• 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 to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

My bubble isn't the problem, the liberal bubble is as spending is never an issue to liberals but don't let people keep more of what they earn.

The conservative bubble is, as cheney put it, "deficits don't matter" but off course they DO matter when the GOP is out of the white house. You guys don't know how to run a government so you run on the concept of "government doesn't work" then they get in office and drive it in a ditch to prove themselves right. That IS your bubble and that IS the problem.
 
Then call your congressman and tell him grow some nuts and to run on that. Please.

The GOP House did and that budget wasn't passed and now Obama is taking credit for reducing the deficit. My Congressman did run on it and got 80% of the vote in my District
 
The GOP House did and that budget wasn't passed and now Obama is taking credit for reducing the deficit. My Congressman did run on it and got 80% of the vote in my District

No. No he didn't. And no, the GOP doesn't get credit for this economy. Sorry.

Get back to me when your congressman runs on "I want to privatize social security" as he and the rest of the GOP definitely does but are too cowardly to actually say.
 
The conservative bubble is, as cheney put it, "deficits don't matter" but off course they DO matter when the GOP is out of the white house. You guys don't know how to run a government so you run on the concept of "government doesn't work" then they get in office and drive it in a ditch to prove themselves right. That IS your bubble and that IS the problem.

Still that tired old liberal argument out of context. Reagan ran deficits and created 17 million jobs, doubling of GDP, 60% growth in FIT revenue but we have been over that many times. Seems you have a very short and selective memory.

Neither Reagan or Bush, both of whom cut taxes never had debt exceeding 100% of GDP, what did we get for the 7.6 trillion Obama added to the debt? Have you talked to Gruber lately because it seems like he was talking about you
 
Still that tired old liberal argument out of context. Reagan ran deficits and created 17 million jobs, doubling of GDP, 60% growth in FIT revenue but we have been over that many times. Seems you have a very short and selective memory.

Neither Reagan or Bush, both of whom cut taxes never had debt exceeding 100% of GDP, what did we get for the 7.6 trillion Obama added to the debt? Have you talked to Gruber lately because it seems like he was talking about you

Pretty much none of what you said is true. That's life in the conservative bubble though.
 
No. No he didn't. And no, the GOP doesn't get credit for this economy. Sorry.

Get back to me when your congressman runs on "I want to privatize social security" as he and the rest of the GOP definitely does but are too cowardly to actually say.

Really? so the 3.9 trillion dollar budget passed? Are you sure about that? The GOP doesn't want credit for the economy most of which was due to govt. spending not economic growth from the private sector

Just as I thought, liberals are indeed selfish, don't touch my program and just give me more paid for by someone else.
 
Pretty much none of what you said is true. That's life in the conservative bubble though.

Well then BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the Treasury lied. You don't seem to have a clue as to reality. Prove what I said was wrong with official govt. numbers?
 
and they then cease to exist?

I wouldn't phrase it like that, no.... unless you are thinking in terms of currency.... in that case, yes, it's no longer currency, it's just characters on a computer screen.

this is the process where the money is removed from the economy and then utilized to stabilize reserve supply ( to stabilize the financial markets, primarily).. the treasury will eventually put in a call on the funds to be transferred to a TGA to make payments.... a bunch of it will hang around and earn interest until the treasury puts in a call on it.
 
Well then BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the Treasury lied. You don't seem to have a clue as to reality. Prove what I said was wrong with official govt. numbers?

Time and again in every economics thread you enter you leave getting shown that you don't know how to read the BLS.gov BEA.gov statistics. Life in the conservative bubble.
 
Time and again in every economics thread you enter you leave getting shown that you don't know how to read the BLS.gov BEA.gov statistics. Life in the conservative bubble.

Then why don't you educate me and show me where I am wrong

BLS data shows 99 million working Americans in December 1980 and 116 million when Reagan left office

BEA shows an economy that was 2.8 trillion dollars in December 1980 and 5.6 trillion when Reagan left office

Treasury shows Federal Income tax revenue of 280 billion dollars in December 1980 and 506 billion when Reagan left office

Would love to see any economist refute those numbers. I have given you the links but obviously you ignored them and prefer to be Gruberized
 
Of course you don't have any concept of what an economy is and that generating tax revenue... (which you agree will rise) There is also all the increased economic flow being that middle class people generally don't have offshore accounts to hide their money and actually put those $'s back into the economy.

taking money from the rich, through taxation, doesn't mean it's going to flow , as if my magic, into the hands of the middle class.
the government has 2 ways to get money into the hands of the middle class... either take less in taxes, or pay direct payments.. .that's it.
beings that middle class folks generally don't qualify for welfare, that leaves taking less in taxes.

of course, you don't have ot do anything to the rich in order to decrease taxes on the middle class... that just obama's way of saying " I think you guys have too much money, we're not going to let you keep it".. it's a political move, not an economic move.

if Obama was actually interested in stimulating middle class consumer spending, he'd call for a 100% federal tax holiday up to a certain threshhold of income...think we'll see that?.... hell no, because that makes economic sense and he isn't in this for economics, he's in it for politics.

but then both lefties and righties will blow their wads in anger.. and hypocrisy.
 
While I am not opposed to tax increases on the wealthiest of Americans, it's still a pretty meaningless gesture with a Republican-dominated Congress.
 
LOL you pretend to be some savior of the poor. and some need saving but far too many have become addicted to government pandering

YOu telling me what I need to do is a real riot. I have been all over the world and I have seen real poverty in the slums of Bogota or Nairobi.

Ya gotta love the comparison of 1st world America to 3rd world countries, as if it were some type of meaningful standard. It's not. Try picking on an economy of your own size!

We are the world's largest economy. Even our poor deserve to enjoy some of the things the world's largest economy affords. In that regard, you will see far more impoverishment in America than you will in Canada, Japan, Germany, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand...... the list goes on. Tax programs that help with a more equitable distribution of the spoils of economic war are reasonable things to propose, pass and implement.
 
Ya gotta love the comparison of 1st world America to 3rd world countries, as if it were some type of meaningful standard. It's not. Try picking on an economy of your own size!

We are the world's largest economy. Even our poor deserve to enjoy some of the things the world's largest economy affords. In that regard, you will see far more impoverishment in America than you will in Canada, Japan, Germany, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand...... the list goes on. Tax programs that help with a more equitable distribution of the spoils of economic war are reasonable things to propose, pass and implement.

why? you deserve what you can buy.
 
While I am not opposed to tax increases on the wealthiest of Americans, it's still a pretty meaningless gesture with a Republican-dominated Congress.

Of course, it will never pass and is as meaningless in the short-term as the advocacy of the repeal of the PPACA, which is still advocated by some on the Right (see Cruz speech the Heritage Foundation).

Neither are realistic short-term ends. People that advocate each of these are playing a longer game.
 
why? you deserve what you can buy.

Because no society will stand in the long-term if the "spoils" are not equitably (fairly) distributed. The tax rate cuts of the early 1980's, which dropped the highest marginal rate under 50% were at the root of Wealth Disparity. Its reasonable to seek some roll-back of that as a means of easing the wealth disparity issue.Wealth Disparity - Wealth vs marginal tax rates.jpg
 
taking money from the rich, through taxation, doesn't mean it's going to flow , as if my magic, into the hands of the middle class.
the government has 2 ways to get money into the hands of the middle class... either take less in taxes, or pay direct payments.. .that's it.
beings that middle class folks generally don't qualify for welfare, that leaves taking less in taxes.

of course, you don't have ot do anything to the rich in order to decrease taxes on the middle class... that just obama's way of saying " I think you guys have too much money, we're not going to let you keep it".. it's a political move, not an economic move.

if Obama was actually interested in stimulating middle class consumer spending, he'd call for a 100% federal tax holiday up to a certain threshhold of income...think we'll see that?.... hell no, because that makes economic sense and he isn't in this for economics, he's in it for politics.

but then both lefties and righties will blow their wads in anger.. and hypocrisy.
There is another way to get the money to the middle class... the government can fund projects that fix and upgrade our failing infrastructure. This will create thousands of middle class jobs and create new tax payers.
 
taking money from the rich, through taxation, doesn't mean it's going to flow , as if my magic, into the hands of the middle class.
the government has 2 ways to get money into the hands of the middle class... either take less in taxes, or pay direct payments.. .that's it.
beings that middle class folks generally don't qualify for welfare, that leaves taking less in taxes.

of course, you don't have ot do anything to the rich in order to decrease taxes on the middle class... that just obama's way of saying " I think you guys have too much money, we're not going to let you keep it".. it's a political move, not an economic move.

if Obama was actually interested in stimulating middle class consumer spending, he'd call for a 100% federal tax holiday up to a certain threshhold of income...think we'll see that?.... hell no, because that makes economic sense and he isn't in this for economics, he's in it for politics.

but then both lefties and righties will blow their wads in anger.. and hypocrisy.

Who needs a holiday? Just have it tax free up to just above standard of living wages perhaps to cover the poor then full flat tax it from that point on.

Just spit-balling here though. I don't have any crunched numbers on it but the simplification of the tax code would be awesome.
 
There is another way to get the money to the middle class... the government can fund projects that fix and upgrade our failing infrastructure. This will create thousands of middle class jobs and create new tax payers.

You are right, maybe we can use the left over shovels Obama generated with the Stimulus program. We know how well that program worked. By the way who do you think actually funds most roads and bridges in your state??
 
The conservative bubble is, as cheney put it, "deficits don't matter" but off course they DO matter when the GOP is out of the white house. You guys don't know how to run a government so you run on the concept of "government doesn't work" then they get in office and drive it in a ditch to prove themselves right. That IS your bubble and that IS the problem.

well, you seemed to have stumbled on a very good point.. about the deficit being looked at differently depending on politics.

does a deficit mean anything ,economically speaking, to the US govt?... it sure doesn't seem to affect spending, taxing, interests rates, or really anything else... so i'm leaning towards "nope".

politically, i think it has great meaning....economically, not so much
 
Who needs a holiday? Just have it tax free up to just above standard of living wages perhaps to cover the poor then full flat tax it from that point on.

Just spit-balling here though. I don't have any crunched numbers on it but the simplification of the tax code would be awesome.

Love proud liberals because they show why I could never be a liberal as I have much higher expectations than adding 7.6 trillion to the debt, having one million more people employed than 7 years ago when the recession began, having 7.5 million full time part time workers who want full time jobs, much of the GDP growth due to govt. spending, record numbers of discouraged workers during his term, higher premiums and still 30 million uninsured after Obamacare, 11.2% U-6 unemployment. Gruber sure nailed it in describing the liberal electorate and you appear to have very low expectations. Sorry I just don't see a lot to be proud of
 
Who needs a holiday? Just have it tax free up to just above standard of living wages perhaps to cover the poor then full flat tax it from that point on.

Just spit-balling here though. I don't have any crunched numbers on it but the simplification of the tax code would be awesome.

I'm not opposed to such an idea... .i'd be even more on board the minute you say "scrap income taxes altogether" but that's not gonna happen in our lifetimes.

very small transaction taxes would do the trick as far as letting people pretend we are fiscally responsible.... but those kind of taxes won't fit the bill for other considerations ( like affecting behaviors, or affecting income equality.. or whatever)
 
Because no society will stand in the long-term if the "spoils" are not equitably (fairly) distributed. The tax rate cuts of the early 1980's, which dropped the highest marginal rate under 50% were at the root of Wealth Disparity. Its reasonable to seek some roll-back of that as a means of easing the wealth disparity issue.View attachment 67179159

There's the rub.

You Libs want to redistribute those " Spoils " to he Government, not to the Middle class.

There's been far more wealth disparity in the last 6 years than there was in the 80s.

When you elect a Progressive moron to run the economy into the Ground while he mandates increased cost on the Middle class that creates disparity.

When the Rich can park their Capital in equities that are falsely inflated with the help of Keynesian monetary stimulus that creates disparity.

When you increase taxes under the pretense of " equity " that creates disparity. The Rich simply take their " spoils " somewhere else.

France ? Anyone ?

You think you Libs would have learned that by now, but no ones ever accused the left wing of being the sharpest knifes in the drawer
 
There is another way to get the money to the middle class... the government can fund projects that fix and upgrade our failing infrastructure. This will create thousands of middle class jobs and create new tax payers.

that depends on the project and other considerations.

for example ,Keystone fits the bill as a project, but Obama is going to veto it...that's an easy project that's being paid for by someone else... and one that will bring municipalities a great deal of property tax revenues they can use on other projects and services... it comes with some jobs as well.

but it's correct to say that projects can do some good... it doesn't look like Obama is committed to those kind of programs though.... he's more committed to fiddling with taxes.
 
There is another way to get the money to the middle class... the government can fund projects that fix and upgrade our failing infrastructure. This will create thousands of middle class jobs and create new tax payers.

Nonsense.

Are you seriously telling me you would BELIEVE Obama if he promised more shovel ready jobs ?

Again ?

And besides, " Stimulus for infrastructure to increase aggregate demand " doesn't work.

Its like you people swore off the existence of Japan all together. Just because they've tried every left wing platitude and narrative you people upchuck on this forum daily and have FAILED.
 
Back
Top Bottom