• 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.
TheNextEra said:
So conservatives want to cut spending. Ok, from where? If you cut into welfare or cut entire government agencies like education you will put more people on the street and unemployed. So you solve the deficit and skyrocket homelessness and unemployment as well as create a revenue problem possibly increasing the deficit that way. I thought conservatives were griping that Obama had a high unemoyment rate and their solution is to raise that.

We need revenue from some place to fund a job training program to put people back to work.
Click to expand...

Love your answer. So you can think of no place to reduce federal govt expenditures?
- reduce aid to other countries.
- look for efficiencies in on federal agencies, eliminate duplications, consolidate where possible.
- as people retire from the federal workforce, really look at if the position needs to be filled. (hence no addition to unemployment)
See there are ways. How come the otherside is so fixed on revenue with little talk about reductions?
 
haymarket said:
I am in a long line of husbands who implore their spouse to adjust their spending only to be told that I need to make more money.;):mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Lucky for me I'm not. Mine is very fiscal responsible. One reason we were debt free 10 years before retiring.
Need to make more money but continue to spend is crazy
Have more money, other expenditures can be looked at. just saying.
 
haymarket said:
It is interesting and telling that the right is obsessed with only one side of the ledger. One of the first things anyone learns about a budget is that there are two sides INCOME and EXPENDITURES. The right only wants to look at EXPENDITURES and refuses to consider the INCOME side.

The budgetary problems of the USA will only be solved when both sides are dealt with.

And I never thought I would live long enough to see that sort of basic denial with reality due to extremist political ideology.
Click to expand...

There is nothing even remotely true about what you are saying. Have you even looked at any of the budget plans introduced by the right?

Maybe you don't truly understand how budgets work, but if you are over spending you can reduce spending without increasing income to cover the problem. I don't think it is any big seceret that our tax money is being spent in a lot of places that are completely unecessary. Before working out the income side of the budget, it makes more sense to work on the spending side to find out what all can be reduced, and then worry about how much income needs to be made.
 
Smokified said:
There is nothing even remotely true about what you are saying. Have you even looked at any of the budget plans introduced by the right?

Maybe you don't truly understand how budgets work, but if you are over spending you can reduce spending without increasing income to cover the problem. I don't think it is any big seceret that our tax money is being spent in a lot of places that are completely unecessary. Before working out the income side of the budget, it makes more sense to work on the spending side to find out what all can be reduced, and then worry about how much income needs to be made.
Click to expand...

NO. I think it is more sensible to look at BOTH sides of the ledger. Yes, I would agree that we can cut some spending. And I also maintain that taxes are too low for many. Both of those factors are hurting the over budget bottom line and both sides of that ledger contribute to it. To pretend that one side is sacred and cannot be touched while the other side is unclean and needs to be purified and cleansed is an ideological leap of faith and not dealing in hard and cold economic realities.
 
Smokified said:
There is nothing even remotely true about what you are saying. Have you even looked at any of the budget plans introduced by the right?

Maybe you don't truly understand how budgets work, but if you are over spending you can reduce spending without increasing income to cover the problem. I don't think it is any big seceret that our tax money is being spent in a lot of places that are completely unecessary. Before working out the income side of the budget, it makes more sense to work on the spending side to find out what all can be reduced, and then worry about how much income needs to be made.
Click to expand...

Republicans have offered no plans to cut our most wasteful spending, the military-industrial complex and our unfunded optional ME wars.
 
haymarket said:
NO. I think it is more sensible to look at BOTH sides of the ledger. Yes, I would agree that we can cut some spending. And I also maintain that taxes are too low for many. Both of those factors are hurting the over budget bottom line and both sides of that ledger contribute to it. To pretend that one side is sacred and cannot be touched while the other side is unclean and needs to be purified and cleansed is an ideological leap of faith and not dealing in hard and cold economic realities.
Click to expand...

So please explain how we are going to determine how much money we need to bring in before we determine how much we really need to spend.

Nobody is pretending anything is sacred, there are just some people that understand how to budget and some poeple that don't. It is very obvious what side of tihis fence you are on.

I don't understand how any tax payer would be all in for raising taxes without actually knowing how much of their money is being wasted on expenditures that are completely unecessary. Wouldn't it be more ideal if we could reduce a lot of our budget problems without having to increase the general cost of living for everyone else?

Your plan makes no sense when applied to reality.
 
Smokified said:
So please explain how we are going to determine how much money we need to bring in before we determine how much we really need to spend.

Nobody is pretending anything is sacred, there are just some people that understand how to budget and some poeple that don't. It is very obvious what side of tihis fence you are on.

I don't understand how any tax payer would be all in for raising taxes without actually knowing how much of their money is being wasted on expenditures that are completely unecessary. Wouldn't it be more ideal if we could reduce a lot of our budget problems without having to increase the general cost of living for everyone else?

Your plan makes no sense when applied to reality.
Click to expand...

My job during college was to do the night audit on a hotel budget which had over 100 rooms and four restaurants and clubs as well as other departments. I know how to balance a budget and know both sides of an accounting ledger as well as most. Please do not pretend to know my abilities or slander my abilities simply because I disagree with your beliefs.

For you or anyone to make a statement like my wanting to look at BOTH sides of the ledger is NOT REALITY, is a perfect and vivid illustration of the absolute bankrupt nature of current political discourse due to the willful imposition of extremist beliefs systems adopted by the far right and their poisoning the the political environment.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Republicans have offered no plans to cut our most wasteful spending, the military-industrial complex and our unfunded optional ME wars.
Click to expand...

Educate yourself before you vote, please.

For starters....

Republicans passed a $1.2 trillion dollar budget for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 at 4:39 a.m. Saturday, after having debated scores of amendments the last week, often late into the night.

The bill passed in a 235-189 party line vote. Three Republicans voted against and no Democrats voted for the bill, which would cut $62 billion in non-defense discretionary spending compared to the budget bill that the government is currently operating under.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
My job during college was to do the night audit on a hotel budget which had over 100 rooms and four restaurants and clubs as well as other departments. I know how to balance a budget and know both sides of an accounting ledger as well as most. Please do not pretend to know my abilities or slander my abilities simply because I disagree with your beliefs.

For you or anyone to make a statement like my wanting to look at BOTH sides of the ledger is NOT REALITY, is a perfect and vivid illustration of the absolute bankrupt nature of current political discourse due to the willful imposition of extremist beliefs systems adopted by the far right and their poisoning the the political environment.
Click to expand...

I am not pretending I know anything about your abilities, I am using the information that you are providing me to determine that maybe you don't know as much as you think you do. I even asked you to explain how your method works, why are you dodging?

Determine the bills, then determine the income. It does not work in reverse.
 
Last edited:
Smokified said:
So please explain how we are going to determine how much money we need to bring in before we determine how much we really need to spend.

Nobody is pretending anything is sacred, there are just some people that understand how to budget and some poeple that don't. It is very obvious what side of tihis fence you are on.

I don't understand how any tax payer would be all in for raising taxes without actually knowing how much of their money is being wasted on expenditures that are completely unecessary. Wouldn't it be more ideal if we could reduce a lot of our budget problems without having to increase the general cost of living for everyone else?

Your plan makes no sense when applied to reality.
Click to expand...

This is what budget analysts do. While it's possible, in theory, to cut spending to the level where current revenues would be sufficient, the reality is that most Americans would not be happy with that level of spending. Most Americans want Social Security, Medicare, safety net programs, a strong national defense, decent schools, and reliable infrastructure. The tax structure we have now cannot support all of those things, even if they are pared down.
 
Smokified said:
Educate yourself before you vote, please.

For starters....
Click to expand...

Your non-sourced quote does nothing to disprove my claim that:

"Republicans have offered no plans to cut our most wasteful spending, the military-industrial complex and our unfunded optional ME wars."
 
AdamT said:
This is what budget analysts do. While it's possible, in theory, to cut spending to the level where current revenues would be sufficient, the reality is that most Americans would not be happy with that level of spending. Most Americans want Social Security, Medicare, safety net programs, a strong national defense, decent schools, and reliable infrastructure. The tax structure we have now cannot support all of those things, even if they are pared down.
Click to expand...

Are you basing your argument on the misconception that the items you listed are the only things our tax money goes towards?
 
Smokified said:
I am not pretending I know anything about your abilities, I am using the information that you are providing me to determine that maybe you don't know as much as you think you do. I even asked you to explain how your method works, why are you dodging?

Determine the bills, then determine the income. It does not work in reverse.
Click to expand...

What is it about there being only two sides of a budget to work with that you do not understand?
 
Catawba said:
Your non-sourced quote does nothing to disprove my claim that:

"Republicans have offered no plans to cut our most wasteful spending, the military-industrial complex and our unfunded optional ME wars."
Click to expand...

House Approves GOP 2012 Budget On Party-Line Vote | Fox News
House passes Republican budget for FY 2011 in 235-189 vote - The Hill's Floor Action

You will also notice that the original plan had more cuts that had to be ammended before the bill was voted on. Just because they are not cutting spending in the areas that YOU FEEL they should, does not mean that they are not attempting to offer budget plans that reduce unecessary government spending.
 
Smokified said:
Are you basing your argument on the misconception that the items you listed are the only things our tax money goes towards?
Click to expand...

I'm basing my argument on the fact that the items I listed account for the vast majority of government spending.

fed%2Bpie%2Bchart.jpg
 
haymarket said:
What is it about there being only two sides of a budget to work with that you do not understand?
Click to expand...

The nice thing about forums is that everything is in writing, you can't pretend that I was not clear about what I disagree with you on. Scroll up and read it again.
 
AdamT said:
I'm basing my argument on the fact that the items I listed account for the vast majority of government spending.

fed%2Bpie%2Bchart.jpg
Click to expand...

Lol where did you find this? In the kindergarten level government propoganda lesson plan?
 
Last edited:
Smokified said:
The nice thing about forums is that everything is in writing, you can't pretend that I was not clear about what I disagree with you on. Scroll up and read it again.
Click to expand...

this is what you are referring to?

I even asked you to explain how your method works, why are you dodging?
Click to expand...

My method!??!?!?!?!? My statement that there are only two sides to a budget is my method?

This is amazing. I never thought that the simple statement that there are only two sides to a budget and both must be dealt with is somehow political heresy and subject to debate. Freaking amazing that things have degenerated this far down the rabbit hole.
 
haymarket said:
this is what you are referring to?



My method!??!?!?!?!? My statement that there are only two sides to a budget is my method?

This is amazing. I never thought that the simple statement that there are only two sides to a budget and both must be dealt with is somehow political heresy and subject to debate. Freaking amazing that things have degenerated this far down the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

What is amazing is that you continue to dodge the point and you continue to try and draw the conversation away from it. I asked you to scroll up and re-read it because either you are not paying attention or you are having a hard time understanding what is going on here. I explained to you why I disagree with you and you continue to dodge.

Instead of acting like a spoiled little child, just back up your statements or shut the **** up and learn something before you go out and vote for more idiots.
 
Smokified said:
Lol where did you find this? In the kindergarten level government propoganda lesson plan?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the OMB kindergarten data. Do you have an alternative source that supports your argument, or will you just keep making sh*t up?
 
Smokified said:
House Approves GOP 2012 Budget On Party-Line Vote | Fox News
House passes Republican budget for FY 2011 in 235-189 vote - The Hill's Floor Action

You will also notice that the original plan had more cuts that had to be ammended before the bill was voted on. Just because they are not cutting spending in the areas that YOU FEEL they should, does not mean that they are not attempting to offer budget plans that reduce unecessary government spending.
Click to expand...

Until Republicans offer plans to significantly cut our most wasteful spending (the military-industrial complex and our unfunded optional wars), the American public will not accept further cuts to those American citizens who already suffering. You seem to forget who calls the shots in our type of government.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Until Republicans offer plans to significantly cut our most wasteful spending (the military-industrial complex and our unfunded optional wars, the American public will not except further cuts to those American citizens who already suffering. You seem to forget who calls the shots in our type of government.
Click to expand...

You seem to forget that I am part of the American public and I am most definately not the only person that feels our entitlement programs need to be reformed. The majority of the American public continues to point fingers and look around like a bunch of helpless idiots instead of taking steps to better themselves.

I am all for cutting spending and at no point did I disagree that we need to reduce military spending significantly, but for you to try and ignore the other areas that need improvement is simply stupid and counterproductive.
 
Smokified said:
What is amazing is that you continue to dodge the point and you continue to try and draw the conversation away from it. I asked you to scroll up and re-read it because either you are not paying attention or you are having a hard time understanding what is going on here. I explained to you why I disagree with you and you continue to dodge.

Instead of acting like a spoiled little child, just back up your statements or shut the **** up and learn something before you go out and vote for more idiots.
Click to expand...

Now it is you who apparently has no idea what they are talking about. You are engaging in childish games. Speak clearly. State your case. Say what your point is.
 
haymarket said:
Now it is you who apparently has no idea what they are talking about. You are engaging in childish games. Speak clearly. State your case. Say what your point is.
Click to expand...

Go back 1 page and read it. There is no point in restating it, it is in writing. If you can't show me the respect of reading what I have to say before replying, then why would I take the time to lay it all out again for your convenience? I understand it is the position of liberals that they should be able to do or say what they want to anyone without any sort of response, but in reality where the rest of us live if you get loud with me, expect me to return the favor.
 
Smokified said:
Go back 1 page and read it. There is no point in restating it, it is in writing. If you can't show me the respect of reading what I have to say before replying, then why would I take the time to lay it all out again for your convenience? I understand it is the position of liberals that they should be able to do or say what they want to anyone without any sort of response, but in reality where the rest of us live if you get loud with me, expect me to return the favor.
Click to expand...

You are playing childish games.
You do what far too many try to do when the ace you thought you had up your sleeve is shown to be nothing of the kind. You fall back on "I already proved this to you" or "you did not read what I wrote" or a lame version of "you are not paying attention to my points" or other such complaining.

If you have a coherent case to make, state it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom