• 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

Deficits are a function of spending and revenue. In almost all cases cutting taxes reduces revenue and raising taxes increases revenue. If you don't think that we need to increase tax revenue then you aren't serious about deficits. :shrug:

Cutting tax rates have NEVER reduced revenue as it increases economic activity which grows revenue in all areas. Unfortunately the more revenue that goes to the govt. the more they spend and there is nothing that is going to change that until we vote all those assholes out of office. In the meantime I don't support sending them another dime and will not support a tax increase. Too many unemployed people right now and too many people not paying any FIT. Promoting class warfare doesn't help
 
Deficits are a function of spending and revenue. In almost all cases cutting taxes reduces revenue and raising taxes increases revenue. If you don't think that we need to increase tax revenue then you aren't serious about deficits. :shrug:

Then explain how revenue increased after the Bush era tax cuts.

J-mac
 
Uh, just like 6 weeks ago he proposed $3.6 trillion in spending cuts and only $400 million in closing tax loopholes and the GOP told him to go **** himself because they refused to accept any revenue increases..

Bull****, his spending cuts were smoke and mirrors. List those cuts for us?
 
There are two things that Obama could do right now to be taken seriously.

1. Offer to split the issue by providing an actual in writing bill, with spending cuts that are real and not some baseline veal that won't be enacted due to the fact that he can't control anything congress votes for ten years out.

2. He can bow out gracefully before he gets thrown out in a landslide.

J-mac

Isn't it amazing, Congress hasn't even received the Obama Jobs bill yet? So much for the emergency!
 
Bull****, his spending cuts were smoke and mirrors. List those cuts for us?

I mean obviously people like you are going to say that about any spending cut a Democrat proposes. It isn't like that's true or something, that's just nonsense wingnuts blurt out instinctively. You can look up the cuts there are obviously way too many to list off here.
 
Uh, just like 6 weeks ago he proposed $3.6 trillion in spending cuts and only $400 million in closing tax loopholes and the GOP told him to go **** himself because they refused to accept any revenue increases..


Read some more. He was never serious about that, because after having a tentitive deal with Boehner including some tax increases, he blew it by insisting on some$800 billion more the next morning. So don't even try that crap

J-mac
 
Read some more. He was never serious about that, because after having a tentitive deal with Boehner including some tax increases, he blew it by insisting on some$800 billion more the next morning. So don't even try that crap

J-mac

What? That's not true... Link please...
 
There are two things that Obama could do right now to be taken seriously.

1. Offer to split the issue by providing an actual in writing bill, with spending cuts that are real and not some baseline veal that won't be enacted due to the fact that he can't control anything congress votes for ten years out.

2. He can bow out gracefully before he gets thrown out in a landslide.

J-mac

So in other words, you want the President to do the impossible: (1) guarantee that a Congress that opposes his every proposal will pass his proposal; and (2) somehow bind future Congress' from revising the law.
 
Pay freaking attention or I'm going to stop wasting my time on you. It's insulting and a waste of my time when you continually don't read what I post, yet you reply anyways. Again:

We pay less total than the EU and less per person than most first world countries. Total dollar amounts. Less.



Kiddo, it's your claim. You said "international affairs", not aid...

Conservative is again making dishonest claims. In wingnut world "international affairs" = "foreign aid"

In the real world, the money we spend on consular offices, trade officers, subsidies and grants to corporations to market our products to foreigners is not "international assistance". That's why he ahd to dishonestly change "international affairs" to "international aid". Even he's aware of the dishonesty
 
So in other words, you want the President to do the impossible: (1) guarantee that a Congress that opposes his every proposal will pass his proposal; and (2) somehow bind future Congress' from revising the law.

No I for once want a demo to give a show of good faith, instead of promising spending cuts that never materialize.

J-mac
 
Deficits are a function of spending and revenue. In almost all cases cutting taxes reduces revenue and raising taxes increases revenue. If you don't think that we need to increase tax revenue then you aren't serious about deficits. :shrug:

Rightwingers aren't serious about any of their arguments. If they were serious, they wouldn't be so dishonest about them.

They want what they want because their leaders told them that's what they want.
 
Conservative is again making dishonest claims. In wingnut world "international affairs" = "foreign aid"

In the real world, the money we spend on consular offices, trade officers, subsidies and grants to corporations to market our products to foreigners is not "international assistance". That's why he ahd to dishonestly change "international affairs" to "international aid". Even he's aware of the dishonesty

You want dishonesty? Check your lean. Lol....

J-mac
 
You want dishonesty? Check your lean. Lol....

J-mac

j-mac can't refute what I said so he's tossing ad homs around. Ad homs are SOP for the right because they have no arguments to make, no ideas, and no principles.
 
Nah, if you think it's true, post a link from a credible source.

I am not on my comp. I thought I made that clear. Just got this smart phone, still learning it. But glad to see the spirit of cooperation is alive and well with you.

J-mac
 
I am not on my comp. I thought I made that clear. Just got this smart phone, still learning it. But glad to see the spirit of cooperation is alive and well with you.

J-mac

There's nothing more cowardly than someone who refuses to defend their own words
 
j-mac can't refute what I said so he's tossing ad homs around. Ad homs are SOP for the right because they have no arguments to make, no ideas, and no principles.

Ad Hominem attack is all you do. Frankly I am surprised you choose to be so transparent.


J-mac
 
I am not on my comp. I thought I made that clear. Just got this smart phone, still learning it. But glad to see the spirit of cooperation is alive and well with you.

J-mac

Well, if you come up with something, feel free to post it. I have no idea how I'd even go about finding whatever it is that you think said that. Presumably it's just one of the things that he proposed in negotiations, not some gotcha to blow the first deal or something... Boehner arguably was sincere in negotiating at some points, but Cantor was just totally insane and made it impossible for Boehner to agree to anything at all.
 
I mean obviously people like you are going to say that about any spending cut a Democrat proposes. It isn't like that's true or something, that's just nonsense wingnuts blurt out instinctively. You can look up the cuts there are obviously way too many to list off here.

You misrepresented the facts concerning personal charity so it's understandable why someone would expect you to provide info concerning these cuts if you wish for them to believe you.
 
You misrepresented the facts concerning personal charity

Er, what? Where? I said the charitable FOREIGN AID was very limited. You didn't come up with anything that countered that at all... I assumed you conceded the point. Are you contending that it is not limited still? Have you dug up any evidence supporting that position since we discussed it?
 
Er, what? Where? I said the charitable FOREIGN AID was very limited. You didn't come up with anything that countered that at all... I assumed you conceded the point. Are you contending that it is not limited still? Have you dug up any evidence supporting that position since we discussed it?

Here is what you said.

Unfortunately private donations are pretty much irrelevant. We do give slightly more than most other countries in private donations, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers nations give . I looked it up before and it didn't even take us up to 0.14% of our GDP total.

I showed the numbers and it showed that as a nation we give MORE individually than any country gives. At least 34 billion with the closest country outside of the U.S. giving $12.5 billion. Almost three times what the most giving country outside of the U.S., France gives.

And you are still argueing it's very limited? Recall you said you looked it up and private giving barely made any difference.

Unfortunately private donations are pretty much irrelevant. We do give slightly more than most other countries in private donations, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers nations give. I looked it up before and it didn't even take us up to 0.14% of our GDP total.

It more than doubles it. There is no sin in being wrong.
 
I mean obviously people like you are going to say that about any spending cut a Democrat proposes. It isn't like that's true or something, that's just nonsense wingnuts blurt out instinctively. You can look up the cuts there are obviously way too many to list off here.

Then post the list of cuts? You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. I never see substance from you, just feelings.
 
Back
Top Bottom