• 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!

Obama, Republicans reach deal on fiscal cliff; Senate vote expected tonight

Objective Voice said:
I don't use any federal entitlement program - not welfare, not Medicaid, not unemployment, I don't live in a HUD home, I pay my own cell phone bill and I have private health insurance. Try laying that guilt trip on somebody else.
Click to expand...

If you run a grocery store or gas station in Huntsville you benefit greatly from the government teet. That town is full of federal tax dollars.
 
Republic Now! said:
Well, and spending rates increase with economic growth as well.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, no. Spending rates are indexed for both inflation and population growth in order to form estimates of future budgetary propositions. The two figures in coordination are used merely as guidelines and actual appropriations can be altered at will.
 
Last edited:
Rocketman said:
more of the same from the democrats, lets pay people to sit at home on the asses for another year instead of expecting them to go back to work.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything in the fiscal cliff summary deal that extended unemployment benefits. So, until we learn that that was made part of the deal I don't see how folks can make such a claim.
 
Objective Voice said:
I didn't see anything in the fiscal cliff summary deal that extended unemployment benefits. So, until we learn that that was made part of the deal I don't see how folks can make such a claim.
Click to expand...

It was on the news tonight, extended unemployment benefits for another year....woo hoo
 
Rocketman said:
If you run a grocery store or gas station in Huntsville you benefit greatly from the government teet. That town is full of federal tax dollars.
Click to expand...

WhooHoo! Then the small business my wife and I plan to open later this year is right on point!! :mrgreen:
 
We just need a deal badly
 
Dickieboy said:
I’m having trouble with the bolded above. Say the annual GDP is $16t and a GOOD annual growth rate is 5%. This would equate into an annual GDP increase of $800b. Historic taxation rates have run around 18.5% REGARDLESS of the rates/deductions thus this ‘growth’ would equate to an annual revenue increase of $148b…our annual DEFICIT has been running north of $1t…this wouldn’t cover the latter Bush years when the DEFICIT was running around $400b.
Click to expand...

How do you think we went for $400B (which is not the correct number, its more like $641B) to $1.2T? Its not because we suddenly increased spending. Its because revenues essentially evaporated with the recession. We went from $1.85T in income tax receipts in 2008 to $1.4T in 2009, a difference of $450B in tax receipt shortfall caused by the recession. Add to that $100B in unemployment benefit increase and you are talking about $550B in deficits caused almost exclusively by the recession. Fix the recession and you fix most of the deficit.

See table 1.1 from the Budget for each of these numbers. Take note of the revenue fall-off from 2008 to 2009.

Budget - Summary of Receipts, Expenditures and Deficits.jpg
 
TurtleDude said:
if we had jacked taxes up or kept the clinton tax hikes in place when Bush came into office what do you think would have happened to the post 9-11 economy

and why did obumble adopt the bush tax rates

Obummer's job increase was far worse than Bush's

and giving the government more money is just plain idiotic
Click to expand...

liberal-total-private-jobs-worldview-september-2012-data.jpg

Obama's jobs record: Better than Bush's - Sep. 18, 2012

Report: Job losses less under Obama than Bush - The Politics Blog - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington news, weather and sports

You are wrong on Bush 2 jobs numbers !

Furthermore Obama never liked Bushes tax rates. They were bad for the country Bush 2 took a ten year 7 trillion dollar surplus and turned it into a 5 trillion dollar debt.
Obama did what was best for the country in the worst finacial mess since the great depression.

You say you want the debt and defict gone yet you do not want to give the government money? You have to understand you can just cut your way out of it that is not rational thought at all. Like I pointed out in my earlier post the way to fix the problem is there and niether party wants to do it.
 
TurtleDude said:
we do know that you want people wealthier than you to pay more

so if you aren't sucking from the public tit, then why do you want others to have to put more milk in that tit
Click to expand...

That's simple: To help pay down the national debt and get our deficit under control.

I get the GOP ideological mindset that says that the best way to pay down the debt is to have more people working thus paying into the Treasury via federal income taxes, but since unemployment is still high and we know that spending cuts alone won't solve the problem AND the only class of wage earners who have made money during the recessionary period has been the wealth/investor-class, it makes sense that those who CAN afford to pay more now should do so.

You can't tell me that all those millionairs and billionairs who contributed BILLIONS to both Pres. Obama, Mitt Romney, as well as every other congressmen and Senator who was up for election/re-election couldn't have put that money to better use by either paying higher wages or re-investing back into their businesses when "consumer confidence" was the problem that stiffled consumption. SuperPACs be damned!

So, I really don't want to hear that the wealth-class is having financial problems or that you're somehow being treated unfairly. Spare me you sorrow.
 
TaraAnne said:
View attachment 67140166

Obama's jobs record: Better than Bush's - Sep. 18, 2012

Report: Job losses less under Obama than Bush - The Politics Blog - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington news, weather and sports

You are wrong on Bush 2 jobs numbers !

Furthermore Obama never liked Bushes tax rates. They were bad for the country Bush 2 took a ten year 7 trillion dollar surplus and turned it into a 5 trillion dollar debt.
Obama did what was best for the country in the worst finacial mess since the great depression.

You say you want the debt and defict gone yet you do not want to give the government money? You have to understand you can just cut your way out of it that is not rational thought at all. Like I pointed out in my earlier post the way to fix the problem is there and niether party wants to do it.
Click to expand...

how is keeping more money in peoples' pockets bad

what is bad was all the idiotic spending-most of which have zero constitutional support
 
TurtleDude said:
and for millions of retirees-what are they doing on dividend rates-money that is taxed TWICE
Click to expand...
Property, sales, excise, state and local taxes would fall under the same category.
 
a351 said:
Property, sales, excise, state and local taxes would fall under the same category.
Click to expand...

uh you are completely wrong. those all involve different transactions

when a company makes money that money belongs to the owners

the same government taxes the same money twice
 
upsideguy said:
How do you think we went for $400B (which is not the correct number, its more like $641B) to $1.2T? Its not because we suddenly increased spending. Its because revenues essentially evaporated with the recession. We went from $1.85T in income tax receipts in 2008 to $1.4T in 2009, a difference of $450B in tax receipt shortfall caused by the recession. Add to that $100B in unemployment benefit increase and you are talking about $550B in deficits caused almost exclusively by the recession. Fix the recession and you fix most of the deficit.

See table 1.1 from the Budget for each of these numbers. Take note of the revenue fall-off from 2008 to 2009.
Click to expand...

Ok, but what as that got to do with my response to your post? My point is that your claim that we can address the deficit by an improving economy is not founded in the numbers. I was generous with the 5% but a more realistic percentage only makes the numbers worse...I agree that there must be revenue but there must also be spending reductions, both of a significant magnitude.
 
What I don't understand is Obama's hate for the 1% (maybe he should look in the mirror). All he wants to do with their money is redistribute it, but he says it will help with the deficit, sure for 8 days it will run the gov.
 
Dickieboy said:
Ok, but what as that got to do with my response to your post? My point is that your claim that we can address the deficit by an improving economy is not founded in the numbers. I was generous with the 5% but a more realistic percentage only makes the numbers worse...I agree that there must be revenue but there must also be spending reductions, both of a significant magnitude.
Click to expand...

well that has a better chance than raising taxes on those making over 400K a year while the dems continue to spend like drunken sailors

the best solution-though it would castrate the power of most of congress-is actually limiting government spending to areas where there is clear constitutional authority
 
cado20 said:
What I don't understand is Obama's hate for the 1% (maybe he should look in the mirror). All he wants to do with their money is redistribute it, but he says it will help with the deficit, sure for 8 days it will run the gov.
Click to expand...

ITs to pander to the many more votes that are to be gained among those who are failures or blame their lot in life on others being successful or those who merely think they deserve more handouts and others "who can afford to" ought to pay for what these voters want
 
TurtleDude said:
what BS-I pay many hundreds of dollars for each dollar of government service I use

the middle class-often get more than they pay
Click to expand...

Quit bitching, pay more and be glad that you still have more left over than millions of us middle class and poor.
 
That makes sense, so give to the majority of America take from the minority to win the majority vote
 
TurtleDude said:
then why do you demand others pay more when they use even less than you do?
Click to expand...

It's very difficult to determine how much someone actually benefits from the government's presence. Yes, there's the obvious, money handouts to the moochers. Simple addition can calculate how much they're benefiting. On the other hand, how much does a business man benefit by doing business in the US? We don't have constant government turnovers. Government confiscation of all assets. We have a well educated and relatively healthy work force. We have stable currency. We have good infrastructure for transporting goods. What's the dollar value of those benefits? Does the welfare mom mooching the system benefit as much from stable currency as a billion dollar corporation?
 
I’ve also been quite confused for some time on this tax thing. It is commonly said here on DP that ‘the Bush tax cuts went to the rich’ thus we need to raise theirs. If that were true then allowing all the BTC’s sunset would have no effect on the other brackets…?
 
TurtleDude said:
I am responding to your idiotic assertion that I just ought to roll over and agree to more tax hikes.
Click to expand...

You don't have to agree; you simply have to PAY more.:lamo

I'm sorry, but watching a rich lawyer complain is too good to pass up! :lamo
 
Texmex said:
You don't have to agree; you simply have to PAY more.:lamo

I'm sorry, but watching a rich lawyer complain is too good to pass up! :lamo
Click to expand...

its short sighted on your part, in the long run voting for tax hikers on the rich only comes back to screw you. one of the reasons why people like me are rich and you are complaining about us is that we see the long term rather than clamor for instant gratification
 
TurtleDude said:
how is keeping more money in peoples' pockets bad

what is bad was all the idiotic spending-most of which have zero constitutional support
Click to expand...


Why are you trying to deflect from you post about how Bush 2 was better than Obama which he was not. Furthermore you are again deflecting on the fact that lower taxes do not equal more jobs, the only thing they do is raise the debt and deficit. However they may and very very thin may create jobs in the short term, long term they have been very bad for this country. You simply cant have more money in your pocket and pay down any debt the math does not work period. Please keep the Constitution out of this, this is something that Conservatives like to fall back on as some kind of shield for their ideology just like the bible when they need to have some random justification for their unsound social and fiscal principles.

Republicans are largely responcible for the spending problems that is fact. Until they both come to the table with real cuts to the military, loopholes, taxes this is not going to happen. The Republicans did not want to deal with this until after the election which they like most Republicans thought they were going to win. This is something that should have been dealt with along time ago and one could argue that it should have happened in the late years of the Bush admin.
 
The problem there are too many moochers who live of the government and don't even look for work, there are 3rd generation people who learned not to work and to live off the system from their parents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom