• 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: I'll cut $4 trillion

danarhea said:
Income tax is not Communist at all. In fact, there are only 2 ways to fund the government:

1) By accumulating debt

AND

2) By raising taxes to pay for it

There are no other ways,
Click to expand...
That's not technically true. Many government services are purely fee based and require no debt or tax. Another common approach is used to fund certain infrastructure projects where a city might issue revenue bonds to fund the construction of a road, bridge or airport and then charge per-use fees to recover the cost.

danarhea said:
a) The Pentagon - By far, the largest chunk of the money we spend.

b) Medicare and Medicaid.
Click to expand...
Actually, Medicare and Medicaid is the biggest chunk of money we spend, and will only continue to distance itself from other areas over the next few years.
 
boehnerpelosi_reuters_kevinlamarque.jpg



The republican plan for 2012.:mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
so here is what we need to do
Click to expand...

not a bad start

too bad president slash can't and won't ever go there

hey, slash, service on the debt, MERE INTEREST ALONE, is fast racing towards a full ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR

quit making speeches and TAKE ACTION

in other words, tell harry to HURRY
 
justabubba;1059412497]

if only you were correct. then we would not need government funding for a social safety net to assist those who are in no position to assist themselves. but the reality that you and those of your ilk prefer to ignore is that there are huge numbers of our people who need assistance thru no fault of their own. your kind would prefer that they go away, never to be seen so that you don't have to view their plight. but that is an unrealistic expectation. despite the fact that there is a genuine need for our society to care for the least among us - notice that Christian value - the reich wing makes no provision for their care. it's worse actually, they rail against the expenditures of taxpayer dollars to fund this genuine need. each one of them should be required to forfeit their wwjd bracelet
Click to expand...

I am not being condescending but where did you get your education? Where is it in the Constitution that the Federal Govt. should fund a Social Safety Net and why do you buy the statement that they can do it better than the states and local communities? There is a genuine need for help from society to care for those incapable of taking care of themselves but not to this level and certainly not by a bureaucrat in D.C. Social Security has been funded by FICA since existence and what did the govt. do with the money but put it on Budget and spend it on everything but SS. It is now an unfunded liability because bureaucrats wasted the money. Why aren't people like you ever focused on that reality?

another area where there is a chasm between our views. your cohort has no problem spending a $Trillion of borrowed money and too too many young American lives to take out a two bit dictator (we formerly propped up) while simultaneously allowing our infrastructure, education and economy back home to decay. that war had nothing to do with self defense. which tells me that we allocate too much money for the military. here is an extra point question. how many military facilities does the USA maintain, both in the USA and abroad ... and why are those military facilities in foreign lands essential to our self defense?
Click to expand...

Where do you get your information? trillions of borrowed money? The cost of the wars have been 1.2 trillion dollars over 10 years that is 120 billion a year out of the 3 trillion dollar budgets. You have so much invested in hatred that you cannot see how foolish you sound. What we fund overseas is taken out of the defense budget of 700 billion dollars. It isn't borrowed money but it is the responsibility of the govt. to defend this country. Do we need that kind of spending? Probably not but there is more than enough revenue to fund the defense of this country.

this one is too easy. if the states and local communities were addressing this problem then there would be nothing for the federal government to have to care for. unfortunately, that is not the reality. notice how we keep coming back to your kind refusing to acknowledge reality. the mascot of the GOP should actually be an ostrich
Click to expand...

What does a bureaucrat in D.C. know about a problem in your area? If the states and local communities aren't addressing the problem why don't you take action against the elected officials who are closer to you than a bureaucrat in D.C. who is 1 of 435 in the house. Easy to hide in D.C. behind the votes of some other politician who votes against your state. It is easier for you to shirk your responsibility at the state level just like it is easier for a politician in D.C. to shirk theirs. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

just as with providing for the least among us, the states and local communities have not fully addressed the educational needs of our nation, causing the federal government to also have a role. now, since the state and local governments pony up 89.2% of the total cost of elementary and secondary education, the participation by the federal sector is comparably small - but certainly present. notably, those federal dollars are not just provided by the department of education but also HHS (head start) and agriculture (lunch program). the administrative cost of the department of education is about 1-2%, meaning that at least 98 cents of each tax dollar goes into the local school systems. given the disparity of educational attainment because there is no centralized focus, there are some of us who believe that there is insufficient federal involvement in the education system, resulting in 30% of our society not graduating from high school. but then, you must be OK with that inadequacy and don't mind paying the subsequent costs of incarceration and government support required disproportionately by those with the least education. as utah's signature reads, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have a problem with your state govt. so why don't you move? You think it is the Federal govt's responsibility to handle the issue? Why? The centralized focus which is one size fits all doesn't work,never has and has created the current 14.3 trillion dollar debt

i missed the post where i insisted there was no excise tax. please point it out
if our infrastructure was sound and nothing more needed to be constructed or maintained then we would be able to acknowledge that the excise tax was sufficient to cover our nation's infrastructure costs. so, are you telling us that we need no more roads paved, or resurfaced, no more mass transit built and maintained, no more airports built or upgraded, no more ports enhanced to accommodate ever larger ships, no more waterways dredged? if so, then your position is sound. but if the reality is that all of those things continue to be needed but are not being done, then i will submit that the present excise tax is found insufficient to keep up
Click to expand...

You are the one that insisted there wasn't enough money to for infrastructure but not one bit of concern over where the money is going. Why are excise taxes put on budget and not spent on the roads and other infrastructure expenses? The Federal Govt is good at one thing, spending money and creating liabilities for the state after they did the initial investment.

.[/color]this had nothing to do with socialism. if you will notice, those countries with strong socialist practices are often found to be among the most desirable nations in the world in which to live. what allowed the US dollar to become dominant was our industry ... that and we were the only intact industrial power after WWII ... and significantly, until the regan era, our nation practiced sound fiscal policy
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for you, man, you have been brainwashed. one of these days you will indeed grow up, I was where you were a long time ago, I did grow up and you will too.

By the way, learn how to use quotes, I cleaned up your mess.
 
The Prof said:
not a bad start

too bad president slash can't and won't ever go there

hey, slash, service on the debt, MERE INTEREST ALONE, is fast racing towards a full ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR

quit making speeches and TAKE ACTION

in other words, tell harry to HURRY
Click to expand...

advocating the republican approach:

READY

FIRE

AIM
 
Whovian said:
By all means... lets just keep throwing speeches at the problem and 'hope' things 'change' and it goes away! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

or we could adopt the republican/dicknbush approach and go and do unplanned crap that creates a huge mess for someone to clean up behind
 
"Tax and Spend" or "Don't tax, but spend anyway." You must choose one.
 
justabubba said:
advocating the republican approach:

READY

FIRE

AIM
Click to expand...

Unlike the Democrat plan, Let the Federal Govt. solve the problem since they are further from the problem and can get people from other states to pay for your personal responsibility through their Federal Income taxes, but only the 53% of income earners that actually pay taxes. Let's keep the people dependent and thus gain more power, right?
 
ADG said:
And explain how ending the tax break on those making 250k or more from 35% to 39% is a punishment. Explain how this would be a progressive tax when it would simply put the tax rate back to where it was in the '90's. What was Reagan's tax rates? If we go back to the rates in the '80's or '90's this would be a regressive tax rate, I guess.
Click to expand...
The tax rate would be more progressive by definition: "A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases." Reagan's top marginal rate was yes, much lower - but it was still progressive.

A regressive tax would increase the effective tax rate for those with lower incomes. Examples are efforts to tax sins (cigarettes and alcohol) and stupidity (lottery).
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
The tax rate would be more progressive by definition: "A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases." Reagan's top marginal rate was yes, much lower - but it was still progressive.

A regressive tax would increase the effective tax rate for those with lower incomes. Examples are efferts to tax sins (cigarettes and alcohol) and stupidity (lottery).
Click to expand...

Does anyone think that the implementation of the Progressive tax system was to establish a system in which 53% of the income earners paid all the taxes and 47% paid zero?
 
ADG said:
And explain how ending the tax break on those making 250k or more from 35% to 39% is a punishment.
Click to expand...
It would only make the situation worse. "The Rich" - whether you define that as those making 250k or more, the top 1%, the top 5% or even the top 20% (in 2010, households with incomes more than $88,000) pay a greater share of taxes now and throughout the Bush years than at any time going back to 1979 (the earliest year for which I can find statistics).

We presently find ourselves in a situation where 80% of taxpayers either shoulder half the burden they paid in the 70's, or pay nothing at all and instead make money off of the income tax. If anyone is not paying their "fair share" it's this group.

If you want to raise taxes, it needs to be across the board. Maybe when people are actually paying for the services they receive, they'll be more responsible with what they demand.
 
Whovian said:
By all means... lets just keep throwing speeches at the problem and 'hope' things 'change' and it goes away! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

let's take a look at what the republicans are up to:
House Republicans scrambled Friday to vote down their own extremely conservative budget after Democrats called their bluff and withheld opposition, forcing GOP lawmakers to defeat the bill themselves. ... It sought to make massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare while providing even larger tax breaks for high income earners. ... all 172 Democrats in the chamber voted "present." That shocked Republicans, forcing some of them to flip their "yes" votes to "no" in order to defeat the bill that would otherwise have passed with a majority.
Click to expand...
hoist, by their own petard
gotta love the move by the demos to embarrass the republicans into voting down their own amendment
Dems call GOP’s bluff, force House Republicans to vote down their own budget | The Raw Story
 
Taylor said:
It would only make the situation worse. "The Rich" - whether you define that as those making 250k or more, the top 1%, the top 5% or even the top 20% (in 2010, households with incomes more than $88,000) pay a greater share of taxes now and throughout the Bush years than at any time going back to 1979 (the earliest year for which I can find statistics).

We presently find ourselves in a situation where 80% of taxpayers either shoulder half the burden they paid in the 70's, or pay nothing at all and instead make money off of the income tax. If anyone is not paying their "fair share" it's this group.

If you want to raise taxes, it needs to be across the board. Maybe when people are actually paying for the services they receive, they'll be more responsible with what they demand.
Click to expand...

i didn't quite understand your post, but i completely disagree that we need to raise taxes on everyone. as a middle class taxpayer, i wouldn't mind a bump, but of course the larger increase needs to go to the wealthy. period, no way around it. they did just fine at the higher rate.
 
this was an excellent speechless speech responding to the republican counter to Obama's most recent address:
 
liblady said:
but of course the larger increase needs to go to the wealthy. period, no way around it. they did just fine at the higher rate.
Click to expand...
By that logic, so did everybody else :shrug:
 
justabubba said:
this was an excellent speechless speech responding to the republican counter to Obama's most recent address:
Click to expand...



They pretty well got it said without saying a word...good post.:thumbs:
 
Taylor said:
By that logic, so did everybody else :shrug:
Click to expand...

as i posted, i think the middle class rates could stand a bump as well. i don't think there is any way around it.
 
liblady said:
i didn't quite understand your post, but i completely disagree that we need to raise taxes on everyone. as a middle class taxpayer, i wouldn't mind a bump, but of course the larger increase needs to go to the wealthy. period, no way around it. they did just fine at the higher rate.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true patriot. People should share the burden, except for me.

I have no problem with a desire to have a viable social safety net. What surprises me with most current liberals is that they want government to do things but don't feel as a country we should pay for it. Sort of like going to a fine restaurant having a geat meal and fine wine and then when the bill comes says in astonishment I can't pay for that. look around the room looking for someone wearing a rolex and tell the waiter send him the bill he can afford it.

It is sad that the republicans are also so dogmatic on what is a relatively small change in their tax rate. But do not recommend cuts in things like defense that are also not paid for.

So here is what I would propose. Congresspeople can spend whatever they think their constiuents want with the proviso that you realy pay for. Change the rules for CBO scring so they do more than just add what whatever nonsense congress says someone will cost or save. They should have real non-partisan analysts who do the work of figuring out what something costs. I understand that there is always the problem that different people looking at the same set of facts can wind up with very different answers. Not because they are biased but because no one has a crystal ball and knows exactly what the result of an taken today will be in 10 months let alone 10 years.
 
washunut said:
Spoken like a true patriot. People should share the burden, except for me.

I have no problem with a desire to have a viable social safety net. What surprises me with most current liberals is that they want government to do things but don't feel as a country we should pay for it. Sort of like going to a fine restaurant having a geat meal and fine wine and then when the bill comes says in astonishment I can't pay for that. look around the room looking for someone wearing a rolex and tell the waiter send him the bill he can afford it.

It is sad that the republicans are also so dogmatic on what is a relatively small change in their tax rate. But do not recommend cuts in things like defense that are also not paid for.

So here is what I would propose. Congresspeople can spend whatever they think their constiuents want with the proviso that you realy pay for. Change the rules for CBO scring so they do more than just add what whatever nonsense congress says someone will cost or save. They should have real non-partisan analysts who do the work of figuring out what something costs. I understand that there is always the problem that different people looking at the same set of facts can wind up with very different answers. Not because they are biased but because no one has a crystal ball and knows exactly what the result of an taken today will be in 10 months let alone 10 years.
Click to expand...

lol...do you think i'm poor? i am middle class and i specifically posted that i could stand a bump. and i am a liberal. the lower middle class and poor already have enough of a burden, don't you think? a true patriot would care about his fellow citizens.
 
justabubba said:
gotta love the move by the demos to embarrass the republicans into voting down their own amendment
Click to expand...

The House on Friday approved a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution from Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that seeks to drastically limit government spending next year and in years to follow.

But the vote on the measure — which imposes $5.8 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade — came after a clear sign that at least half of the Republican Caucus supports even tougher spending cuts.

The final tally was 235-193, with four Republicans opposing it. Every Democrat voted "no."
Click to expand...

House passes Ryan's '12 budget; conservatives want more cuts - The Hill's On The Money

with americans demanding SOLUTIONS, the party proffers cheap parliamentarian procedurals

pathetic

it's your move, harry

hurry!

leadership, anyone?
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
lol...do you think i'm poor? i am middle class and i specifically posted that i could stand a bump. and i am a liberal. the lower middle class and poor already have enough of a burden, don't you think? a true patriot would care about his fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

A true Patriot wouldn't expect someone else to take care of those truly in need but instead would do it themselves through their local charities and church. A true Patriot would do like our Founders did support a smaller central govt. that protects the country and allows the people in the states and local communities solve their own social problems vs. promoting federal social engineering by bureaucrats that are never held accountable for failure and the lack of results are indeed failure.
 
1. why didn't president slash submit his "proposals" in writing?

2. when do you expect him to?

3. when will harry reid put forward a plan of action?

4. what exactly will it include?

5. why did the president's 2012 budget raise borrowing 20% over awful 09?

6. why did the party fail to produce a blueprint for 11?

7. why did the president punt on the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts until the last possible second?

8. why did the slasher mention nothing about this new "plan" of his in his state of the union, just last january?

9. why has the senate failed to move on hr1, neither up nor down nor sideways?

10. what happened to bowles-simpson, slash?

leadership, anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom