• 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!

Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday declared that he would not extend tax cuts at upper income levels but that Congress should quickly do so for the middle class, and he praised David H. Petraeus’s record while saying that national security had not been compromised during the intelligence official’s affair with his biographer.
...
He described two choices on taxes for the lame-duck Congress: either to allow taxes to rise across the board at all income levels, or to pass a bill extending tax cuts for all but those in the highest tax brackets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/u...ews-conference-since-june.html?pagewanted=all

So much for a balanced approach. Obama basically just said he gets everything he wants before anyone gets anything else.
 
Heres the trascript:

Transcript of President Obama?s Press Conference - NYTimes.com

As I’ve said before, I’m open to compromise and I’m open to new ideas. And I’ve been encouraged over the past week to hear Republican after Republican agree for the need for more revenue from the wealthiest Americans as part of our arithmetic if we’re going to be serious about reducing the deficit because when it comes to taxes, there are two pathways available.

Option one, if Congress fails to act by the end of this year, everybody’s taxes will automatically go up, including the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year and the 97 percent of small businesses who earn less than $250,000 a year. That doesn’t make sense. Our economy can’t afford that right now. Certainly no middle-class family can afford that right now.

And nobody in either party says that they want it to happen. The other option is to pass a law right now that would prevent any tax hike whatsoever on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. And by the way, that means every American, including the wealthiest Americans, get a tax cut. It means that 98 percent of all Americans and 97 percent of all small businesses won’t see their taxes go up a single dime.

So hes open to new idea so long as those new ideas are either of his two options.
 
Heres the trascript:

Transcript of President Obama?s Press Conference - NYTimes.com



So hes open to new idea so long as those new ideas are either of his two options.

Yet this is the same Obama that signed a bill making ALL of the "Bush" FIT rates revert to the "Clinton" FIT rates. Now he says he was just kidding about the tax increases, so take 98% of that off the table and THEN we will talk about the other 2%'s taxes and MAYBE some spending cuts (of course less cuts than the stupid committee's "grand bargain" amounts). Yes he did!
 
Yet this is the same Obama that signed a bill making ALL of the "Bush" FIT rates revert to the "Clinton" FIT rates. Now he says he was just kidding about the tax increases, so take 98% of that off the table and THEN we will talk about the other 2%'s taxes and MAYBE some spending cuts (of course less cuts than the stupid committee's "grand bargain" amounts). Yes he did!

If I were Republicans I would just say, here is our return offer.

Opt 1 - taxes go up on everyone
opt 2 - taxes stay the same for everyone
 
If I were Republicans I would just say, here is our return offer.

Opt 1 - taxes go up on everyone

That would be pretty dumb; just what we need to plunge the US into another recession. I prefer option 3.

Option 3: those who voted for Obama should have their taxes raised.

Those voters seem to be OK with it.
 
Obama Holds First News Conference Since June - NYTimes.com

So much for a balanced approach. Obama basically just said he gets everything he wants before anyone gets anything else.

Dang, he's damnned if he does and damned if he doesn't. That's what he ran on, surely the right would be whining if he would say he wasn't going to raise taxes on the rich. And, the middle-class are not getting a tax hike, so your snippy remark that he gets everything he wants before anyone gets anything else is just sour grapes.
sour-grapes.jpg
 
I say tax the rich into oblivion. Those idiots overwhelmingly voted for Pres Obama. Let them reap what they sow. Screw em. I'm tired of defending people that ask for it.
 
I say tax the rich into oblivion. Those idiots overwhelmingly voted for Pres Obama. Let them reap what they sow. Screw em. I'm tired of defending people that ask for it.

so the fact that the majority of people who make less than 50K a year voted for Obama and the majority of those of us who make more than 100K a year voted for Romney does not matter?

true lots of extremely rich libertines, gays, Jews and others who typically support the dems for reasons other than taxes, voted for Obama

but the majority of those wealthy despite the government did not
 
it proves what many of us have said all along

revenue increase is not Obama's goal

its pandering to class warfare

No, that's just class warfare nonsense on your side.

Now, republicans, go to the table, without whining, and sure, as soon as you agree to these cuts in conjunction with the increases. Then you have the balanced approach and like legislators and not victims.
 
No, that's just class warfare nonsense on your side.

Now, republicans, go to the table, without whining, and sure, as soon as you agree to these cuts in conjunction with the increases. Then you have the balanced approach and like legislators and not victims.
many of us wonder why we should have tax increases on a small group rather than massive cuts first and then tax increases for everyone. After all its not the rich who voted for the out of control spending

we all know what it is about-obama pandering to lots of voters

its not about really doing anything other than pandering

prove the government can spend wisely then get back to me

but telling me only those of us who already pay far more taxes than any other group, that we should be the ONLY group to be taxed more is pretty much proof of dishonesty by Obama
 
many of us wonder why we should have tax increases on a small group rather than massive cuts first and then tax increases for everyone. After all its not the rich who voted for the out of control spending

we all know what it is about-obama pandering to lots of voters

its not about really doing anything other than pandering

prove the government can spend wisely then get back to me

but telling me only those of us who already pay far more taxes than any other group, that we should be the ONLY group to be taxed more is pretty much proof of dishonesty by Obama

Your just whining, making excuses. Don't sit and whine while wondering. Get to the table.

And frankly, yours has been going down for a long time. In another thread I link a study showing as your taxes went down we had less and less services with more and more disparity between rich and poor. We have been appeasing your side and it has failed.
 
so the fact that the majority of people who make less than 50K a year voted for Obama and the majority of those of us who make more than 100K a year voted for Romney does not matter?

true lots of extremely rich libertines, gays, Jews and others who typically support the dems for reasons other than taxes, voted for Obama

but the majority of those wealthy despite the government did not

Im just fuming about 8 of the 10 richest counties in the country going for him. Pay me no mind lol.
 
Your just whining, making excuses. Don't sit and whine while wondering. Get to the table.

And frankly, yours has been going down for a long time. In another thread I link a study showing as your taxes went down we had less and less services with more and more disparity between rich and poor. We have been appeasing your side and it has failed.

You seem to operate under the belief that all money belongs to the government and taking less of those who already carry the load of millions of sloths, slackers, slugs and unproductive, is somehow appeasement

we understand that there are more parasites than there are producers these days and we have a system that allows the unproductive to outvote those who actually do most of the heavy lifting. but pretending that gives the parasiter politicians some sort of moral high ground is specious BS
 
Im just fuming about 8 of the 10 richest counties in the country going for him. Pay me no mind lol.

you might examine the demongraphics of those counties
 
Dang, he's damnned if he does and damned if he doesn't. That's what he ran on, surely the right would be whining if he would say he wasn't going to raise taxes on the rich. And, the middle-class are not getting a tax hike, so your snippy remark that he gets everything he wants before anyone gets anything else is just sour grapes.

He ran on a balanced approach. And the middle class not getting a tax hike is what he wants. So, im 2/2.
 
No, that's just class warfare nonsense on your side.

Now, republicans, go to the table, without whining, and sure, as soon as you agree to these cuts in conjunction with the increases. Then you have the balanced approach and like legislators and not victims.

So you agree then. Obama is demanding to get what he wants first before he will even talk about anything else. Do you think thats compromise?
 
You seem to operate under the belief that all money belongs to the government and taking less of those who already carry the load of millions of sloths, slackers, slugs and unproductive, is somehow appeasement

we understand that there are more parasites than there are producers these days and we have a system that allows the unproductive to outvote those who actually do most of the heavy lifting. but pretending that gives the parasiter politicians some sort of moral high ground is specious BS

What I think is that you're entire premise is flawed, and when the wealthy paid more taxes, we moved more from poverty to contributing members. You can name call with your class warfare, but the evidence on this fairly clear.
 
So you agree then. Obama is demanding to get what he wants first before he will even talk about anything else. Do you think thats compromise?

No. By the he said this he had already call republicans to the table. Laying your opening bid is not demanding you get yours before anything else. Republicans hold some power. Step up yo the table and begin negotiations.
 
so
the fact that the majority of people who make less than 50K a year voted for Obama and the majority of those of us who make more than 100K a year voted for Romney
does not matter?

true lots of extremely rich libertines, gays, Jews and others who typically support the dems for reasons other than taxes, voted for Obama

but the majority of those wealthy despite the government did not

Interesting statistic that shows why Reps want policies that make people wealthier and why Dem's want policies that keep people poorer.
 
I'd prefer taxes go up on no one.

I'd prefer taxes going up on those making over $250,000 over going up on everyone.

We had our chance as a nation to get the first option...we blew it in terms of the election. However, we didn't blow our chance to demand a reasonable compromise, because the nation voted Republicans back into control of the house.

As I said in the other thread, this would be my suggestion to the President.

Extend the tax rates for 5 years on those making $250,000 or less.

Require 3:1 cuts to revenue increase to be done over each of the next five budgets years

1 part of that cut must come from non-defense discretionary spending

1 part of that cut must come from defense discretionary spending

1 part of that cut must come from reform of entitlement spending.

In a perfect world (well, perfect post-electoin world) I would actually, I would actually say the compromise should be that the bush tax cuts are extended 10 years and then the tax rate for those over making over $250,000 is increased for 5 years...that way, if Democrats don't uphold their end of the bargain in terms of cuts then in 5 years the increase expires and taxes revert to the current levels for all, thus giving them incentive to actually live up to their cuts. Unfortunately, I know in reality that is not something congress would do.
 
it proves what many of us have said all along

revenue increase is not Obama's goal

its pandering to class warfare

Wow a thread about taxes where Turtledude comes in with his talking points loaded. Big surprise, lol.
 
No. By the he said this he had already call republicans to the table. Laying your opening bid is not demanding you get yours before anything else. Republicans hold some power. Step up yo the table and begin negotiations.

Him saying there are two options, my way, or nothing, is "demanding you get yours before anything else". I see nothing in that statement as to giving Republicans anything they want.
 
I'd prefer taxes go up on no one.

I'd prefer taxes going up on those making over $250,000 over going up on everyone.

We had our chance as a nation to get the first option...we blew it in terms of the election. However, we didn't blow our chance to demand a reasonable compromise, because the nation voted Republicans back into control of the house.

As I said in the other thread, this would be my suggestion to the President.

Extend the tax rates for 5 years on those making $250,000 or less.

Require 3:1 cuts to revenue increase to be done over each of the next five budgets years

1 part of that cut must come from non-defense discretionary spending

1 part of that cut must come from defense discretionary spending

1 part of that cut must come from reform of entitlement spending.

In a perfect world (well, perfect post-electoin world) I would actually, I would actually say the compromise should be that the bush tax cuts are extended 10 years and then the tax rate for those over making over $250,000 is increased for 5 years...that way, if Democrats don't uphold their end of the bargain in terms of cuts then in 5 years the increase expires and taxes revert to the current levels for all, thus giving them incentive to actually live up to their cuts. Unfortunately, I know in reality that is not something congress would do.

That is a little step in defict reduction; clearly better than nothing but not by much. You suggest a total of about $400 billion per year be taken off of a current (it will surely increase simply with rising entitlement costs) $1,200 billion dollar annual deficit, still leaving a deficit of $800 billion that includes $200 billion simply in interest on the national debt, which also increses each year, especially when (not if) interest rates rise to attract more to buy into our debt. Also federal spending cuts ALWAYS include such nonsense as "savings from ending the Afghan war = $???", which is pure accounting trickery as it is scheduled to end in 2014 anyway, and should have ended as soon as "winning" was no longer the objective. Tax increases are immediate but spending cuts "spread over a decade" always seem to be "back loaded" into years beyond the current terms of office of those advocating them; insist that that all spending cuts are FLAT (in each budget year) and real, just like the tax increases are.
 
Back
Top Bottom