• 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!

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

Bereal said:
I can't believe this needs spoon-fed like this. The YEARLY BUDGET was in the BLACK when Clinton was in. No, he did not manage to completely erase the debt created by the Reagan/Daddy Bush war-budget-freebies-for-the-rich years. But HIS BUDGET was in the BLACK. Do you get it now? Or do you only speak teabagger?
Click to expand...

1) The above is clearly racist, sexist, and probably homophobic. The phrase "in the BLACK" is offensive to some minorities, as does the phrase "in the RED" presume to insult Native Americans. As a Native American (I was born in the US of A, and that makes me as native to the North American continent as ANY other hominid alive today), I find offensive that anyone could be "in" me.

2) NO president since before Nixon had a balanced budget, let alone a budget showing a surplus, which is an alternative meaning to the bigoted phrase you used "in the BLACK". Also, even pretending the final budget under Clinton showed a surplus, that surplus would have been the product of the House of Representatives, which, at the time, was controlled by Republicans. Not that it matters, because GAAP would put anyone in jail who tried to make the claim that the federal budget was in balance . Socialist Security revenues were counted, future socialist security liabilities were not listed. This is the kind of accounting that made Enron famous.

3) If there HAD BEEN a surplus under Clinton, the only moral thing to do with it would have been to cut taxes so the persons paying the largest fraction of the surplus got the largest fraction of the refund. Is it necessary to point out that President Clinton presided over no morally obligated tax rebates to overcharged taxpayers? Again, this is a fact that could have put civillian accountants in jail, if they tried it with a private company.

So, there weren't no surplus, the budget was not "in the black" (I'm tempted to point out that the urban legend has it that the Washington Post grammar checker requested that the business page use the term "African American" instead of "black", but I won't), and Clinton, a convicted perjurer, doesn't haven any positive record to point to.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

UtahBill said:
Retirees living off investment income? a minority, for sure, unless you count tax deferred accounts, and THOSE are taxed as regular income....I suppose Warren Buffet will feel the pinch, but he can take it...
Click to expand...

How about your mother living off her investments, should she pay more? All you ever think about is the one or two rich people like Warren Buffet as your examples. You're not really serious about this issue are you?
 
drz-400 said:
Plus you have to remember that most the intragovernmental holdings go towards prefunding SS. If the government decided not to prefund SS it would have had the same exact surplus. The only difference is the government would not have garanteed the money would get back to the program (and therby not increase the national debt). The effect on debt to the public, the reported surplus, etc would have been 0 though.
Click to expand...

The govt. doesn't prefund SS, the taxpayer does. There was NO Surplus by Bill Clinton as the U.S. Treasury shows. If you go to the U.S. Treasury website you will see that reality. SS is On Budget and that is the only reason the budget was even close to being balanced. Intergovt. holdings obligations went up as SS revenue was replaced with an IOU which is an obligation thus a debt.

http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/index.html
 
Last edited:
Bereal said:
I can't believe this needs spoon-fed like this. The YEARLY BUDGET was in the BLACK when Clinton was in. No, he did not manage to completely erase the debt created by the Reagan/Daddy Bush war-budget-freebies-for-the-rich years. But HIS BUDGET was in the BLACK. Do you get it now? Or do you only speak teabagger?
Click to expand...

Apparently the U.S. Treasury Dept. disagrees because they report no balanced budget. Your argument is like your neighbor telling you that your bank statement has a surplus when the bank says it is overdrawn. Deficits are yearly and debt is cumulative. Clinton yearly budgets weren't even in balanced therefore he couldn't pay back any debt. Sounds like another class envy person here.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.
 
Opteron said:
Ok, that is a good first question. Budgeting is shared responsibility between Congress and the President, though. Clinton does deserve some credit, though, for agreeing to GOP's demands and signing the budget into law. Now I'm wondering who was the GOP leader responsible for reducing spending, what happened to that leader and in general what happened to the GOP in the next 6 years during Bush's term when spending increased? I would just like to see a balanced budget, and coming within range to a balanced budget and then progressing to large deficits is not good.

I, too, am a critic of President Obama's current spending, I think we shouldn't be spending money if we don't have it. I think people on both sides of the aisle have been spending too much, regardless of party.

In anticipation of some questions on spending during Bush's term, here is a link regarding the increase in discretionary and general spending during Bush's term:
Spending Under President George W. Bush | Mercatus
Click to expand...

I agree, President Bush along with the Congress spent way too much money but Obama has put Bush spending on steroids. The term discretionary spending refers the the following and consists of 40% of the budget. In 2010 the budget of the U.S. is 3.8 trillion dollars so you can see how much of that is discretionary. We have become an entitlement state so cuts in discretionary spending will only make a small dent in the budget deficits and will do little for the debt.

The Red is entitlement spending which is ON BUDGET

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

American said:
How about your mother living off her investments, should she pay more? All you ever think about is the one or two rich people like Warren Buffet as your examples. You're not really serious about this issue are you?
Click to expand...
The Bush tax cuts were geared to the 2% richest Americans and were never paid for, that's is why the Republicans passed it using reconciliation. If left to continue, it would cost $680 billion to the debt over the next ten years.

Yes, $3 Million - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
The Bush tax cuts were geared to the 2% richest Americans and were never paid for, that's is why the Republicans passed it using reconciliation. If left to continue, it would cost $680 billion to the debt over the next ten years.

Yes, $3 Million - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...
To clarify and not mislead the portion of the $680 billion going to the 120,000 richest Americans is $374 billion,which is 55% of the total.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
To clarify and not mislead the portion of the $680 billion going to the 120,000 richest Americans is $374 billion,which is 55% of the total.
Click to expand...

People talk about the Bush tax cuts as going to the rich only. What is the total cost of repealing of the Bush cuts. My understanding is that is in the 2 trillion dollar range. Why are the cuts discussed as benefits to the rich only. Seems like basic demogogary.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
The Bush tax cuts were geared to the 2% richest Americans and were never paid for, that's is why the Republicans passed it using reconciliation. If left to continue, it would cost $680 billion to the debt over the next ten years.

Yes, $3 Million - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

Really? so the rich got a bigger percentage tax cut than the rest of us? Why do you care how much taxes the rich pay instead of worrying about how much money your govt. spends? All Liberals seem to have class envy and the question is why?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
Really? so the rich got a bigger percentage tax cut than the rest of us? Why do you care how much taxes the rich pay instead of worrying about how much money your govt. spends? All Liberals seem to have class envy and the question is why?
Click to expand...
why are you ok with tax cuts geared to those that really don't need them?? they are loaded already, and a few bucks isnt going to make a difference in their world?? it isnt about 'caring' about how much the 'rich' pay in taxes, it is more about asking 'why' are they getting benefits that they don't need? 'class envy' and terms like it are nothing more than buzz words meant to try and frame a bad arguement.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

randel said:
why are you ok with tax cuts geared to those that really don't need them?? they are loaded already, and a few bucks isnt going to make a difference in their world?? it isnt about 'caring' about how much the 'rich' pay in taxes, it is more about asking 'why' are they getting benefits that they don't need? 'class envy' and terms like it are nothing more than buzz words meant to try and frame a bad arguement.
Click to expand...

I am fine with even you keeping more of what you make. People work hard to earn money and should keep it. Who are you to claim they don't need it? Do you know all those rich people? Why do you have such class envy and care about what others pay in taxes or don't pay? The bad argument comes from liberals who believe the govt. needs more money and the best way to get it is to have 47% of the people not pay anything and the other 51% pay more and 2% paying the most and never paying enough. That is liberal BS, you don't seem to understand it is the people's money first, not the govt?

This is an eye opener to even you.

YouTube - Jon Voight calls out Barack Obama
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
I am fine with even you keeping more of what you make. People work hard to earn money and should keep it. Who are you to claim they don't need it? Do you know all those rich people? Why do you have such class envy and care about what others pay in taxes or don't pay? The bad argument comes from liberals who believe the govt. needs more money and the best way to get it is to have 47% of the people not pay anything and the other 51% pay more and 2% paying the most and never paying enough. That is liberal BS, you don't seem to understand it is the people's money first, not the govt?

This is an eye opener to even you.

YouTube - Jon Voight calls out Barack Obama
Click to expand...
everytime taxcuts are mentioned that benefit the top 2%, you throw out the 'buzz words and phrases'...you need to learn some new tricks....if we are going to give tax cuts, why are we giving them to the top 2%? i'm sorry, but if your one of the top 2 % income wise in this country, and you really really need that tax cut, thats pretty piss poor. once you get past food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, the rest is just gravy....why not target those 'tax cuts' to the people who live paycheck to paycheck? no, its not 'class warfare' or 'caring what the rich make', its asking a common sense question.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

randel said:
everytime taxcuts are mentioned that benefit the top 2%, you throw out the 'buzz words and phrases'...you need to learn some new tricks....if we are going to give tax cuts, why are we giving them to the top 2%? i'm sorry, but if your one of the top 2 % income wise in this country, and you really really need that tax cut, thats pretty piss poor. once you get past food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, the rest is just gravy....why not target those 'tax cuts' to the people who live paycheck to paycheck? no, its not 'class warfare' or 'caring what the rich make', its asking a common sense question.
Click to expand...

Are you going to ever answer the questin, why do you care what the rich pay or don't pay in taxes? Is that the way you were raised to envy the rich or were you taught to try and become one of those rich people? This is a totally ridiculous argument about what someone elses pays in taxes. You and other liberals don't seem to have any concern over the 3.8 trillion dollar Obama budget and where that money is going. Instead you want to penalize people you don't even know by taking more of what they earn from them. You don't see a problem with that?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
Are you going to ever answer the questin, why do you care what the rich pay or don't pay in taxes? Is that the way you were raised to envy the rich or were you taught to try and become one of those rich people? This is a totally ridiculous argument about what someone elses pays in taxes. You and other liberals don't seem to have any concern over the 3.8 trillion dollar Obama budget and where that money is going. Instead you want to penalize people you don't even know by taking more of what they earn from them. You don't see a problem with that?
Click to expand...
how many times does this need to be explained to you? what part of the 'buzzword' thing don't you understand? you fall back to this everytime someone corners you...i care about who would benefit from tax cuts, and frankly, the top 2 percent don't need them. why are we giving more money to the people who already have more than enough to live on? for several lifetimes?? what do you have against the poor and middleclass? why not give them these tax cuts? why do you want to penalize the poor and middleclass? why do you support class warfare against the middleclass and poor? why?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
Really? so the rich got a bigger percentage tax cut than the rest of us? Why do you care how much taxes the rich pay instead of worrying about how much money your govt. spends? All Liberals seem to have class envy and the question is why?
Click to expand...

A Better question is why do you protect the rich? Is it because you want to protect your own, or is it just more grist for the mill?

ricksfolly
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

randel said:
how many times does this need to be explained to you? what part of the 'buzzword' thing don't you understand? you fall back to this everytime someone corners you...i care about who would benefit from tax cuts, and frankly, the top 2 percent don't need them. why are we giving more money to the people who already have more than enough to live on? for several lifetimes?? what do you have against the poor and middleclass? why not give them these tax cuts? why do you want to penalize the poor and middleclass? why do you support class warfare against the middleclass and poor? why?
Click to expand...

You seem to have a different definition of being cornered than I do as I am not cornered at all. I asked you a question and you ran from it as usual. it doesn't matter what the question is because you are going to ignore it. You say that the top 2% don't need their own money? Who are you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need. "We" aren't giving them more money "we" are allowing them to keep what they earned. You seem to have a serious problem with understanding earned income.

For decades liberals have been taking other people's money and wasting it, all in the name of compassion. If you want to take care of the poor do so in your local community instead of sending your money to D.C. and having them take their cut and the distribute your money to some other community. That make sense to you? It is me promoting class warfare and penalizing the poor. My bet is I give more to charity than you make and I do it locally where it does the most good. You, on the other hand, buy the govt. rhetoric about compassion as you ignore that bureaucrats are never compassionate.

So now to answer your direct questions which by the way you never do with me, here goes

how many times does this need to be explained to you? It needs to be explained until it makes sense to me and it doesn't because results or lack of them trump the rhetoric.

what part of the 'buzzword' thing don't you understand? I don't call class envy or warfare a buzz word, I call it reality. I call tax increases taking someone else's as money and with this govt. that is theft.

why are we giving more money to the people who already have more than enough to live on? for several lifetimes?? You don't see a problem with that question? It really says a lot about you as you seem to reject the concept of it being the people's money first. The govt. cannot give more money to someone else unless they take it from others and that seems to be what you are proposing. Try to understand this or maybe you need to move to some other country, it isn't the government's money to give to someone else until the take it. Understand what taking it means?

what do you have against the poor and middleclass? See above, through my church and local charities I give more to people in need than you probably make. I have nothing against the poor or middle class and worked hard to get out of those classes. I know the value of hard work and risk taking. I probably helped more get out of the poor and middle class than you even know.

why not give them these tax cuts? Because it isn't their money to give. I prefer teaching people how to fish vs. giving them a fish to eat. Which one makes the less dependent?

why do you want to penalize the poor and middleclass? I don't want to penalize anyone and would prefer that the poor work hard, take risk, and get out of that class. Giving them someone else's money has never helped someone get out of a lower class, it keeps them dependent.

why do you support class warfare against the middleclass and poor? why? It isn't me that is calling for taking someone else's money and giving it to someone else. I don't even like the government taking yours.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

ricksfolly said:
A Better question is why do you protect the rich? Is it because you want to protect your own, or is it just more grist for the mill?

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

How am I protecting the rich by supporting their right to keep THEIR OWN MONEY! Seems like a concept you and others don't seem to understand. I cannot believe I am having this argument with a fellow American. This country wasn't built on the principles of forced redistribution of wealth and that is what you are supporting.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
You seem to have a different definition of being cornered than I do as I am not cornered at all. I asked you a question and you ran from it as usual. it doesn't matter what the question is because you are going to ignore it. You say that the top 2% don't need their own money? Who are you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need. "We" aren't giving them more money "we" are allowing them to keep what they earned. You seem to have a serious problem with understanding earned income.

For decades liberals have been taking other people's money and wasting it, all in the name of compassion. If you want to take care of the poor do so in your local community instead of sending your money to D.C. and having them take their cut and the distribute your money to some other community. That make sense to you? It is me promoting class warfare and penalizing the poor. My bet is I give more to charity than you make and I do it locally where it does the most good. You, on the other hand, buy the govt. rhetoric about compassion as you ignore that bureaucrats are never compassionate.

So now to answer your direct questions which by the way you never do with me, here goes

how many times does this need to be explained to you? It needs to be explained until it makes sense to me and it doesn't because results or lack of them trump the rhetoric.

what part of the 'buzzword' thing don't you understand? I don't call class envy or warfare a buzz word, I call it reality. I call tax increases taking someone else's as money and with this govt. that is theft.

why are we giving more money to the people who already have more than enough to live on? for several lifetimes?? You don't see a problem with that question? It really says a lot about you as you seem to reject the concept of it being the people's money first. The govt. cannot give more money to someone else unless they take it from others and that seems to be what you are proposing. Try to understand this or maybe you need to move to some other country, it isn't the government's money to give to someone else until the take it. Understand what taking it means?

what do you have against the poor and middleclass? See above, through my church and local charities I give more to people in need than you probably make. I have nothing against the poor or middle class and worked hard to get out of those classes. I know the value of hard work and risk taking. I probably helped more get out of the poor and middle class than you even know.

why not give them these tax cuts? Because it isn't their money to give. I prefer teaching people how to fish vs. giving them a fish to eat. Which one makes the less dependent?

why do you want to penalize the poor and middleclass? I don't want to penalize anyone and would prefer that the poor work hard, take risk, and get out of that class. Giving them someone else's money has never helped someone get out of a lower class, it keeps them dependent.

why do you support class warfare against the middleclass and poor? why? It isn't me that is calling for taking someone else's money and giving it to someone else. I don't even like the government taking yours.
Click to expand...
you do indeed support class warfare against the middleclass and poor, you are , by your own admission in this post, rich, so i understand now why you are so adamant about relieving the rich of their tax responsibilities....you got yours, screw everyone else...and yes, you support taking money from the group, the whole, to benefit the few...
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

randel said:
you do indeed support class warfare against the middleclass and poor, you are , by your own admission in this post, rich, so i understand now why you are so adamant about relieving the rich of their tax responsibilities....you got yours, screw everyone else...and yes, you support taking money from the group, the whole, to benefit the few...
Click to expand...

You label people as rich or poor but don't seem to have a problem with that. You really are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Obviously you don't understand the basic principles upon which this country was built. I do feel sorry for you so does that make me liberal?

Nice distortion of my position and totally ignoring what I posted. As I stated I probably give more to charity and my church than you make and yet that means I got mine "screw everyone else?" How am I or anyone else taking anything from the poor since the poor don't pay any income taxes? You need to stop posting as you are making a fool of yourself.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
You label people as rich or poor but don't seem to have a problem with that. You really are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Obviously you don't understand the basic principles upon which this country was built. I do feel sorry for you so does that make me liberal?

Nice distortion of my position and totally ignoring what I posted. As I stated I probably give more to charity and my church than you make and yet that means I got mine "screw everyone else?" How am I or anyone else taking anything from the poor since the poor don't pay any income taxes? You need to stop posting as you are making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...
so you are bragging that you are rich, good for you, i don't hold that against you, though it shouldnt relieve you of your tax responsibilities....for those who have much, much is expected.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
Really? so the rich got a bigger percentage tax cut than the rest of us? Why do you care how much taxes the rich pay instead of worrying about how much money your govt. spends? All Liberals seem to have class envy and the question is why?
Click to expand...
It's not class envy, it's because the government provides the infrastructure which includes many things that these wealthy people used to earn and keep their riches. I have no problem with them being rich, they just need to pay their share.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

randel said:
so you are bragging that you are rich, good for you, i don't hold that against you, though it shouldnt relieve you of your tax responsibilities....for those who have much, much is expected.
Click to expand...

I make no apology for what I have EARNED and I pay a lot in taxes each year. When I get to keep more of my money I give more to charity and more to my family so that you and others don't have to take care of them when I am no longer around. That is called accepting personal responsibility. For those that have much, much is given, a lot more than the bureaucrats would have you believe. Liberals want you dependent on them and you seem to buy that. I prefer taking control of my own destiny and giving to the charities in my local community. You seem to have a problem with that thus I do feel sorry for that misguided opinion and yhour brainwashing.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
It's not class envy, it's because the government provides the infrastructure which includes many things that these wealthy people used to earn and keep their riches. I have no problem with them being rich, they just need to pay their share.
Click to expand...
exactly.....
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
It's not class envy, it's because the government provides the infrastructure which includes many things that these wealthy people used to earn and keep their riches. I have no problem with them being rich, they just need to pay their share.
Click to expand...

Most of the infrastructure is paid for by use taxes, not Federal Income taxes. Everytime you buy a gallon of gasoline .19 goes to the Federal Govt. and then there are taxes that go to the states. That funds roads and bridges. What infrastructure is funded by income taxes?

There you go again, "paying their fair share" what exactly does that mean to you? How much is their fair share since they pay a high percentage of total tax revenue now. What is the fair share of people who don't pay any income taxes yet have cell phones, HD TV's, computers, pagers, etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom