• 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

Boo Radley said:
Nor have I claimed they don't. I have instead showed you why and why the wealthy should pay more. I also showed that the lower income people do pay taxes, and do pay federal taxes, so they do contribute.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't shown why the wealthy should pay more than the 38% they are paying now. You have shown that the lower class pay state and local taxes, none of which have to do with the Federal Spending. FICA should have nothing to do with budget items as that funds your SS and Medicare. So I don't think you really have a clue. You are part of the problem not part of the solution as your rhetoric promotes class warfare and this country wasn't built on classwarfare.
 
Conservative said:
Then post the list of cuts? You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. I never see substance from you, just feelings.
Click to expand...

Dude, you just aren't following the news very closely. These things I'm saying aren't like some obscure pieces of information, they have been front page items on every major news source...

For example, Obama's current $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal includes $580 billion in cuts to entitlement programs.

Back in April he proposed a $4 trillion deficit reduction proposal included $2 trillion in spending cuts.

Here is a $2 trillion deficit reduction package he proposed in July that was 83% spending cuts.

He also supported the deficit reduction proposal of the bi-partisan gang of six.

For you to be sitting there pretending Obama isn't proposing spending cuts is just ridiculous. What, do you live on an iceberg? Are you only getting your news from such hyper partisan sources that you are literally just oblivious to the things that go on in the country?

What is actually happening is that Obama keeps proposing a mix of revenue increases and spending cuts and the GOP keeps rejecting them, even when he had compromised to the point where it was 83% spending cuts and only 17% revenue increases. They drew a line in the sand- if any portion at all of the burden of the deficit fell on the shoulders of rich people, they would block it. That's all they seem interested in in this whole process and it is making deficit reduction practically impossible to accomplish.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Nor have I claimed they don't. I have instead showed you why and why the wealthy should pay more. I also showed that the lower income people do pay taxes, and do pay federal taxes, so they do contribute.
Click to expand...

How much more? Higher marginal rate, higher capital gains rate, more FICA and Medicare taxes, which of these are you calling for. Maybe an easier question is what do you think the effective tax rate should be for wealthy ( definition please) and how you propose we get there.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, again, YOU believe government is the answer? You want Obama to hire people? Right? :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Trolling again? you seem to do that a lot. That is what you got out of that video? No wonder we have a problem in this country today. This President has destroyed the confidence in the American private sector and the only way he can get re-elected is to create such class warfare that the dependent class will come out in droves to re-elect him, then what? Destroy the private sector, create so much dependenc on the govt. then what? Is that what you really want? If so, say so then I would have more respect for you.
 
teamosil said:
Dude, you just aren't following the news very closely. These things I'm saying aren't like some obscure pieces of information, they have been front page items on every major news source...

For example, Obama's current $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal includes $580 billion in cuts to entitlement programs.

Back in April he proposed a $4 trillion deficit reduction proposal included $2 trillion in spending cuts.

Here is a $2 trillion deficit reduction package he proposed in July that was 83% spending cuts.

For you to be sitting there pretending Obama isn't proposing spending cuts is just ridiculous. What, do you live on an iceberg? Are you only getting your news from such hyper partisan sources that you are literally just oblivious to the things that go on in the country?
Click to expand...

Explain to me why Medicare and SS are on budget still to this day and why would you support cutting those programs that you are paying into if you have a job? That is bs. As for spending cuts in other areas, there are no such cuts as he uses the baseline which is the current budget and reduces the growth thus calling it a savings. Are we spending less money 10 years from today on those line items than we are paying today? Why do you continue to buy the Obama rhetoric.

He isn't proposing spending CUTS, he is proposing reduction in the growth of spending. Do you know the difference?
 
Conservative said:
Trolling again? you seem to do that a lot. That is what you got out of that video? No wonder we have a problem in this country today. This President has destroyed the confidence in the American private sector and the only way he can get re-elected is to create such class warfare that the dependent class will come out in droves to re-elect him, then what? Destroy the private sector, create so much dependenc on the govt. then what? Is that what you really want? If so, say so then I would have more respect for you.
Click to expand...

No. You blame Obama for jobs. This im[plies you think only the president, or government can fix employment. As the only way they can do this is to hire people, I have to conclude you want Obama to hire people. Is this or is this not what you believe?
 
washunut said:
How much more? Higher marginal rate, higher capital gains rate, more FICA and Medicare taxes, which of these are you calling for. Maybe an easier question is what do you think the effective tax rate should be for wealthy ( definition please) and how you propose we get there.
Click to expand...

I think going back to the pre Bush tax cuts is a simple and reasonable answer.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. You blame Obama for jobs. This im[plies you think only the president, or government can fix employment. As the only way they can do this is to hire people, I have to conclude you want Obama to hire people. Is this or is this not what you believe?
Click to expand...

I blame Obama for destroying the incentive in the private sector to create jobs. Govt. policy affects job creation since business cannot print money like the Govt. can. You don't seem to understand that business creates a long term plan and more regulations, higher tax potential, class warfare, Obamacare don't foster confidence on the part of the private sector. they aren't going to hire until Obama is fired.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think going back to the pre Bush tax cuts is a simple and reasonable answer.
Click to expand...

So you want to get rid of all of the Bush tax cuts. I can agree with that, never thought we should have had a tax cut when we were fighting wars in two countries.

After saying that, this whole tax issue is a sideshow. The country has been in decline for 30 years, propped up with debt until the system fell apart.
 
washunut said:
So you want to get rid of all of the Bush tax cuts. I can agree with that, never thought we should have had a tax cut when we were fighting wars in two countries.

After saying that, this whole tax issue is a sideshow. The country has been in decline for 30 years, propped up with debt until the system fell apart.
Click to expand...

I quite agree. It is fool hardy to say we can fight two wars and not pay for it. But, as you say, we've been saying we can spend and not pay for a long time.
 
Conservative said:
I blame Obama for destroying the incentive in the private sector to create jobs. Govt. policy affects job creation since business cannot print money like the Govt. can. You don't seem to understand that business creates a long term plan and more regulations, higher tax potential, class warfare, Obamacare don't foster confidence on the part of the private sector. they aren't going to hire until Obama is fired.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong. Business functions on a different incentive system. if there is a customer willing to spend, business will provide the product regardless of what obama does.
 
Conservative said:
Explain to me why Medicare and SS are on budget still to this day and why would you support cutting those programs that you are paying into if you have a job? That is bs.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. In my view, he has conceded WAY too much to the Republicans like that. Now, his thinking is that the Republicans are pushing for far more severe cuts to those programs than this, so maybe he can compromise with them and find middle ground. But what he doesn't appear to be learning in my view is that the Republicans of today can't be compromised with. I'd take a more hard line against them and not include any cuts to Social Security at least. But what I don't get is why if you are against cutting them at all you would possibly vote Republican... That makes no sense. You seem to have the sides backwards.

Conservative said:
As for spending cuts in other areas, there are no such cuts as he uses the baseline which is the current budget and reduces the growth thus calling it a savings.
Click to expand...

Of course. That's what both sides are doing- measuring the cuts against the current budget. Doesn't really make sense to measure them against current spending. Since we're in a recession and fighting two wars, if you just measure against current spending, no change in policy at all would look like massive deficit reduction. Revenues will come up and expenses will go down. So, you measure against the planned budget, current revenue projections and current expense projections. That's the only logical way to look at it.

For example, much is made of him counting the withdrawls from Iraq and Afghanistan as spending cuts. Well what he did was to withdraw troops faster than planned and count the difference. What you are calling for- measuring against current spending- would mean not only counting that amount, but also counting the already planned reductions in troop levels.... Instead of $1.1 trillion, it would count as much MORE. On top of that he could count the revenue projections based on the projected economic recovery as revenue gains.

I dunno. I know that is kind of a tricky concept. Think it through a bit before you reply please. It's the opposite way around from what you were thinking. Counting against the current plan generally results in LOWER numbers than counting against current spending would.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
So you are proposing increasing taxes on all taxpayers?
Click to expand...

I personally would, but if I was going to target someone not to, it would middle and lower income folks and not the wealthy. I would accept either as an improvement, maybe a compromise.
 
Boo Radley said:
First, he's not my hero. I voted for Bob Dole. Second, someone saying something you like alone isn't enough. Try addressing the points I have made. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

I would be happy to address your points if they had anything to do with the thread topic and the attempts of "your" President to raise FIT on the rich claiming they need to pay their fair share. I have addressed your posts that actually address the thread topic.
 
Boo Radley said:
I personally would, but if I was going to target someone not to, it would middle and lower income folks and not the wealthy. I would accept either as an improvement, maybe a compromise.
Click to expand...

Do you accept that the President of the United States lied when he said "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. ... We can't afford these special lower rates for the wealthy. ... Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires" or do you feel he was mistaken, or do you feel he only misrepresented the situation?

In other words is he stupid, does he believe the American people to be stupid, or is he just a liar?
 
Boo Radley said:
You would be wrong. Business functions on a different incentive system. if there is a customer willing to spend, business will provide the product regardless of what obama does.
Click to expand...

I spent 35 years in the business world so please don't try and tell me how business functions. Companies are going to provide goods and services with less people and right now economic growth is meager and doesn't warrant expansion of their labor force.
 
Conservative said:
I spent 35 years in the business world so please don't try and tell me how business functions. Companies are going to provide goods and services with less people and right now economic growth is meager and doesn't warrant expansion of their labor force.
Click to expand...

One reason they do not need people is that technology has replaced people. Look at a company like Facebook with a market valuation in the 10's of billions. Guess how many people they employ..............2,500

For such a self-proclaimed business expert you should be aware of things like this.
 
teamosil;1059816611]I totally agree. In my view, he has conceded WAY too much to the Republicans like that. Now, his thinking is that the Republicans are pushing for far more severe cuts to those programs than this, so maybe he can compromise with them and find middle ground. But what he doesn't appear to be learning in my view is that the Republicans of today can't be compromised with. I'd take a more hard line against them and not include any cuts to Social Security at least. But what I don't get is why if you are against cutting them at all you would possibly vote Republican... That makes no sense. You seem to have the sides backwards.
Click to expand...

NO, again you don't get it, payroll taxes fund SS and SS and Medicare have no business being on budget. The money you put into SS is supposed to go for your retirement in the future. Instead it is put on budget where it doesn't belong and thus proposals to cut SS and Medicare make no sense yet you buy "your" President's rhetoric. WHY is SS and Medicare even on the table. Take them off budget NOW!

Of course. That's what both sides are doing- measuring the cuts against the current budget. Doesn't really make sense to measure them against current spending. Since we're in a recession and fighting two wars, if you just measure against current spending, no change in policy at all would look like massive deficit reduction. Revenues will come up and expenses will go down. So, you measure against the planned budget, current revenue projections and current expense projections. That's the only logical way to look at it.
Click to expand...

Cutting the growth in spending isnt a cut at all and that is what you don't seem to understand. Cutting the growth of a 3.7 trillion dollar budget isn't a cut because at the end of the 10 years our debt will have increased by 9-10 trillion dollars with those cuts.

As for economic growth, there is none because of the class warfare and anti private sector rhetoric. Govt. spending is about 20% of GDP so it is a small fraction of the total. Consumer spending is 2/3 of GDP and that is where the spending has to come from and you dont generate that spending with higher taxes and no incentive to create jobs.

For example, much is made of him counting the withdrawls from Iraq and Afghanistan as spending cuts. Well what he did was to withdraw troops faster than planned and count the difference. What you are calling for- measuring against current spending- would mean not only counting that amount, but also counting the already planned reductions in troop levels.... Instead of $1.1 trillion, it would count as much MORE. On top of that he could count the revenue projections based on the projected economic recovery as revenue gains.
Click to expand...

So if he is cutting spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, why are the budgets higher than they were with Iraq and Afghanistan? Those cuts should have been part of the budget and were therefore there are no cuts, just more Obama rhetoric

I dunno. I know that is kind of a tricky concept. Think it through a bit before you reply please. It's the opposite way around from what you were thinking. Counting against the current plan generally results in LOWER numbers than counting against current spending would.
Click to expand...

I have thought about it and the only way to get significant cuts is to start with the 2008 budget and cut from there with actual cuts like eliminating entire departments, Education, Agriculature, Energy, etc.
 
Conservative said:
I spent 35 years in the business world so please don't try and tell me how business functions. Companies are going to provide goods and services with less people and right now economic growth is meager and doesn't warrant expansion of their labor force.
Click to expand...
here we go again....did you own the company? i believe that answer was no....you were a low level manager, you didnt make the 'BIG' decisions, you carried out the orders of your superiors. your supposed 35 yrs of experience has no relevance in this thread.
 
Conservative said:
I spent 35 years in the business world so please don't try and tell me how business functions. Companies are going to provide goods and services with less people and right now economic growth is meager and doesn't warrant expansion of their labor force.
Click to expand...

Don't know if you did or didn't, but I'm corect about what I said. Business isn't waiting around on the president if they ahve customwers. Sorry, but you're wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't know if you did or didn't, but I'm corect about what I said. Business isn't waiting around on the president if they ahve customwers. Sorry, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Businesses are not going to hire more workers with the current economic conditions but as usual you focus on the big businesses, not the small businesses which hire 80% of the workers. The small businesses are hit the hardest by Obama economic policy, the big businesses will just do more with less thank to technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom