• 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

Catawba said:
Exactly right, as Henry Ford found in the past, many of the super smart rich folks today like Warren Buffett and the other millionaires that petitioned Congress to raise the tax rates of the wealthy understood, its bad for the long term economy to have so little wealth in the consumer class that it hurts consumer demand.
Click to expand...


And Henry Ford's response was to lower the price of his cars and raise the wages of his employees. I doubt he would regard sending money to politicians as a good idea.
 
Grant said:
The Bush tax cuts which were endorsed, supported and passed by the Obama Administration, right? And BHO took credit for this legislation, correct?

When does BHO become responsible for legislation passed during his own Presidency?
Click to expand...

When it is his. The cuts belong to Bush.
 
Grant said:
The Bush tax cuts which were endorsed, supported and passed by the Obama Administration, right? And BHO took credit for this legislation, correct?

When does BHO become responsible for legislation passed during his own Presidency?
Click to expand...


As the people showed when we reelected the president, they understand the trickle down economics was a failure. Over a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy we agreed to in exchange for more jobs. Where are the jobs? We want our money back!!!
 
Grant said:
And Henry Ford's response was to lower the price of his cars and raise the wages of his employees. I doubt he would regard sending money to politicians as a good idea.
Click to expand...

You are so out of touch with reality you don't have a clue that we have never had this great disparity in wealth and income since the 1920s, do you?

Where do you suggest the country get the $2.6 trillion it needs to repay what it owes to SS?
 
Boo Radley said:
When it is his. The cuts belong to Bush.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that Obama endorsed the cuts and extended them and took credit for extending them? The link shows him congratulating himself.

It's amazing more people don't know about this.
 
Catawba said:
As the people showed when we reelected the president, they understand the trickle down economics was a failure. Over a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy we agreed to in exchange for more jobs. Where are the jobs? We want our money back!!!
Click to expand...

Where is this agreement you speak of?
 
Catawba said:
You are so out of touch with reality you don't have a clue that we have never had this great disparity in wealth and income since the 1920s, do you?

Where do you suggest the country get the $2.6 trillion it needs to repay what it owes to SS?
Click to expand...

There will be no money left for SS or it will be paid in useless inflationary dollars. Do you now understand why the credit rating was dropped? Do you really believe that the US government will be able to give everyone free medical, free drugs and free pensions when they are many trillions of dollars in debt?

It took more than a generation and a couple of world wars for the British Empire to collapse but Americans have managed to do it in one generation, and all from within.
 
Grant said:
Where is this agreement you speak of?
Click to expand...

"We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.

The reality, of course, has been quite different. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized."


Read more: Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed
 
Catawba said:
"We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.

The reality, of course, has been quite different. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized."


Read more: Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed
Click to expand...

That's an opinion piece. Why npt speak for yourself and tell me what you were promised?

Perhaps there are other factors at play here such as too much government spending, 9/11 and its consequences, and so on.

If you feel that high taxes are the way to prosperity let's hear your case.
 
Grant said:
Do you understand that Obama endorsed the cuts and extended them and took credit for extending them? The link shows him congratulating himself.

It's amazing more people don't know about this.
Click to expand...

Most know the difference between making the compromise you have to, and pushing a position you really believe in. It is disingenuous to try and pretend these are anything but Bush's tax cuts.
 
Grant said:
That's an opinion piece. Why npt speak for yourself and tell me what you were promised?

Perhaps there are other factors at play here such as too much government spending, 9/11 and its consequences, and so on.

If you feel that high taxes are the way to prosperity let's hear your case.
Click to expand...


I told you above, the Republicans said that the loss of revenue would be made up for increased jobs thus more revenue, all boats would rise.

Where are the jobs from over a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy? Where is the increased revenue from over a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy?


A consumer economy can only work when consumers have jobs and enough of the country's wealth to be consumers. Trickle down economics has concentrated too much of the country's wealth and income at the top so that the economy cannot prosper. The working class are painfully aware of this, even if you are not.
 
j-mac said:
So then what is different from going off the cliff then?
Click to expand...

The cliff scenario does not include several important provisions of what I am advocating. The FICA tax for one. In addition it targets spending that I would not target. Its treatment of the estate tax is also different. In addition, All American earning dollar one would still not be taxed under the return to the pre-Bush I rates.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The goal is to get some republicans to bolt on the issue of raising taxes at all.
It fractures the ability of republican leaders to keep their caucus together on issues and votes.
Click to expand...

I was not aware that a political party or caucus has to function as a goose stepping unit with only one mind, one opinion and one purpose.
 
TaraAnne said:
Turtle reply to everything is your stupid because I disagree with you with nothing to back it up!
Click to expand...

You know, if you are going to call someone else stupid, you really should do so in an intelligently constructed sentence. As it stands, it seems your credentials for making such an insult are simply 'it takes one to know one.'
 
haymarket said:
I was not aware that a political party or caucus has to function as a goose stepping unit with only one mind, one opinion and one purpose.
Click to expand...

If you are going to make nazism innuendos, you can butt right out of the thread. If you have something less stupid to post, please do so.
 
Catawba said:
I told you above, the Republicans said that the loss of revenue would be made up for increased jobs thus more revenue, all boats would rise.

Where are the jobs from over a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy? Where is the increased revenue from over a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy?


A consumer economy can only work when consumers have jobs and enough of the country's wealth to be consumers. Trickle down economics has concentrated too much of the country's wealth and income at the top so that the economy cannot prosper. The working class are painfully aware of this, even if you are not.
Click to expand...
That is just political rhetoric. Explain how an $80 billion tax increase on the rich addresses economic disparity or dents the deficit. It does neither. The majority of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle class by a factor of about 4 to 5 times. The nations debt and deficit are not due to the rich paying too little, but because the middle class has demanded more from the state than they are willing to pay for. The only way you could make a rational argument for the rich paying more is to demonstrate that the rich use a disproportionate amount of government services. What percentage of Medicaid do they use? Food stamps? AFDC? Social Security? If the top 2% use less than 2% of any of these (and similar) services, they are OVERPAYING. The truth is, what you are after is redistribution--the direct taking of the property of some for the express purpose of giving it to someone else. Or, theft as it is otherwise known.
 
From what I see sadly in this whole Kabuki dance is that neither side of the isle is approaching this seriously. It really is like a bunch of over grown children squabbling over licking the mixing spoon while the cookies are baking.

The progressives say that its all those evil rich's fault, that we should treat their earnings like it is a part of some mythical pool of money that they stole. It really is childish.

The problems we have in this country are highlighted by the laughable "deal" that spelled out not only double the tax revenue that was originally agreed upon, but an increase in spending in the form of more stimulus, and cuts that the WH said would be talked about later, and the kicker "No guarantees", and oh btw, he wants congress to give up a power reserved to the congress by the constitution and give him the ability to increase the debt ceiling without going to the people.

WHAT A FREAKING JOKE!!!

This isn't about getting a deal for progressive demo's, it never was. It is about humiliating repubs. Breaking them. Fracturing them to the point where they go the way of the whigs. Demo's want an unobstructed path to governmental control for decades. And with weak ass repub leaders, and politicians not listening to the people and do what will get this economy going are going to feel their wrath election after election if they let buffoons like Durbin, and Pelosi eat their lunch.

The lie is so prevalent on the demo side of this that they are fine with going over this cliff, and turning the screws on repubs when they are down solely for sadistic maneuver that they hope will do something that has never been the case in the history of our country, and that is that ultimately the President won't get the blame for the painful economic times that are assured as we go forward.

It's cynical, it's hyperpolitical, it's ultimately a lie.

Where is the President's, and demo's plan? Where is the leadership? What about a budget from the Senate? How can America believe that we will have any prosperity in the future if we don't start refusing the narrative of the MSM, and those voices of opportunity in anarcho-socialists that see a path for them to gain a foothold in American politics by defecating on police cars, and screaming for their debt to be wiped out from mom's basement, as they blog, and declare that an entry level job is beneath them.

Come on people....We have to decide what we want....Do we want America as a representative republic? Or, are we to allow Franklin's prophecy to come to pass and no longer keep our form of government, only to morph into a model of a Euro Socialist quasi welfare state that we see failing and them running from, as we step on the gas to get to....

I am disgusted.
 
Catawba said:
I told you above, the Republicans said that the loss of revenue would be made up for increased jobs thus more revenue, all boats would rise.

Where are the jobs from over a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy? Where is the increased revenue from over a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy?


A consumer economy can only work when consumers have jobs and enough of the country's wealth to be consumers. Trickle down economics has concentrated too much of the country's wealth and income at the top so that the economy cannot prosper. The working class are painfully aware of this, even if you are not.
Click to expand...

If you have been told that just cutting taxes will result in a strong economy you probably weren't listening to the entire message.

You cannot have a strong economy with a big government, with increasing spending and ever higher debts along with astounding daily interest on that debt. It cannot be done. Any country needs responsible government in order to succeed with balanced budgets and responsible spending.

Instead Americans appear to have picked their teams and stick to that no matter what. This is not the behavior of a responsible citizenry and thus the country is failing. It will not stop until it crashes.
 
Fletch said:
That is just political rhetoric. Explain how an $80 billion tax increase on the rich addresses economic disparity or dents the deficit. It does neither. The majority of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle class by a factor of about 4 to 5 times. The nations debt and deficit are not due to the rich paying too little, but because the middle class has demanded more from the state than they are willing to pay for. The only way you could make a rational argument for the rich paying more is to demonstrate that the rich use a disproportionate amount of government services. What percentage of Medicaid do they use? Food stamps? AFDC? Social Security? If the top 2% use less than 2% of any of these (and similar) services, they are OVERPAYING. The truth is, what you are after is redistribution--the direct taking of the property of some for the express purpose of giving it to someone else. Or, theft as it is otherwise known.
Click to expand...

The tax cuts benefited the rich most.

"The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years"
Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Letting tax cuts expire the wealthy benefited from while money was being taken from SS to fight their war in Iraq, will provide repayment of that debt.
 
Catawba said:
The tax cuts benefited the rich most.

"The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years"
Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Letting tax cuts expire the wealthy benefited from while money was being taken from SS to fight their war in Iraq, will provide repayment of that debt.
Click to expand...


How many times can you pull from that well....We heard that the benefit of ending the war in Iraq was to help pay for the APA, you can't use the supposed savings from that endlessly for everything. Raising those taxes (which will be done ultimately) will only raise $40 billion per year. Within the President's proposal as put forth by Geithner, has in it a new stimulus of $50 billion in the first year not only wiping out the revenue from this proposed hike on the 'rich', but increases spending.....The supposed 'cuts' in this are proposed as to be talked about 'later, with no guarantees'....This is Lucy and the football all over again.

Spending is the problem, and using some mythical savings from a war that is not being prosecuted anymore is disingenuous from the jump.
 
haymarket said:
I was not aware that a political party or caucus has to function as a goose stepping unit with only one mind, one opinion and one purpose.
Click to expand...

Either do it my way or you're a Nazi. This is the new America.
 
Fletch said:
That is just political rhetoric. Explain how an $80 billion tax increase on the rich addresses economic disparity or dents the deficit. It does neither. The majority of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle class by a factor of about 4 to 5 times. The nations debt and deficit are not due to the rich paying too little, but because the middle class has demanded more from the state than they are willing to pay for. The only way you could make a rational argument for the rich paying more is to demonstrate that the rich use a disproportionate amount of government services. What percentage of Medicaid do they use? Food stamps? AFDC? Social Security? If the top 2% use less than 2% of any of these (and similar) services, they are OVERPAYING. The truth is, what you are after is redistribution--the direct taking of the property of some for the express purpose of giving it to someone else. Or, theft as it is otherwise known.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about the benefits of the Bush Tax cuts, they overly favor the wealthy.

The Bush Tax Cuts Made the Tax Code Less Progressive
The Tax Policy Center estimates show that in each of the years from 2004 to 2012, the Bush tax cuts boosted the after-tax incomes of high-income households by a much greater percentage than they did for low-income households. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush estate and income tax cuts were fully phased in, the tax cuts:

■Raised the average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of households by 6.7 percent (or $66,618);
■Raised the average after-tax income of the top 20 percent of households by 4.6 percent (or $7,860); but
■Raised the average after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by 2.8 percent (or $1,039), and
■Raised the average after-tax income of the bottom 20 percent of households by just 1.0 percent (or $99).
Click to expand...

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 
minnie616 said:
In the USA:

In 1983 the top 1% owned 33.8% of the weath and the bottom 80% of the people owned 18.7% of the wealth.
By 2010 the top 1% owned 35.4% of the wealth and the bottom 80% only owned 11.1%.

The rich are getting richer and the bottom 80% are getting poorer.


Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Click to expand...

How many people do you include in the 1983 and 2010 numbers?
 
j-mac said:
How many times can you pull from that well....We heard that the benefit of ending the war in Iraq was to help pay for the APA, you can't use the supposed savings from that endlessly for everything. Raising those taxes (which will be done ultimately) will only raise $40 billion per year. Within the President's proposal as put forth by Geithner, has in it a new stimulus of $50 billion in the first year not only wiping out the revenue from this proposed hike on the 'rich', but increases spending.....The supposed 'cuts' in this are proposed as to be talked about 'later, with no guarantees'....This is Lucy and the football all over again.

Spending is the problem, and using some mythical savings from a war that is not being prosecuted anymore is disingenuous from the jump.
Click to expand...

Your math is way off. But thank you for demonstrating the "garbage in = garbage out" axiom. :cool:
 
j-mac said:
From what I see sadly in this whole Kabuki dance is that neither side of the isle is approaching this seriously. It really is like a bunch of over grown children squabbling over licking the mixing spoon while the cookies are baking.

The progressives say that its all those evil rich's fault, that we should treat their earnings like it is a part of some mythical pool of money that they stole. It really is childish.

The problems we have in this country are highlighted by the laughable "deal" that spelled out not only double the tax revenue that was originally agreed upon, but an increase in spending in the form of more stimulus, and cuts that the WH said would be talked about later, and the kicker "No guarantees", and oh btw, he wants congress to give up a power reserved to the congress by the constitution and give him the ability to increase the debt ceiling without going to the people.

WHAT A FREAKING JOKE!!!

This isn't about getting a deal for progressive demo's, it never was. It is about humiliating repubs. Breaking them. Fracturing them to the point where they go the way of the whigs. Demo's want an unobstructed path to governmental control for decades. And with weak ass repub leaders, and politicians not listening to the people and do what will get this economy going are going to feel their wrath election after election if they let buffoons like Durbin, and Pelosi eat their lunch.

The lie is so prevalent on the demo side of this that they are fine with going over this cliff, and turning the screws on repubs when they are down solely for sadistic maneuver that they hope will do something that has never been the case in the history of our country, and that is that ultimately the President won't get the blame for the painful economic times that are assured as we go forward.

It's cynical, it's hyperpolitical, it's ultimately a lie.

Where is the President's, and demo's plan? Where is the leadership? What about a budget from the Senate? How can America believe that we will have any prosperity in the future if we don't start refusing the narrative of the MSM, and those voices of opportunity in anarcho-socialists that see a path for them to gain a foothold in American politics by defecating on police cars, and screaming for their debt to be wiped out from mom's basement, as they blog, and declare that an entry level job is beneath them.

Come on people....We have to decide what we want....Do we want America as a representative republic? Or, are we to allow Franklin's prophecy to come to pass and no longer keep our form of government, only to morph into a model of a Euro Socialist quasi welfare state that we see failing and them running from, as we step on the gas to get to....

I am disgusted.
Click to expand...

The American people need more straight talk like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom