• 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

winston53660 said:
Earlier in thread you said:



So now you are switching gears to big business?
Click to expand...

This is not rocket science. Higher taxes less money you have to spend or expand or hire people, no different than when your taxes go up you have less to spend on your family and home. The same applies to regulations, the more regulations there are the more money it cost business, no different than you living at home, if you can't burn wood (which you have free in your yard) in your fireplace, because of some EPA rule, you have to use power from a utility, it cost you money. There are over 25,000 pages of business related regulations. Insane.
 
Conservative said:
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!
Click to expand...

Again, the cuts to those programs is REPUBLICAN goal. Democrats are against it. Obama is proposing a compromise of some of the cuts Republicans want to those programs, but not all. I agree with you. You're taking a solidly Democratic position.

Conservative said:
Cutting the growth in spending isnt a cut at all and that is what you don't seem to understand.
Click to expand...

I understand that is a catchy bumper sticker slogan and all, but not relevant to anything. Both parties agreed to evaluate various deficit reduction plans based on their deviation from the current plan. That just makes sense. Anything else would just be error... Lets take some examples:

We are currently spending $x on the wars. 10 years from now we won't be spending anything on the wars. So, would a proposal that involved not being at war in 10 years be a cut of $x per year? Of course not. That would be changing nothing. That's the status quo. To count it as a cut you need to reduce the cost below what is planned.

Or, for example, medicare is budgeted to continue to increase indefinitely because the cost of medical care will continue to go up. That isn't because they're expanding it or giving anybody any new services or changing any laws, that's just what will happen if we do nothing. So if you can make it go up by less- say by cutting benefits- then you are proposing a real cut.

You follow?

Now you can say that you want cuts so big that the total spent goes down. That's fine. But to measure individual elements of a proposal against current spending just doesn't make sense. In some situations maintaining the current level of spending would be a massive increase in spending over what is planned and in others it would be a massive cut. You can't just blur over all that.

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ahha! You are correct that consumer spending is the driver of the economy! Kudos for putting your fingers on that. That realization is the most essential building block of the Democratic approach to the economy and always has been. Republicans argue that we should divert as much money as possible to the rich because they think *investment* is what drives the economy. Democrats argue that we need a balanced approach where money flows both to the rich (who invest) and the rest of us (who consume). That's why Reaganomics failed- it did not deal with consumption properly so we just got bubbles- lots of investment boosting the stock market in the short term without the consumption to support it. That is exactly why we need to make sure that we aren't putting the whole burden of the deficit on the middle class via spending cuts. We need to put some of it on the rich. We shouldn't just double down on this investment > consumer spending approach that has failed so completely.

Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're saying. Explain more?

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Certainly you could model a budget on 2008 if you like. That doesn't change anything about how the cuts are measured.
 
Tettsuo said:
I don't particularly care if Reagan turned lead into gold. He increased the deficit and it's the exact same policies he used you're now trying to push again.

We've already deregulated ourselves into a near depression and you want to continue with more deregulations. Amazing.

Today we need to increase jobs to get the economy moving and pay for it. The only folks that have left the recession unscathed are the rich. If we need to tap them to get the rest of our society moving, they should absolutely pony up. What you're promoting is a fairytale and would require America to continue to borrow to avoid falling into third world status. If you want a third world so bad, have your rich buddies moving to one.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did, 1.7 trillion in 8 years vs. Obama's 4 trillion three. Is that more or less than Reagan?

"Your" President has an approval rating in upper 30's and low 40's so it seems that more and more aren't buying the rhetoric yet why are you?

We definitely need more jobs but the trouble is "your" President doesn't have a clue how do stimulate the private sector. he is a community agitator and that is all that matters to some. Great smile though!
 
Boo Radley said:
How do you explain states doing better with higher tax rates? Do I need to link that yet again?
Click to expand...

Doing better for whom? TX is ranked number one for business and is bringing new taxpayers to TX. Thanks especially to California and Illinois for the recent increase in Texas business employment.
 
Conservative said:
Doing better for whom? TX is ranked number one for business and is bringing new taxpayers to TX. Thanks especially to California and Illinois for the recent increase in Texas business employment.
Click to expand...

texas is 29th in per capita income.
 
teamosil;1059817040]Again, the cuts to those programs is REPUBLICAN goal. Democrats are against it. Obama is proposing a compromise of some of the cuts Republicans want to those programs, but not all. I agree with you. You're taking a solidly Democratic position.
Click to expand...

Obama has proposed the cuts, Republicans have proposed revisions in the programs or so Obama claims but you miss the point and failed to answer the question, why is SS still on budget and not in a trust fund?


I understand that is a catchy bumper sticker slogan and all, but not relevant to anything. Both parties agreed to evaluate various deficit reduction plans based on their deviation from the current plan. That just makes sense. Anything else would just be error... Lets take some examples:

We are currently spending $x on the wars. 10 years from now we won't be spending anything on the wars. So, would a proposal that involved not being at war in 10 years be a cut of $x per year? Of course not. That would be changing nothing. That's the status quo. To count it as a cut you need to reduce the cost below what is planned.
Click to expand...

It is 10 years of the wars and we have spent 1.4 trillion during those 10 years on the war or 140 billion per year. Our current debt is 14.6 trillion dollars so deducting the cost of the wars, we still have a debt of 13.2 trillion dollars. Where is your outrage over wasted federal spending on social programs that have yet to solve a problem?

Or, for example, medicare is budgeted to continue to increase indefinitely because the cost of medical care will continue to go up. That isn't because they're expanding it or giving anybody any new services or changing any laws, that's just what will happen if we do nothing. So if you can make it go up by less- say by cutting benefits- then you are proposing a real cut.
Click to expand...

Where has the money gone that was paid in FICA to fund medicare? You do realize that Medicare is mostly for retired individuals who contributed to that program only to have their money spent on other programs thanks to LBJ.

You follow?
Click to expand...

Nope, you are confusing SS/Medicare taxes with FIT taxes and there is no comparison

Now you can say that you want cuts so big that the total spent goes down. That's fine. But to measure individual elements of a proposal against current spending just doesn't make sense. In some situations maintaining the current level of spending would be a massive increase in spending over what is planned and in others it would be a massive cut. You can't just blur over all that.
Click to expand...

What was planned is the problem and isn't a cut. To cut spending you would have to spend less net year than this year and that isn't the proposal


Ahha! You are correct that consumer spending is the driver of the economy! Kudos for putting your fingers on that. That realization is the most essential building block of the Democratic approach to the economy and always has been. Republicans argue that we should divert as much money as possible to the rich because they think *investment* is what drives the economy. Democrats argue that we need a balanced approach where money flows both to the rich (who invest) and the rest of us (who consume). That's why Reaganomics failed- it did not deal with consumption properly so we just got bubbles- lots of investment boosting the stock market in the short term without the consumption to support it. That is exactly why we need to make sure that we aren't putting the whole burden of the deficit on the middle class via spending cuts. We need to put some of it on the rich. We shouldn't just double down on this investment > consumer spending approach that has failed so completely.
Click to expand...

I am not for diverting any money from any taxpayer for it is theirs first. Why shouldn't they keep it? How much of my money should I send to you or does me sending it to the govt. so they can send it to you make it right? I hope this isn't what you are learning in school.

Not sure what you're saying. Explain more?
Click to expand...

The budget proposals for 2012 have already been submitted and include the cuts in spending on the Iraq War, he is claiming those cuts again thus no additional cuts and still the budget has a projected deficit of over 1.2 trillion dollars

Certainly you could model a budget on 2008 if you like. That doesn't change anything about how the cuts are measured.
Click to expand...

Oh, but it does, if you start at the 2008 budget you are already have cut 600 billion from the budget and those are actual cuts
 
Conservative said:
Doing better for whom? TX is ranked number one for business and is bringing new taxpayers to TX. Thanks especially to California and Illinois for the recent increase in Texas business employment.
Click to expand...

Nope. See above. Texas just took some federal money, brough in some illegals, and paid some coproprate welfare. Overall, not doing that great.
 
winston53660 said:
LOL!!!! Talk about painting with a broad brush!

Here is another example where States regulate the hell out of something:


OHHHH RAH for States rights killing business!
Click to expand...

Did you notice what state you quoted? California, one of the most liberal states in the union and one that pushes businesses out of the state faster than any other. Further California has a 12% unemployment rate. And you wonder why, try high state taxes and regulations. California hates factories, they force them all out to Texas.
 
Born Free said:
Did you notice what state you quoted? California, one of the most liberal states in the union and one that pushes businesses out of the state faster than any other. Further California has a 12% unemployment rate. And you wonder why, try high state taxes and regulations. California hates factories, they force them all out to Texas.
Click to expand...

Aheeem from the article:

First of all, every state has different regulations. And we have to keep track of all of them
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. See above. Texas just took some federal money, brough in some illegals, and paid some coproprate welfare. Overall, not doing that great.
Click to expand...

hasn't stopped Fortune 500 companies from moving to TX, wonder why?
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. See above. Texas just took some federal money, brough in some illegals, and paid some coproprate welfare. Overall, not doing that great.
Click to expand...

Texas took taxpayer money giving some of what taxpayers sent to D.C. back to those taxpayers. Why wouldn't you? As for not doing great? That is another uninformed opinion on your part, attracting Fortune 500 business to TX sure looks like it is doing great and I live here, do you? There is going to come a time when you realize that you don't really now what you are talking about and that will be a real awakening for you.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. See above. Texas just took some federal money, brough in some illegals, and paid some coproprate welfare. Overall, not doing that great.
Click to expand...

By the way another diversion from the thread topic, you do that a lot. Don't blame you as the Obama agenda is indefensible.
 
winston53660 said:
Each State makes its own regulations on alcohol crossing State lines.
Click to expand...

Agree, but if your not selling across state lines, then no need to know each states regulations. I did not get from the post the San Diego Tailgate guy was selling in all states. Yet he said he had to know all the states regs. At least that is my understanding, could be wrong.
 
Conservative said:
Obama has proposed the cuts, Republicans have proposed revisions in the programs or so Obama claims but you miss the point and failed to answer the question, why is SS still on budget and not in a trust fund?
Click to expand...

It is in a trust fund. The social security trust fund currently has around $2 trillion in it. The thing about how it isn't really separate is just Republican rhetoric. They claim that because the trust fund holds it's assets in bonds, it isn't really separate. That isn't true.

Regardless, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, that want to avoid cuts in social security and to treat it as separate from the rest of the budget. So, that's awesome. You figured that one out. Excellent work. You give me hope for the future.

Conservative said:
It is 10 years of the wars and we have spent 1.4 trillion during those 10 years on the war or 140 billion per year. Our current debt is 14.6 trillion dollars so deducting the cost of the wars, we still have a debt of 13.2 trillion dollars. Where is your outrage over wasted federal spending on social programs that have yet to solve a problem?
Click to expand...

Well, you're meandering off the point of how to count deficit reduction, so I gather you get what I'm talking about now. Good work.

As for military spending, when you count the total we spend on our military, excluding social security from the budget as you prefer, and include ALL military spending, not just DoD (NSA, CIA, a portion of the Dept of Energy, Veteran's Affairs, etc) you find that the military is over 50% of the total federal budget. So, definitely no serious plan for cutting spending can skip over the military. We need to tackle both domestic and military spending.

Conservative said:
Where has the money gone that was paid in FICA to fund medicare? You do realize that Medicare is mostly for retired individuals who contributed to that program only to have their money spent on other programs thanks to LBJ.
Click to expand...

Not really sure how that relates to what we're discussing. I'm using that as an example of how keeping the budget for something lower than planned, but higher than it is today, is still a real cut- because some things just get more expensive on their own over time.

Conservative said:
I am not for diverting any money from any taxpayer for it is theirs first. Why shouldn't they keep it? How much of my money should I send to you or does me sending it to the govt. so they can send it to you make it right? I hope this isn't what you are learning in school.
Click to expand...

Ok, well, this one is getting a bit complex. The stuff about "keeping your own money" is just a slogan, it doesn't translate into any actual policy position. Any change to any tax policy means moving money from one group to another. If you cut all taxes across the board you would be transferring money from those who will ultimately be responsible for the debt to those who pay taxes where those who bear responsiblity for the debt is all Americans in equal proportion where those who pay taxes is slanted towards the rich. So even an across the board tax cut is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. There is no such thing as a wealth transfer neutral tax policy. The Republicans consistently push for tax policies that result in the rich having more money and the Democrats consistently push for tax policies that result in the poor and middle class having more money. That's what the dividing line is, not this slogan about keeping ones own money. That makes a good bumper sticker, but nothing more than that.

That's what Reaganomics is- an argument for why we should tweak things in ways that direct more of the money to the rich, so they invest more and supposedly it will trickle down. That isn't an argument for "letting people keep their own money", it is explicitly an argument for directing more money to the rich. That's the policy goal Republicans have been openly pushing for about 4 decades.

Conservative said:
The budget proposals for 2012 have already been submitted and include the cuts in spending on the Iraq War, he is claiming those cuts again thus no additional cuts and still the budget has a projected deficit of over 1.2 trillion dollars
Click to expand...

Oh, no, that's not true. That $1.1 trillion is the difference between his proposal and the current budget projections.
 
Conservative said:
hasn't stopped Fortune 500 companies from moving to TX, wonder why?
Click to expand...

Why would it? Illegals are cheap labor. And the federal tax dollars make good welfare payments for the business. Sorry you like this.
 
teamosil;1059817158]It is in a trust fund. The social security trust fund currently has around $2 trillion in it. The thing about how it isn't really separate is just Republican rhetoric. They claim that because the trust fund holds it's assets in bonds, it isn't really separate. That isn't true.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the two trillion? The trust fund consists of IOU's not cash. Stop buying the liberal rhetoric. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Regardless, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, that want to avoid cuts in social security and to treat it as separate from the rest of the budget. So, that's awesome. You figured that one out. Excellent work. You give me hope for the future.
Click to expand...
'

If you are putting your hopes for the future on Obama you are in the minority. Democrats want to keep SS on budget to hide the shortfall in the SS trust fund and you buy the rhetoric.

Well, you're meandering off the point of how to count deficit reduction, so I gather you get what I'm talking about now. Good work.
Click to expand...

Wrong, if you spend 3.7 trillion this year and 3.8 trillion next year, is that a cut? It is using baseline budgeting because according to the baseline you would be spending 3.9 trillion instead of 3.8 trillion thus you have a 1 trillion dollar cut. Now if you have a 3.7 trillion dollar budget and go back to the 3.1 trillion 2008 budget you would have a 600 billion cut, that is a real cut, not accounting gimmick

As for military spending, when you count the total we spend on our military, excluding social security from the budget as you prefer, and include ALL military spending, not just DoD (NSA, CIA, a portion of the Dept of Energy, Veteran's Affairs, etc) you find that the military is over 50% of the total federal budget. So, definitely no serious plan for cutting spending can skip over the military. We need to tackle both domestic and military spending.
Click to expand...

It is the role of the Federal Govt. to defend this nation thus defense is a requirement regardless of the amount. Promote domestic welfare was changed by politicians to provide for domestic welfare once they realized they could buy votes and stay in office for a career


Not really sure how that relates to what we're discussing. I'm using that as an example of how keeping the budget for something lower than planned, but higher than it is today, is still a real cut- because some things just get more expensive on their own over time.
Click to expand...

Keeping the budget lower than planned isnt a cut as I explained above.



Ok, well, this one is getting a bit complex. The stuff about "keeping your own money" is just a slogan, it doesn't translate into any actual policy position. Any change to any tax policy means moving money from one group to another. If you cut all taxes across the board you would be transferring money from those who will ultimately be responsible for the debt to those who pay taxes where those who bear responsiblity for the debt is all Americans in equal proportion where those who pay taxes is slanted towards the rich. So even an across the board tax cut is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. There is no such thing as a wealth transfer neutral tax policy. The Republicans consistently push for tax policies that result in the rich having more money and the Democrats consistently push for tax policies that result in the poor and middle class having more money. That's what the dividing line is, not this slogan about keeping ones own money. That makes a good bumper sticker, but nothing more than that.
Click to expand...

No, not complex at all, it is the taxpayer's money and it is state and local responsibility for social programs, not the Federal bureaucracy. Reagan and Bush cut taxes for ALL taxpayers and the percentage of taxes for the rich went up as did total revenue. How do you explain it? Ask your liberal friends to give you an answer. Bush tax cuts went into effect fully in 2003, here is the FIT revenue afterwards

Receipt 2008 2007 2006 2005 Fiscal 2004 Fiscal 2003

Individual Income tax 1,145.7 1,163.7 1,043.9 927.2 808.9 793.7

That's what Reaganomics is- an argument for why we should tweak things in ways that direct more of the money to the rich, so they invest more and supposedly it will trickle down. That isn't an argument for "letting people keep their own money", it is explicitly an argument for directing more money to the rich. That's the policy goal Republicans have been openly pushing for about 4 decades.
Click to expand...

You really have been brainwashed, why do you think the govt. needs the money more than the individual taxpayers? Reagan directed more money to all taxpayers and the rich ended up paying more
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
By the way another diversion from the thread topic, you do that a lot. Don't blame you as the Obama agenda is indefensible.
Click to expand...

Again, I responded to your comment, and it is about taxes. Don't start something you don't want to discuss. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Why would it? Illegals are cheap labor. And the federal tax dollars make good welfare payments for the business. Sorry you like this.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain that California has the highest population of illegals of any state ??
 
Boo Radley said:
Why would it? Illegals are cheap labor. And the federal tax dollars make good welfare payments for the business. Sorry you like this.
Click to expand...

Really? prove that those federal tax dollars went to payments for business? They went for the mandated increase in unemployment insurance and medicaid among other mandated govt. expenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom