• 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 Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

Why does it seem "obvious that OBama knows the republican house will never OK the tax increases "?


Ok, personally, I think they ought to go ahead and pass it, then turn around in a year when this one doesn't work either, and say ok Obama, this is YOUR failed economy, we gave you what you wanted and you failed, so buh, bye now.

j-mac
 
you are 100% correct. our trade agreements are crappy! The chinese are killing us. Pandas plan of racing the rich more is crap and won't do anything. we are also keep ing medicare and social security off the table...our number one spender. We need reform

labor will be a race to the bottom until we level the manufacturing / trade fields. foreign manufacturers can risk workers' lives and health, as well as the lives and health of those living in the vicinity and still export to our market tariff free. after China, it will be less developed countries with sweatshop labor. products made under those conditions need to be tariffed.

Obama is right on infrastructure. it needs to be an even bolder plan than what he is proposing. it needs to include energy / the electrical grid, as well.
 
Ok, personally, I think they ought to go ahead and pass it, then turn around in a year when this one doesn't work either, and say ok Obama, this is YOUR failed economy, we gave you what you wanted and you failed, so buh, bye now.

j-mac

I think the American people are smart enough to know that this bull****, "jobs", bill won't work, without passing it.
 
Ok, personally, I think they ought to go ahead and pass it, then turn around in a year when this one doesn't work either, and say ok Obama, this is YOUR failed economy, we gave you what you wanted and you failed, so buh, bye now.

j-mac


Sounds like were on the same page on this one. if it went off as planned would you vote for Obama?:2wave:
 

Most people want others to pay more taxes so they don't have to. Its why the progressive income tax scheme works for politicians. Buy the votes of the many with the money of the few
 
What a travesty!

The idea of making wealthier Americans pay just a little extra in taxes (temporarily) so we can have some short term cash to help fix some of our budgetary and economic problems is just sickening. It warrants a giant complaining session in fact.

Look, I'm all for lowering taxes at times when it makes sense strategically, but this is not one of them. Let's try to fix our budget without making deep cuts to programs that may be the difference between life or death for some folks, and then reassess the situation when when things even back out.

I don't think an approach based on revenue increases and spending cuts is a crazy idea.

why not make everyone-especially those who pay no taxes-pay more? can you say political pandering?
 
Why do we continue to subsidize oil companies that are making billions in profits? Why do so many of you guys have big problems with government social programs, but you have no problem with the government handing out billions in corporate welfare?
 
Sounds like were on the same page on this one. if it went off as planned would you vote for Obama?:2wave:

No. I am a full conservative, and as it is what it is, there is no way that a second stimulus that proposes to be doled out in almost mirror fashion as the first one that didn't work, to unions, and constituents for votes will.

I think Obama brought this BS up to invent an issue for his election, this wasn't to boost anything other than the distraction for his campaign. He (Obama) really is an asshole.

j-mac
 
Most people want others to pay more taxes so they don't have to. Its why the progressive income tax scheme works for politicians. Buy the votes of the many with the money of the few


Nah.....:2wave:
 
Why do we continue to subsidize oil companies that are making billions in profits? Why do so many of you guys have big problems with government social programs, but you have no problem with the government handing out billions in corporate welfare?

Yeah, let's just outlaw private business in America, then all will be well won't it?

j-mac
 
Why is it okay to tax a billionaire hedge fund manager's income at 15% and your income at 25%?

You have to be in the top 1% of tax payers to pay anywhere near an effective rate of 25%. and how many billionaire hedge fund managers are there? those few people still pay more income taxes than 100 million Americans combined.
 
You have to be in the top 1% of tax payers to pay anywhere near an effective rate of 25%. and how many billionaire hedge fund managers are there? those few people still pay more income taxes than 100 million Americans combined.

That is not what he asked you.
 
That is not what he asked you.

Then he should follow up but its worthless to whine about less than 100 or so people at MOST

and I have noted in the past that I disagree with that provision-managing money should be earned income for the hedge manager-LTCG for the shareholders
 
why not make everyone-especially those who pay no taxes-pay more? can you say political pandering?

Because, genius, the people who spend the most money are the lower class. The goal is to give them more money to spend, not less. That's how you get money back into circulation and fix the economy. Or is your goal something different than that?
 
Because, genius, the people who spend the most money are the lower class. The goal is to give them more money to spend, not less. That's how you get money back into circulation and fix the economy. Or is your goal something different than that?

His goal is something different than that.

why not make everyone-especially those who pay no taxes-pay more? can you say political pandering?

Hey, it's your side that created this "problem" in the first place.
 
Because, genius, the people who spend the most money are the lower class. The goal is to give them more money to spend, not less. That's how you get money back into circulation and fix the economy. Or is your goal something different than that?

TD is a Leprechaun.
 
Because, genius, the people who spend the most money are the lower class. The goal is to give them more money to spend, not less. That's how you get money back into circulation and fix the economy. Or is your goal something different than that?

well thank you, but its been years since I had my IQ tested and I really don't know if its the genius level it was at age 12 or so but the fact is if people don't pay income taxes they seem to have less hesitancy to jack it up-especially on others

one of the main reasons to make everyone pay income taxes is to deter them from demanding more and more government spending. You see if you have to pay the bill, you tend to be less likely to want the credit card spending run up
 
well thank you, but its been years since I had my IQ tested and I really don't know if its the genius level it was at age 12 or so but the fact is if people don't pay income taxes they seem to have less hesitancy to jack it up-especially on others

one of the main reasons to make everyone pay income taxes is to deter them from demanding more and more government spending. You see if you have to pay the bill, you tend to be less likely to want the credit card spending run up

So basically, your goal is to reduce government spending as much as possible, and screw the economy. Is that about right?
 
So basically, your goal is to reduce government spending as much as possible, and screw the economy. Is that about right?

1) to reduce government to its proper constitutional boundaries

2) to prevent a system which encourages politicians to pander to a large number of voters by promising them stuff paid for by others because

3) such a system tends to expand government and government spending far beyond their proper boundaries and encourage the masses to jack up taxes on those who pay far too much of the taxes as it is

4) The economy is screwed because of many factors-some things we can control and some we cannot (such as other countries providing competent labor for far less cost)

however, massive government spending and massive public addiction to that spending are major reasons for the economy being screwed and the only way to cut that problem back is to remove the incentives many voters have to vote for big spending politicians

making everyone pay more taxes when the government spends more is one of those needed dis-incentives; Your desire to only make a small group pay more ONLY ENCOURAGES politicians to pander to the many
 
Why does it seem "obvious that OBama knows the republican house will never OK the tax increases "?

Because the republicans have already rejected them and told him they won't do it. He also knows that many of the new members ran on a pledge not to increase the taxes. If they voted to increase the taxes, every democrat would run with the flip flop argument.
 
Last edited:
What else is new, other than the amount Obama now says is the evil "rich" just went down to $200K from $250K....Funny how that keeps creeping down...

j-mac

Did he use the word evil? Or is it your contention that we should only end breaks if someone is evil? Maybe we should only tax evil people? Who should define evil?

J, can't we say someone or some company doesn't need a break and not classify anyone as evil?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Less personal and more on topic, or else.
 
Seems obvious that OBama knows the republican house will never OK the tax increases. He's not even serious about the jobs bill. just interested in playing politics... you know... as usual.

And the house? As you say they won't aprove a jobs bill, is that because they aren't serious? Playing politics? How can we tell? Or is it just that whoever is on the other team has to be playing politics and our team is righeous no matter what they do?
 
No. I am a full conservative, and as it is what it is, there is no way that a second stimulus that proposes to be doled out in almost mirror fashion as the first one that didn't work, to unions, and constituents for votes will.



j-mac

The auto industry contributes 3.6%, or $500 billion of total GDP output.

i realize that ford didn't take a bailout but discounting ford that's a pretty serious % of gdp that would be setting on the sidelines as we speak.

gm and Chrysler got a,i believe it was $24.9 billion bailout.The last i heard was that Chrysler has paid back $7.5 billion, and gm claims its paid back the loan amount,of course we still have stock in gm.When you consider the suppliers to the auto industry,that imo, represents money well spent.:2wave:
 
Because the republicans have already rejected them and told him they won't do it. He also knows that many of the new members ran on a pledge not to increase the taxes. If they voted to increase the taxes, every democrat would run with the flip flop argument.

Could be politics.Kinda like the hostage situation earlier on this year eh?Lotta house seats in play and congress with historic lows might get a few fence setters,and put some tea party radicals in play.

Mix that up with trying to put our seniors on an iceberg with a coupon for their healthcare...yep, politics could come into play.:thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom