that benefits the estates of only the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of Americans who die, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. The Ryan plan loses $700 billion over ten years from making the high-end tax cuts permanent. People with incomes over $1 million would receive average tax cuts of $125,000 a year — or more than $1 million over the coming decade — if these tax cuts are made permanent, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center."

Statement of Robert Greenstein, President, on Chairman Ryan
 
"the Ryan plan would generate nearly two-thirds — about $2.9 trillion — of its $4.5 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years from programs for people of modest means, while making permanent all of President Bush’s tax cuts for high-income Americans as well as a new estate-tax giveaway in the December 2010 tax package.

Ryan has said that he borrowed some ideas from President Obama’s fiscal commission, which was chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. But in a sharp departure, it stands a core principle of the Bowles-Simpson plan on its head. The co-chairs called for policymakers to set, as a basic principle, that the deficit should be reduced in a way that does not increase poverty and inequality; they called for protecting low-income and vulnerable Americans. The Ryan plan, in contrast, aims by far its most severe blows at those people — even as it drops all of the Bowles-Simpson revenue-raising measures that would secure their largest revenue increases from people at higher income levels.

On the tax side, the Ryan plan would make permanent all of the Bush tax cuts for high-income Americans, as well as the striking estate-tax giveaway included in the December 2010 tax package that benefits the estates of only the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of Americans who die, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. The Ryan plan loses $700 billion over ten years from making the high-end tax cuts permanent. People with incomes over $1 million would receive average tax cuts of $125,000 a year — or more than $1 million over the coming decade — if these tax cuts are made permanent, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center."

Statement of Robert Greenstein, President, on Chairman Ryan

SHOULDN't the poor pay for their right to exist ?
 
It is your statement. You tell us. That is the way debate works.

No it was Sparky's statement, not mine. Im just calling out someone for obvious intellectual dishonesty. This is exactly why you get treated like a troll, because frequently, you act like one.
 
They have cake mixes in the stores don't they? Just add some milk and eggs....

Kids don't need no stinkin' nutrition!!! Wouldn't that money be better spent doubling the tax breaks for the super rich???
 
Kids don't need no stinkin' nutrition!!! Wouldn't that money be better spent doubling the tax breaks for the super rich???

1). Why would nutrition be a federal government responsibility?
2) You don't "spend money on" tax breaks.
 
1). Why would nutrition be a federal government responsibility?
2) You don't "spend money on" tax breaks.

Lack of tax receipts created debt which the GOP then say the poor have to pay for. That is the cost of tax breaks for the rich.

In lieu of a living wage, it makes more sense to spend a little to help people rise out of poverty than it does to spend more for the rest of their life.

Why would you choose to continue to trap people in taxpayer supported welfare?
 
Last edited:
Lack of tax receipts created debt which the GOP then say the poor have to pay for. That is the cost of tax breaks for the rich.
False. The Bush tax cuts for the rich, which are now the Obama tax cuts for the rich, cost $81 billion per year. 2011 deficit was $1,300,000,000,000. Subtract that $81 billion and the deficit for 2011 becomes a much more manageable $1,219,000,000,000. So, no, increasing taxes on the rich, while soothing for the burning envy of the left, basically amount to a rounding error.
 
False. The Bush tax cuts for the rich, which are now the Obama tax cuts for the rich, cost $81 billion per year. 2011 deficit was $1,300,000,000,000. Subtract that $81 billion and the deficit for 2011 becomes a much more manageable $1,219,000,000,000. So, no, increasing taxes on the rich, while soothing for the burning envy of the left, basically amount to a rounding error.

I said lack of tax receipts created debt. I didn't say it was the sole cause of the debt. See the difference?


The Bush tax cuts for the rich cost us $11.6 million dollars every hour
 
I said lack of tax receipts created debt. I didn't say it was the sole cause of the debt. See the difference?
No.


Two things: First, the Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010. Obama and the democratic congress voted to extend them for two more years. That makes them the Obama tax cuts. Second, the deficit is growing by about $4 billion per day, or $167 million per hour. Take away that $11. 6 and we are down to $155 million per hour. Now what?
 

In your mind, something either has to the cause of all of the debt or none of it???


Two things: First, the Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010.

No, they didn't, they were extended temporarily because the GOP was threatening to withhold unemployment payments unless the Bush tax cuts were continued. The Democrats even put up a bill to discontinue them for those that made over $250,000 and the GOP filibustered it down.

Second, the deficit is growing by about $4 billion per day, or $167 million per hour. Take away that $11. 6 and we are down to $155 million per hour. Now what?

Then we cut our excessive military spending back to defense spending only, re-regulate the banks that caused the financial meltdown, increase the cap on SS to $180,000, and upgrade our health care system as every other industrialized country has done.
 
Kids don't need no stinkin' nutrition!!! Wouldn't that money be better spent doubling the tax breaks for the super rich???

Or an increase in the tax subsidy of the Chevy Volt from $7500/car to $10,000/car; truly a worthy undertaking that benefits the poor. Or cutting the DC school voucher system which is outperforming the hell out of the DC public system on every available metric including cost per student, graduation rates, literacy rates, attendance and college entry after high school. The more we look into this budget the more we are going to see partisan winners and losers---thats an opinion and a prediction.
 
LOL! Most of our debt is from 30 years of Reaganomics.

You are conflating "debt" with "deficit."

The stimulus was required to prevent the Bush Recession from turning into the Bush Depression.

And why is spending still at the same level three years after the supposed one-time "stimulus"?


The seniors did not create the last 30 years of debt, but if you think you can garner votes from them for your plan to make them pay for it, knock yourself out!

No idea what you're talking about.
 
In your mind, something either has to the cause of all of the debt or none of it???

Spending. If they kept spending in line anywhere near tax receipts we would not have overwhelming debt or gigantic deficit spending. How do you not get that?
 
In your mind, something either has to the cause of all of the debt or none of it???
It is not in my mind, it is in your sentence structure.




No, they didn't, they were extended temporarily because the GOP was threatening to withhold unemployment payments unless the Bush tax cuts were continued. The Democrats even put up a bill to discontinue them for those that made over $250,000 and the GOP filibustered it down.
Democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency, and you blame republicans. The Senate voted 81-19 to extend all tax rates and Obama signed it. That makes them the Obama tax cuts. Deal with it.
 
Or an increase in the tax subsidy of the Chevy Volt from $7500/car to $10,000/car; truly a worthy undertaking that benefits the poor. Or cutting the DC school voucher system which is outperforming the hell out of the DC public system on every available metric including cost per student, graduation rates, literacy rates, attendance and college entry after high school. The more we look into this budget the more we are going to see partisan winners and losers---thats an opinion and a prediction.

Lets see your link for a tax credit increase for Chevy Volt only? I bet you will find it is for all electric cars. It would be extremely short-sighted and unwise to create future economic problems through peak oil and global warming while addressing our current economic problems

Private schools with students of the same cultural and income levels perform no better than public schools.
 
You are conflating "debt" with "deficit."

No, I am not. Our debt is our accumulated deficit over the years.



And why is spending still at the same level three years after the supposed one-time "stimulus"?

Because we have been a recession left by the last administration. You don't cut spending when you are in recession or you make it worse. The budget just submitted calls for $4 trillion less in spending over ten years, but I think much larger cuts to military spending is needed.




No idea what you're talking about.


You'll figure it out in November.
 
No, I am not. Our debt is our accumulated deficit over the years.

Yes, you are, because you posted about deficits. That's what I responded to.

Or, you're just off on a red herring.

Take your pick.


Because we have been a recession left by the last administration. You don't cut spending when you are in recession or you make it worse. The budget just submitted calls for $4 trillion less in spending over ten years, but I think much larger cuts to military spending is needed.

:roll: It wouldn't be a "cut" in spending; it would be a return to normalcy, and you're moving the goalposts again.


You'll figure it out in November.

Riiiight.
 
Spending. If they kept spending in line anywhere near tax receipts we would not have overwhelming debt or gigantic deficit spending. How do you not get that?

And who is the only president in the last 30 years that agreed to cut spending???

It took 30 years of both spending too much (mostly on the military) and taxing the rich too little to create our debt and it will take the opposite to reduce our debt. That is the way we did it the one and only time we significantly reduced our deficit in the 1990s.
 
Democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency, and you blame republicans. The Senate voted 81-19 to extend all tax rates and Obama signed it. That makes them the Obama tax cuts. Deal with it.

Knowing the GOP would filibuster the unemployment cuts he signed it, yes.
 
Because we have been a recession left by the last administration. You don't cut spending when you are in recession or you make it worse. The budget just submitted calls for $4 trillion less in spending over ten years, but I think much larger cuts to military spending is needed.

Wrong, $4 trillion in "deficit reduction."

Let's cut Defense spending to zero (having a military is soooo 20th century). What next? We'd still be running a $208 billion deficit.

Federal Budget.jpg

You don't cut spending when you are in recession or you make it worse.

I think much larger cuts to military spending is needed.

Wait, what? So only non-defense cuts impact the economy?
 
Wrong, $4 trillion in "deficit reduction."

Let's cut Defense spending to zero (having a military is soooo 20th century). What next? We'd still be running a $208 billion deficit.

Wait, what? So only non-defense cuts impact the economy?

Nah, let's cut out all education, environment, and energy spending. That adds up to a whopping ... about 1/3 of military spending.

Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom