• 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 ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases
February 11, 2010, 08:45 AM EST

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”
....
In the interview, Obama said that putting preconditions on the agenda of a bipartisan advisory commission, which he said he would soon establish, would just undermine its purpose.

“What I can’t do is to set the thing up where a whole bunch of things are off the table,” Obama said. “Some would say we can’t look at entitlements. There are going to be some that say we can’t look at taxes, and pretty soon, you just can’t solve the problem.”
Again... so much for THAT campaign promise.

Is this the Hope and Change you voted for?
 
Again... so much for THAT campaign promise.

Is this the Hope and Change you voted for?

And this is exactly why we have a perpetual deficit. Because people freak out ZOMG TAX INCREASE over any suggestion that we cut the deficit. And other people shriek ZOMG ENTITLEMENT CUTS over the same.

If we're ever going to balance the budget, we're going to need to rein in entitlement spending and increase taxes.
 
Last edited:
And this is exactly why we have a perpetual deficit. Because people freak out ZOMG TAX INCREASE over any suggestion that we cut the deficit. And other people shriek ZOMG ENTITLEMENT CUTS over the same.

If we're ever going to balance the budget, we're going to need to rein in entitlement spending and increase taxes.

Not so sure on that last one.


chart4_lg_1.gif
 
And this is exactly why we have a perpetual deficit. Because people freak out ZOMG TAX INCREASE over any suggestion that we cut the deficit. And other people shriek ZOMG ENTITLEMENT CUTS over the same.

If we're ever going to balance the budget, we're going to need to rein in entitlement spending and increase taxes.
I note you completely ignored the salient point.
Note that I am not surprised.
 
And this is exactly why we have a perpetual deficit. Because people freak out ZOMG TAX INCREASE over any suggestion that we cut the deficit. And other people shriek ZOMG ENTITLEMENT CUTS over the same.

If we're ever going to balance the budget, we're going to need to rein in entitlement spending and increase taxes.

How 'bout not spending a trillion dollars on pork? Think that might help? Plus, the government can get thier dead asses out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best...make money. There's your tax increase.

Make too much sense, I'm sure.
 
How 'bout not spending a trillion dollars on pork? Think that might help? Plus, the government can get thier dead asses out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best...make money. There's your tax increase.
Make too much sense, I'm sure.
More accurately, it gives the liberal left less control of your life - and so there's no wonder that they will oppose it.
 
More accurately, it gives the liberal left less control of your life - and so there's no wonder that they will oppose it.

Socializing the country is what it's really all about. For a century, now, the American people have rejected the progressive agenda and it has become clear to the Liberals that only a complete takeover will get their agenda to become a permanent part of America.
 
I note you completely ignored the salient point.
Note that I am not surprised.

Ah yes, the "salient point" was how horrible of a human being Barack Obama is, rather than an actual discussion of the policies in question. I don't know why I would've expected anything different from you. Carry on. :2wave:
 
And this is exactly why we have a perpetual deficit. Because people freak out ZOMG TAX INCREASE over any suggestion that we cut the deficit. And other people shriek ZOMG ENTITLEMENT CUTS over the same.

If we're ever going to balance the budget, we're going to need to rein in entitlement spending and increase taxes.

So lies don't matter? Obama can do anything and it is ok?
 
obama is utterly incoherent

a leader has to have A PLAN, people need to KNOW WHAT IT IS, he needs to STICK to it, it must be CONSISTENT

it must MAKE SENSE

the entire nation naturally looks to its president for leadership and THIS is what we get

tax the banks to force them to lend

give small biz the help they need then repeal the bush tax cuts

banker fat cats get too much reward but i don't begrudge them

i will never raise taxes on anyone under 200K except i'm agnostic

agnostic?

that's a rather ODD word, in this context

the president is a CHIN STROKING academic, completely out of touch with real americans and the real world

NEVER before november 4 has he ever been required to make an EXECUTIVE decision

a universal, consensus ALL are coming unmistakably to see he's not up to it

go back to class, professor

take SHOP
 
Ah yes, the "salient point" was how horrible of a human being Barack Obama is, rather than an actual discussion of the policies in question. I don't know why I would've expected anything different from you. Carry on. :2wave:

Look at Obama's spending not at taking money from the middle class and the retired.
 
Ah yes, the "salient point" was how horrible of a human being Barack Obama is, rather than an actual discussion of the policies in question.
I am not at all surprised at this response -- your faux concerns, designed only to misdirect the conversation away from The Obama's reversals of claims and statements and promised are well documented.

He's reneging on yet another campaign promise, and you give Him a pass.
 
Again... so much for THAT campaign promise.

Is this the Hope and Change you voted for?

Don't you think you kinda jumping the gun here? He is just looking at ideas that is all.
 
Don't you think you kinda jumping the gun here? He is just looking at ideas that is all.
Yes... and raising taxes on people He promised to NOT raise taxes on is specifically -on- the table.

But hey -- I remember what happened when GHWB went back on his "no new taxes' pledge. I wont weep at all when a similar fate befalls The Messiah.
 
Not so sure on that last one.


chart4_lg_1.gif

That isn't entirely representative of the actual effect of tax hikes/cuts. For example, the income tax line in your graph looks flat because it's on a 0 to 100 scale. But zoom in on the relevant range a bit, and you'll find a different picture.

Personal-Income-Taxes-as-Share-of-GDP.JPG


This is important because a 1% change is a significant amount of money...on the order of $150 billion (in today's dollars). The biggest sustained drops were the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts, and the biggest sustained increases were the Clinton tax hikes. Obviously there isn't a perfect match in this graph between tax hikes and tax cuts, but there's definitely a pattern there.

Also, your graph only looks at the top marginal income tax rate...but it doesn't take into account other variables like other marginal income tax rates, how wide the tax brackets actually are, and what deductions/exclusions are allowed.
 
Last edited:
That isn't entirely representative of the actual effect of tax hikes/cuts. For example, the income tax line in your graph looks flat because it's on a 0 to 100 scale. But zoom in on the relevant range a bit, and you'll find a different picture.

Personal-Income-Taxes-as-Share-of-GDP.JPG


This is important because a 1% change is a significant amount of money...on the order of $150 billion (in today's dollars). The biggest sustained drops were the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts, and the biggest sustained increases were the Clinton tax hikes. Obviously there isn't a perfect match in this graph between tax hikes and tax cuts, but there's definitely a pattern there.

Seems to me like the biggest drops were during recessions, the biggest increases during booms. Also, according to that graph, revenue actually increased after 2003.

Still, what you're saying is that even with the biggest tax increases, we could only raise about $200 billion in revenue, max. Seeing as how the deficit is currently 8 times that much, I don't think increasing taxes should be seen as a priority.


Also, your graph only looks at the top marginal income tax rate...but it doesn't take into account other variables like other marginal income tax rates, how wide the tax brackets actually are, and what deductions/exclusions are allowed.

That's true, but the only thing that people are considering raising right now is the top income bracket rate. Unfortunate, since the vast majority of the decreased revenue from the Bush tax cuts were the result of the cuts for lower-income families, and since 40% of the population not having a stake in the deficit as the result of not paying taxes is probably harmful to the problem.
 
And this is exactly why we have a perpetual deficit. Because people freak out ZOMG TAX INCREASE over any suggestion that we cut the deficit. And other people shriek ZOMG ENTITLEMENT CUTS over the same.

If we're ever going to balance the budget, we're going to need to rein in entitlement spending and increase taxes.

Well, since the deficit is a spending problem, not a revenue problem, clearly the solution is reductions in spending, not increases in taxes.

The government, however, is like a pimp. When the pimp needs more money, he's beats his ho's harder and "encourages" them to work harder. The pimp never considers buying fewer gold chains.
 
by putting tax hikes on the table he contributes to the atmosphere of UNCERTAINTY that is anathema to new hires

hello
 
I note you completely ignored the salient point.
Note that I am not surprised.
What was the salient point? Oh right, that you want to cap on the president because he said he will look at every idea to decrease the deficit, even if the idea is raising taxes, he wants to see it. Which makes your point look... trivial and hyper partisan. God forbid we should pay for things like your war...
 
That's true, but the only thing that people are considering raising right now is the top income bracket rate.

Well, the article said he was not going to prejudge and was going to leave everything on the table. This is what some people in this thread were actually mad about, he was considering taxing more than just the top 1%.

Unfortunate, since the vast majority of the decreased revenue from the Bush tax cuts were the result of the cuts for lower-income families, and since 40% of the population not having a stake in the deficit as the result of not paying taxes is probably harmful to the problem.

The largest amount of money from the bush tax cuts went to the top bracket. It is simple math. Compare 1% of $480,000 to 1% of $32,000. That is the difference between the top 1% bracket and the lower 50%.

I don't see where this notion that the lowest bracket does not pay any taxes comes from. Everyone pays payroll taxes up to the 1st $105,000 of there paycheck (at least for SS, its all of your income for medicare). This makes up the largest portion of income for the federal government.
 
Well, since the deficit is a spending problem, not a revenue problem, clearly the solution is reductions in spending, not increases in taxes.

The government, however, is like a pimp. When the pimp needs more money, he's beats his ho's harder and "encourages" them to work harder. The pimp never considers buying fewer gold chains.

What would you consider being cut?

SS, medicare, medicaid, and defense spending make up like 75% of our spending (excluding interest payments).
 
Well, the article said he was not going to prejudge and was going to leave everything on the table. This is what some people in this thread were actually mad about, he was considering taxing more than just the top 1%.
The "anger" here is The Obama going back on his campaign promise to not raise taxes on households making $250k or less. The article doesnt say that he is going to, but that it IS on the table.

I don't see where this notion that the lowest bracket does not pay any taxes comes from. Everyone pays payroll taxes up to the 1st $105,000 of there paycheck (at least for SS, its all of your income for medicare).
The 'do not pay any taxes' refers to income tax, not payroll tax.

This makes up the largest portion of income for the federal government.
Incorrect.
Federal Income,. FY 2008
Income taxs:
$1,145.7B
Corporate taxs
$304.3B
Social insurance taxes (FICA deduction + employer contributions)
$900.2B

Income tax revenue exceeds social insurance tax revenue every FY since 1969 (and likely before).
 
What would you consider being cut?

SS, medicare, medicaid, and defense spending make up like 75% of our spending (excluding interest payments).

Well, let's see....

Socialist Security is unconstitutional, so that has to go.

Medicaid...hmmmm, that's not in the Constitution either. Bye bye...

Defense is Constitutional, but the goals and budget should be defense, not social engineering or tinkering or any kind of World Cop bull****. Germany, France, Japan should expect to see US troops leaving, except for Okinawa, which was paid for with the blood of thousands of Marines. That does not have cash value.

There, I've cut 60% from the budget.

Next?
 
The largest amount of money from the bush tax cuts went to the top bracket. It is simple math. Compare 1% of $480,000 to 1% of $32,000. That is the difference between the top 1% bracket and the lower 50%.

You see, the problem with this is that it does not look at the actual facts.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts

In 2007, according to CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation data, the increased child tax credit, mar*riage penalty relief, 10 percent bracket, and AMT fix will have a combined budgetary effect of $114 bil*lion.[14] (See Table 2.) These policies do not have strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect.

By comparison, the more maligned capital gains, dividends, and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion even before the large and positive supply-side effects are incorporated. Thus, repealing these tax cuts would raise very little revenue and could possibly even reduce federal tax revenue. Such tax increases would certainly reduce the savings and investment vital to economic growth.

The individual income tax rate reductions come to $59 billion in 2007 and are not really a tax cut for the rich. All families with taxable incomes over $62,000 (and single filers over $31,000) benefit. Repealing this tax cut would reduce work incentives and raise taxes on millions of families and small businesses, thereby harming the economy and min*imizing any new revenues.

Additionally:
chart6_lg.gif


I don't see where this notion that the lowest bracket does not pay any taxes comes from. Everyone pays payroll taxes up to the 1st $105,000 of there paycheck (at least for SS, its all of your income for medicare). This makes up the largest portion of income for the federal government.

We are talking about income taxes here. If people pay for only Medicare and SS, then those are the only things they have a stake in.
 
Back
Top Bottom