• 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.
When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.

With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.



We can start here.

how about raising taxes on the 47% who have an effective federal tax rate of ZERO or the 60% who get more from the government than they pay in taxes?
 
but IIRC, GDP growth had been stalled for years while spending was still climbing at a normal rate(out of control without restriction or retribution).. we barely missed meeting the requirements for a recession for a long time before obama..
Huh?? Your whole post is wrong.

Had GDP been "stalled for years" a long time before Obama we'd be talking about the second great depression we had. GDP had grown pretty steadily since the early 90's. We didn't "barely miss meeting requirements for a recession a long time before Obama" - the recession started in the tail end of the Bush admin. Finally, spending hasn't climbed at a normal rate. Under Bush, it increased 2% over 7 years (from 18% of GDP to 20% of GDP,) which greatly disillusioned the conservative base - it then skyrocketed to 25% in 2009 and has remained at historical levels.
 
While I might agree with some of what you say … there are two things I would like to point out … first, who do you think that middle class is working for ? Might it not be for those evil filthy corporations making all that money ? You don't have to like it, but they are the ones that create jobs, that increases the middle class, that allow people to spend more to create more jobs, the simple truth of this is you can't have a middle class with out them .. . and they can't expand without a larger middle class. It's a circle .. we need both …... rather then just taxing them .. might a better solution be to sit down with them .. find out what is holding them back from hiring and expanding .. and work on those things that are holding them back …...

Point two …. …. when you tax them more (that includes taking away subsidies) that money just goes into the equation as a cost,, their profit margin is going to remain the same, and what you will see at the pump is a increase in cost …. which in turn is going to mean higher profits for the oil companies .. because again .. there is always going to be people buying gas and oil products at least in the foreseeable future

No matter how much money you give corporations, if no one is buying their product, then no jobs are created. When the Average American has money to spend on those products, then demand rises, production rises, jobs are created.

Starting from the top and working your way down won't work, businesses are investing that money or hoarding in case things get worse, as in Americans have no money to spend on their latest gizmo.

Might it not be for those evil filthy corporations
Either show where I said that or stick to the debate at hand. Here in the real world fully stocked shelves that are full of merchandise that no one is buying simply will not do a thing for jobs or the economy.
 
Or, we could close loopholes and cut spending both, and possibly even get things back on track even faster. I know, I'm supposed to be on one side or the other screeching about how the other side is doing it wrong.

I fail.

You don't fail, I was one of the few that was for letting all the tax cuts expired .... I'm not against raising taxes .. . I'm really not .. . But Damn some time or another we have to see the government cut something .. a real cut .. not just paper shuffling to make it look like a cut. I'm sorry but for the last 30 years we have spent more then we took in ... now pardon me for wanting to see some evidence that is going to change before giving them even more monye to spend ..
 
how about raising taxes on the 47% who have an effective federal tax rate of ZERO or the 60% who get more from the government than they pay in taxes?



Your case is to take from people who can barely afford to eat? Nice plan. Got anything that is based in reality?
 
You don't fail, I was one of the few that was for letting all the tax cuts expired .... I'm not against raising taxes .. . I'm really not .. . But Damn some time or another we have to see the government cut something .. a real cut .. not just paper shuffling to make it look like a cut. I'm sorry but for the last 30 years we have spent more then we took in ... now pardon me for wanting to see some evidence that is going to change before giving them even more monye to spend ..

We can do both at the same time. Our leaders can sit at the table and know if both are there. We need to show we support both.
 
You don't fail, I was one of the few that was for letting all the tax cuts expired .... I'm not against raising taxes .. . I'm really not .. . But Damn some time or another we have to see the government cut something .. a real cut .. not just paper shuffling to make it look like a cut. I'm sorry but for the last 30 years we have spent more then we took in ... now pardon me for wanting to see some evidence that is going to change before giving them even more monye to spend ..

End two wars. $4 Trillion over the last 10 years. Reduce defense spending levels to reality. Eliminate farm, railroad and oil subsidies.

Create jobs by rebuilding our rotting infrastructure. Jobs that will actually pay for themselves in that Americans would be working and spending again.
 
Your case is to take from people who can barely afford to eat? Nice plan. Got anything that is based in reality?

so it is your learned position that 47% of the population can barely afford to eat? most of the poorest people are OBESE
 
Citation required.

1) you are the one who claimed that 47% of the people cannot afford to feed themselves

2) are you denying that 47% don't pay federal income taxes?
 
1) you are the one who claimed that 47% of the people cannot afford to feed themselves

2) are you denying that 47% don't pay federal income taxes?

He's questioning your 47% number, probabaly not knwoing you're limiting it to payroll taxes, ignoring other taxes people pay, and that that number is a one year oddity (usually between 35 and 40%).
 
1) you are the one who claimed that 47% of the people cannot afford to feed themselves

2) are you denying that 47% don't pay federal income taxes?

What does that have to do with you claiming that they are all obese?
 
He's questioning your 47% number, probabaly not knwoing you're limiting it to payroll taxes, ignoring other taxes people pay.

the discussion involves income tax hikes. not social security contributions or excise taxes on wines or firearms
 
the discussion involves income tax hikes. not social security contributions or excise taxes on wines or firearms

Not when you bring the misleading stat. You move the discussion. Sorry.
 
What does that have to do with you claiming that they are all obese?

you were the one who made the idiotic claim that 47% of the population can barely afford to eat.

The only really thin people I see in poor neighborhoods are tweakers
 
the discussion involves income tax hikes. not social security contributions or excise taxes on wines or firearms

So, now they are fat, drunk and armed. Nice, you are dismissed.
 
Create jobs by rebuilding our rotting infrastructure. Jobs that will actually pay for themselves in that Americans would be working and spending again.

See this is why I want some proof this time .. . remember that 800 billion dollar stimulus that was for those shovel ready jobs that were going to put Americans to work ... 800 billion of our tax dollars already spend on it ... where's the jobs ???

I'm just tired of being lied to .... and I'm not talking about just the last two years . . I'm talking about the last 30 ... I said this many times ... Clinton was the best we had .. he raised taxes .. cut military spending to the bone, had the dot com bubble driving the economy, making more millionaires faster then anytime in history, with all that going on .. this country went another 1.5 trillion dollars in debt .. and that was the best we had in the last 30 years
 
So, now they are fat, drunk and armed. Nice, you are dismissed.

LOL a guy who has been here a couple days (sure) dismissing anyone is funny

Your misunderstanding of my post is pathetic. THe point was-the taxes that are being discussed currently are FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. not other taxes including excise taxes. Try again
 
so it is your learned position that 47% of the population can barely afford to eat? most of the poorest people are OBESE

People get obese when they cant afford to eat the best of foods...poor people eat STARCH....rice, pasta, patatoes....believe it or not turtledude this may startle you...most people in america cant afford lobster and porterhouse...
 
"Raising taxes in a recession is the last thing you want to do." - President Barack Obama



we are willing to compromise on plenty. whatever the President wants to cut, we'll cut. but raising taxes will not bring in any revenue, it will hurt the country's struggling economy, and it's not a political possibility. we might as well demand that Obama pass the Ryan Plan, and then accuse him of refusing to compromise when he doesn't.



At best, Obama wants to hike taxes, but doesn't want the blame for it, so he wants to make Republicans his enablers. At worst, Obama knows that this won't pass the House, and so he wants to go past the Aug 2 deadline to see how much he can scare the American public about the "eeeeevil Wepubwicans" [/Elmer Fudd Voice].

Do you realistically think they can cut as much of the entitlement benefits needed to actually make a difference without hurting those on fixed incomes?
 
See this is why I want some proof this time .. . remember that 800 billion dollar stimulus that was for those shovel ready jobs that were going to put Americans to work ... 800 billion of our tax dollars already spend on it ... where's the jobs ???

I'm just tired of being lied to .... and I'm not talking about just the last two years . . I'm talking about the last 30 ... I said this many times ... Clinton was the best we had .. he raised taxes .. cut military spending to the bone, had the dot com bubble driving the economy, making more millionaires faster then anytime in history, with all that going on .. this country went another 1.5 trillion dollars in debt .. and that was the best we had in the last 30 years

Frustrating as hell, isn't it? The real sad part of this, we have the government we deserve. Not the one we want, but the one we deserve. We have allowed this to happen by apathy and being easily distracted by shiny things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom