• 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

Name for me one prediction by the OMB that has been accurate?

This isn't something that's especially hard to predict. It's an accounting thing.
 
Yeah, let's just outlaw private business in America, then all will be well won't it?

j-mac

It just shows how ridiculously deceitful you have to be to try to make a point. No one said anything about outlawing private businesses....but why do you support public subsidies to support big oil corporations that are making billions in profit? Why are you in such favor of massive corporate welfare?
 
This isn't something that's especially hard to predict. It's an accounting thing.

So was the unemployment prediction that made the case for the Stimulus program.
 
It just shows how ridiculously deceitful you have to be to try to make a point. No one said anything about outlawing private businesses....but why do you support public subsidies to support big oil corporations that are making billions in profit? Why are you in such favor of massive corporate welfare?

What is giving companies money to hire people? What is the tax breaks Obama is asking for?
 
Alot of whining in this thread about OMG he wants to take away some tax loopholes??? hes going to take from the ones that have it and give to the skid parasites ???

Heres a much much much more acceptable idea to some with the conservative tag and libertarian tag...

Lets take the total cost from the the unemployed, underemployed and the working poor and give it to the top tax bracket in tax cuts....then milk the middleclass for whatever you can get in increased taxs to pay off the deficit and give another tax cut to the richest americans....if not for anything else Id be happy with that in the HOPE that they would stop WHINING for even a little while
 
Americans want higher taxes? If I asked 100 people if they "wanted" higher taxes, 90 of them would look at me like I was a moron. As for the solution being taxing the rich, if you taxed the top 1% of the income in the US at 10% more, you would only equate for about 2% of spending in the federal budget, so we all know good and well that, thats not the solution.
All the polls say that people are in favor of repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy. I didn't make any statement on raising everyone's taxes. If you don't believe that people favor raising taxes on the rich then it's not my problem that you refuse to accept reality.
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
They want to raise taxes for the wealthy to what they were under clinton. Back then we weren't a socialist utopia either and the economy did quite well and the top earners did extremely well. To argue this as class warfare or as buying votes is silly.
 
So for the third time in what is it....10 months?...that Obama is seeking to raise taxes for those over $200k. I guess his strategy is "If you don't give me my way I'll just badger you to death with the same issue over and over and over again so I can claim you're obstructionist".

It didn't pass the first time when you had a majority Democratic congress. It didn't pass the second time with the current makeup. There's no reason to even attempt it a third time in this short of a span other than for partisan political reasons to try and make an excuse that Republicans are being "unreasonable" when in reality its Obama being unreasonable attempting to push something for the third time in 10 months that clearly he knows is not going to get support and yet he stubbornly continues to refloat it.

All that said, no real shock here. In the middle of everything we're going with through with the debt this country is in Obama's grand plan is....Increase Spending, Raise Taxes. Hope and Change baby. Hope and Change.
 
Last edited:
So for the third time in what is it....10 months?...that Obama is seeking to raise taxes for those over $200k. I guess his strategy is "If you don't give me my way I'll just badger you to death with the same issue over and over and over again so I can claim you're obstructionist".
I don't think anything is wrong with that. If a president has a policy that is popular with the people but the other side of the isle won't let him act on it I think he should bring it up as much as possible to show people he's actually fighting for what he thinks is right. If Rick Perry becomes president and he really want's to privatize social security and it's popular with the people, poll after poll, even if he has no chance of passing it, I think it's completely fair for him to constantly suggest it and bring it up to let people know "this is what I'd do if given the chance".

I understand where you're coming from, it's old news and has been discussed to death, but if it's a popular idea then I see no reason that the president has to give up on it just because the other side of the isle don't agree with it.
 
I don't think anything is wrong with that. If a president has a policy that is popular with the people but the other side of the isle won't let him act on it I think he should bring it up as much as possible to show people he's actually fighting for what he thinks is right. If Rick Perry becomes president and he really want's to privatize social security and it's popular with the people, poll after poll, even if he has no chance of passing it, I think it's completely fair for him to constantly suggest it and bring it up to let people know "this is what I'd do if given the chance".

I understand where you're coming from, it's old news and has been discussed to death, but if it's a popular idea then I see no reason that the president has to give up on it just because the other side of the isle don't agree with it.

I would agree that this is a fine campaign strategy. However to conflate it with a bill that he requested after calling a joint session of congress to deliver. makes you wonder if he believes in what he was asking for is just putting his political interests ahead of the interests of the country.
 
Just making sure we've all seen this gem...FederalDeficitChart_BushTaxCutsWar_052511.jpg
 
I don't think anything is wrong with that. If a president has a policy that is popular with the people but the other side of the isle won't let him act on it I think he should bring it up as much as possible to show people he's actually fighting for what he thinks is right. If Rick Perry becomes president and he really want's to privatize social security and it's popular with the people, poll after poll, even if he has no chance of passing it, I think it's completely fair for him to constantly suggest it and bring it up to let people know "this is what I'd do if given the chance".

Here's the problem. You've randomly decided to deem Polls as "The will of the people".

Last I checked, Congress is elected by these thing called "people". They are also there due to the "Will of the people". The "Will of the People" voted them into power to act in what those congressmen think is in the best interest of the country and their constitutents.

Why is it that you feel one "Will of the People" is more important than the other "Will of the People"? Are you consistant and ALWAYS feel that whatever a poll says is what we should do? Or just when you agree with it?

The "Will of the People" by your definition (polls) said that we should ban gay marriage. So you support the republicans continually pushing for an amendment to ban it, attaching such a thing onto every major issue each few months?
 
Nope. The other team doesn't necessarily have to be playing politics. But, Obama, in this instance, certainly is. He proposes a stimulus that he knows republicans already don't want and offers to pay for it with tax increases republicans have already rejected.

Republicans will also, at times, play politics. In other words, republicans are not always righteous. So, basically, your entire statement is a bunch of hog wash.
Kind of like that Ryan bill he knew wouldn't pass?

As my statement was both sides play politics, and you agree, exactly what makes it hog wash? I suggest that partisans always see the other side as playing politics, and in doing so allow themselves an out for not considering what is being proposed.
 
It just shows how ridiculously deceitful you have to be to try to make a point. No one said anything about outlawing private businesses....

Oh, I was just trying to take it to its logical conclusion, considering the level of obvious disdain, and disgust you have for private business in the past...

...but why do you support public subsidies to support big oil corporations that are making billions in profit? Why are you in such favor of massive corporate welfare?

See, I think you have to define what you are calling 'subsidies'. Past discussions about oil companies and 'subsidies' have included eliminating deductions in depreciating equipment like any other business. So tell us dude, what are YOU speaking of when you talk of eliminating these so called subsidies?

j-mac
 
Just making sure we've all seen this gem...View attachment 67115657

I have seen that chart many times and I continue to look at the line item expenses of the Federal Govt and just cannot seem to find tax cuts listed as an expense. Further I keep waiting for any projections from this Administration or the CBO to actually be accurate especially since govt. revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented.

CBO made predictions based upon assumptions given them by the Congress and the Administration which assumes that human behavior would remain the same, unemployment would remain the same, no jobs would be created after those tax cuts, and economic growth would be the same. CBO by legal requirements has to make projections based upon the assumptions given. Those assumptions if wrong make the projections wrong and in almost every case projections have been wrong so why buy those projections?

Someone has to ask themselves why liberals are fighting so hard to repeal the Bush tax cuts and to raise taxes on the rich? The passion for this subject is questionable in that liberal leadership loves dependence for that his how they keep their jobs. I do not support raising taxes on anyone with 25+ million Americans unemployed and underemployed thus "rewarding" politicians for their poor stewardship of the economy. I prefer rewarding taxpayers for their hard work and thus allowing them to keep more of THEIR money.
 
Kind of like that Ryan bill he knew wouldn't pass?

As my statement was both sides play politics, and you agree, exactly what makes it hog wash? I suggest that partisans always see the other side as playing politics, and in doing so allow themselves an out for not considering what is being proposed.

You were typing?....heh, heh....Just kidding Joe. But seriously, Do you believe that this rehash of a speech by Obama with really nothing new in it, was a heart felt attempt at arriving at a solution? Or setting up his campaign with talking points in the future when he knows the outcome of this BS?

I say the latter.

j-mac
 
From the conservative publication Forbes:

First of all, let the record show that President Obama is right and the GOP is wrong about these tax breaks. They make the economy less--not more--efficient and do nothing to reduce prices at the pump.

Although the president hopes to eliminate eight specific tax breaks--which cost the Treasury $43.6 billion over 10 years--only three, accounting for $31.9 billion of that total, are particularly important. Conservatives have no business defending any of them.

(snip)

Rigging the tax code to make investments in manufacturing artificially more attractive than investments in something else is an enterprise designed to harm non-manufacturers for the benefit of ... manufacturers. Conservatives who want government to leave markets alone have no business throwing their political bodies in front of this tax break. If their political rhetoric means anything, they would see the president's bid and raise him by calling for total repeal of this tax break for everyone, not just for oil and gas companies.

Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers For President Obama - Forbes.com
 
Oh, I was just trying to take it to its logical conclusion, considering the level of obvious disdain, and disgust you have for private business in the past...



See, I think you have to define what you are calling 'subsidies'. Past discussions about oil companies and 'subsidies' have included eliminating deductions in depreciating equipment like any other business. So tell us dude, what are YOU speaking of when you talk of eliminating these so called subsidies?

j-mac

Good luck getting an answer to that question.
 
From the conservative publication Forbes:

First of all, let the record show that President Obama is right and the GOP is wrong about these tax breaks. They make the economy less--not more--efficient and do nothing to reduce prices at the pump.

Although the president hopes to eliminate eight specific tax breaks--which cost the Treasury $43.6 billion over 10 years--only three, accounting for $31.9 billion of that total, are particularly important. Conservatives have no business defending any of them.

(snip)

Rigging the tax code to make investments in manufacturing artificially more attractive than investments in something else is an enterprise designed to harm non-manufacturers for the benefit of ... manufacturers. Conservatives who want government to leave markets alone have no business throwing their political bodies in front of this tax break. If their political rhetoric means anything, they would see the president's bid and raise him by calling for total repeal of this tax break for everyone, not just for oil and gas companies.

Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers For President Obama - Forbes.com

Why are you supporting rewarding politicians that created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt we have right now? Seems you are more concerned about how much money goes to the govt. than how that money is spent. That is true liberal elitism
 
You were typing?....heh, heh....Just kidding Joe. But seriously, Do you believe that this rehash of a speech by Obama with really nothing new in it, was a heart felt attempt at arriving at a solution? Or setting up his campaign with talking points in the future when he knows the outcome of this BS?

I say the latter.

j-mac

It's a fools game to judge someone's heart. You could be as wrong as me and vise versa. However, I would say this, if this is campaign talk alone, he needs to be in campaign mode more often. Perhaps he should stay in that mode all during his term. ;)
 
Why are you supporting rewarding politicians that created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt we have right now? Seems you are more concerned about how much money goes to the govt. than how that money is spent. That is true liberal elitism

Wow? Where did you get that from the Forbes article? Is this a squirrel moment?
 

Oh goody...Dueling Forbes articles....

A temporary tax cut, credits for home buyers, shovel-ready government spending, targeted measures for the chronically jobless, extended unemployment compensation. This is President Obama’s latest plan to nudge unemployment below its high new normal – and also precisely that of John F. Kennedy as he confronted recession on taking office in early 1961. The difference is that JFK came to realize that this policy was wrong-headed. Two years into his presidency, JFK turned on his heels to call for tighter money and marginal tax cuts. President Obama is repeating JFK’s initial policy error – though much further along in his presidency.

Obama Is Repeating JFK's Mistakes - Forbes

j-mac
 
It's a fools game to judge someone's heart. You could be as wrong as me and vise versa. However, I would say this, if this is campaign talk alone, he needs to be in campaign mode more often. Perhaps he should stay in that mode all during his term. ;)

I judge performance, not rhetoric. What is it in the Obama performance that justifies support? Obama is a campaigner and lacks leadership skills. How hard is it to sell people who don't pay any FIT to raise the taxes on others that do?
 
Back
Top Bottom