• 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

iguanaman said:
Wealth also MIGRATES to the top in any capitalist society and it is Govts. job to retard that trend which is so deterimental to sustained growth. Maldistribution of wealth is our number one problem in America today. Obama knows it, the people know it, the Republicans are clueless as usual.
Click to expand...


Exactly! Let's look at the math, the bane of the Republican's whole trickle down philosophy:

"In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent."

Robert Reich: Budget Baloney: Why Social Security Isn't a Problem for 26 Years, and the Best Way to Fix It Permanently
 
iguanaman said:
Wealth also MIGRATES to the top in any capitalist society and it is Govts. job to retard that trend which is so deterimental to sustained growth. Maldistribution of wealth is our number one problem in America today. Obama knows it, the people know it, the Republicans are clueless as usual.
Click to expand...


I have searched, and searched the Constitution and I don't see it in there, could you point it out for me?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
 
winston53660 said:
President Obama would be raising his own taxes.
Click to expand...

And mine would be raised too.

But I still support returning the tax rates to the pre Bush tax cut levels of those couples making over $250,000...If by doing that we are able to prevent the tax rates of the middleclass from returning to pre Bush tax cut levels

My thoughts:

I think some are missing the reasoning behind the tax cut for upper bracket expiring and the reason for after Bush tax cuts for the middle and lower class to remain.

Remember when President Reagan tried "trickle down economics'?
He gave big tax cuts to the wealthy and to businesses hoping that in turn the monies would "trickle down' to the middle and lower classes.

Well, I think President Obama's plan is more like "trickle up" economics.

He wants to give tax cuts to the middle and lower class so that they have more monies to buy housing, goods and services.
Once more money is being spent for housing, goods and services business will be doing better and can grow and hire more people.
As more people are hired more goods and services will be sold and our GDP will grow.

If that happens it will be a win/win situation for all of us.

I did not think "trickle down economics" helped much so I am more than willing to give this plan a good try.
 
this be easier if we had no taxes :D
 
Blame game has already started.

Right wingers will blame Obama for a failure to reach a deal because he wanted to raise taxes on the rich.

Left wingers will blame republicans for refusing to give in on taxes for the rich.

And the rest of us in the middle will just be thinking "jesus you're all full of ****".
 
apdst said:
Does he operate a small business? Does he only make $250,000 a year?
Click to expand...

Those who make only $250,000 will not be affected.
Since we have a progressive tax system only the amont of money earned over $250,000 will be taxed at a higher rate.

Dh owns his own own a small company/business so the new tax rate will only effect the income that we make above the first $250,000.
 
Last edited:
head of joaquin said:
Gee, that's easy:

Art 1, sec. 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Click to expand...

iguanaman said:
It's right in the preamble..........."promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Notice that is says "general welfare" not only the welfare of the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Since both of you approach this through the prism of 'General Welfare' however, from two different sections of the Constitution, let me explain to you both why you are both wrong in one post....

The Federal Government has continued to expand its power using misinterpretations of the US Constitution as its defense. The General Welfare clause is one of the most commonly misinterpreted and seemingly vaguest of all of the clauses in the Constitution. There is much that can be written on the subject, however, the meaning of the ‘General Welfare’ clause is easy to grasp with just a few observations. The first is the common definition of both general and welfare. The second is to which body or entity this clause applies.

Common Definitions:

General: “involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole”

Welfare: “the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.”

Source: (Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online)

So, the US Constitution states that the US government will promote the state of well being, happiness, and prosperity for the whole. Those in defense of the expansion of Federal power (and what are now defined as Federal “welfare” programs and entitlement programs) stop there and are satisfied with this generic application of such a definition. However, in order to completely understand the meaning and intended purpose of this clause, you must define who or what makes up the “whole”. In other words, to whom does the General Welfare clause apply?

Article 1, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

This section specifically defines to which body or entity the general welfare clause is to apply. Since the United States is specifically made up of the States themselves, this clause applies to the States as a whole and not the People. The US Constitution addresses specific entities throughout the document. The People as an entity are only addressed twice in the main body of the US Constitution and in no case does the General Welfare clause apply to the People specifically. However, the Constitution does specifically define the rights which are to be retained by the People, as you can see in the following constitutional amendments. Notice the 10th Amendment.

Amendment I
“…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

Amendment II
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Amendment IV
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,…”

Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment XVII
“…elected by the people thereof…”
“…That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election…”

Is it a Power?

Looking at the two occurrences of “General Welfare” within the US Constitution, it is important to observe that in neither case does the phrase itself delegate any power. The first occurrence is in the Preamble to the US Constitution where the purpose of the Union and US Constitution is stated. The second occurrence is in article 1, Section 8 relating to the taxation authority of congress as stated before. Article 1, Section 8 is where all congressional authority is enumerated. It was understood that congress had no power that was not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. A broad reading of the General Welfare clause would render the enumeration of powers pointless. There would be no specific limitation to Federal power. Instead, it would only require an argument that any action was for the general good. This was not the intention by those who created the document. To answer the original question, is the general welfare clause an enumerated power? No, not in either occurrence.

US Consitution General Welfare | What Does General Welfare Mean? | University of Common Sense

And I leave you with the words of a founding father:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

– James Madison, Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831
 
j-mac said:
Since both of you approach this through the prism of 'General Welfare' however, from two different sections of the Constitution, let me explain to you both why you are both wrong in one post....

The Federal Government has continued to expand its power using misinterpretations of the US Constitution as its defense. The General Welfare clause is one of the most commonly misinterpreted and seemingly vaguest of all of the clauses in the Constitution. There is much that can be written on the subject, however, the meaning of the ‘General Welfare’ clause is easy to grasp with just a few observations. The first is the common definition of both general and welfare. The second is to which body or entity this clause applies.

Common Definitions:

General: “involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole”

Welfare: “the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.”

Source: (Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online)

So, the US Constitution states that the US government will promote the state of well being, happiness, and prosperity for the whole. Those in defense of the expansion of Federal power (and what are now defined as Federal “welfare” programs and entitlement programs) stop there and are satisfied with this generic application of such a definition. However, in order to completely understand the meaning and intended purpose of this clause, you must define who or what makes up the “whole”. In other words, to whom does the General Welfare clause apply?

Article 1, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

This section specifically defines to which body or entity the general welfare clause is to apply. Since the United States is specifically made up of the States themselves, this clause applies to the States as a whole and not the People. The US Constitution addresses specific entities throughout the document. The People as an entity are only addressed twice in the main body of the US Constitution and in no case does the General Welfare clause apply to the People specifically. However, the Constitution does specifically define the rights which are to be retained by the People, as you can see in the following constitutional amendments. Notice the 10th Amendment.

Amendment I
“…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

Amendment II
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Amendment IV
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,…”

Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment XVII
“…elected by the people thereof…”
“…That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election…”

Is it a Power?

Looking at the two occurrences of “General Welfare” within the US Constitution, it is important to observe that in neither case does the phrase itself delegate any power. The first occurrence is in the Preamble to the US Constitution where the purpose of the Union and US Constitution is stated. The second occurrence is in article 1, Section 8 relating to the taxation authority of congress as stated before. Article 1, Section 8 is where all congressional authority is enumerated. It was understood that congress had no power that was not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. A broad reading of the General Welfare clause would render the enumeration of powers pointless. There would be no specific limitation to Federal power. Instead, it would only require an argument that any action was for the general good. This was not the intention by those who created the document. To answer the original question, is the general welfare clause an enumerated power? No, not in either occurrence.

US Consitution General Welfare | What Does General Welfare Mean? | University of Common Sense

And I leave you with the words of a founding father:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

– James Madison, Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831
Click to expand...

Crank tea party constitutional law. The Supreme court disagrees with you in case after case. You lose. It's that's simple.
 
head of joaquin said:
Crank tea party constitutional law. The Supreme court disagrees with you in case after case. You lose. It's that's simple.
Click to expand...

No, that is the fact. You don't like it because you are a collectivist who wants to change the meaning of our founding document, but you can't do so honestly.
 
minnie616 said:
Those who make only $250,000 will not be affected.
Since we have a progressive tax system only the amont of money earned over $250,000 will be taxed at a higher rate.

Dh owns his own own a small company/business so the new tax rate will only effect the income that we make above the first $250,000.
Click to expand...



By ruling that ObamaCare is constitutional, the Supreme Court has set in motion a slew of tax hikes. Well, someone has to pay for it. For rich folks, looming big is the 3.8% Medicare surtax on investment income, and the 0.9% Medicare payroll tax hike (from 1.45% to 2.35%). And then there are the tax hikes for everybody else.

Obama’s pledge against any form of tax increase on Americans making less than $250,000 a year “was thrown out the window” when he signed the healthcare law, says John Kartch, communications director with Americans For Tax Reform (founded by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist).


No. 1. The Individual Mandate Excise Tax. Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income tax surtax. It goes up each year until 2016 and beyond when a couple would pay a tax of the higher of $1,360 or 2.5% of adjusted gross income.

No. 2. The Over-The-Counter Drugs Trap. Since Jan. 1, 2011, employees with health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts or health reimbursement accounts have no longer been able to use pre-tax funds stashed in these accounts to buy over-the-counter medicines for allergy relief and the like without a doctor’s prescription (there’s an exception for insulin).

No. 3. The Healthcare Flexible Spending Account Cap. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, employees will face a $2,500 cap on the amount of pre-tax salary deferrals they can make into a healthcare flexible spending account. There is no cap under current law. In light of the new cap, employee benefits groups are lobbying for Congress to modify the use-it-or-lose-it rule that means employees forfeit unused funds in their accounts at the end of the plan year.

No. 4. The Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, taxpayers who face high medical expenses will only be allowed a deduction for expenses to the extent they exceed 10% of adjusted gross income, up from 7.5% now. Taxpayers 65 and older can still use the old 7.5% threshold through 2016. For how to score the medical expense deduction before 2013, click here.

No. 5. The Health Savings Account Withdrawal Penalty. Since Jan. 1, 2011, taxpayers who withdraw money from health savings accounts for non-medical expenses before age 65 face a 20% penalty, up from 10% before.

No. 6. The Indoor Tanning Services Tax. Since July 1, 2010, folks using indoor tanning salons face a new 10% excise tax. This one hasn’t been bringing in as much revenue as anticipated.

No. 7. The Cadillac Health Insurance Plan Tax. Starting in 2018, there will be a new 40% excise tax on taxpayers who are covered by high-cost health insurance plans (with premiums at or above $10,200 for a single or $27,500 for a family). Insurers or employers who are self-insured will pay the tax, but it is expected to trickle down to mean higher costs for consumers.

Americans For Tax Reform has a full list of ObamaCare’s 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses.....snip~

ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Under $250,000-A-Year Earners - Forbes


U were sayin something about those under 250k NOT being Affected?
rolleyes.png
 
There is a hidden $1 trillion net tax hike in the “fiscal cliff” that no one is talking about.


According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Obamacare’s twenty new or higher taxes amount to a net $1 trillion over the next decade, 2013-2022.

These tax increases are already permanent law due to Obamacare. They include the medical device tax, the surtax on investment income, the individual and employer mandate non-compliance penalty tax, the medical itemized deduction “haircut,” the hike in the Medicare payroll tax rate, and others. These tax increases total exactly $1 trillion over the next ten years:


2012 CBO Report on Revenue Effects of Obamacare

Tax Hike Provisions

Tax Hike
2013-2022

Tax Penalty Payments by Uninsured Individuals

$55 billion

Tax Penalty Payments by Employers

$106 billion

Excise Tax on High-Premium Insurance Plans

$111 billion

Associated Effects of Coverage Provisions
on Tax Revenues

$216 billion

Reinsurance and Risk Adjustment Collections

$184 billion

Fees on Manufacturers and Insurers

$165 billion

Additional Hospital Insurance Tax

$318 billion

Other Revenue Provisions

$87 billion

Tax Cut Provisions

Tax Cut
2013-2022

Exchange Premium Tax Credits

($222 billion)

Small Employer Tax Credits

($20 billion)

Obamacare Total Net Tax Increase 2013-2022

$1 trillion


Read more: Americans for Tax Reform : The Fiscal Cliff?s Hidden $1 Trillion Tax Hike
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter


So much for the Obamabaloney!
rolleyes.png
427809_457689890948529_1440798947_s.jpg
 
iguanaman said:
Wealth also MIGRATES to the top in any capitalist society and it is Govts. job to retard that trend which is so deterimental to sustained growth. Maldistribution of wealth is our number one problem in America today. Obama knows it, the people know it, the Republicans are clueless as usual.
Click to expand...

where is it written that is government's job to prevent success and reward failure? the biggest problem in america is that too many people are unproductive and dependent on government
 
Catawba said:
You forgot about the 3 decades of trickle down economics, spending as much on the military than the rest of of the world combined, and the rich we gave tax cuts to for job creation creating those jobs in other countries.
Click to expand...

you didn't give anyone anything
 
winston53660 said:
On himself as well none the less.
Click to expand...

its the price he pays for being rich through government. If he was not in government he's be making less than 150K a year which is what a lecturer at Chicago Law might get on a good year
 
TurtleDude said:
so why was a plan that raised similar amounts of revenues rejected? why should no one else pay higher taxes but the 2%. If the revenue is that needed taxing only 2% of the voters more appears to be based on politics rather than truly a desire to raise more revenue.
Click to expand...

Because they were NOT similar revenues. No such evidence was ever presented.
 
TurtleDude said:
we can get lots more from the middle class

and if it hurts them they might stop voting for big spending welfare socialists
Click to expand...

Are you in the middle class?
 
Both sides want the fiscal cliff to happen. It's completely intentional. I mean, an act of Congress created the supposed "automatic" cuts, right? This way the Republicans can lower defense spending without getting yelled at for it, and Democrats can have both reduced social spending and tax hikes on middle-class Americans without getting yelled at for it. You see, Democrats will be yelling at Republicans and Republicans will be yelling at Democrats and pointing the finger or blame... but this is what they want to happen.
 
TurtleDude said:
you didn't give anyone anything
Click to expand...

Yes, political support from the middle class was required to give you your temporary tax cuts that were advertised as necessary to create jobs. Since that did not result, there is no longer any reason for the working class to allow them. Especially since the temporary tax cuts have concentrated so much wealth at the top, there is not enough left for consumers to make our economy prosper.

You'll finally figure it out, after another election or two.
 
TurtleDude said:
we can get lots more from the middle class

and if it hurts them they might stop voting for big spending welfare socialists
Click to expand...

Welfare by and large is nothing to the budget. So whining about 'welfare" is like being scared of a fly when you in the cage with a grizzly. Stupid.

However, as a member of the middle class, doing rather well, you may raise taxes on me. however, know that the middle class is the driver of the economy as we spend. Above us, not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom