• 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 (Continued)

Conservative said:
Doubt that I could ever make a valid argument to the brainwashed but the economic results and massive attempts at redistribution of wealth along with class warfare certainly have made my decision for me. I won't vote for a leftwing radical that doesn't have a clue how to manage anything. When he learns to accept responsibility for his own failures then that will be the first step towards gaining support.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
Click to expand...

You have successfully ignored our LOGIC on the data presented once again.
 
I have a question for both the conservatives, and the liberals here. The subject is simple...the US can't afford to pay it's bills. So, where are we going to get the money?

Are we going to get that money by slashing services offered, but NOT slashing the taxes to go to pay for those services, thereby forcing citizens to pay for services they neither can, nor will, ever receive? Is THAT you're answer? That's what cutting spending alone amounts to, without a corresponding cut in taxes and fees.

Or do we instead increase the taxes levied on all the people of this country, without increasing the goods and services we receive? If MY taxes go up, I want something for it. My car payments don't suddenly rise, with nothing to show. If MY taxes go up, i want foodstamps, free child care programs, SOMETHING. Make no mistake, a tax on one group is a tax on all. If MY taxes go up, as a middle classer, I can no longer afford the lifestyle I have, and will cut back on my spending. Multiply that across the board, and what you have, is less purchasing power in the hands of americans. So, we tax the rich, instead, right? They've got plenty to give. But they are going to do the same thing I would, plus one. They are going to protect themselves from that additional cost of living in this country, believe me. It's going to come in the form of increases in products and services offered by the companies those people own, and it's going to come in the form of, if rich guy brings home 400,000 less this year, he's not going to be buying that sweet Porsche GT3 this year. Less money in the market always means a poorer market. There is no escaping this.

So then, you have to have a combo of both tax hikes, AND slash the budget. What you have there is, we pay more, and get less. Keep doing that, and you might just find people leaving this country for other places, even though those taxes are likely the same, or higher. But at least there, you get stuff for your money.

And NONE of these solutions addresses the real problem. The REAL PROBLEM IS, we spend more than we make. I would say that is the case for most all americans today. Show me debt free americans, and I'll show you people that haven't left their mother's house yet. Our elected officials to do the same, only there's no credit agency hanging over their head, hounding them with phone calls for bills unpaid. Hell, when they max THEIR credit out, all the gotta do is get together, take a vote, and increase their credit limit again. Wish I could do that with MY card. Ask yourselves, all of you...when did that happen? When did it become OK for congress to spend more than they take in? We look at our private sector businesses that did that these past 10 years with frowns, and say "She's a WITCH, BURN HER!!!", but at the end of the day, they were only ever following the lead of the highest offices in the land. A boss leads by example, and who is the president and his/her staff, if not the boss?
 
Conservative said:
Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
Click to expand...

Woooo Hoo we got the copy and paste going again:lamo

Jryan expect to see this a few more times tonight from con.
 
Jryan said:
You have successfully ignored our LOGIC on the data presented once again.
Click to expand...


Apparently they don't teach logic in school these dayss. You have offered no logic at all.
 
KevinKohler;1059864379]I have a question for both the conservatives, and the liberals here. The subject is simple...the US can't afford to pay it's bills. So, where are we going to get the money?
Click to expand...

I will take a crack at that. Since we have a 14.8 trillion dollar debt there isn't enough money in the country to pay that off so the best way to solve the problem is to grow your way out of this debt

Are we going to get that money by slashing services offered, but NOT slashing the taxes to go to pay for those services, thereby forcing citizens to pay for services they neither can, nor will, ever receive? Is THAT you're answer? That's what cutting spending alone amounts to, without a corresponding cut in taxes and fees.
Click to expand...

Cutting services? What services are the role of the Federal Govt? Why do we have so many duplicated expenses then at the state level if all those so called services are handled by the Federal Govt. Next we need to explain to everyone what the various taxes go for and then get the Federal Govt. down to the level it belongs, about 1.5 trillion a year not the current 3.7 trillion dollar budget. Take SS off budget and put it back where it belongs, intergovt. holdings and keep it there. Raise the retirement age to 67 and then start repaying the IOU's in that account with the surplus that increased retirement age will generate. I have posted here what the budget would look like but you need to start with 2008 budget and start cutting from there.

Or do we instead increase the taxes levied on all the people of this country, without increasing the goods and services we receive? If MY taxes go up, I want something for it. My car payments don't suddenly rise, with nothing to show. If MY taxes go up, i want foodstamps, free child care programs, SOMETHING. Make no mistake, a tax on one group is a tax on all. If MY taxes go up, as a middle classer, I can no longer afford the lifestyle I have, and will cut back on my spending. Multiply that across the board, and what you have, is less purchasing power in the hands of americans. So, we tax the rich, instead, right? They've got plenty to give. But they are going to do the same thing I would, plus one. They are going to protect themselves from that additional cost of living in this country, believe me. It's going to come in the form of increases in products and services offered by the companies those people own, and it's going to come in the form of, if rich guy brings home 400,000 less this year, he's not going to be buying that sweet Porsche GT3 this year. Less money in the market always means a poorer market. There is no escaping this.
Click to expand...

Much of the revenue problem today comes from the fact that there are over 65 million WORKING Americans that are paying ZERO Federal Income taxes because of loopholes and there are another 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans paying little if any FIT. That has to be addressed. The way to do that is with a flat tax and a consumption tax. Everybody pays something. That isn't happening today.

So then, you have to have a combo of both tax hikes, AND slash the budget. What you have there is, we pay more, and get less. Keep doing that, and you might just find people leaving this country for other places, even though those taxes are likely the same, or higher. But at least there, you get stuff for your money.
Click to expand...

Let's go with the spending cuts first, Reagan made a deal with the Democrat controlled House to cut spending $3 for every dollar of tax increases. Guess what we got, the tax increases without spending cuts. GHW Bush tried the same thing and guess what we got, tax increases without the spending cuts. I have no faith in bureaucrats ever cutting anything.

And NONE of these solutions addresses the real problem. The REAL PROBLEM IS, we spend more than we make. I would say that is the case for most all americans today. Show me debt free americans, and I'll show you people that haven't left their mother's house yet. Our elected officials to do the same, only there's no credit agency hanging over their head, hounding them with phone calls for bills unpaid. Hell, when they max THEIR credit out, all the gotta do is get together, take a vote, and increase their credit limit again. Wish I could do that with MY card. Ask yourselves, all of you...when did that happen? When did it become OK for congress to spend more than they take in? We look at our private sector businesses that did that these past 10 years with frowns, and say "She's a WITCH, BURN HER!!!", but at the end of the day, they were only ever following the lead of the highest offices in the land. A boss leads by example, and who is the president and his/her staff, if not the boss?
Click to expand...

The answer to that is term limits. I was against them before but this is out of hand. Politicians have figured out that when you keep people dependent you keep the politicians employed. Only in the liberal world do you increase your credit limit and expect politicians not to spend the money.
 
Since we have a 14.8 trillion dollar debt there isn't enough money in the country to pay that off so the best way to solve the problem is to grow your way out of this debt
I hope these box thingies work, or this is going to get SERIOUSLY confusing up in here....I would agree that an economic growth would fix our debt problem, but ONLY if we fix our spending problem. You know what they say...people that have more, spend more. And government agencies are set up to make SURE they spend all they receive, no matter if they need it or not. No surplus on the budget. Otherwise, their budget gets cut in following years.
Click to expand...


Cutting services? What services are the role of the Federal Govt? Why do we have so many duplicated expenses then at the state level if all those so called services are handled by the Federal Govt. Next we need to explain to everyone what the various taxes go for and then get the Federal Govt. down to the level it belongs, about 1.5 trillion a year not the current 3.7 trillion dollar budget. Take SS off budget and put it back where it belongs, intergovt. holdings and keep it there. Raise the retirement age to 67 and then start repaying the IOU's in that account with the surplus that increased retirement age will generate. I have posted here what the budget would look like but you need to start with 2008 budget and start cutting from there.
When states fail to pay THEIR bills for the services they try to offer, they get that money from the federal government. And also, yes, redundancy is a huge problem. Just as criminals don't like to be tried twice for the same crime, I don't like having to pay twice for the same services. But I'm told we NEED them, lol. And I've been harping about an itemized bill with my tax returns for YEARS. But I'll get one, because I'm sure some of it is a security issue, and some of it is just an eyesore if all the public new about it. Shrinking the federal government? Are you SURE you're a conservative, and not a libertarian, lol? Sadly, any president or congress person who espouses ideas like yours gets bood off the stage, and flouted as a looney, right up there with Rom Paul.
Click to expand...


Much of the revenue problem today comes from the fact that there are over 65 million WORKING Americans that are paying ZERO Federal Income taxes because of loopholes and there are another 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans paying little if any FIT. That has to be addressed. The way to do that is with a flat tax and a consumption tax. Everybody pays something. That isn't happening today.
I was already under the impression we had a consumption tax, aka, sales tax? As for the flat tax idea, you can't expect someone making 15,000 a year to have to pay 5 grand, or one third of his/her income, in a flat tax. You, and some others would likely say, let that be their incentive to get out and get a better job, but speaking as someone trying to find a job right now, there are not a lot of "better" jobs out there. Employers seem to know they got potential employees by the balls right now, and so are offering lowered wages for the jobs they have available. Case in point, I interviewed, and got accept/hired, for a job about 2 months ago to run/general manage a Friendly's restaurant. No small job. Know what the max was they offered me? 32,000 a year, lol. I told them I had to make at LEAST 45, and they said all incoming store managers make 32,000. I laughed, and left. 2 months later, I am rethinking that move, only, I now hear they filed chapter 11, so am not TOO guilty about it. But anyway, but to my original point...the world needs ditch diggers and burger flippers to, no matter what you or anyone thinks of those jobs, or the people that do them. Not everyone can make the sorta money that would allow them to pay the SAME flat tax everyone else pays. Enter the free rider problem.
Click to expand...


Let's go with the spending cuts first, Reagan made a deal with the Democrat controlled House to cut spending $3 for every dollar of tax increases. Guess what we got, the tax increases without spending cuts. GHW Bush tried the same thing and guess what we got, tax increases without the spending cuts. I have no faith in bureaucrats ever cutting anything.
And that is the source of MY anger. I see no difference in the over all way things are run, no matter WHO get's elected in what position. If I didn't have a wife and kids, I'd be the dude with a gun taking aim, that's how angry I am. But I'll never do that, because the fools I am surround by all day support the people I would want to shoot at, and that would be wrong to do. So long as these people have the support of their constituents, they are validated in all that they do.
Click to expand...


The answer to that is term limits. I was against them before but this is out of hand. Politicians have figured out that when you keep people dependent you keep the politicians employed. Only in the liberal world do you increase your credit limit and expect politicians not to spend the money.[/QUOTE]

Eh, republicans (so called "conservatives")would spend that money, too. Like I was saying, government is set up to spend all it gets, no matter what. We already have terms limits on some offices, but to me, that is no solution, either. Term limits mean nothing if our only options for replacements are people exactly like the ones leaving. Meet the new boss....
 
You boxed the wrong text, you need to box what someone posts to you and not what you post to them. Hitting quick reply doesn't allow anyone to see your post.

Anyway as I stated a lot of people have no clue what our taxes fund. For example there are state sales tax which funds state services but there is no Federal Sales Tax. As for the flat tax my proposal is 15% with the first 30,000 exempt so someone making 30000 would be exempt. Excise taxes on gasoline/diesel purchases fund roads and bridges. FICA funds SS and Medicare. Property taxes fund schools, police and fire.

As for states not paying their bills, why is that a Federal Responsibility? The Obama stimulus program bailed some states out instead of stimulating the economy and growing jobs thus new taxpayers
 
You boxed the wrong text, you need to box what someone posts to you and not what you post to them. Hitting quick reply doesn't allow anyone to see your post.
Click to expand...
Let's see if I get it correct this time....
Anyway as I stated a lot of people have no clue what our taxes fund. For example there are state sales tax which funds state services but there is no Federal Sales Tax. As for the flat tax my proposal is 15% with the first 30,000 exempt so someone making 30000 would be exempt. Excise taxes on gasoline/diesel purchases fund roads and bridges. FICA funds SS and Medicare. Property taxes fund schools, police and fire.
Click to expand...
See, when a lot of people say "flat tax", they mean a dollar amount, not a percentage of income. The question is, would that be enough? And besides....don't people that make 40 a year and up already pay that? God knows, I only get about 5 grand back a year, between my wife and I, and we make about 90 a year between the two of us, have a house, and two kids. And I PROMISE, a LOT more than just 5 grand is taken out in federal... I also thought that the excise taxes we already have on gas paid for roads? I mean, where else does that extra 75 cents or more per gallon go? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

As for states not paying their bills, why is that a Federal Responsibility? The Obama stimulus program bailed some states out instead of stimulating the economy and growing jobs thus new taxpayers
Click to expand...
Federal liability, in my opinion, should be as simple as providing a supreme court, international security (military, etc), and....well, gosh, that's about it, in my mind. But then you think, are there states that are "too big to fail", lol? Anyway, I gotta hit the hey, got another bright day of job hunting tomorrow.
 
KevinKohler said:
Let's see if I get it correct this time....

See, when a lot of people say "flat tax", they mean a dollar amount, not a percentage of income. The question is, would that be enough? And besides....don't people that make 40 a year and up already pay that? God knows, I only get about 5 grand back a year, between my wife and I, and we make about 90 a year between the two of us, have a house, and two kids. And I PROMISE, a LOT more than just 5 grand is taken out in federal... I also thought that the excise taxes we already have on gas paid for roads? I mean, where else does that extra 75 cents or more per gallon go? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?


Federal liability, in my opinion, should be as simple as providing a supreme court, international security (military, etc), and....well, gosh, that's about it, in my mind. But then you think, are there states that are "too big to fail", lol? Anyway, I gotta hit the hey, got another bright day of job hunting tomorrow.
Click to expand...

No you understand correctly, the problem is the Federal Govt. put excise taxes as well as FICA taxes on budget instead of having them go into a trust fund for the programs for which they were created to pay for. that is the problem with the govt. and why SS/medicare are in trouble. My money contributed to my SS fund was put on budget and spent, being replaced with an IOU. Now those IOU's have to be funded and the govt. has already spent the money therefore they have to print it or borrow it. It has been called a Ponzi scheme for that reason. My SS now requires someone else to pay it when that was never the intent. Now the govt. claims they don't have the money and that SS/Medicare are going broke and we don't have money for infrastructure. We would had the govt. applied the money where it belonged.

By the way, good job on boxing.
 
Conservative said:
That makes my point, Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the debt which tripled it and Obama has increased it by 4. trillion dollars or a 40% increase. Which one was worse?
Click to expand...
Tripling the debt is a 200% increase so obviously that is worse. :mrgreen:
 
Conservative said:
As for the 2009 deficit, since it was a Democratic budget and Obama had his department heads in charge, all of it will be charged to him.
Click to expand...
That's insane. $600 billion was added to the debt between October 1st, 2008 and January 20th, 2009 and you believe Obama is responsible for that. Once again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

Conservative said:
When you accept responsibility for the job, you accept responsibility for the results. That is how leadership works.
Click to expand...
Riiiight ... tell me again how Clinton, not Bush, was responsible for not protecting America sufficiently from a terrorist attack 8 months into Bush's first term. :roll:
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
If MY taxes go up, I want something for it. My car payments don't suddenly rise, with nothing to show. If MY taxes go up, i want foodstamps, free child care programs, SOMETHING.
Click to expand...
You get nothing for it and you deserve nothing for it. We already collected the services for the debt we owe. Now comes the time to pay the bill. We need to cut services and raise taxes on everyone. That's the only way the debt can be paid down.
 
pbrauer said:
Tripling the debt is a 200% increase so obviously that is worse. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Just showing again that percentage change is irrelevant. What is the debt service that the taxpayer pays on 1.7 trillion vs. the debt service the taxpayer pays on 4 trillion? You and be honest as most people know the answer.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's insane. $600 billion was added to the debt between October 1st, 2008 and January 20th, 2009 and you believe Obama is responsible for that. Once again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about.


Riiiight ... tell me again how Clinton, not Bush, was responsible for not protecting America sufficiently from a terrorist attack 8 months into Bush's first term. :roll:
Click to expand...

Prove it and then tell me what was done when the TARP loans were repaid? Does Bush or Obama get credit for the repayment and where did that credit go. Suggest you stop with the partisan bull****.
 
Shek Yerbuti said:
That's insane. $600 billion was added to the debt between October 1st, 2008 and January 20th, 2009 and you believe Obama is responsible for that. Once again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

Conservative said:
Prove it ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
09.30.2008: 10,024,724,896,912
01.16.2009: 10,628,881,485,510
--------------------------------------
Total .............. 604,156,588,598

U.S. Treasury


Conservative said:
... and then tell me what was done when the TARP loans were repaid? Does Bush or Obama get credit for the repayment and where did that credit go
Click to expand...
Asked an answered ... repeatedly ... was applied against the deficit.

Conservative said:
When you accept responsibility for the job, you accept responsibility for the results. That is how leadership works.

Shek Yerbuti said:
Riiiight ... tell me again how Clinton, not Bush, was responsible for not protecting America sufficiently from a terrorist attack 8 months into Bush's first term. :roll:

Conservative said:
Suggest you stop with the partisan bull****.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Translation ... Conservative: "Stop exposing my hypocrisy!!"
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
09.30.2008: 10,024,724,896,912
01.16.2009: 10,628,881,485,510
--------------------------------------
Total .............. 604,156,588,598

U.S. Treasury



Asked an answered ... repeatedly ... was applied against the deficit.


Translation ... Conservative: "Stop exposing my hypocrisy!!"
Click to expand...

Very good, Sheik, how much of that is TARP? Wasn't TARP a loan and most of it paid back? When and where does that payback show up on the budget? Keep buying what this President tells you.
 
Conservative said:
Very good, Sheik, how much of that is TARP? Wasn't TARP a loan and most of it paid back? When and where does that payback show up on the budget? Keep buying what this President tells you.
Click to expand...
How many times must I show you the breakdown of the FY2009 budget which showed $152 billion in outlays for TARP?

The Budget Outlook
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
How many times must I show you the breakdown of the FY2009 budget which showed $152 billion in outlays for TARP?

The Budget Outlook
Click to expand...

You really should stop when you are behind. The Budget outlook was for the entire year and since it was a Bush/Democrat Budget and Bush isn't in office the deficit belongs to the only remaining factor in that budget, the Democrats. I know how badly you want to stick to the past while ignoring the present. That is what liberals do especially those part of the extremely low number of Obama supporters today. January 21, 2009 10.6 trillion debt, today 14.8 trillion debt. Obama will add more debt in his first term than Bush did in 8 unless of course he matures and signs the GOP Budget proposals.
 
Conservative said:
You really should stop when you are behind. The Budget outlook was for the entire year and since it was a Bush/Democrat Budget and Bush isn't in office the deficit belongs to the only remaining factor in that budget, the Democrats. I know how badly you want to stick to the past while ignoring the present. That is what liberals do especially those part of the extremely low number of Obama supporters today. January 21, 2009 10.6 trillion debt, today 14.8 trillion debt. Obama will add more debt in his first term than Bush did in 8 unless of course he matures and signs the GOP Budget proposals.
Click to expand...
Can you stay focused here, Con? This isn't about the Congress. Bush was in office between 10.1.2008 and 1.20.2009 when the debt increased $600B. When I asked you how much of the FY2009 budget was attributable to Obama, you said "all of it."
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Can you stay focused here, Con? This isn't about the Congress. Bush was in office between 10.1.2008 and 1.20.2009 when the debt increased $600B. When I asked you how much of the FY2009 budget was attributable to Obama, you said "all of it."
Click to expand...

Yep, civics would tell you that Congress and the President are responsible for the budget and the economy. The 2009 budget was passed almost completely with Democrat votes including Obama's. The 2009 budget did NOT include TARP which was a supplemental that also was supported by Obama. TARP was a LOAN that was to be paid back and most of it has been paid back. Bush spent 350 billion of that money from October-December 2008 so that IS included in the October-January 21 deficit. Now where does the repayment show up in the 2009 numbers?

Now try to stay focused, Sheik, "your" President has taken the debt up over 4 trillion dollars, has 25plus million unemployed and under employed Americans, a rising misery index, and very low JAR with no plan in place to improve the economy. All Obama is doing is dividing and promoting more class warfare all in hopes of getting his base motivated again. That won't get the job done. Obama is a one termer
 
Conservative said:
Yep, civics would tell you that Congress and the President are responsible for the budget and the economy. The 2009 budget was passed almost completely with Democrat votes including Obama's.
Click to expand...
Ummm, that didn't happen until March, 2009. You're telling me that Obama was responsible for Bush's budget from October through March??

Tell me, do you plan these inanities in advance or do you just make them up as you go along?

Conservative said:
The 2009 budget did NOT include TARP which was a supplemental that also was supported by Obama. TARP was a LOAN that was to be paid back and most of it has been paid back. Bush spent 350 billion of that money from October-December 2008 so that IS included in the October-January 21 deficit. Now where does the repayment show up in the 2009 numbers?
Click to expand...
You have to first prove how much of the first half of the $700B was paid back during FY2009. Otherwise, all you're doing is making a strawman arugment.

Conservative said:
Now try to stay focused, Sheik, "your" President has taken the debt up over 4 trillion dollars
Click to expand...
No, he has not. Another thing you're pretending doesn't exist is the amount of debt we have accumulated since 2008 is in large part due to Bush's Great Recession. That is not Obama's fault. It's a mess he inherited.

Conservative said:
has 25plus million unemployed and under employed Americans
Click to expand...
Which is also a gift from Bush's Great Recession which added 12 million to that number just between Dec. '07 and Jun. '09.

Conservative said:
All Obama is doing is dividing and promoting more class warfare all in hopes of getting his base motivated again.
Click to expand...
Please, you'd have to be brain-dead not to know that all it takes to divide Conservatives and Republicans from the rest of the nation is to elect a Democrat as president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom