• 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

Grant said:
Do you seriously believe that the 2% will reduce the deficit, or even that Barrack Obama will use whatever money he gets to pay down the deficit? That's a remarkable statement, given Obama's history.

.
Click to expand...

If it pulls cash out of hedge funds, investment banks, etc. and puts it back into our consumer economy at this point in time it will be a good thing.
 
winston53660 said:
War time is such a great time to lower taxes! NOT
Click to expand...

FDR, a much better president than Bush, was smart enough to raise taxes during wartime. FDR managed to fight, and win, a world war, defeating the Nazi's, the Fascists, and starting the program to develop atomic weapons, which ultimately led to the demise of the Imperialists. Conversely, George Bush borrowed the money to pay for his wars, one of which was a war of choice where he invaded a nation which had not attacked us and which did not have the weapons for which he invaded and he spent 6 years fighting an insurgency.
 
Grant said:
What has the Presidential election got to do with the public debt? It is there no matter who is President and will grow dramatically over the next few years.. A way has to be figured out how to get spending under control and obviously Barrack Obama cannot do the job because he just doesn't have any managerial experience. Do you think the American electorate figured they could vote themselves rich and independent by electing Obama???

He should have at least tried to get the debt under control, which he did promise to do during his first campaign, but failed miserably. He didn't even try this promise during his second campaign because he knew he didn't know how to do it. No one on his staff knows, or genuinely cares. They just don't mention the debt anymore and for obvious reasons.

Now it is 'right wing' to even talk of presenting an honest budget, must less balancing one.
Click to expand...



Neither party is very much concerned with the National debt, or they would not have voted last week for $650 billion in military spending.

The major difference in the parties is that one wants to walk away from the $2.6 trillion dollars owed to SS by keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy, and the other party believes we have an obligation to repay our debts.
 
iguanaman said:
Revenue is at 15% of GDP and spending is at 24%. We need to meet near the middle and a first step is ending those cuts for those who don't need them.
Click to expand...

But we know that spending will just increase under this President. There is no intent to cut anything and there only will be more "stimulus" spending under this president with further crony capitalism. That's what this is all about. And because of a compliant media it's become almost impossible to follow the money trail anymore.
 
Grant said:
That's your source??

It's an opinion piece!

Here's another more realistic source.

Bill Whittle « Benighted Comment
Click to expand...

It's an "opinion" by David Stockton, Reagans Budget Director and coauthor of the Reagan tax cuts and trickle down economics. He was the "brains" behind your hero and now you don't like him? How fickle can you get and who the hell is Bill Whittle?
 
Catawba said:
Neither party is very much concerned with the National debt, or they would not have voted last week for $650 billion in military spending.

The major difference in the parties is that one wants to walk away from the $2.6 trillion dollars owed to SS by keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy, and the other party believes we have an obligation to repay our debts.
Click to expand...

What are they going to pay SS with? Will they borrow more? Tax more? Print more money?

My bet is on the last alternative and eventually greater inflation. We have already seen the signs in fact.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
t's an "opinion" by David Stockton, Reagans Budget Director and coauthor of the Reagan tax cuts and trickle down economics. He was the "brains" behind your hero and now you don't like him? How fickle can you get?
Click to expand...

I know who he is and it's an opinion piece, and a dated one at that.

Are you now a convert to Reaganomics and how a budget should be managed?
 
Grant said:
Do you seriously believe that the 2% will reduce the deficit, or even that Barrack Obama will use whatever money he gets to pay down the deficit? That's a remarkable statement, given Obama's history.
Click to expand...
Yes and yes.

Grant said:
Bush inherited a $5.8 trillion dollar debt and a recession. You can look it up.
Click to expand...
Good thing I looked it up ... there was no recession when Bush took office ...

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Also, what I said was not how much debt Bush inherited -- I pointed out that it was growing at the slowest level than it had been in many years. In the year leading up to Bush's inauguration, debt increased a meager $22 billion; compared to the year leading up to Obama's inauguration when the debt increased $1.4 trillion.
 
Catawba said:
A good thing for the economy. That's how a consumer economy works!
Click to expand...

A consumer economy works by "pulling cash out of hedge funds, investment banks, etc. and puts it back into our consumer economy"?

Do the owners of those hedge funds have a say in the matter?

This partly explains why people are pulling their money out of the US and putting it in paces like the Cayman Islands or Swiss banks. At one time people used to want to put their money in the United States but that's become a rather risky investment.
 
Grant said:
What are they going to pay SS with? Will they borrow more? Tax more? Print more money?

My bet is on the last alternative and eventually greater inflation. We have already seen the signs in fact.
Click to expand...

Letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire will provide enough revenue to repay the money that was borrowed from SS, so that it will be solvent for the next 75 years!
Social Security FAQ | Strengthen Social Security


Tell me something........How could we possibly repay the $2.6 trillion dollars to SS without letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire?
 
Grant said:
But we know that spending will just increase under this President. There is no intent to cut anything and there only will be more "stimulus" spending under this president with further crony capitalism. That's what this is all about. And because of a compliant media it's become almost impossible to follow the money trail anymore.
Click to expand...

Getting back to lower employment rates is the best way to cure our deficit problem. Anything that helps speed up the recovery will pay for itself with increased revenues from more workers paying taxes. I can't believe you don't understand all the waste of labor and potential growth in the unemployed. It is criminal not to rebuild our infrastructure now when construction is still depressed from the housing bubble. We have neglected our roads, tunnels and bridges long enough
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
FDR, a much better president than Bush, was smart enough to raise taxes during wartime. FDR managed to fight, and win, a world war, defeating the Nazi's, the Fascists, and starting the program to develop atomic weapons, which ultimately led to the demise of the Imperialists. Conversely, George Bush borrowed the money to pay for his wars, one of which was a war of choice where he invaded a nation which had not attacked us and which did not have the weapons for which he invaded and he spent 6 years fighting an insurgency.
Click to expand...

I'm in a unique postion here. Me and Bush are members at the same Church and there are times I would like to walk up tot the guy and slap him upside his head! OTOH I think he believed in what he was doing and ultimately I do think there are a lot of longer term goals. He is a Hoover and me and my Mother had an interesting conversation about Hoover last night. In her opinion Hoover started a lot of the programs that FDR gets credit for. It is an interesting historical juxtaposition considering our position these days.
 
Jerry said:
As long as the spending returns to pre-2001 levels also, I'm ok with that.
Click to expand...

I am happy to return to pre 2001 military spending levels, and it will have to be done whenever people decide our debt is a problem.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yes and yes.
Click to expand...

It's good that there are still people who keep the faith, who continue to believe , despite all the evidence to the contrary. Who knows? Maybe this time maybe the country may get lucky and Charlie Brown will really get to kick that football.



Good thing I looked it up ... there was no recession when Bush took office ...
Click to expand...

Is that another wish?
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
Also, what I said was not how much debt Bush inherited -- I pointed out that it was growing at the slowest level than it had been in many years. In the year leading up to Bush's inauguration, debt increased a meager $22 billion; compared to the year leading up to Obama's inauguration when the debt increased $1.4 trillion.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was me who said that Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion debt. Bush added another $2 trillion or so in 8 years and now Obama, so far, has added another $6 trillion or so in four years. That's a spot of bad luck for a former Superpower.
 
iguanaman said:
Getting back to lower employment rates is the best way to cure our deficit problem. Anything that helps speed up the recovery will pay for itself with increased revenues from more workers paying taxes. I can't believe you don't understand all the waste of labor and potential growth in the unemployed. It is criminal not to rebuild our infrastructure now when construction is still depressed from the housing bubble. We have neglected our roads, tunnels and bridges long enough
Click to expand...

How can you seriously expect lower employment rates when people are too concerned about the extra taxes and regulations that they hacve to face. It is more beneficial for businesses just to move their companies elsewhere if they are not making a go of it at home. many are complaining about corporations and companies leaving but are doing everything they can to insure that will happen.

The only one hiring is the government, and BHO wants the States to hire more people as well. That's his economic plan.
 
Grant, How could we possibly repay the $2.6 trillion dollars to SS without letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire?
 
Grant said:
It's good that there are still people who keep the faith, who continue to believe , despite all the evidence to the contrary. Who knows? Maybe this time maybe the country may get lucky and Charlie Brown will really get to kick that football.
Click to expand...
It's about math, not faith. Increased revenue can decrease deficits. If spending goes up and cancels out that decrease, Republicans are just as much to blame as Obama since they control the House and the House controls spending.

Grant said:
Is that another wish?
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
Click to expand...
Who knows what you mean by that; but as the link I gave you shows, there was no recession when Bush became president. I need not wish for that to be true since it is.

Grant said:
Yes, it was me who said that Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion debt. Bush added another $2 trillion or so in 8 years and now Obama, so far, has added another $6 trillion or so in four years. That's a spot of bad luck for a former Superpower.
Click to expand...
Who knows what that has to do with the fact that Bush inherited the smallest deficit in many years and turned that into the biggest deficit in history (up until that point).

Oh, and by the way, your math sucks. Bush started with a debt of $5.8T and 8 years later, it was $10.7 trillion, that's nowhere near "$2 trillion or so in 8 years". And again, Bush started with a deficit growing at 22 billion whereas Obama started with a deficit growing at 1,400 billion. Bush started with a structurely sound economy and broke it, turning over a structurely dead economy. You can run from the facts but you cannot hide from them.
 
Catawba said:
Grant, How could we possibly repay the $2.6 trillion dollars to SS without letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. that 2% will not be enough to cover SS.

The boomers are aging, and people are living longer than ever, and there will be fewer working adults to support them. There are more Americans on disability now than there have ever been before, and that's a habit that's hard to break. The government has added health care to the social platter and the boomers will expect to be looked after there as well. Plus there is the accumulating interest on the debt, as well as the debt itself.

I doubt that the American people can pull themselves out of this mess, largely because they are no longer serious or even understand that a very serious problem exists. I have always been very pro American, and defended her wherever I went, because the world needs America and what it represents. But I no longer have confidence in the American people. This generation, my generation, has squandered it all away.

American Cities Going Bankrupt | Global Research
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom