• 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!

They did it on purpose

Did Democrats cause the super committee to fail on purpose?


  • Total voters
    40
class warfare is the main argument obama will use in 2012. He will whine about the "rich" not paying their fair share when they are actually the only group that pays more of the income tax burden than their share of the income. If the GOP agreed to a tax hike on the "rich" they are playing into this class warfare scheme. If they agreed to a tax hike on the middle class even worse. why couldn't the dems start with spending cuts? why should someone like me pay any more taxes when I already pay more than millions upon millions of MIDDLE CLASS people pay in income taxes?

and why should ANYONE pay a dime more until this malignant bloated government can prove it is willing to tighten its belt. the dems wanted tax hikes to JUSTIFY even more social (ie VOTE BUYING) spending

A 1% tax increase means nothing to you, if you are who you claim to be. You stand on principle. I respect your right to do that, but understand that tax hikes are coming. And they are not going to be assessed against those 47% who don't pay any. Not any time soon, anyhow. I completely disagree with that, but that's not the point. Reality's the point. And the reality is that we need a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to get out of the mess we're in.
 
when that moron claims that the rich are "not paying their fair share" he is both lying and engaging in class warfare

Let's look at it, here is what he said:

If we're going to make spending cuts, many of which we wouldn't make if we weren't facing such large budget deficits, then it's only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair share

Ok, sounds like you might have a point, except he continued his remarks.

(it's not) class warfare (to ask) a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or teacher.

Oops, he is talking about the capital gains loophole to paying less in taxes, or the "Buffett rule". So much for your silly assessment.
 
A 1% tax increase means nothing to you, if you are who you claim to be. You stand on principle. I respect your right to do that, but understand that tax hikes are coming. And they are not going to be assessed against those 47% who don't pay any. Not any time soon, anyhow. I completely disagree with that, but that's not the point. Reality's the point. And the reality is that we need a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to get out of the mess we're in.

principle means

1) not agreeing to ANY tax hikes until the government proves it can tighten its belt

2) one percent today-3 percent tomorrow 5 percent next week --NONE OF THAT WILL DECREASE THE DEFICIT but it sure will hurt those of us who already pay too much

IT ALSO emboldens dems to spend more claiming that the RICH will be taxed to pay for it so the DEMS can buy MORE VOTES of people who think that they have NO DUTY to help pay down the deficit.

the only tax increases that can possibly stop the deficit from increasing are tax increases on those who DEMAND MORE SPending-and that is not the small voting bloc of the "rich". its the middle class and the lower classes but such a tax hike would cause politicians to lose votes
 
Let's look at it, here is what he said:



Ok, sounds like you might have a point, except he continued his remarks.



Oops, he is talking about the capital gains loophole to paying less in taxes, or the "Buffett rule". So much for your silly assessment.


wow, you find one quote of Obumble and ignore all the OTHER times he has whined that it is the RICH who aren't paying their fair share
 
why should someone like me pay any more taxes when I already pay more than millions upon millions of MIDDLE CLASS people pay in income taxes?

But this isn't class warfare, oh no. It's only class warfare when the middle class, who buy the way, BUILT THIS ENTIRE ****ING COUNTRY, do it.
 
The fact is that the majority of Democrats & Independents agree that the best solution to our debt-crisis is a mixture of spending cuts & more revenue. Why does the GOP refuse to acknowledge this?
 
Let's look at it, here is what he said:



Ok, sounds like you might have a point, except he continued his remarks.



Oops, he is talking about the capital gains loophole to paying less in taxes, or the "Buffett rule". So much for your silly assessment.

There is no "capital gains tax loophole." Everyone who earns long-term capital gains pays the same capital gains tax rate. Short-term gains are taxed at ordinary income rates. Those who make their capital gains (long or short) inside a Roth IRA pay no tax at all. Those who make capital gains within their Keogh's, IRAs and SEPs pay no capital gains tax either. Maybe that's what you're talking about. ;)
 
You know... I'd agee to a tax increase if it came with a multi-party committee who's sole purpose was to build a crew and start auditiing and cutting fat in every section of government. Rather, I want them to make recommendations, have those debated and passed as bills, but their only job is to hunt poor use of money.

I would want CPAs, efficiency experts, economists, and MBAs on it. And I would want a promise that for every dollar they cut, 50 cents was reduced in taxes.

It's not perfect, but it's progress.
 
But this isn't class warfare, oh no. It's only class warfare when the middle class, who buy the way, BUILT THIS ENTIRE ****ING COUNTRY, do it.

what politician is trying to buy votes by attacking the middle class?
 
The fact is that the majority of Democrats & Independents agree that the best solution to our debt-crisis is a mixture of spending cuts & more revenue. Why does the GOP refuse to acknowledge this?

because the dems want tax hikes to buy votes and they don't want tax hikes on anyone but the rich
 
because the dems want tax hikes to buy votes and they don't want tax hikes on anyone but the rich

tax hikes on the wealthy doesn't buy Middle-class votes.

but refusing to allow even a small tax-hike on the wealthy....DOES insure more campaign contributions.
 
tax hikes on the wealthy doesn't buy Middle-class votes.

but refusing to allow even a small tax-hike on the wealthy....DOES insure more campaign contributions.

I call BS on that. there are plenty of people who like it when Obumble whines that those more industrious than them ought to pay more taxes

especially if Obumble tells them that all the government they want will be paid for by OTHERS being taxed more.
 
It is all bull****. It was from the beginning, is now and ever shall be. Vote the bastards out!
 
wow, you find one quote of Obumble and ignore all the OTHER times he has whined that it is the RICH who aren't paying their fair share

Which is one more than you found. Complaining when people do more work than you to make their point is kinda silly.
 
There is no "capital gains tax loophole." Everyone who earns long-term capital gains pays the same capital gains tax rate. Short-term gains are taxed at ordinary income rates. Those who make their capital gains (long or short) inside a Roth IRA pay no tax at all. Those who make capital gains within their Keogh's, IRAs and SEPs pay no capital gains tax either. Maybe that's what you're talking about. ;)

Kinda sorta but not really true. What executives can do is get their compensation in stop options and such to avoid paying income tax on it and instead paying capital gains tax on it. A lower capital gains tax far and away benefits those who are not in the lower and middle class.
 
Why couldn't Republicans put a measly 1% tax increase on the table? A .5% tax increase? This was a misguided line drawn in the sand that put the negotiations into a win/lose scenerio. And ya' know that never works. Tax hikes are inevitable, Turtle. You and I both know that. This was an opportunity to at least try to build some teeny-tiny consensus...some acknowledgement that things have got to change.

And Republicans failed.

Republicans did put revenue increases on the table ( 300 billion worth)..... the Democrats said " nope... not enough"

anyone who says the Republicans are 100% against increasing revenues is lying to you.
they can say they didn't raise revenues "enough" and have a valid position though.

republicans offered a plan that would cut 1.2 trillion over 10 years... 700 billion coming from cuts, the rest from " new revenues"... Democrats rejected the plan.

this was most assuredly a bipartisan "failure".

for me personally, this "failure" is fine.... i'm ok with the trigger cuts that are supposed to come ( but they will find a way to get around the trigger cuts, mark my word)
 
$1.2 trillion in savings over ten years, at a 3:1 ratio, means $480 billion in more revenue and $720 billion in spending cuts.

why couldn't the Republicans agree to even this?
 
Kinda sorta but not really true. What executives can do is get their compensation in stop options and such to avoid paying income tax on it and instead paying capital gains tax on it. A lower capital gains tax far and away benefits those who are not in the lower and middle class.

I agree that some of the classifications of income derived by some hedge fund managers appears to be a loophole but treating LTCG income different than earned income is not a loophole. The current tax system benefits the lower classes tremendously since they get the same government services and pay far far less for them than the rich do
 
Republicans did put revenue increases on the table ( 300 billion worth)..... the Democrats said " nope... not enough"

anyone who says the Republicans are 100% against increasing revenues is lying to you.
they can say they didn't raise revenues "enough" and have a valid position though.

republicans offered a plan that would cut 1.2 trillion over 10 years... 700 billion coming from cuts, the rest from " new revenues"... Democrats rejected the plan....

got an article that proves this?
 
First, the Republicans and the Democrats are to blame for the lack of success. The Republicans were unwilling to consider any substantive raising of taxes and any cuts to military spending - something they believe their base wants them to do. The Democrats were unwilling to agree to any plan that did not raise taxes and that made deep cuts to cut Medicaid and Medicare - also something they believe their base wants.

Polls suggest the Democrats method of raising taxes while making cuts in both defense and domestic programs was more popular with citizens than the Republican method of keeping taxes low and cutting domestic programs deeply while leaving the military spending alone. The stimulus package had roughly 50-50 approval with citizens.
 
The fact is that the majority of Democrats & Independents agree that the best solution to our debt-crisis is a mixture of spending cuts & more revenue. Why does the GOP refuse to acknowledge this?

why did the Republicans offer a plan that was mixed with cuts and more revenue if, in your words, they refuse to acknowledge this?

methinks your talking points are inaccurate.
 
Back
Top Bottom