• 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

Grant said:
We can have everything we want if we just pass laws making others pay for it. That should work for a while.
Click to expand...

The SS tax rate was raised almost 30 years ago. Those who are poised to start receiving benefits have been paying a higher than required rate for quite a while in anticipation of these years.

Yes, I know all about the politicians spending the surplus rather than raising taxes or cutting spending. That doesn't change the fact that those about to receive benefits paid extra into the system for many, many years.
 
Grant said:
We can have everything we want if we just pass laws making others pay for it. That should work for a while.
Click to expand...

That's a blanket statement if I have ever heard one. If we cut everyone else's taxes but yours so would that make you happier? That way we can have nothing and tax no one else.
 
The Prof said:
if obama wants to shut down the govt over the continuing resolution that emerges from house-senate reconciliation, let him

but he won't---the mere suggestion is laughable

party on, plastic parliamentarians
Click to expand...

What's laughable is your suggestion that Obama won't veto a bill that kills his signature legislation.
 
Catawba said:
Certainly, and the first revision should be to raise the $106,000 cap for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

how do you raise the 106K cap only for the wealthy? Or do you consider that amount a lot.
 
Catawba said:
What is your fault with the CBS poll? Please post your polls that say otherwise.
Click to expand...

Oey vey. I made a comment about each of those sites being liberal. I never stated that I faulted the polls. I'll do that if I decide to look at each of the sites themselves instead of just relying on one site that is claiming something and if I find something wrong with the methods themselves.

IE it was just a passing comment.
 
Catawba said:
Not at all, only their fair share.
Click to expand...

I want the job of deciding what's fair but it seems you find yourself up to the job also.

In fact taking other people's money is something anyone can do, if we have the law or the weaponry to support us.

I suppose what's fair is whatever those with power say it is.
 
whysoserious said:
That's a blanket statement if I have ever heard one. If we cut everyone else's taxes but yours so would that make you happier? That way we can have nothing and tax no one else.
Click to expand...

If you want to go to extremes why not tax everyone 100%?

That way we'll all be rich.
 
BWG said:
The SS tax rate was raised almost 30 years ago. Those who are poised to start receiving benefits have been paying a higher than required rate for quite a while in anticipation of these years.

Yes, I know all about the politicians spending the surplus rather than raising taxes or cutting spending. That doesn't change the fact that those about to receive benefits paid extra into the system for many, many years.
Click to expand...

And the next generation will be paying as well, but they'll get nothing. That is certain.

Americans, like the Europeans and others, have come to rely on the government to support them despite knowing the reputation of politicians. The hope lingers that this time maybe it will b different despite clear evidence that they cannot be trusted to look after today, much less tomorrow. It's Lucy holding the football while Charlie Brown convinces himself that this time it just might work.

And of course there are many who will grab the money you save for your future because they think it's "fair" that the government should have it instead.

What folly, insanity in fact, to put your future and that of your family in the hands of politicians.
 
washunut said:
how do you raise the 106K cap only for the wealthy? Or do you consider that amount a lot.
Click to expand...

As it is currently set up, a person only has to pay into SS on annual income up to the $106,000 cap. Raise the cap and and lock the funds from being used to offset other costs as has been done in the past by both parties and SS is solvent again.
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
Just curious, what do you consider "their" fair share? Top end something that they should never pay more then?
Click to expand...

Grant said:
I want the job of deciding what's fair but it seems you find yourself up to the job also.

In fact taking other people's money is something anyone can do, if we have the law or the weaponry to support us.

I suppose what's fair is whatever those with power say it is.
Click to expand...

If might makes right than I suppose that would be correct. However, if looked at from the perspective of equality, since studies have documented that the top 20% own 85% of wealth in the country, that tax class should pay 85% of the taxes, which is very close to the progressive tax rates our forefathers established and were in use during the 50 year period that was the most prosperous time for the most people in our history, until they were slashed by Reagan and Bush.
 
Catawba said:
if looked at from the perspective of equality, since studies have documented that the top 20% own 85% of wealth in the country, that tax class should pay 85% of the taxes
Click to expand...

Bull****. Taxation is not asset-based, it is income based (except for property taxes, but that is a local affair). If the top 20% of income earners earns 85% of income, then at a flat rate of 22%, they would pay 85% of the taxes. Progressive taxation is unfair, inequitable and represents leftist wealth redistribution. It is wrong.
 
Originally Posted by Catawba

And where did the debt come from? Trillions of it are from nation building wars of choice and tax cuts for the wealthy. And the same party that (talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk) is the party that spent the money. Obama has proposed a 1.1 trillion dollar reduction in spending over a 10 year period. Please link me to a GOP budget proposal in the last decade which cut spending as much.
Click to expand...

Really a profound statement don't you think? In 4 years of budgetary control of the democrats, the yearly budget has risen just over 30% in two years under Obama it has risen narly 24% and now we are suppose to be impressed by a spending cut of 1.1 trillion over 10 years or 111 Billion dollars a year?

So your profound statement is show me where the republicans have ever decreased spending by 111 billion dollars a year, should have this added, after increasing the budget by 700 billion in two years. Or in simple terms, where republican's have shown a budget deficit of 589 billion for the next ten years.

Hell, isn't that just about the deficit per year that Bush added? Must mean you are satisfied with that ?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
If might makes right than I suppose that would be correct. However, if looked at from the perspective of equality, since studies have documented that the top 20% own 85% of wealth in the country, that tax class should pay 85% of the taxes, which is very close to the progressive tax rates our forefathers established and were in use during the 50 year period that was the most prosperous time for the most people in our history, until they were slashed by Reagan and Bush.
Click to expand...


Okay I can agree with that, you are aware tho that right now, the top 20% pay 80% of all taxes paid? So you are saying that a nominal rate increase of 2 to 3 % for the top 20% of wage earners, would do?

you also realize that is going to be an increase to those making between 80 and 85 thousand dollars a year right ?
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
Really a profound statement don't you think? In 4 years of budgetary control of the democrats, the yearly budget has risen just over 30% in two years under Obama it has risen narly 24% and now we are suppose to be impressed by a spending cut of 1.1 trillion over 10 years or 111 Billion dollars a year?

So your profound statement is show me where the republicans have ever decreased spending by 111 billion dollars a year, should have this added, after increasing the budget by 700 billion in two years. Or in simple terms, where republican's have shown a budget deficit of 589 billion for the next ten years.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting about the bailouts and stimuluses that were recommended by most economists. I would guess that's were most of that increased spending came from, isn't it? Also, don't worry, I can do your job for you. The republicans did propose a budget:

The Washington Monthly
The republicans pushed forward a bill to do what? Cut spending by about a trillion over ten years? Wow, that sounds familiar... oh wait, it is the exact same amount that Obama put forth. How did the GOP receive Obama's plan?

Jeff Sessions said:
"No, it's not. This is a ten-year budget. It sets the president's plans and what the country should do for the next 10 years.... $1 trillion reduction is insignificant and does not get us off the right course."
Click to expand...

It is insignificant when Obama posed it. But, 5 minutes later, what did Jeff Sessions think about the GOP proposal?

Jeff Sessions said:
"[E]ven the $100 billion House proposal in reducing spending will amount to $1 trillion. And that's a step. I mean, because, you carry it out for ten years and you save $1 trillion in that fashion."
Click to expand...

Now, if this was just some random republican it wouldn't be a big deal. You could say he's just an idiot and doesn't speak for the group, but unfortunately, this is not the case. He isn't just some republican and he does speak for the group. You see, Jeff Sessions is the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

Any questions? Now go ahead and throw out a straw man, change the subject, and deny everything I just wrote.
 
whysoserious;1059298153]You are forgetting about the bailouts and stimuluses that were recommended by most economists. I would guess that's were most of that increased spending came from, isn't it? Also, don't worry, I can do your job for you. The republicans did propose a budget:

The Washington Monthly
The republicans pushed forward a bill to do what? Cut spending by about a trillion over ten years? Wow, that sounds familiar... oh wait, it is the exact same amount that Obama put forth. How did the GOP receive Obama's plan?

It is insignificant when Obama posed it. But, 5 minutes later, what did Jeff Sessions think about the GOP proposal?

Now, if this was just some random republican it wouldn't be a big deal. You could say he's just an idiot and doesn't speak for the group, but unfortunately, this is not the case. He isn't just some republican and he does speak for the group. You see, Jeff Sessions is the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

Any questions? Now go ahead and throw out a straw man, change the subject, and deny everything I just wrote.
Click to expand...

No argument needed, I simply answered a question of show me where the republicans ever suggested cutting the budget by 1.1 trillion over 10 years, I showed what that statement should have been, that he (Obama) raised spending by 700 billion dollars, are you denying that he did that ?
Are you denying that his spending cuts after his spending increases will leave a deficit of 589 billion a year?
Are you denying that the 700 billion in increased spending had anything to do with republican's, if so show me what bill they passed over the last two years.
Now last time I looked, the republican's have been in charge of one leg of the government for all of a month and half now, and proposed cuts of 100 billion, compared to the last two years of more spending of 700 billion . While I'll agree, that it's not enough, at least they are started in the right direction...........
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
No argument needed, I simply answered a question of show me where the republicans ever suggested cutting the budget by 1.1 trillion over 10 years, I showed what that statement should have been, that he (Obama) raised spending by 700 billion dollars, are you denying that he did that ?
Are you denying that his spending cuts after his spending increases will leave a deficit of 589 billion a year?
Are you denying that the 700 billion in increased spending had anything to do with republican's, if so show me what bill they passed over the last two years.
Now last time I looked, the republican's have been in charge of one leg of the government for all of a month and half now, and proposed cuts of 100 billion, compared to the last two years of more spending of 700 billion . While I'll agree, that it's not enough, at least they are started in the right direction...........
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think it is fair to talk about spending. The first bailout was in fact proposed and accepted by the Bush administration. He was not in office long enough to know exactly what he or republicans would have done, but judging by his only action it looks like he would have thrown money at it as well.

But fair enough. I'll concede Congress and Obama have spent more than they have cut. I am mostly just trying to point out how futile the blame game is. Both of the parties have allowed us to get into the situation that we are in and if they don't get better advisers to help them compromise and get us out, we're going to be screwed no matter who we blame.
 
Catawba said:
If might makes right than I suppose that would be correct. However, if looked at from the perspective of equality, since studies have documented that the top 20% own 85% of wealth in the country, that tax class should pay 85% of the taxes, which is very close to the progressive tax rates our forefathers established and were in use during the 50 year period that was the most prosperous time for the most people in our history, until they were slashed by Reagan and Bush.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel everyone should be financially equal? Is life all about money? Can't you enjoy yourself or look after yourself without relying on others? What do you care what other people own? Is that really any of your business? Are you unable to work? To save? To look to your own future?

If history tells us anything it is that economies run on cycles, and you obviously know nothing of the Carter years.

As a result of the American people becoming envious and jealous of what their fellow Americans might have, and will become dependent on government rather than the self reliant people they once were, it is a genuine game changer. The idea of planning for lean years in times of plenty is gone. Anyone trying to save for the bad times ahead will have their savings taxed to meet unrealistic social programs of the present, and there will be no inheritance for children either. The Me Generation. led by a Yuppie quite unfamiliar with the real world,will have an irreversible consequence for the future of the country.
 
whysoserious said:
Again, I don't think it is fair to talk about spending. The first bailout was in fact proposed and accepted by the Bush administration. He was not in office long enough to know exactly what he or republicans would have done, but judging by his only action it looks like he would have thrown money at it as well.

But fair enough. I'll concede Congress and Obama have spent more than they have cut. I am mostly just trying to point out how futile the blame game is. Both of the parties have allowed us to get into the situation that we are in and if they don't get better advisers to help them compromise and get us out, we're going to be screwed no matter who we blame.
Click to expand...

The people have only themselves to blame for allowing politiiicans to bribe them with the money of their fellow citizens, pitting one against the other..

A flat tax would help alleviate this and would encourage those who make a lot of money to work longer. Right now they stop producing when they reach the high end tax bracket, and that does no one any good, either the country or their employees.
 
whysoserious said:
Again, I don't think it is fair to talk about spending. The first bailout was in fact proposed and accepted by the Bush administration. He was not in office long enough to know exactly what he or republicans would have done, but judging by his only action it looks like he would have thrown money at it as well.

But fair enough. I'll concede Congress and Obama have spent more than they have cut. I am mostly just trying to point out how futile the blame game is. Both of the parties have allowed us to get into the situation that we are in and if they don't get better advisers to help them compromise and get us out, we're going to be screwed no matter who we blame.
Click to expand...

-chuckles- see we really aren't so far apart, because we agree that neither party has been conservative when it comes to spending.

I agree with are in so deep now, that not only our politicians, but the public needs to be aware that it's going to hurt of pull us out of this. There are going to have to be serious spending cuts, and yes I'm conservative, but I don't see any way out without some tax increases. I was one that was in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

When you look at our deficit, then think of what is needed to reduce it, hell a reduction of 500 billion dollars a year, is still going to take us 30 years to pay if off …. thats not a balanced budget, but 500 billion dollar surplus, and we aren't ever going to get that on just spending cuts, or just increasing taxes.
 
reefedjib said:
Bull****. Taxation is not asset-based, it is income based (except for property taxes, but that is a local affair). If the top 20% of income earners earns 85% of income, then at a flat rate of 22%, they would pay 85% of the taxes. Progressive taxation is unfair, inequitable and represents leftist wealth redistribution. It is wrong.
Click to expand...

Please explain how you arrived at that?
 
Grant said:
The people have only themselves to blame for allowing politiiicans to bribe them with the money of their fellow citizens, pitting one against the other..

A flat tax would help alleviate this and would encourage those who make a lot of money to work longer. Right now they stop producing when they reach the high end tax bracket, and that does no one any good, either the country or their employees.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they stop producing? They just move assests around, protect, and hide them. Some of the wealthiest people in the world make billions per year and pay a marginal rate of 17%.
 
The Barbarian said:
Really a profound statement don't you think? In 4 years of budgetary control of the democrats, the yearly budget has risen just over 30% in two years under Obama it has risen narly 24% and now we are suppose to be impressed by a spending cut of 1.1 trillion over 10 years or 111 Billion dollars a year?

So your profound statement is show me where the republicans have ever decreased spending by 111 billion dollars a year, should have this added, after increasing the budget by 700 billion in two years. Or in simple terms, where republican's have shown a budget deficit of 589 billion for the next ten years.

Hell, isn't that just about the deficit per year that Bush added? Must mean you are satisfied with that ?
Click to expand...

Money had to be spent to clean up the mess from the previous 12 years to prevent economic collapse. Please tell me how much per year did Republican congress in control for 12 years cut in spending per year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom