• 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: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grant said:
There are programs for the poorest already, as well as many volunteer agencies and they've been around for generations now.

Where's the problem?
Click to expand...

If you haven't noticed....the party of NO has been suggesting that the main cuts be to medicare, social security and medicaid, and have fought against the wealthy shouldering ANY of the burden. In other words, finance it on the backs of the poorest and the elderly....just protect the weatlhy from having to pay for any of it.
 
Taylor said:
No YOU'RE misreading. Saying there is no evidence of a negative influence of taxes on the economy -- especially using your reasoning -- is burying your head in the sand, not unlike those who could see no evidence that smoking was a health risk.

Fortunately, the vast majority of economists disagree with you. Even Obama disagrees with you.

From today's New York Times:

Of course, Obama realizes this too, but his desire to raise taxes is driven more by his desire to punish the rich (i.e. "fairness") than reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...

Obama may agree with this, but the facts disagree

States That Cut The Most Funding Lost The Most Jobs: Analysis

states that cut the most funding lost the most jobs. And according to the site, in fact, the country is split pretty evenly between the 24 states that cut spending between 2007 and 2010, and the 25 that expanded government outlays.

On average, states that increased spending performed significantly better than cost-cutting states, with their unemployment rates actually dropping by 0.2 percent (as opposed to 1 percent increase in cost-cutting states), private-sector employment increasing by 1.4 percent (as opposed to a 2.1 percent loss) and 0.5 percent "real economic growth" since the start of the recession (as compared to a 2.9 percent economic contraction relative to the national economic trend).
Click to expand...

hersh_charticle_062711-02.png
 
sangha said:
And the republican boobs keep falling for it :lol:

No wonder they can't run an economy; they can only ruin it
Click to expand...

I believe it was you that I previously told was that I would rather be dumb that be a dishonest liar. And you prefer the latter. Thwppppppppt!
 
sangha said:
Maybe you should draw picture.

Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
Click to expand...

Good idea, many of the far right persuasion think our debt just came about during the last 2 and a half years. Most of those also were for our two unfunded ME wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
Grant said:
Who caused the bleeding in the first place?
Click to expand...

The republicans and their corporate sponsors

The rich are being greedy, always wanting more. They can't compete with the avg working american on a level playing field, so they want the govt to subsidize their thievery
 
Paschendale said:
That's not even a little bit true. Everyone is not "equally greedy". Many are content with what they have, or at least close to what they have. Very few must have it all. And even fewer are willing to do what is required to have it all. You are aware of the term "corruption" right? That is when someone's greed causes them to do things they would not otherwise do. Many people do not succumb to corruption, because they are not as greedy. Greed is not equally distributed, and it boggles my mind to hear religious people, especially Christians to whom greed is a major sin, defend it. It is ignorance and folly to think that we are all equivalent in our willingness to sacrifice the good of others for our own gain, and even stupider to think that somehow it will all balance out if we just let everyone tear into each other.
Click to expand...

Everyone who acts in a self-interested way may be described, loosely, as greedy. Economists often make use of this sort of loose language. A person who who is content with what they have is still "greedy" for that which they have and take contentment in. Everyone who acts to fulfill their self interest is doing so for a self-interested motivation, and acts to fulfill that as best they can. It's the most predictable human behavior, and it's why we have the law of supply and demand.

One might have a high net worth or a low net worth. One might have noble motives, such as a charity, or one might have base and avaricious motives, such as living in opulence. But all are essentially "greedy."
 
sangha said:
And the republican boobs keep falling for it :lol:

No wonder they can't run an economy; they can only ruin it
Click to expand...

sangha said:
Done

lossgain_0.jpg


GR2010081106717-thumb-454x592-23659.gif
Click to expand...

This chart is BS. In aggregate, how much of the tax cuts went to the "wealthy" and how much went to all others. I just need two numbers. Can you provide them?
 
sangha said:
If someone agrees to live in the US, they are subject to our taxes. They pay what we decide they pay. Nothing is clearer than that. The well to do have to pay their fair share. Their desire to have everything and then some is selfish and unamerican
Click to expand...

You are now cornered into the weakest of fall-back arguments. You lost.

By your reasoning if:

1. If majority votes for a specific tax rate
2. If you are a U.S. citizen
Then, what you pay is termed "your fair share" by sangha.

So 100% taxes could be considered a fair share...but this brilliant reasoning. Obviously absurd.

Or try the reverse for grins. If corporations actually ruled the congress and was able via propoganda to get a majority to pass 0% taxes for the ultra wealthy, and 100% taxes for the middle class, that would be, according to your reasoning, a "fair share".

I can't believe this is what your argument rests on. I mean, I know you probably can't justify taxes any other way, but at least try. The idea that "might makes right" is so unbecoming.
 
Catawba said:
Good idea, many of the far right persuasion think our debt just came about during the last 2 and a half years. Most of those also were for our two unfunded ME wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you have the chart showing years 2008-2011?
 
LesGovt said:
Erod, I hate to say this, but liblady is correct. The American people, by and large, are irresponsible people. They do not spend their own money within their means. That are sadly up to their eyeballs in debt. And, they have not saved enough money for retirement. Frugality, self-discipline, self-sufficiency, and personal responsiblity are no longer the AMERICAN way. And, our Congressmen are no different. It's truly a sad state of affairs, but liblady is correct.
Click to expand...

indeed, both of my rabid right wing brothers-in-law won't ever be able to retire.
 
LesGovt said:
Why should anyone pay higher taxes because the Federal Government has been irresponsible? That's like saying that we should take money away from parents if their teenagers spend too much. Is this how you raised or plan to raise your teenagers?

Maybe we would be better off passing a constiutional amendment that says if the budget is not balanced in a given year, the President, Vice President, and members of Congress can take no pay or benefits, or campaign contriubtions for the next year and expenditure must be cut by the amount of the deficit from the previous year. We need to discipline the right party.
Click to expand...

Why should the rich pay lower taxes because they have been so irresponsible? That's like saying that we should give money to alcoholics because they blacked out and lost their savings. Is this how you deal with those who are drunk on power?

Maybe we would be better off passing a constiutional amendment that says if the republicans keep piling up debt, the republican members of Congress can take no pay or benefits, or campaign contriubtions for the next year and their campaign expenditure must be cut by the amount of the deficit from the previous year. We need to discipline the rightwing party
 
LesGovt said:
Terrific! Now, how about providing what the amounts of the cuts were in total for the "wealthy" and others? In case I am not clear, what amount did all of the "wealthy" get and how much did all of the others get?
Click to expand...

I've already provided documention to show the total amount of cuts. The average total cuts for the rich was $58,000 per year per household. The avereage total cut for the middle class was just a little over $1,000 per year per household.
 
This chart, showing 2008-2011? is it covered in poo or something? why has no one posted it?
 
liblady said:
indeed, both of my rabid right wing brothers-in-law won't ever be able to retire.
Click to expand...

Well, I am pleased to see that your rabid bias had to show on this one. I'll bet that it is rampant between both wings and in the middle, but then again, you already knew this. Pshaw!
 
Taylor said:
The GOP seems to be the only one offering solutions.

From the Democrat side, we have sweeping generalizations, and we have...

NObama:
NO deal that doesn't raise taxes
NO short term deal to keep the country running
NO deal that cuts in any way his massive new entitlement
NO deal that touches rail initiatives... (and on and on)
Click to expand...

The GOP is running away from Obamas sweeping plan to reduce budget deficits. He offered $4trillion is reductions, and the republicans threw a tea tantrum
 
sangha said:
Why should the rich pay lower taxes because they have been so irresponsible? That's like saying that we should give money to alcoholics because they blacked out and lost their savings. Is this how you deal with those who are drunk on power?

Maybe we would be better off passing a constiutional amendment that says if the republicans keep piling up debt, the republican members of Congress can take no pay or benefits, or campaign contriubtions for the next year and their campaign expenditure must be cut by the amount of the deficit from the previous year. We need to discipline the rightwing party
Click to expand...

Sorry, this doesn't even qualify for a response.
 
Grant said:
If Americans want to hurt Big Business then they should not complain when these businesses move. They are certainly being welcomed elsewhere, and with far less onerous corporate taxes.

If you don't care for big business try to order your computer or a car from the little shop on the corner, but it might be wise to first ask how much it might cost you.
Click to expand...

The US is a low tax nation
low_tax.jpg
 
LesGovt said:
No! No! No!

When it comes to spending, the entitlements make up far more than half of the Federal Government's expenditures. These were Democrat plans.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. SS reduces the budget deficit. That's why the rightwing wants to kill SS
 
TurtleDude said:
Hardcore dude-hardcore
Click to expand...

Let's do it, Dog. The Democrats have been crying about how bad it'll be if we default, but hell -- things are already bad. Crash the damned thing and see how much worse it can get. A lot of dumbasses will wake the f*** up when the craphouse goes up in flames.
 
Grant said:
But the equal distribution of greed is not what's at play here. Those with less want an equal distribution, in fact more than an equal distribution, from those who have more. It is the mob, being encouraged by unscrupulous politicians, wanting something for nothing.
Click to expand...

But the equal distribution of greed is not what's at play here. Those with more want an unequal distribution, from those who have less. It is the american people, being encouraged by the leftwing, who wants the rich to pay their fair share
 
ElCid said:
A lot of dumbasses will wake the f*** up when the craphouse goes up in flames.
Click to expand...

I think that you are a lot like the folks in Washington: not taking the catastrophic consequences of a national default as seriously as you should.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom