• 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

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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
 
Financial woe, and extended threat of collapse is exactly what he wants. He, and his disciples hate the wealthy, they think it is unfair that free people succeed at their own rate, and path. And the cynical thing is that Obama, and his progressive allies in congress, know full well what Emmanuel let slip early on, and that is the canard about not letting a good crisis go to waste....In that vein, he will not only call everything a crisis, but extend that which is critical to invent more crisis' in order to rule like a dictator.

I sure hope America comes to it's senses and finds a way to remove this mans power, and these progressives from office.
 
Or, you know, the President is being realistic and facing the stone cold fact that we can't balance the budget without raising taxes.
 
Or, you know, the President is being realistic and facing the stone cold fact that we can't balance the budget without raising taxes.

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.
 
So a better plan would be to raise taxes on the poor and middle class?

Great - let's try to get blood from a stone too.

When you cut programs, which we need to do as well, you mostly effect the middle and lower class. Why should the upper class, yet again, get a pass?

Cut programs and spending, but also raise taxes. And raising taxes includes the upper class, who are paying historically lower rates than they did for most of the 20th century.

I don't know why people want to make the rich out to be victims when they've had unprecedented prosperity during a time when the masses have struggled more than any time since the WW2.

So remember, when you talk of cutting spending you effect mostly everybody BUT the rich.
So why double down on those people when you talk of raising taxes?

Why is there some strange need to protect the most prosperous at the expense of the everybody else?
 
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.

It is also the promise he campaigned on. And in part due to that promise the People delivered him the Presidency. So he should break that promise to assuage the Republicans? I am not yet convinced he won't break that promise, but he shouldn't. And if he does break that promise, you can be sure the Republicans will pain him the liar. And they would be correct in doing so if he does cave on this.
 
so why was a plan that raised similar amounts of revenues rejected?

Because the math was wrong. The plan presented was flawed and in reality would not raise the $800 in revenue.

A <SNIP> from the following article:

Boehner signaled in discussions with Obama in 2011 that he was willing to accept up to $800 billion in higher tax revenues, but his aides maintained that much of that money would have come from so-called dynamic scoring - a conservative approach in which economic growth would have accounted for much of the revenue. Now, Boehner is willing to accept the estimates of official scorekeepers like the Congressional Budget Office, whose models reject dynamic scoring.

GOP fiscal cliff plan echoes failed budget talks | National & World News | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News
 
So a better plan would be to raise taxes on the poor and middle class?

Great - let's try to get blood from a stone too.

When you cut programs, which we need to do as well, you mostly effect the middle and lower class. Why should the upper class, yet again, get a pass?

Cut programs and spending, but also raise taxes. And raising taxes includes the upper class, who are paying historically lower rates than they did for most of the 20th century.

I don't know why people want to make the rich out to be victims when they've had unprecedented prosperity during a time when the masses have struggled more than any time since the WW2.

So remember, when you talk of cutting spending you effect mostly everybody BUT the rich.
So why double down on those people when you talk of raising taxes?

Why is there some strange need to protect the most prosperous at the expense of the everybody else?

1) the deficit is not the fault of the rich. if its a problem everyone needs to pay more

2) so you are saying is that government spending really doesn't benefit the people who now are told they have to pay even more?

3) the rates for EVERYONE are HISTORICALLY LOWER-that is why the rich pay a HIGHER SHARE of the income tax burden than they did 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago

4) you seem to think that taxes should be used to even up "luck"

5) you also seem to ignore the fact that raising taxes oNLY on the rich cause everyone else to demand more spending-if everyone is taxed MORE maybe EVERYONE else might decide we have TOO MUCH government
 
Well, that was easy taxes are already being raised on the rich this year.

the health care law imposes a 25% increase in the tax rate on investment income on the rich
 
The republicans need to vote present, the tea party needs to vote no, and then everyone will be happy. The democrats who are forcing a republican hand will get exactly what they want. Republicans will save face with their voters. Tea Partiers will do what they were elected to do. Everyone wins.

This debate right here is exactly the reason a two party system doesn't work. It is like having two 50% owners in a business. They can lock each other out if wanted.
 
If and I mean IF the president wanted to work together with Reps to save this economy he would be willing to compromise and if Reps could raise the revenues he wants without breaking their no new tax pledge he would sign the bill. He has done the exact opposite and flatly stated he will not sign a bill that does not raise taxes and we are all pawns to be sacrificed in his quest for power.
 
Give obama everything he wants. (With the exception of the unlimited debt ceiling.) Then, when the plan comes to a vote, all Republicans should vote "present". That way, when the plan fails, obama and the democrats can take full responsibility for the economy.
In the end, the people will finally see that obama has been full of **** this whole time.
 
Or, you know, the President is being realistic and facing the stone cold fact that we can't balance the budget without raising taxes.

No. Being REALISTIC means acknowledging that the tax hikes he is proposing will not do a daggum thing to balance the budget. Realistically we could have top tax rates at 90% (and we have, before) without raising more revenue.
 
So what EXACTLY is the "sack full of magic beans" plan for fixing the fiscal cliff if at least PART OF IT can't be raising taxes on the wealthiest of all Americans?
 
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.

The GOP is doing the EXACT same thing by saying they REFUSE to sign ANYTHING that raises taxes.

Both sides are digging their heals into the ground and the American people will suffer in one way or another with BOTH sides doing this type of ****.
 
Give obama everything he wants. (With the exception of the unlimited debt ceiling.) Then, when the plan comes to a vote, all Republicans should vote "present". That way, when the plan fails, obama and the democrats can take full responsibility for the economy.
In the end, the people will finally see that obama has been full of **** this whole time.

The unlimited debt ceiling should never be on the table. Who would think that is ok? I would be ok to them tying it to a percentage of the GDP, but not a unlimited ceiling.
 
Why is this administration constantly doing the vote for it now, find out what you get later?

This is what happened with Obamacare, and this is what they want to happen with our taxes and entitlement reform? Give me a break. Clear and simple plans...present them, argue them, vote for or against. No more vote now and see what we got later.
 
If and I mean IF the president wanted to work together with Reps to save this economy he would be willing to compromise and if Reps could raise the revenues he wants without breaking their no new tax pledge he would sign the bill. He has done the exact opposite and flatly stated he will not sign a bill that does not raise taxes and we are all pawns to be sacrificed in his quest for power.

The GOP cannot SPECIFICALLY say HOW they are going to raise revenue without raising taxes. They gave a vague statement with no substance. Likewise, the Dems need to compromise and show specific cuts and not just to defense.

Are people finally starting to see how the two sides are failing or are there still those out there that feel "their" side is the good guys and the other is the bad guy?
 
the gop cannot specifically say how they are going to raise revenue without raising taxes. They gave a vague statement with no substance. Likewise, the dems need to compromise and show specific cuts and not just to defense.

Are people finally starting to see how the two sides are failing or are there still those out there that feel "their" side is the good guys and the other is the bad guy?

^^ exactly ^^
 
The unlimited debt ceiling should never be on the table. Who would think that is ok? I would be ok to them tying it to a percentage of the GDP, but not a unlimited ceiling.

What is the point of a debt ceiling as opposed to an unlimited debt ceiling if all that needs to be done is raise it a couple of times a year?

I would be in favor of a debt ceiling that cannot be raised for any reason. Maybe if government had a finite amount of money to deal with some of the hard choices would be made.
 
When you cut programs, which we need to do as well, you mostly effect the middle and lower class. Why should the upper class, yet again, get a pass?

I do have one confusing thing on this.

I routinely hear, when people bring up the tax burden of the upper class, others try and suggest that in reality the "rich" benefit the most from the government's spending and programs and thus SHOULD pay a disproportionate amount.

However....

When talk of cutting spending comes up, the same kind of people typically suggest that it's the middle and lowe classes tha twill be hurt most by that.

How exactly does that convienet dichotomy work?
 
What is the point of a debt ceiling as opposed to an unlimited debt ceiling if all that needs to be done is raise it a couple of times a year?

The whole point of a ceiling is that it SHOULDN'T be raised each year. Just because that's the way it's being done, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Removing the debt ceiling would be the equivalent of saying that it is ok to raise the debt ceiling each year, which it isn't an ok thing to do.

I would be in favor of a debt ceiling that cannot be raised for any reason. Maybe if government had a finite amount of money to deal with some of the hard choices would be made.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it NEVER can be raised, but I would put serious restrictions as to the reason it could be raised. Definitley not like it is being done now.
 
The GOP is doing the EXACT same thing by saying they REFUSE to sign ANYTHING that raises taxes.

Accept they're at least going to a compromised position.

Obama "I will not do any deal that does not raise revenue specifically through raising the tax rate on brackets above $250,000"

Republicans "We don't want to increase taxes at all, but we're willing to increase them through removal of loopholes and deductions...even in a way that primarily affects those making above $250,000."

The Republicans are at least agreeing to the notion of INCREASING the amount of tax revenue we bring in by increasing the tax burden on individuals. They're not agreeing to do it in the same way the President wants, but they're agreeing to the premise. The President is basically saying that they have to do it in his specific way or no deal.

Now there's nothing wrong with Obama doing that....it's his perogative, especially after the election. But to attempt to suggest that the two sides are acting the same here is ridiculous. One side is refusing to give an inch, the other side is giving half an inch but not the other half.
 
Back
Top Bottom