• 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

ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's not much. I'd be tempted to bump that to a 6:1 cuts to revenue but was having trouble quickly finding what the "projected" revenue increase would be from the tax increases.

I agree with you in terms of the "immediete tax cuts for future spending cuts" thing, it's why I mentioned my "perfect world" thought and it's also my issue in other areas of debate such as immigration. That's partially why I suggested the cuts needed to be made on the next five budgets. So a 1:1 cut to all three this year, a 1:1 cut on all three next year, and so on for the 5 year period.

And I agree with you 100% about afghanistan. I expressed in another thread my disdain for that tactic. I agree, money we are spending specifically for a war doesn't need to stay on the books after said war is over. It should come off the books. But that's the thing...IT SHOULD COME OFF THE BOOKS. It's temporary money. It shouldn't be "invested" into infastructure at home or education or other such things, it should simply be money we no longer spend. And I agree that it shouldn't be considered part of a cost cutting measure because it is something that will happen REGARDLESS of any plans people put into effect. The cuts should come from things that would still be there if not for the cuts.
 
Zyphlin said:
I agree, it's not much. I'd be tempted to bump that to a 6:1 cuts to revenue but was having trouble quickly finding what the "projected" revenue increase would be from the tax increases.

I agree with you in terms of the "immediete tax cuts for future spending cuts" thing, it's why I mentioned my "perfect world" thought and it's also my issue in other areas of debate such as immigration. That's partially why I suggested the cuts needed to be made on the next five budgets. So a 1:1 cut to all three this year, a 1:1 cut on all three next year, and so on for the 5 year period.

And I agree with you 100% about afghanistan. I expressed in another thread my disdain for that tactic. I agree, money we are spending specifically for a war doesn't need to stay on the books after said war is over. It should come off the books. But that's the thing...IT SHOULD COME OFF THE BOOKS. It's temporary money. It shouldn't be "invested" into infastructure at home or education or other such things, it should simply be money we no longer spend. And I agree that it shouldn't be considered part of a cost cutting measure because it is something that will happen REGARDLESS of any plans people put into effect. The cuts should come from things that would still be there if not for the cuts.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A cut is getting rid of something (permanently) not a reduction in the proposed increase. The major demorat trick is to use 2009 as the "established baseline", but that included TARP/Stimulus 1 so they get to keep over $800 billion in "temporary", "emergency", "crisis" or "one time" spending boondoggles as permanent and then work from there, as opposed to any prior year's reality. That was the year when federal spending went from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP and the federal defict doubled. What we need, IMHO, is to establish a true target (limit?) of federal spending as a percentage of the REAL prior year's GDP and then "budget" that amount, rather than simply play games with fictional numbers and wishful "projections".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Exactly. A cut is getting rid of something (permanently) not a reduction in the proposed increase. The major demorat trick is to use 2009 as the "established baseline", but that included TARP/Stimulus 1 so they get to keep over $800 billion in "temporary", "emergency", "crisis" or "one time" spending boondoggles as permanent and then work from there, as opposed to any prior year's reality. That was the year when federal spending went from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP and the federal defict doubled. What we need, IMHO, is to establish a true target (limit?) of federal spending as a percentage of the REAL prior year's GDP and then "budget" that amount, rather than simply play games with fictional numbers and wishful "projections".
Click to expand...

This is because they havent actually designed or passed a detailed budget where they specify where every dollar will go. They consider the debt limit deal which set a blind limit on discretionary spending their baseline.

What they should do is write a budget and come up with a number they want to spend, and where it will go. Which coincidently is required by law.

SEC. 301. (a) CONTENT OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE
BUDGET.-On or before April 15 of each year, the Congress shall
complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for the
fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year .. The concurrent
resolution shall set forth appropriate levels for the fiscal year beginning
on October 1 of such year, and planning levels for each of
the two ensuing fiscal years, for the following-
(1) totals of new budget authority, budget outlays, direct loan
obligations, and primary loan guarantee commitments;
(2) total Federal revenues and the amount, if an~, by which
the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be increased or
decreased by bills and resolutions to be reported by the appropriate
committees;
(3) the surplus or deficit in the budget;
(4) new budget authority, budget outlays, direct loan obligations,
and primary loan guarantee commitments for each
major functional category, based on allocations of the total
levels set forth pursuant to paragraph (1);
(5) the public debt;
(6) For purposes of Senate enforcement under this title, outlays
of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program
established. under title II of the Social Security Act for the
fiscal year of the resolution and for each of the 4 succeeding
fiscal years; and
(7) For purposes of Senate enforcement under this title, revenues
of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program
established under title II of the Social Security Act (and the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
for the fiscal year of the resolution and for each of the 4 succeeding
fiscal years.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't read him that way. He spoke to his point of beginning. Again, don't be victims. Step up and make a counter offer.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't read him that way. He spoke to his point of beginning. Again, don't be victims. Step up and make a counter offer.
Click to expand...

Thats literally what he said

"there are two pathways available...everybody’s taxes will automatically go up...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"

There is no third pathway by which republican offer counter.
 
jonny5 said:
Thats literally what he said

"there are two pathways available...everybody’s taxes will automatically go up...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"

There is no third pathway by which republican offer counter.
Click to expand...

That is on the tax side. Not on the cuts side. So, you're missing that they can say sure, but you need to these cuts. Because there are automatic cuts as well. That automatic swings both ways. Both have leverage.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't read him that way. He spoke to his point of beginning. Again, don't be victims. Step up and make a counter offer.
Click to expand...

Here's a counter offer. Cut all entitlements in half and raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were under Klinton. (not including Social Security and Medicare for those who paid into it.)

Let's face it, the $16 trillion debt won't be paid down by raising taxes and making the modest cuts proposed by Obama anyway.

If you don't like that offer then here's another counter offer. Go pound salt.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061153859 said:
Here's a counter offer. Cut all entitlements in half and raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were under Klinton. (not including Social Security and Medicare for those who paid into it.)

Let's face it, the $16 trillion debt won't be paid down by raising taxes and making the modest cuts proposed by Obama anyway.

If you don't like that offer then here's another counter offer. Go pound salt.
Click to expand...

Unless you're talking about the big three, medicare, medaid and the military, you're not doing any cutting at all. So I assume you're talking about them. This would be a heavy burden for the poor, much heavier than the top 1% are bearing.

How about say the top 10% go back to Clinton era, and we do a 10% cut on the big three (though I think we could handle a slightly higher cut on the military to lower the burden on the other two).

Remember, it helps the wealthy if we bring people up as we used to do. We've been cutitng for the wealthy for a long time. A small reversal likley won't really kill them.
 
jonny5 said:
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
Click to expand...



Exactly. We should raise everybody's taxes and then blame Obama.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

What balanced approach, what cuts are you talking about?
 
There is absolutely no reason under the sun that Social Security and medicare should not be means tested in the not so distant future.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think I've said for years now you have to tackle the big three. I even say that above.
Click to expand...

Yes you did but not in a real way, how about for every $1 increase in revenue there are $2 in cuts, at the same time the tax increase goes into effect. As for the cuts nothing is off the table to get the $2 in cuts. Congress can work out where the cuts take place. We have a spending problem more so than a revenue problem.
 
Born Free said:
Yes you did but not in a real way, how about for every $1 increase in revenue there are $2 in cuts, at the same time the tax increase goes into effect. As for the cuts nothing is off the table to get the $2 in cuts. Congress can work out where the cuts take place. We have a spending problem more so than a revenue problem.
Click to expand...

So, you think the poor should carry twice the burden?
 
Born Free said:
Where did I say that?
Click to expand...

The taxes will be directed at those who have money. Medicare and medcaid by and large are those who don't. So, to have a 2-1 differential means the poor will be carrying about twice the burden.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

So then you are in line, Republicans can come to the table with the hard line that there will be no new taxes to the upper 5% and negotiations can begin from there right ??
 
Obama should be the leader. He should go to the table willing to make his compromises first. This is his job, to lead.

My idea would be that Republicans allow a 1/2 percent increase on the rich and then allow Democrats to make a small compromise in spending that equals out. Then for each 1/2 percent increase, Democrats make more small compromises until they have each reached where they want to be.

But to stand up and basically claim that as the leader you refuse to budge at all on the compromise is a great way to get things tied up in congress and create a huge mess. Someone has to take the lead and it should be the man voted in as the leader.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you think the poor should carry twice the burden?
Click to expand...

so you think that it's just the upper 2% of our working population that pays over 40% of all our taxes are the ones that have gotten us 16 trillion dollars in debt ??


Personally I think everyone in this country helped in getting to that 16 trillion dollars in debt, and everyone should help get us out of it .. I'm in favor of letting all the tax cuts expire ... and I would think liberals like yourself would be happy to have that happen ..... after all if you aren't willing to give up the small tax cut that Bush gave you .... in return for those billions from those evil rich bastards ... then you are clearly stating that you have no feeling at all at getting our debt paid down .... and you "JUST" are out to get the rich .
 
Boo Radley said:
That is on the tax side. Not on the cuts side. So, you're missing that they can say sure, but you need to these cuts. Because there are automatic cuts as well. That automatic swings both ways. Both have leverage.
Click to expand...

Im not missing it. Obama is missing it. He made no mention of anything other than his two options.
 
jonny5 said:
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
Click to expand...

Which is one reason why the GOP is so out of touch with voters.
 
The Barbarian said:
So then you are in line, Republicans can come to the table with the hard line that there will be no new taxes to the upper 5% and negotiations can begin from there right ??
Click to expand...

They can. But there will have to be movement. They will have to agree to some tax increases and Obama will have to agree to some cuts. Or, merely go off the cliff.
 
The Barbarian said:
so you think that it's just the upper 2% of our working population that pays over 40% of all our taxes are the ones that have gotten us 16 trillion dollars in debt ??


Personally I think everyone in this country helped in getting to that 16 trillion dollars in debt, and everyone should help get us out of it .. I'm in favor of letting all the tax cuts expire ... and I would think liberals like yourself would be happy to have that happen ..... after all if you aren't willing to give up the small tax cut that Bush gave you .... in return for those billions from those evil rich bastards ... then you are clearly stating that you have no feeling at all at getting our debt paid down .... and you "JUST" are out to get the rich .
Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable in theory, but it is not entirely true. We've actually been dialing back the help we give people in need and cutting taxes on the wealthy for sometime. Linked a Standford study for someone the other day that said the very movement is why we have more poor today, hurting us in all kinds of ways. So, if that study is accurate, it would be more the breaks we've given the wealthy, and that the poor have been taking it n the chin for awhile.
 
jonny5 said:
Im not missing it. Obama is missing it. He made no mention of anything other than his two options.
Click to expand...

He didn't have to mention it. He has had cuts on the table for awhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom