• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your mystery Treasury data which you've failed to provide is not including replacement of munitions and equipment, death benefits for the families, nor the cost of Veterans care for the thousands injured and maimed.

If you weren't so busy with your talking points you would have paid attention to the links I posted to those budgets. Of course that doesn't fit into your agenda as you have no problem posting your opinions as fact and ignoring actual facts. When the deficit is posted it includes all the items you mentioned but that doesn't fit into your agenda. Suggest you post less and do more research.
 
Diversion is exactly what you are practicing when you attack me for where I live instead of my positions on the issues.

News bulletin for you: I was never mayor of Detroit. I was never elected to anything in Detroit. I have not lived in Detroit for over several decades.

Got it?

You are the one claiming to be an expert and yet working inside the state govt. your state is an economic disaster and you haven't solved any local problems. There hasn't been a Republican mayor of Detroit since the 60's meaning that is a bastion of liberalism, a true failure.
 
If you weren't so busy with your talking points you would have paid attention to the links I posted to those budgets. Of course that doesn't fit into your agenda as you have no problem posting your opinions as fact and ignoring actual facts. When the deficit is posted it includes all the items you mentioned but that doesn't fit into your agenda. Suggest you post less and do more research.

You don't even begin to understand the budget process or accounting. Most of Bush's war spending was off budget, coming in the form of emergency appropriations. Obama has corrected that deceptive practice, making his deficits look worse relative to Bush's.
 
Unbelievable. Proven wrong again and again, he keeps slinging the same bullsh*t.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Here we go again, you have been brainwashed, didn't read the article on the myth did you? Let me help you, THERE WAS A SURPLUS in PUBLIC DEBT but that is only part of the story and if you read the article you would stop making a fool of yourself.
 
You don't even begin to understand the budget process or accounting. Most of Bush's war spending was off budget, coming in the form of emergency appropriations. Obama has corrected that deceptive practice, making his deficits look worse relative to Bush's.

You don't seem to understand that supplementals although not part of the budget ARE part of the deficit and thus are added tot he debt. Obama's 842 billion dollar stimulus was a supplemental and part of the 2009 deficit. You confuse budgets with actual expenditures so you really should do more research.
 
Here we go again, you have been brainwashed, didn't read the article on the myth did you? Let me help you, THERE WAS A SURPLUS in PUBLIC DEBT but that is only part of the story and if you read the article you would stop making a fool of yourself.

Hey, at least you finally acknowledge that there was a surplus. Maybe one day you'll even understand why the gross debt still showed minimal growth (i.e., the SS tax surplus).
 
You don't seem to understand that supplementals although not part of the budget ARE part of the deficit and thus are added tot he debt. Obama's 842 billion dollar stimulus was a supplemental and part of the 2009 deficit. You confuse budgets with actual expenditures so you really should do more research.

Will you ever figure out that only budget items are considered when BUDGET DEFICITS are discussed? You are confusing two different things: budget deficits and deficits in gross. They are not interchangeable and you can't pick and choose which one to cite as it suits your argment.
 
Hey, at least you finally acknowledge that there was a surplus. Maybe one day you'll even understand why the gross debt still showed minimal growth (i.e., the SS tax surplus).

Maybe you will understand that we pay debt service on the TOTAL DEBT not just public debt. Taking money from SS and puting it on budget creates a surplus in one category and a deficit in the other so selective accounting on your part makes you look foolish. Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion debt and left with it at 5.7 trillion. If he had the surpluses you claim that wouldn't have happened.
 
Will you ever figure out that only budget items are considered when BUDGET DEFICITS are discussed? You are confusing two different things: budget deficits and deficits in gross. They are not interchangeable and you can't pick and choose which one to cite as it suits your argment.

I provided Treasury Data which includes total debt and as I posted out 842 billion stimulus for Obama wasn't on budget but was counted in the deficit, just like Bush supplementals. You are the one picking and choosing what you want to believe. You want to believe Clinton had a surplus. Does it matter if he had a surplus if the debt increased? Taxpayers fund debt service and that debt service is paid on the debt which is increased by the total deficits. Get it yet?
 
Last edited:
I provided Treasury Data which includes total debt and as I posted out 842 billion stimulus for Obama wasn't on budget but was counted in the deficit, just like Bush supplementals. You are the one picking and choosing what you want to believe. You want to believe Clinton had a surplus. Does it matter if he had a surplus if the debt increased? Taxpayers fund debt service and that debt service is paid on the debt which is increased by the total deficits. Get it yet?

It is purely a question of semantics, and you choosing to use the wrong figures to try and make your argument. But if you prefer to look at the gross debt that's fine with me. While it did continue to grow slightly during Clinton's second term, it was extremely minimal growth relative to preceding and following presidents. If we could return to that level of growth we would be absolutely fine.
 
It is purely a question of semantics, and you choosing to use the wrong figures to try and make your argument. But if you prefer to look at the gross debt that's fine with me. While it did continue to grow slightly during Clinton's second term, it was extremely minimal growth relative to preceding and following presidents. If we could return to that level of growth we would be absolutely fine.

Right, only in the liberal world is there a surplus with a rising deficit? Further if you were totally honest you would understand that Congress appropriates the money and Congress during the Clinton years was Republican except for the first two years.

You want so badly to believe the liberal rhetoric and is making you look and sound foolish. Barack Obama has added 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years and this program he has proposed does nothing to change that.
"Fair Share" has never been defined nor has the amount the Treasury will get from the raising taxes on the rich. All this rhetoric and you continue to believe it. The question is why? Why is there such loyalty to liberalism in the face of all the facts to the contrary?
 
Thanks for the laugh at the end of the evening as I know that is your purpose, to come into the forum, make wild accusations and then get a response. This is an act, no question about it

Act? Your whining and crying about how the liberals are trying to steal your money is an obnoxious act, proof= the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. I don't care how you label it the countries wealth was more evenly spread across the classes and now it is concentrated with the rich. My conclusion it was stolen through stock market manipulating, predatory lending by banks, insurance companies, speculating, derivatives,hedge funds, wars waged to protect the interests of the haves
 
Act? Your whining and crying about how the liberals are trying to steal your money is an obnoxious act, proof= the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. I don't care how you label it the countries wealth was more evenly spread across the classes and now it is concentrated with the rich. My conclusion it was stolen through stock market manipulating, predatory lending by banks, insurance companies, speculating, derivatives,hedge funds, wars waged to protect the interests of the haves

Whining and complaining? No, responding to you and others and your distortions, YES! I am in the camp that we have a spending problem, you are in the camp that we have a revenue problem. I am not whining about how much you make or pay in taxes but you are sure whining about how much someone else is paying in taxes. You paint with a broad brush and ignore the waste, fraud, and abuse of those taking aid from the taxpayers. Not once have you recognized that the braindead and clueless are getting aid from the taxpayers plus you ignore that the fair share of 47% of income earners seems to be ZERO FIT.

Seems you and liberals believe it is ok and right for the taxpayers to give you money if it is sent to the Federal Govt. first. That is class warfare! Why is it you ignore that people who take risk also lose a lot of money. How much of that risk can be written off?

Class warfare is all liberals like you have and it is totally illogical. No rich person ever hurt you but it is interesting how you talk about personal greed but never about govt. greed. Why is that?
 
Act? Your whining and crying about how the liberals are trying to steal your money is an obnoxious act, proof= the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. I don't care how you label it the countries wealth was more evenly spread across the classes and now it is concentrated with the rich. My conclusion it was stolen through stock market manipulating, predatory lending by banks, insurance companies, speculating, derivatives,hedge funds, wars waged to protect the interests of the haves

A general question to all. Does the above truly represent the depth of knowledge by the folks on this site about the economic situation. Or is this just a political rant that folks can have fun jostling about.

If it is the former, then trying to have a discussion is pretty meaningless and for many their time would be better spent on either other sites or other sections. If it is the latter, then let folks have fun.

What are your thoughts?
 
A general question to all. Does the above truly represent the depth of knowledge by the folks on this site about the economic situation. Or is this just a political rant that folks can have fun jostling about.

If it is the former, then trying to have a discussion is pretty meaningless and for many their time would be better spent on either other sites or other sections. If it is the latter, then let folks have fun.

What are your thoughts?

Good post and good question hitting the nail on the head. I am convinced that many posters here are not interested in an honest discussion but instead political ranting by people trying to have fun. Thanks for putting this into perspective.
 
When was the loan approved, Pb? What was the Walton family involvement and when? Becareful now

Memo: Walton Family's Firm Was Part Of The Restructuring Deal. A memo released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee states that both Argonaut Venture Capital, the fund tied to Kaiser's foundation, and Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the Walton family, "negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee":


In the fall of 2010, DOE told Solyndra that, due to the company's financial problems, the department would refuse its request for a loan disbursement unless Solyndra obtained additional capital. Solyndra, DOE, and two of Solyndra's lead investors -- Argonaut Venture Capital and Madrone Capitol Partners --began negotiations to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee agreement. On November 3, 2010, Solyndra announced that it was closing its older manufacturing facility, resulting in the layoff of 135 temporary employees and approximately 40 full-time employees.

From December 2010 through February 2011, DOE, Solyndra, and two of its investors, Argonaut Venture Capital and Madrone Capitol Partners, negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee. Throughout this process, DOE consulted with OMB about the proposed terms and conditions of this arrangement.

On February 23, 2011, the parties signed an agreement to restructure the Solyndra deal. Under that agreement, Solyndra's investors agreed to a $75 million credit facility, with the option of a second $75 million. DOE agreed to extend the term of Solyndra's loan guarantee from seven to 10 years, and to postpone the first repayment installment by one year, from 2012 to 2013. In addition, the agreement provided that, in the event of the company's liquidation before 2013, the investors have the senior secured position with respect to the first $75 million recovered. DOE has the second senior secured position with respect to the next $150 million recovered in liquidation. If Solyndra had not liquidated or declared bankruptcy by 2013, the investors would have lost their senior secured position to DOE. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/12/11]



What The Press Is Getting Wrong About Solyndra | Media Matters for America
 
Memo: Walton Family's Firm Was Part Of The Restructuring Deal. A memo released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee states that both Argonaut Venture Capital, the fund tied to Kaiser's foundation, and Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the Walton family, "negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee":


In the fall of 2010, DOE told Solyndra that, due to the company's financial problems, the department would refuse its request for a loan disbursement unless Solyndra obtained additional capital. Solyndra, DOE, and two of Solyndra's lead investors -- Argonaut Venture Capital and Madrone Capitol Partners --began negotiations to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee agreement. On November 3, 2010, Solyndra announced that it was closing its older manufacturing facility, resulting in the layoff of 135 temporary employees and approximately 40 full-time employees.

From December 2010 through February 2011, DOE, Solyndra, and two of its investors, Argonaut Venture Capital and Madrone Capitol Partners, negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee. Throughout this process, DOE consulted with OMB about the proposed terms and conditions of this arrangement.

On February 23, 2011, the parties signed an agreement to restructure the Solyndra deal. Under that agreement, Solyndra's investors agreed to a $75 million credit facility, with the option of a second $75 million. DOE agreed to extend the term of Solyndra's loan guarantee from seven to 10 years, and to postpone the first repayment installment by one year, from 2012 to 2013. In addition, the agreement provided that, in the event of the company's liquidation before 2013, the investors have the senior secured position with respect to the first $75 million recovered. DOE has the second senior secured position with respect to the next $150 million recovered in liquidation. If Solyndra had not liquidated or declared bankruptcy by 2013, the investors would have lost their senior secured position to DOE. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/12/11]



What The Press Is Getting Wrong About Solyndra | Media Matters for America

So what you are saying confirse the fact that Bush did not make the loan to Solyndra. The fact remains, Solyndra went bankrupt AFTER the loan guarantee showing that a big campaign supporter of Obama got taxpayer backed loans in a "green energy" field and went bankrupt. What the press got wrong? Taxpayers are losing over 500 million dollars on this deal, a deal supported by the Obama Administration and rejected by Bush.
 
So what you are saying confirse the fact that Bush did not make the loan to Solyndra. The fact remains, Solyndra went bankrupt AFTER the loan guarantee showing that a big campaign supporter of Obama got taxpayer backed loans in a "green energy" field and went bankrupt. What the press got wrong? Taxpayers are losing over 500 million dollars on this deal, a deal supported by the Obama Administration and rejected by Bush.
The loan was bad, but this is not a scandal, that's my point.
 
The loan was bad, but this is not a scandal, that's my point.

So where is Obama being held accountable for making a bad business decision for the U.S. Taxpayer? Bush didn't issue the loan but 9 days after taking office Obama reinstated the proposal, why? There are billions of other taxpayer backed loans that are being released in the next few months as well. Where is the scrutiny and outrage for failure?
 
So where is Obama being held accountable for making a bad business decision for the U.S. Taxpayer? Bush didn't issue the loan but 9 days after taking office Obama reinstated the proposal, why? There are billions of other taxpayer backed loans that are being released in the next few months as well. Where is the scrutiny and outrage for failure?

Let me take the other side on this one. Perhaps the word scandal which infers wrongdoing should not be used here. Then we have the other discussion about whether we want government to try and figure out which companies to invest in. That is a role of government question which seems appropriate and perhaps points to the problem when the government gets involved versus wrongdoing.
 
The taxes for those having a taxable income of a million or more would go to Clinton's level, 3.9% more.

So much passion to take up the tax levels 3.9%, why? Do you not realize the negatve message that sends because the benefits are going to be so small? How does that put 25 million unemloyed and under employed Americans back to work full time? It may make the base "feel" good but what purpose does it serve? Where are the actual spending cuts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom