• 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

TerryOfromCA said:
Ridiculous, and out of context.

If a person has a couple of credit cards and runs up a little balance on them (debt) that's normal.

If a person has a couple hundred credit cards, maxed out, then gets new cards to pay the payment on the others, that's insane!

The former is what Cheney referred to.
The latter is what the idiot Obama has done.

Wake up man.
Click to expand...

Cheney was referring to Reagan because he said, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Let's take a looky at debt as a percentage under presidents since Roosevelt...

US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

Looks like Eishenhower was the only republican with any fiscal responsibility. And tax rates at the top margin under Eishenhower were at 90% before Kennedy reduced them a little. Imagine that.

... aaaaaaannnd boom goes the dynamite.
 
poweRob said:
Cheney was referring to Reagan because he said, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Let's take a looky at debt as a percentage under presidents since Roosevelt...

View attachment 67179692

Looks like Eishenhower was the only republican with any fiscal responsibility. And tax rates at the top margin under Eishenhower were at 90% before Kennedy reduced them a little. Imagine that.

... aaaaaaannnd boom goes the dynamite.
Click to expand...

Interesting how it omitted the trillion dollar Obama deficits in 2010-2011-2012. Imagine that? Reagan deficits totaled 1.7 trillion dollars in 8 years. Obama has added 7.6 trillion in 6, submitted a 3.9 trillion dollar budget and had that budget cut by the Congress and then took credit for cutting the deficit in half down to 600 billion.
 
Conservative said:
Interesting how it omitted the trillion dollar Obama deficits in 2010-2011-2012. Imagine that? Reagan deficits totaled 1.7 trillion dollars in 8 years. Obama has added 7.6 trillion in 6, submitted a 3.9 trillion dollar budget and had that budget cut by the Congress and then took credit for cutting the deficit in half down to 600 billion.
Click to expand...

And you continue to lie and put Bush's budgets on Obama's back. No surprise here. Oh by the way... here's an updated one juuuuuust for you to ignore and/or deny.

usdebttogdp_2012_thumb.jpg

Looks like that nosediving Bush economy just got righted. Yet another body blow to that broken right-wing fiscal ideology... which is all talk and no facts. That's gotta smart.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
And you continue to lie and put Bush's budgets on Obama's back. No surprise here. Oh by the way... here's an updated one juuuuuust for you to ignore and/or deny.

View attachment 67179694

A body blow to that broken right-wing fiscal ideology... which is all talk and no facts. That's gotta smart.
Click to expand...

Show me the signed Bush budget for 2009 and I will apologize to the group. Your problem is you cannot because Bush didn't get his budget approved and Obama signed the 2009 budget. Try signing a contract and blame it on the previous individual and find out what happens?
 
Conservative said:
Show me the signed Bush budget for 2009 and I will apologize to the group. Your problem is you cannot because Bush didn't get his budget approved and Obama signed the 2009 budget. Try signing a contract and blame it on the previous individual and find out what happens?
Click to expand...

If you got a problem with 2009 budget being Bush's... since Bush submitted this budget... then perhaps you should go take your complaints up with ohh.... the ultra-conservative CATO Institute.

Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

"The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office."​

We all await your apology.
 
imagep said:
That's exactly why I am saying that reducing tax revenue isn't a good idea, unless we first cut spending.

We have to depend on the same people in congress to do something, regardless of whether it is reducing tax revenue, or cutting spending. It's not like there is one group of people who are in charge of cutting taxes, and a different group that are in charge of spending.
Click to expand...

the government will never cut spending since spending is what buys the votes of the masses (who don't get proper feedback as to the cost since they aren't paying enough taxes)

telling the top 5% they must be taxed and taxed to keep up with the pandering politicians do to buy the votes of the masses is idiotic

starve the beast
 
Looky what happened to the budget deficit projections after we all choked down Bush's final 2009 budget deficit...

24dec-economist-bartlett2-blog480.jpg

You're earth is shattering underneath your feet there Conservative.
 
poweRob said:
Looky what happened to the budget deficit projections after we all choked down Bush's final 2009 budget deficit...

View attachment 67179696

You're earth is shattering underneath your feet there Conservative.
Click to expand...

Greetings, PoweRob. :2wave:

Our debt of $18.2 trillion is what's going to do us in, not the deficit. While it is commendable that the deficit is being reduced, that's only a measure of trade between nations. and we're buying less. We're accumulating the debt all by ourselves, and we now owe more money to more people than any other nation in history. It might already be too late to cut spending, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to try to reduce it, since we will have to pay it back, one way or another, and that means big problems coming in our future standard of living. :shock:
 
poweRob said:
If you got a problem with 2009 budget being Bush's... since Bush submitted this budget... then perhaps you should go take your complaints up with ohh.... the ultra-conservative CATO Institute.. . . . . .
Click to expand...

Congress is the only body that can spend money. FYI.
 
poweRob said:
If you got a problem with 2009 budget being Bush's... since Bush submitted this budget... then perhaps you should go take your complaints up with ohh.... the ultra-conservative CATO Institute.

Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

"The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office."​

We all await your apology.
Click to expand...

I asked you to show me the signed Bush budget for fiscal year 2009 and you give me an op ed piece. You should be ashamed of yourself. Yes, the fiscal year begins in October but there was no budget until Obama signed it in March 2009 and when Obama signed the budget it was with Obama spending in it and thus when you sign a contract you agree and accept responsibility for it.

Fiscal year 2009 began with continuing resolutions which operated on 2008 numbers. Obama created the stimulus, did not credit the Treasury with TARP repayments, created the Afghanistan surge, took over GM/Chrysler, and I could go on but the most damaging to you is the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began
Click to expand...
 
poweRob said:
Looky what happened to the budget deficit projections after we all choked down Bush's final 2009 budget deficit...

View attachment 67179696

You're earth is shattering underneath your feet there Conservative.
Click to expand...

Aw, yes, budget projections seem to have the same results as Obama predictions, they are wrong, seriously wrong. Deficits exceeded a trillion dollars in 2010-2011-2012 yet you still believe Obama? Interesting

What is it about liberalism that creates people like you? Facts get in the way of your opinions

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

Please show me the deficits less than a trillion dollars that are NOT CBO PROJECTIONS???
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Looky what happened to the budget deficit projections after we all choked down Bush's final 2009 budget deficit...

View attachment 67179696

You're earth is shattering underneath your feet there Conservative.
Click to expand...

Obama signed 9 out of the twelve spending appropriations bills in the 2009 budget.
 
Why don't liberals understand the difference between budget deficits and national debt?

They don't, which makes it easy to monkey with the deficit numbers to put as much lipstick on the pig as needed.
 
Erod said:
Why don't liberals understand the difference between budget deficits and national debt?

They don't, which makes it easy to monkey with the deficit numbers to put as much lipstick on the pig as needed.
Click to expand...

They also don't seem to understand the difference between projections and actual numbers. Posting CBO projections as fact just shows how intellectually bankrupt so many people are
 
TerryOfromCA said:
Congress is the only body that can spend money. FYI.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should spend your time defending Obama when republicans are in here attacking him for the economy?
 
poweRob said:
Then perhaps you should spend your time defending Obama when republicans are in here attacking him for the economy?
Click to expand...

I am waiting for an apology from you blaming Bush for the 2009 budget and deficit that was signed by Obama as well as recognition of the trillion dollar deficits in 2010-2011-2012 or do you want to blame those on Bush as well? Do liberals ever admit when they are wrong?
 
polgara said:
Greetings, PoweRob. :2wave:

Our debt of $18.2 trillion is what's going to do us in, not the deficit. While it is commendable that the deficit is being reduced, that's only a measure of trade between nations. and we're buying less. We're accumulating the debt all by ourselves, and we now owe more money to more people than any other nation in history. It might already be too late to cut spending, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to try to reduce it, since we will have to pay it back, one way or another, and that means big problems coming in our future standard of living. :shock:
Click to expand...

A macro economy isn't about how much money there is but rather how much money is moving within it. As usual we tend to grow ourselves out of economic distress. If you cut spending you cut that economic ic flow. Where you and I could agree on is where that money should flow more and where that money should flow less in various areas.
 
Conservative said:
I am waiting for an apology from you blaming Bush for the 2009 budget and deficit that was signed by Obama as well as recognition of the trillion dollar deficits in 2010-2011-2012 or do you want to blame those on Bush as well? Do liberals ever admit when they are wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for your apology for blaming Bush's 2009 budget on Obama. Also waiting to see your tirade on the Cato institutes article about that. Where oh where will you get your talking points from as your right wing think tanks debunk you I wonder?
 
poweRob said:
I'm waiting for your apology for blaming Bush's 2009 budget on Obama. Also waiting to see your tirade on the Cato institutes article about that. Where oh where will you get your talking points from as your right wing think tanks debunk you I wonder?
Click to expand...

How does one blame Bush for a budget that never passed or was signed? Does it matter what the Cato Institute says about anything or what the Treasury data shows? Apparently it doesn't matter that Obama signed the 2009 budget and most of the appropriation bills because your mind is set on blaming Bush. It also appears that CBO PROJECTIONS matter more than actual results in your world.

Bush's budget that wasn't approved showed a deficit of less than 500 billion so apparently the entire spending of the U.S. govt. occurred from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009 and none of the revenue arrived. That is liberal logic and why you have no credibility.

By the way, Do you know what a continuing resolution is? Figure it out and get back to us along with your apology
 
Conservative said:
As usual you still don't get it, INCOME TAXES WERE CUT FOR ALL AMERICAN INCOME EARNERS and FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE increased 60%. How did that happen? Do you understand that none of the taxes you mentioned had anything to do with individual income taxes?

Guess you better tell that to the U.S. Treasury which is the bank account of the United States because INCOME TAX REVENUE grew 60% during the Reagan term

I will never understand people like you. Is it ignorance or what that causes you to ignore the actual data and facts?
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure that CAPITAL GAINS tax receipts are included in INCOME TAX REVENUE. You have no case to make unless you can prove that the increase in revenue is a one-to-one match, or pretty darn close to it, with an increase in earnings. Fact is that the increase in revenue WAS the result of in an increase in certain tax rates, elimination of deductions, and an expansion of what income is taxable.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure that CAPITAL GAINS tax receipts are included in INCOME TAX REVENUE. You have no case to make unless you can prove that the increase in revenue is a one-to-one match, or pretty darn close to it, with an increase in earnings. Fact is that the increase in revenue WAS the result of in an increase in certain tax rates, elimination of deductions, and an expansion of what income is taxable.
Click to expand...

No, sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about nor do you understand income tax cuts


Income Taxes
Corporate Taxes
Total Tax Revenue

Employment and general retirement
Unemployment insurance
Other retirement


Excise taxes

Other:
Estate and gift taxes
Customs duties
Miscellaneous receipts
Total other

Total Revenue


National defense
International affairs
General science, space, and technology
Energy
Natural resources and environment
Agriculture
Commerce and housing credit
Transportation
Community and regional development
Education, training, employment and social services
Health
Medicare
Income security
Social security
Veterans benefits and services
Administration of justice
General Government
Net interest
Undistributed offsetting receipts

Total outlays
Click to expand...

As for the revenue growth it was all Income tax revenue and it was due to economic activity resulting from people having more spendable income. No other taxes are included in income tax revenue so your argument is bogus at best. There is a reason Reagan won 49 states in 1984 and over 63% of the vote. Suggest you do better research and stop giving the Federal Govt. the benefit out doubt and allowing them to take advantage of you
 
Conservative said:
As for the revenue growth it was all Income tax revenue and it was due to economic activity resulting from people having more spendable income.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to prove that by demonstrating that there was an increase in earnings in that period. Was the median wage up, down, or stagnant?
 
Napoleon said:
You're going to have to prove that by demonstrating that there was an increase in earnings in that period. Was the median wage up, down, or stagnant?
Click to expand...

Reagan took over an economy that was in a double dip recession, there were 99 million working Americans at the time, Reagan's stimulus included ZERO spending and a tax cut three years in a row. by the end of his first term 9 million jobs were created, that is 9 million new taxpayers and by the end of his second term 17 million new taxpayers were created. Now prove to me those 17 million jobs would have been created without the Reagan stimulus. Income tax revenue up 62%, GDP Growth doubled, and a budget of less than a trillion dollars until his last two years in office.
 
Conservative said:
Reagan took over an economy that was in a double dip recession, there were 99 million working Americans at the time, Reagan's stimulus included ZERO spending and a tax cut three years in a row. by the end of his first term 9 million jobs were created, that is 9 million new taxpayers and by the end of his second term 17 million new taxpayers were created. Now prove to me those 17 million jobs would have been created without the Reagan stimulus. Income tax revenue up 62%, GDP Growth doubled, and a budget of less than a trillion dollars until his last two years in office.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I asked you and I will note, again, that those cuts were accompanied by hikes, elimination of deductions, and an expansion of how taxable income is defined. Given those facts, it isn't enough to just to claim that the increase in revenue was the result of cuts. The proof is in the pudding or, in this case, employment and wage figures and they don't add up to what you're claiming.
 
Napoleon said:
That isn't what I asked you and I will note, again, that those cuts were accompanied by hikes, elimination of deductions, and an expansion of how taxable income is defined. Given those facts, it isn't enough to just to claim that the increase in revenue was the result of cuts. The proof is in the pudding or, in this case, employment and wage figures and they don't add up to what you're claiming.
Click to expand...

Results matter and results are something you don't seem to understand. How old were you during the Reagan term? Do you always believe what you are told by the left? There were no tax hikes, the tax laws were enforced, rates were cut, elimination of deductions returned the law to previous levels and apparently didn't hurt Reagan at all as indicated by the 1984 election results. Economic expansion occurred, jobs were created, America's standard in the world regained so yes, it was a liberal nightmare. Not sure what you are looking at but I prefer Treasury numbers, feel free to look them up. I lived it and worked it, the best years of my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom