• 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 to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama will propose $1.5 trillion in new taxes as part of a plan to identify more than $3 trillion in long-term deficit reduction and slow the nation's escalating national debt.

News from The Associated Press

Obama seems to be talking compromise, and painting repubs as standing in the way of that supposed compromise, yet this one trick pony hasn't changed his class warfare message since the day he took office...

One interesting note, the AP notes this....

The core of the president's plan totals just more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. It combines the new taxes with $580 billion in cuts to mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion from Medicare.

Makes one wonder if the disingenuous group that made the ad showing Paul Ryan pushing Grandma off the cliff will now revise it to show Obama doing the same....? Ofcourse not.

Also, it strikes me that everytime Obama needs to pay for something, he lays out the same plan, with the same targets to pay for it? How many times can we hear the same 'pass the bill' before it is even submitted as legislation, so therefore no one can read it, or score it, and how many times are we going to allow this empty suit to lie to our face?



Thoughts

j-mac
 
Obama seems to be talking compromise, and painting repubs as standing in the way of that supposed compromise, yet this one trick pony hasn't changed his class warfare message since the day he took office...

One interesting note, the AP notes this....



Makes one wonder if the disingenuous group that made the ad showing Paul Ryan pushing Grandma off the cliff will now revise it to show Obama doing the same....? Ofcourse not.

Also, it strikes me that everytime Obama needs to pay for something, he lays out the same plan, with the same targets to pay for it? How many times can we hear the same 'pass the bill' before it is even submitted as legislation, so therefore no one can read it, or score it, and how many times are we going to allow this empty suit to lie to our face?



Thoughts

j-mac


very funny. class warfare is what the gop is waging.
 
Makes one wonder if the disingenuous group that made the ad showing Paul Ryan pushing Grandma off the cliff will now revise it to show Obama doing the same....? Ofcourse not.

Also, it strikes me that everytime Obama needs to pay for something, he lays out the same plan, with the same targets to pay for it? How many times can we hear the same 'pass the bill' before it is even submitted as legislation, so therefore no one can read it, or score it, and how many times are we going to allow this empty suit to lie to our face?

Is this not part of a compromise? He's proposed to cut into Medicare, which is what Republicans bitch about a lot, right? Social Security, Medicare, etc., all the "socialist" stuff? So is it ok to try to compromise to try to get some debt reduction and maybe something for the economy moving or should we be playing partisan politics? I think the latter is a bit more devastating to the lot of us.
 
Obama's math:

Pretending that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will go on in perpetuity and then counting $1.1 trillion in savings by "ending" them.

So, the $3 trillion is really comprised of ~$1.5 trillion in new taxes, ~$1.1 trillion in mythical war spending savings, and then a measely ~$400 billion in true spending cuts. That's his "balanced approach".
 
Obama's math:

Pretending that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will go on in perpetuity and then counting $1.1 trillion in savings by "ending" them.

So, the $3 trillion is really comprised of ~$1.5 trillion in new taxes, ~$1.1 trillion in mythical war spending savings, and then a measely ~$400 billion in true spending cuts. That's his "balanced approach".

So we won't stop spending money on the wars if we end the wars?
 
The proposal seems to be good politics for Obama. Instead of begining with a reasonable comprimise as he did with the debt-ceiling fiasco, this proposal is farther left. If this process is correctly viewed as a negotiation, it only makes sense to propose a partisan plan, and then walk back to the middle. Looks like it took the centerist administration 3 years to figure out a rational way to deal with a center-right congress. Say what you want of the plan, but it is something the Dems can get behind.
 
19 Different Polls Show That Americans Support Tax Increases To Cut Deficit


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/u...-plan-is-well-received.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
And across party lines, Americans support his position that a deficit-reduction plan should include a mix of tax increases and spending cuts.


http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/250094/new-york-times-cbs-poll-results.pdf
According to the poll, large majorities support increased spending to create jobs
68. Do you think it is probably a good idea or a bad idea for the federal government to provide money to state governments so they can avoid layoffs of public employees?
Good idea Bad idea DK/NA
9/10-15/11 52 40 8
69. In order to try to create jobs, do you think it is probably a good idea or a bad idea to spend money on the nation's infrastructure such as bridges, airports, and schools?
Good idea Bad idea DK/NA
9/10-15/11 80 16 4

Large majority supports increasing taxes on those making more than 250K
75. Do you think any plan to reduce the federal budget deficit should include only tax increases, or only spending cuts, or a combination of both tax increases and spending cuts?

76. In order to lower the nation's budget deficit, do you think taxes should be increased on households earning $250,000 a year or more or should the government address the budget deficit without increasing taxes on those households?
Increase taxes Don't increase taxes DK/NA
8/2-3/11 63 34 3
9/10-15/11 56 37 7
 
Last edited:
Question: How is it "Class warfare" to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay the same tax rate as the middle class?

And why don't you same people cry "Class warfare" when the wealthiest Americans are given the largest tax cuts and the middle and working class get smaller cuts?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
 
disneydude said:
Question: How is it "Class warfare" to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay the same tax rate as the middle class?

And why don't you same people cry "Class warfare" when the wealthiest Americans are given the largest tax cuts and the middle and working class get smaller cuts?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

And what are those tax cuts going for? Seems to make sense that if you pay the most, you should probably get the most cuts. We already have way too many Americans that not only pay zero income tax, but actually get free money from the government they never paid in the first place (Making Work Pay, EIC, etc.).

It also makes sense to grant cuts to the section of the population providing employment to the middle class. The reason the middle class can pay taxes is because the rich allow them an opportunity to.
 
And what are those tax cuts going for? Seems to make sense that if you pay the most, you should probably get the most cuts. We already have way too many Americans that not only pay zero income tax, but actually get free money from the government they never paid in the first place (Making Work Pay, EIC, etc.).

It also makes sense to grant cuts to the section of the population providing employment to the middle class. The reason the middle class can pay taxes is because the rich allow them an opportunity to.

GWB cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans far more than for anyone else. What happened to all those jobs that your rationale supposedly creates? The fact of the matter is.....Republicans always LOVE to implement "Trickle down economics" and yet...time and time again it fails. Why do you guys keep pushing the same failed rhetoric and expect different results? Perhaps you don't actually expect different results....you actually like the results that it creates.
 
disneydude said:
GWB cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans far more than for anyone else. What happened to all those jobs that your rationale supposedly creates? The fact of the matter is.....Republicans always LOVE to implement "Trickle down economics" and yet...time and time again it fails. Why do you guys keep pushing the same failed rhetoric and expect different results? Perhaps you don't actually expect different results....you actually like the results that it creates.

He left office with an unemployment rate around 7% which is high, but was also being compromised by a couple bubbles bursting. I thought he did a "good enough" job trying to cushion that blow. Would I have done exactly what he did? No, I can't say I did, but to tell you the truth not only should he not be criticized for that unemployment rate, but he should be thanked that he was able to not help it go above that rate, which many economists and myself all thought would happen. Of course, you thinking Bush is Lucifer incarnate, I doubt you want to hear that.

The extra 2% Obama is responsible for is the product of corporations practicing economic conservatism due to the president's God-awful and fluctuating policies. Essentially, they're trying to fight City Hall. My guess is that he'll go against the most vocal members of his party and adopt a centrist view in the next 6 months that will create some ease in separating major corporations with its liquidity, unleashing expansion funds and encouraging hiring to decrease the unemployment.

He has to. He knows this. Otherwise, he's already at "lame duck" status, trying to avoid it with the knowledge that the GOP can't field a decent candidate.
 
So we won't stop spending money on the wars if we end the wars?

The point is the wars were never going to continue in perpetuity. Therefore, he's "cutting" $1.1 trillion in spending that the bulk of which was never going to be spent. Its a completely dishonest accounting gimmick, but thats to be expected with the guy who laughably touted deficit reduction in his healthcare bill.

In effect were left with roughly $3 in tax hikes for every $1 in true spending cuts. Thats simply a nonstarter.
 
It also makes sense to grant cuts to the section of the population providing employment to the middle class. The reason the middle class can pay taxes is because the rich allow them an opportunity to.

Most jobs are created by small businesses which are owned by the middle class

Once again, the right repeats their slogans without defending them
 
I saw this in today's paper. 1.5 trillion in new taxes? Who is he kidding? then, reading further, it is 1.5 trillion over the next decade, coupled with "spending cuts" that amount to not much of anything. This "plan" is based on wishful thinking, magic, and pixie dust, it seems to me. Cutting Medicare, with no workable ideas for reducing the cost of medical care is nonsense. Didn't Obamacare already cut Medicare? The way the system works currently, seniors have no other choice besides Medicare. The notion that they can go out and purchase individual insurance, voucher or no voucher, is the most absurd idea that has come out of Washington in a long time, and that's with a lot of competition from other absurd ideas.

Meanwhile, the Democrats want to defend the unsustainable medical care "reform" passed under Obama, because it was signed into law by a Democrat. Republicans want to keep Medicare Part D, which could wind up costing even more, as it was signed into law by a Republican.

Partisan politics and unrealistic economic ideas, bah, humbug!
 
When you negotiate, you start high while th eother starts low and you work toward something both can agree on. This is better than what Obama has done previously, which has been starting at where republicans are already.

DHN, healthcare reform needed a begining. In the past it has always died with no reform at all. I would hope both parties would continue to try to improve what has been pasted. So far all republicans know is to get rid of it. As no one is happy with the bill, that may seem reasonable, but keep in mind getting rid of it without presenting something better means that once again we have done nothing.
 
Sure, raise taxes on the rich a little. Why should I care?

Its not like they are using their great wealth to hire more middle-class workers.
 
When you negotiate, you start high while th eother starts low and you work toward something both can agree on. This is better than what Obama has done previously, which has been starting at where republicans are already.

DHN, healthcare reform needed a begining. In the past it has always died with no reform at all. I would hope both parties would continue to try to improve what has been pasted. So far all republicans know is to get rid of it. As no one is happy with the bill, that may seem reasonable, but keep in mind getting rid of it without presenting something better means that once again we have done nothing.

Is this the beginning we needed? Maybe so, but the Republican candidates are pretty adamant that they do want to repeal it, in which case we will be back to square one, just as you said. Where do we go from here? We urgently need to rein in the costs. As it stands now, no one in Washington has any idea how to do so. Mostly, they either want to keep what we have (Democrats, since it was a Democrat that supported it) or get rid of it (Republicans, since it was a Democrat who supported it.)

A great portion of the debt that the current Congress is not willing to face in any realistic way is due to the cost of health care.
 
He left office with an unemployment rate around 7% which is high, but was also being compromised by a couple bubbles bursting. I thought he did a "good enough" job trying to cushion that blow. Would I have done exactly what he did? No, I can't say I did, but to tell you the truth not only should he not be criticized for that unemployment rate, but he should be thanked that he was able to not help it go above that rate, which many economists and myself all thought would happen. Of course, you thinking Bush is Lucifer incarnate, I doubt you want to hear that.

Bush in no way should be absolved of the current mess. Obama has made it worse as opposed to better but Bush certainly is guilty of doing his part to create the mess.

The extra 2% Obama is responsible for is the product of corporations practicing economic conservatism due to the president's God-awful and fluctuating policies. Essentially, they're trying to fight City Hall. My guess is that he'll go against the most vocal members of his party and adopt a centrist view in the next 6 months that will create some ease in separating major corporations with its liquidity, unleashing expansion funds and encouraging hiring to decrease the unemployment.

He has to. He knows this. Otherwise, he's already at "lame duck" status, trying to avoid it with the knowledge that the GOP can't field a decent candidate.

No, it's because Obama is practicing the exact same thing that Bush did. Irresponsibly adding to our debt. Now, this new tax would barely register on the ideas to reduce the debt. It will raise an insignificant amount when compared to our debt. It's an O.K. trade off when combined with actual programs to bring down the debt, but we aren't about to see those out of Obama.
 
I disagree with Obama's plan.

I also find the liberal hypocrisy regarding tax hikes for the wealthy to be lol worthy. So the liberal platform is typically "keep the government out of my bedroom!" "Keep the government out of women's wombs!" "Keep the government out of my lifestyle as it relates to marijuana!" "Keep the government away from the religious morals of the voting populace!"

All that flips with "Keep the government in someone else's wallet who has more than me." The typical argument I've seen is "if something doesn't affect you, then you have no right to stop it or interfere with another's choices." Many apply this argument to marijuana usage, sexual ethics, and abortion. Why not be consistent and not dictate how much someone else should pay in taxes? Why should you intrude upon someone's finances with your beliefs (that affect someone else and not you) and demand that they have to pay more? Hypocrisy is silly :mrgreen:
 
I disagree with Obama's plan.

I also find the liberal hypocrisy regarding tax hikes for the wealthy to be lol worthy. So the liberal platform is typically "keep the government out of my bedroom!" "Keep the government out of women's wombs!" "Keep the government out of my lifestyle as it relates to marijuana!" "Keep the government away from the religious morals of the voting populace!"

All that flips with "Keep the government in someone else's wallet who has more than me." The typical argument I've seen is "if something doesn't affect you, then you have no right to stop it or interfere with another's choices." Many apply this argument to marijuana usage, sexual ethics, and abortion. Why not be consistent and not dictate how much someone else should pay in taxes? Why should you intrude upon someone's finances with your beliefs (that affect someone else and not you) and demand that they have to pay more? Hypocrisy is silly :mrgreen:

Your post is larded with nonsensical assumptions such as "the people who want to raise taxes on the rich are not rich" and "social issues are just like economic issues" and "ideology is more important than reality"

Most people don't make these decisions based on ideology. They decide based on what they think works "best"
 
Your post is larded with nonsensical assumptions such as "the people who want to raise taxes on the rich are not rich" and "social issues are just like economic issues" and "ideology is more important than reality"

Most people don't make these decisions based on ideology. They decide based on what they think works "best"

It's still hypocrisy to hold a core view that says "if it doesn't personally impact you then you have no right to deny it to someone else" and then make decisions regarding other people's income.
 
Is this the beginning we needed? Maybe so, but the Republican candidates are pretty adamant that they do want to repeal it, in which case we will be back to square one, just as you said. Where do we go from here? We urgently need to rein in the costs. As it stands now, no one in Washington has any idea how to do so. Mostly, they either want to keep what we have (Democrats, since it was a Democrat that supported it) or get rid of it (Republicans, since it was a Democrat who supported it.)

A great portion of the debt that the current Congress is not willing to face in any realistic way is due to the cost of health care.

Polls about Obamacare are suspect, at best. Like every other attempt at health care reform, it was subjected to a brutal propoganda campaign by republicans, the insurance indutry, big pharma, and others. Interestingly, when Americans are polled about the individual elements of Obamacare, most of the provisions are supported by the majority of respondents. If it was ObamaCAR we were talking about....

Q: do you like the exterior styling?
A: yes.

Q: do you like the interior layout?
A: yes.

Q: do you like the power train?
A: yes.

Q: do you like the way it drives?
A: yes.

Q: do you like the safety features?
A: yes.

Q: do you like the ObamaCAR?
A: NOOOO!!!!!

Loopy.
 
I disagree with Obama's plan.

I also find the liberal hypocrisy regarding tax hikes for the wealthy to be lol worthy. So the liberal platform is typically "keep the government out of my bedroom!" "Keep the government out of women's wombs!" "Keep the government out of my lifestyle as it relates to marijuana!" "Keep the government away from the religious morals of the voting populace!"

All that flips with "Keep the government in someone else's wallet who has more than me." The typical argument I've seen is "if something doesn't affect you, then you have no right to stop it or interfere with another's choices." Many apply this argument to marijuana usage, sexual ethics, and abortion. Why not be consistent and not dictate how much someone else should pay in taxes? Why should you intrude upon someone's finances with your beliefs (that affect someone else and not you) and demand that they have to pay more? Hypocrisy is silly :mrgreen:

Why do you have a problem with Obama asking the wealthiest Americans to pay the same exact tax rate that most middle class people pay?
 
It's still hypocrisy to hold a core view that says "if it doesn't personally impact you then you have no right to deny it to someone else" and then make decisions regarding other people's income.

You assume thats a "core view". IMO, many (if not most) people have no core view
 
Back
Top Bottom