• 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!

No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

Obama is playing politics with the lives of us Americans he supposedly is in office to do good things for. His statement that he will not sign a bill that does not raise taxes on the rich proves he is more interested in destroying Republicans than he is in leading us out of this horrible economy. If Reps can find a way to meet his dollar requirements through closing loop holes the rich use then there should be a deal. What obama wants though is to weaken Reps with their base by forcing them to break their pledge not to raise taxes or to go over the cliff and blame it on Reps in order to turn the general public against them. Obama just may drag us into another recession, possibly even a new depression.


"President Obama today declared there would be no deal to avert the looming fiscal cliff unless Republicans agree to raise rates on the top 2 percent of income-earners."

No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says - ABC News


Ok so is there a problem or something with that...?
 
Not disagreeing, but people attempting to say the the president and the Dems think JUST raising taxes will solve the debt problem are either ignorant of their position or lying. Neither the Dems or OBama have said ONLY raising taxes will solve the debt problem.

I wish I believed that there were people out there that believed there even was a debt problem.
 
The plans the president has put forward contains no guaranteed spending cuts. They mention possible future spending cuts, or guarantees of talking about future spending cuts, but nothing that is an actual spending cut.

To get something on the books before the 31st, they should agree on 18-19% GDP revenue and 19-20% GDP spending, with the details to be worked out next year.

None of what you are saying addresses what I said and that is the president nor the Dems have said that ONLY raising taxes will solve the debt problem.

I also have said previously that BOTH sides are playing politics on this one and BOTH sides are at fault. To blame just ONE side on everything is partisan hackery at its finest.
 
I wish I believed that there were people out there that believed there even was a debt problem.

There are many people that believe we have a debt problem. However, they believe the "other" side or the "other" states congress members are the problem. That is why congress as a whole has such a HORRIBLE approval rate, they nothing really changes.
 
And Hollywood has Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair at the RNC.

How many movies does Spielberg the Billionaire Make as Opposed to the Millionaire Eastwood? What about his front company DreamWorks? How about Cameron? There is a major difference with 85% of Hollywood leaning left as opposed to the likes of Eastwood.

But now when you start looking at Directors and Producers. Seems the Progressives Clearly dominates the field.

The Republicans should have broke out Robert Duvall, and Gene Hackman with EastWood. Then called it the Obama Rode--e-O. Take the Bull by the Horn and then talk to an Empty Saddle!
deadhorse2.gif
 
My problem is the whole kicking the can down the road without any MEANINGFUL solution is ridiculous. BOTH sides are the problem.

I was only addressing the issue of the tax rate increase and tax reforms were the best place to start. They are a meaningful down payment on the problem and fundamentally a no brain. The real problems are going to be in reduction of mandatory and discretionary spending. There is much to debate there. That said, people have to be realistic, they are not going to come up with comprehensive entitlement reform between now and January 1. The can has already been kicked down the road.
 
I disagree. Tax cuts = more employment = more people paying taxes = MORE revenue. Raising tax rates only raises revenue briefly until it's negative effect on the economy brings about the opposite effect.

There is actually no evidence to support your position. In fact, we have studies that show tax cuts do not add to employment. You could also just look at the last eight years, where we've been losing jobs under tax cuts. While those being increased may whine, there is really no evidence to support their whining.
 
With obama occupying the office then you are probably correct.
However, his lower qualification was approved before the election.

He is not less qualified. You sound like you don't know what the qualifications are.
 
No, but I do believe that everyone who screams to high heaven about raising taxes should lead by example.

President Obama would be raising his own taxes.
 
It's easy for a millionaire to push tax hikes.

So we are all singing from the same hymnal, as the proposed tax hikes would only really affect millionaires... Now that we agree, let's get'r done.
 
Obama, like in 08, thinks he has a mandate from the people. Like in 2010, 2014 will show him that he misread the American people yet again, and Democrats everywhere will scratch their collective heads wondering what just happened.


Tim-
 
On himself as well none the less.

Does he operate a small business? Does he only make $250,000 a year?

How many exemptions are buried in the bills that exempt national politicians? Remember how the Democrats exempted themselves from Obamacare?

It's infantile to believe that any politician is going to pass a law that is financially disadvantageous.
 
Does he operate a small business? Does he only make $250,000 a year?

How many exemptions are buried in the bills that exempt national politicians? .

I'm not here to make your points for you. Might I suggest Google for answers to those questions.
 
On himself as well none the less.

Well see that's another point. Obama says he wants them raised on people like himself. But Obama is not in the Upper 2% of the Wealthy in this country. He never has been and he never will be.
 
So we are all singing from the same hymnal, as the proposed tax hikes would only really affect millionaires... Now that we agree, let's get'r done.

I didn't say that and you know it. Why would I lie like that? Why are you lieing like that? What fairy tale world do you live in? Can you possibly fathom that $200,000 isn't a million dollars?
 
Back
Top Bottom