• 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!

'Gang of Six' revives hope for big deal in stalled debt-ceiling talks

ptif219 said:
Nice try but after 10 years it is a tax increase
Click to expand...

The temporary tax cuts came with an expiration date, in writing. They remain temporary tax cuts as they have never been made permanent. They were only extended last year by one year.
 
Catawba said:
The temporary tax cuts came with an expiration date, in writing. They remain temporary tax cuts as they have never been made permanent. They were only extended last year by one year.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason that businesses are holding onto their cash; that Obama's promise not to renew those tax cuts again. Duuuuh!!!!
 
Catawba said:
Kind of behind in the times aren't you? We have moved way beyond Obama's proposed 2012 budget. He replaced that proposal with his framework for deficit reduction which is based on the Bowles-Simpson report. That framework was used by the Gang of 6 to develop the bipartisan Congressional proposal, which brings us back to the OP.
Click to expand...

Thats crap it was not used by the gang of 6. If you are going to claim that prove it.
 
apdst said:
Hence the reason that businesses are holding onto their cash; that Obama's promise not to renew those tax cuts again. Duuuuh!!!!
Click to expand...

So you think business refuse to grow because of failure to renew a 3% tax increase? Then how would you explain business growth before the 3% tax cut?

At least you are correctly referring to it now as not renewing a tax cut rather than a tax increase. I guess that is some progress. :sun
 
Catawba said:
The temporary tax cuts came with an expiration date, in writing. They remain temporary tax cuts as they have never been made permanent. They were only extended last year by one year.
Click to expand...

Yes but only part are going to be allowed to expire so that is a tax increase
 
ptif219 said:
Yes but only part are going to be allowed to expire so that is a tax increase
Click to expand...


What???? I have no idea what you mean. Explain.
 
ptif219 said:
There are several Bush tax cuts only one will be allowed to expire.
Click to expand...

And how do you predict this Swami? And what difference does it make? It would still be an expired tax cut! :sun
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
So they are increasing taxes
Click to expand...

If you have proof the Bush tax cuts were not temporary with an expiration date, present it. Simply repeating your opinion over and over again proves nothing.
 
Catawba said:
If you have proof the Bush tax cuts were not temporary with an expiration date, present it. Simply repeating your opinion over and over again proves nothing.
Click to expand...
You mean the Obama tax cuts. They expired last year and Obama extended them.
 
Catawba said:
No, if you had read my post, and the source I provided you would know that Obama's deficit reduction framework was based on the Bowles-Simpson plan, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Really??? Then you obviously was mistaken when you posted the following:

Catawba said:
Obama just provided the framework and let the committee fill in the speciics.
Click to expand...
 
what an embarrassment this plan is. and too bad for Coburn, who did such a great job with 9 trillion in cuts here, only to come out in favor of this disaster.




...The main deficit-reduction instruments would be a $1.2 trillion tax hike and deep cuts to defense spending. Neither of those proposals addresses the fundamental long-term spending drivers, which are the entitlement programs, mainly Social Security and Medicare. It is not entirely clear how that $1.2 trillion tax hike would be implemented....

If the tax side is contradictory, the spending side is simply fuzzy — it depends on the vaguest of generalities. It calls for the government to “encourage greater economic growth” and “spend health-care dollars more efficiently.” That is government by platitude. Pleading for a stronger economy and plotting to trim federal fat hardly represents fresh thinking.

The plan, as Paul Ryan points out, employs three different budget baselines, along with a good deal of wishful thinking. For instance, it claims to achieve $641 billion in so-called mandatory savings, but the cuts listed only add up to $516 billion. The other $125 billion apparently is to be taken on good faith. Billions of dollars of “savings” in federal health-care spending are to be realized by heroically limiting spending to exactly the range in which it already is expected to stay, under Congressional Budget Office forecasts. Only in Washington does continuing to spend money exactly as planned constitute savings. Worse, it sets up procedural hurdles that will make future Social Security reform difficult. The cynical among us might note that there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that spending cuts actually are enacted, and suspect that this is not an oversight....

​


fortunately, this thing should never pass the House. what a debacle.
 
Obama says he wants something "big" and indeed something "big" would address the entitlement issue. You can argue it should be cuts or increased taxes but by not addressing them this proposal is not going to solve anything.
 
precisely.
 
1Perry said:
Obama says he wants something "big" and indeed something "big" would address the entitlement issue. You can argue it should be cuts or increased taxes but by not addressing them this proposal is not going to solve anything.
Click to expand...


Ofcourse I can agree that entitlements are a major factor in reducing our debt, but this plan is no real solution, yet rather more smoke and mirrors. 1 Trillion in tax increases, and around 1.2 Trillion in debt reduction is not going to make a dent as long as Obama, and the congress continues the reckless spending that has resulted in 5 trillion in just under three years.

We need some real reform, not games.

j-mac
 
Taylor said:
You mean the Obama tax cuts. They expired last year and Obama extended them.
Click to expand...

President Bush's temporary tax cuts were extended one year past when they were set to expire because of the threat by the GOP to discontinue unemployment to our people that lost their jobs due to the Bush Recession.
 
j-mac said:
Ofcourse I can agree that entitlements are a major factor in reducing our debt, but this plan is no real solution, yet rather more smoke and mirrors. 1 Trillion in tax increases, and around 1.2 Trillion in debt reduction is not going to make a dent as long as Obama, and the congress continues the reckless spending that has resulted in 5 trillion in just under three years.

We need some real reform, not games.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Obama isn't the only one who spent recklessly. Yes, his two and half years are an embarrassment but it didn't get this bad in only 2 1/2 years.
 
j-mac said:
Ofcourse I can agree that entitlements are a major factor in reducing our debt, but this plan is no real solution, yet rather more smoke and mirrors. 1 Trillion in tax increases, and around 1.2 Trillion in debt reduction is not going to make a dent as long as Obama, and the congress continues the reckless spending that has resulted in 5 trillion in just under three years.

We need some real reform, not games.

j-mac
Click to expand...
Reckless spending aside, I don't know that this will even cover the interest. This may reduce the deficit, but "debt reduction" it most certainly is not.
 
Gill said:
Really??? Then you obviously was mistaken when you posted the following:
Click to expand...

You are confused and mistaken. I had already posted a reference that showed Obama based his framework he provided to Congress for deficit reduction on the Bowles-Simpson report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom