• 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!

House blocks funding for health care law

Walter said:
All bills originate in the HOUSE, if the Senate wants to freeze all government expenditures its their choice, as the GOP laughs all the way to 2012. They will have to answer to THE PEOPLE for demanding that funds be allocated for a program that has been ruled to be constitutional. Remember....28 out of the 50 states (a majority) have declared this act as being unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

the party for the rich tried this in 94....didn't work then, won't work now
 
diablo45 said:
the party for the rich tried this in 94....didn't work then, won't work now
Click to expand...

Yes it's interesting that shut down isn't it ? Seems it was over spending cuts, some which included medicare, medical inflation, Medicaid, and education.
So due to democratic blockage of these program cuts, we are now faced with health care costs that are what they are. Thank you for pointing out who is “really” at fault for our medical costs, and for the deficit in medicare. Laughing..... as you have just shown us, we can now blame Clinton.
 
The Barbarian said:
Yes it's interesting that shut down isn't it ? Seems it was over spending cuts, some which included medicare, medical inflation, Medicaid, and education.
So due to democratic blockage of these program cuts, we are now faced with health care costs that are what they are. Thank you for pointing out who is “really” at fault for our medical costs, and for the deficit in medicare. Laughing..... as you have just shown us, we can now blame Clinton.
Click to expand...

hardly, proper taxing of the wealthy and corporations easily solves mediicade and s.s. deficits
 
diablo45 said:
hardly, proper taxing of the wealthy and corporations easily solves mediicade and s.s. deficits
Click to expand...

you seem to have one answer for everything, tax the weathly ... very typical of a tax and spend liberal.
 
diablo45 said:
hardly, proper taxing of the wealthy and corporations easily solves mediicade and s.s. deficits
Click to expand...

We already have a progressive taxation scheme. We need to raise the rate on the lower bracket, affecting everyone, and bring all brackets to eliminate the progressive scheme. Isn't that what they call a flat tax? The difference from the lowest tax bracket to the highest tax bracket is 10% to 35%. They ought to make it a 22% flat tax. If people from the lower tax brackets use more of the government services then they should pay their fair share.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
So voters want the HC law entirely defunded or repealed? I think not. In fact, an entire repeal of the law is not supported by most Americans. But that doesn't matter. If Congress really did what the public supports, they'd have included a public option (which was supported by a majority of the country). In its present form, the bill won't make it through the Senate. And if it does, Obama will veto it. It's not hard to understand. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Republicans talked about it throughout the election, which hardly supports your assertion.
 
Erod said:
Unconstitutional and defunded.
Click to expand...

I thought the Supreme Court decides on what is contistitutional, did I miss their vote?

And doesn't the Senate also have to approve the defunding? Does the President have vetoe powers?

Your mission accomplished banner may be a bit premature there Erod.
 
diablo45 said:
hardly, proper taxing of the wealthy and corporations easily solves mediicade and s.s. deficits
Click to expand...

At the cost of jobs and wealth, further increasing the number of businesses that move over seas.

Good plan.
 
diablo45 said:
hardly, proper taxing of the wealthy and corporations easily solves mediicade and s.s. deficits
Click to expand...

Oh sure - they can just carry the weight of the world on their shoulders :shrug:

If taxing them more and more was helpful or a way to get OUT of these high deficits then why are we still digging DEEPER into dept and DEEPER into an out of control deficit spending streak?

If your reasoning was logical then all we would have to do was tax the rich more for the next few years and then *voila* - debt and deficit be gone! But that won't happen - we all *know* this.

The reason why these programs and tactics aren't working, aren't balanced, and aren't self sufficient is because they're not *trying* to spend *less*

What's the first thing you do in your life when you have maxed out all your credit cards and you're borrowing just to pay off your interest? You assess your situation: where's the money going, why is it going there - is it necessary? Then you STOP spending first - you cut back. . . you STOP racking up the massive debt and once you have ended excessive spending you can then work on *paying down* your debt.

Same thing goes for government.
 
The Prof said:
nov 2, 2010

it happened
Click to expand...

Yes, but people had two years to forget who screwed them over in the first place. IN 2012, it will be obious to them that the GOP was not interested in jobs for America, the people will have seen how the first things the GOP went to work on was continuing the tax cuts for the rich, and taking away health care benefits from the middle class, just like they did for the 10 years before the Dems.

In retrospect, it may be the GOP win in 2010 may be the best ad for a Dem win in 2012.
 
reefedjib said:
We already have a progressive taxation scheme.
Click to expand...

Correction: we used to have a progressive tax system until it was slashed by Reagan and Bush.
 
MrVicchio said:
At the cost of jobs and wealth, further increasing the number of businesses that move over seas.
Click to expand...

That is not what ocurred during the 50 years we had a progressive tax system.
 
MrVicchio said:
Really?
:blink:
Really?
Click to expand...

Yes, really. In fact was arguably the best economic times for the most people in the history of our country.
 
Catawba said:
Yes, but people had two years to forget who screwed them over in the first place.
Click to expand...

you denigrate your neighbors, we see and remember as well as you

In retrospect, it may be the GOP win in 2010 may be the best ad for a Dem win in 2012.
Click to expand...

Tougher road ahead for Senate Dems - Shira Toeplitz - POLITICO.com

Sabato: GOP in Best Position in Decades to Take Senate in 2012

sabato's one of the big three, with cook and rothenberg (tho sean trende is better)

The Fix - 2012 Senate landscape looks good for Republicans
 
Catawba said:
That is not what ocurred during the 50 years we had a progressive tax system.
Click to expand...

your druthers are off the table

obama just signed into law the BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

bubba clinton stood beside him

reality's ugly, but ya still gotta deal with it
 
The Prof said:
your druthers are off the table

obama just signed into law the BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

bubba clinton stood beside him

reality's ugly, but ya still gotta deal with it
Click to expand...

They were wrong. But it will have to be dealt with in any case after spending cuts if we are to reduce the National debt. The only other way would be to raise taxes on the middle class who are already suffering, and I don't think that is going to fly any longer politically.

As they say you can pay me now or pay me later. Sooner or later a progressive tax system will have to be restored to reduce the National debt.
 
you're a splinter if you're not aboard the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts

ie, your druthers aint gonna happen in this orbit

the national debt is as far as jupiter

more power to you, of course
 
The Prof said:
you're a splinter if you're not aboard the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts

ie, your druthers aint gonna happen in this orbit

the national debt is as far as jupiter

more power to you, of course
Click to expand...

Of course, I was only suggesting what needs to be done to seriously address our debt.

My best to you, and us all!
 
yes, and you do so with a great deal of self respect

i sincerely feel uplifted by your conduct

thanks, stay up
 
Catawba said:
Correction: we used to have a progressive tax system until it was slashed by Reagan and Bush.
Click to expand...

You don't call this progressive taxation? :roll:

Tax Rate.......Married Couples Filing Jointly...........Most Single Filers
10%...................Not over $17,050....................Not over $8,525
15%..................$17,050 – $69,300..................$8,525 – $34,650
25%..................$69,300 – $139,850................$34,650 – $83,900
28%.................$139,850 – $235,550...............$83,900 – $194,150
36%.................$235,550 – $380,500..............$194,150 – $380,500
39.6%..................Over $380,500........................Over $380,500
 
You still aren't understanding the roles of the varying branches of Gov.

ALL spending originates in the House....they haven't "killed" or "repealed" anything...they can't...but NEITHER can the Bamster get any money for it now ;)

In short, at this point it's finished, and the SC will rule against it.

BTW, the the majority of Amercicans DID/DO not want the Public Option :)



Sgt Meowenstein said:
No, I'm not. I'm saying the House can vote to kill it all they want. But until it passes the Senate and gets signed by Obama, the spending bill goes nowhere. Is this really that hard to understand? The House passes a bill. It then goes to the Senate. If the House and Senate can agree and draft a final bill, it then goes to the president to sign or veto. In its present form this bill will not only die in the Senate, but even if by some miracle it gets passed the Senate, Obama will veto it. Do you really believe that Obama will not veto a bill that essentially kills his signature legislation?

You can wish all you want that the SCOTUS will strike down the law, but that doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
 
reefedjib said:
You don't call this progressive taxation? :roll:

Tax Rate.......Married Couples Filing Jointly...........Most Single Filers
10%...................Not over $17,050....................Not over $8,525
15%..................$17,050 – $69,300..................$8,525 – $34,650
25%..................$69,300 – $139,850................$34,650 – $83,900
28%.................$139,850 – $235,550...............$83,900 – $194,150
36%.................$235,550 – $380,500..............$194,150 – $380,500
39.6%..................Over $380,500........................Over $380,500
Click to expand...


It is only really progressive for the bottom 20% of income earners. After that, it starts to level off thanks the Reagan/Bush tax cuts for the top tax brackets.
"Citizens for Tax Justice, a research group that's been studying tax issues from its offices in Washington since 1979, provides the information we need. When all taxes (not just income taxes) are taken into account, the lowest 20% of earners (who average about $12,400 per year), paid 16.0% of their income to taxes in 2009; and the next 20% (about $25,000/year), paid 20.5% in taxes. So if we only examine these first two steps, the tax system looks like it is going to be progressive.
And it keeps looking progressive as we move further up the ladder: the middle 20% (about $33,400/year) give 25.3% of their income to various forms of taxation, and the next 20% (about $66,000/year) pay 28.5%. So taxes are progressive for the bottom 80%. But if we break the top 20% down into smaller chunks, we find that progressivity starts to slow down, then it stops, and then it slips backwards for the top 1%.
Specifically, the next 10% (about $100,000/year) pay 30.2% of their income as taxes; the next 5% ($141,000/year) dole out 31.2% of their earnings for taxes; and the next 4% ($245,000/year) pay 31.6% to taxes. You'll note that the progressivity is slowing down. As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays."
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The Reagan/Bush tax cuts slashed the tax rates for the top earners. It is easy to see just how much less progressive our tax rates are today for the top income earners in this graph:

6a00d83454b17a69e20115711eec3b970b-800wi

Top Marginal Tax rates since 1913 & Great Depression (Designing better futures)
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
The President isn't King, the Senate has a slim majority for the Dem's and Obama will be forced to shut down the gov't or sign the bill.
Click to expand...

If they shut down, I hope Obama never signs the bill... Then we can throw all their @sses out and start from scratch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom