• 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 GOP: I’m done negotiating with myself

Why should they? They have hurt our economy and the great majority of Americans don't support them.

Have they hurt our economy or are you just parroting Obama?
 
Have you forgotten, or were you ever aware, that the Bush tax cuts were temporary.

10 years and an Obama extension later they are now temporary?

Again Obama is the one who said you don't raise taxes during a recession. Was he wrong in your opinion?
 
Why should they? They have hurt our economy and the great majority of Americans don't support them.

Hurt the Economy how?

Revenue to the Treasury DOUBLED after the Bush tax cuts went into effect

If we were growing annually at 4% GDP instead of 1.3%, maybe we would have the money to pay for all this. Unfortunately for the country Obama's Economic Policies are a disaster and it has crippled our Economy and Economic Growth.
 
Why should they? They have hurt our economy and the great majority of Americans don't support them.

Don't you want economic growth? Don't you want a repeat of the boom times we had with trickle-down economics under Reagan?
 
So are you admitting that the majority of the American People aren't currently living in reality?

On CBS, Cheesecake Factory CEO Warns ObamaCare Will Be 'Very Costly' | NewsBusters.org

Do you understand how Economics works? If you raise taxes on the evil rich and small businesses, do you REALLY believe they are just going to eat those additional costs?



I am aware no such thing happened neither during the 90's before the Bush tax cuts, nor when they were much higher for the wealthy from the 1940's to the 1980's. Apparently, the majority of American public is more resistant to BS than are some.
 
I am aware no such thing happened neither during the 90's before the Bush tax cuts, nor when they were much higher for the wealthy from the 1940's to the 1980's. Apparently, the majority of American public is more resistant to BS than are some.

Oh here we go with that wonderful talking point where in the end it comes out that no one actually paid the rates being talked about and the reason they were lowered is because they were damaging to the economy.
 
I am aware no such thing happened neither during the 90's before the Bush tax cuts, nor when they were much higher for the wealthy from the 1940's to the 1980's. Apparently, the majority of American public is more resistant to BS than are some.

You really need to study up if you want to attempt to debate me on this

Nobody paid those rates back then. There were so many loopholes and deductions, nobody paid them. You're just bleeting some useless talking point you read on Daily Kos.

When Reagan lowered the marginal rates from 70% to 28% he eliminated many of those loopholes and deductions. The result was MASSIVE Economic Growth as high as 9.3% GDP in one quarter with a million jobs created in one month.

So let's get deeper into this. If we raise taxes on small business and the evil rich, what do you predict GDP Growth will be
 
I wonder if all those middle class people think their tax rates for the last ten years were temporary and are ready to give them up? I bet on both the answer is no.

I repeat, the Democrat have already acted to continue the tax cuts for the middle class. The Republicans have not.
 
I repeat, the Democrat have already acted to continue the tax cuts for the middle class. The Republicans have not.

And I repeat they refuse to allow them to continue for all americans like the republicans want. Just got to hold out for that class warfare, right?
 
Have they hurt our economy or are you just parroting Obama?

You don't think the National Debt affects the economy?
 
You don't think the National Debt affects the economy?

You do realize there was TWO parts to the plan rolled out by Bush, right? Guess which part was never done? Which part do you think caused the debt?

And the economy was in fact in good shape after the tax cuts.
 
Last edited:
Don't you want economic growth? Don't you want a repeat of the boom times we had with trickle-down economics under Reagan?

I prefer stable economic growth, not the boom followed by recession or depression that the Republicans bring us.
 
I repeat, the Democrat have already acted to continue the tax cuts for the middle class. The Republicans have not.

Obama and the Democrats have enacted the largest tax increase on the poor and middle class in History

Try again
 
I prefer stable economic growth, not the boom followed by recession or depression that the Republicans bring us.

Hahahahaha

1.3% GDP Growth with 9% Unemployment is stable?

15% Black Unemployment is stable?

6 trillion in new debt within 4 years is stable?

HAHAHAHAHA

clownface.jpg
 
The Romney-Ryan plan carries absolutely no weight now but if crying makes you feel better, knock yourself out!

"Boehner argued that it doesn’t matter whether new revenue comes from the wealthy or the middle class.

Listen, what is this difference where the money comes from? We put $800 billion worth of revenue, which is what he is asking for, out of eliminating the top two tax rates. But, here’s the problem, Chris, when you go and increase tax rates, you make it more difficult for our economy to grow, after that income, the small business income, it is going to get taxed at a higher rate and as a result we’re gonna see slower economic growth, we can’t cut our way out of this problem, nor can we grow our way out of the problem, we have to have a balanced approach and what the president wants to do will slow or economy at a time when he says he wants the economy to grow and create jobs.

Boehner is wrong on two points. First, there is no reason to believe that restoring Clinton-era tax rates on incomes over $250,000 will prevent the economy from growing; on the contrary, rate increases on the wealthy in 1992 and 1994 were followed by a tremendous economic boom. Second, it clearly matters where the revenue comes from; as Boehner and the Republicans’ own rhetoric acknowledges, the middle class needs fiscal relief — not an increased burden.

The full interview between Boehner and Wallace can be seen here; the exchange on tax rates begins at the 5:33 mark.

Perhaps Boehner doesn’t care where new revenue comes from because he hasn’t yet figured it out. When Wallace pressed Boehner to name specific loopholes and deductions that he’d be willing to eliminate in order to make up the revenue lost by extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Boehner declined — as Romney and Paul Ryan did repeatedly during the campaign – telling Wallace, “I’m not going to debate this or negotiate this with you.”

The National Memo » Boehner: No Difference Between Raising Revenue From Middle Class Or Wealthy

Ryan is a member of Congress. Last I heard, the Constitution still required the Congress to pass laws. Sucks that the left hasn't figured out how to do it by Executive Order, but that is their lot in life. The Speaker has offered revenues. Where are Obama's new cuts? As someone else pointed out, the Fiscal Cliff is the bi-partisan plan. Obama agreed to it. If he is not willing to play the game, so be it. He is the one who signed the Cliff into existence. The House has a 7% approval rating--they do not have a "mandate" to fix the problem. As the left tries to point out, Obama does. It does not mean he gets what he wants, it just means he has more to lose politically than the GOP. It isn't like our "What are you going to do for me now" electorate will give a tinker's darn about this in 2 years let alone 4.
 
You really need to study up if you want to attempt to debate me on this

Nobody paid those rates back then. There were so many loopholes and deductions, nobody paid them. You're just bleeting some useless talking point you read on Daily Kos.

When Reagan lowered the marginal rates from 70% to 28% he eliminated many of those loopholes and deductions. The result was MASSIVE Economic Growth as high as 9.3% GDP in one quarter with a million jobs created in one month.

So let's get deeper into this. If we raise taxes on small business and the evil rich, what do you predict GDP Growth will be


"For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004."

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

And, 98% of small businesses will not be affected if the tax rate goes up for those making more than $250,000.
 
Have you forgotten, or were you ever aware, that the Bush tax cuts were temporary.

True. According to law they expire in 29 days in bipartisan fashion. Isn't compromise wonderful!
 
REpublicans were unwaivering in their opposition to health care reform and they are currently enthralled to Grover Norquist - the guy who calls all the shots for the Republicans. They like playing hardball - and I think they've finally gotten the President to play the game too. The President doesn't have to run for re-election and he doesn't have a master like Norquist to whom he must answer. It should be a very interesting game. My money is on Obama.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue with this kind of mentality let alone memory? I thought you were serious, if only for a second.

Tim-
 
Obama and the Democrats have enacted the largest tax increase on the poor and middle class in History

Try again



Your opinion does not interest me.
 
Ryan is a member of Congress. Last I heard, the Constitution still required the Congress to pass laws. Sucks that the left hasn't figured out how to do it by Executive Order, but that is their lot in life. The Speaker has offered revenues. Where are Obama's new cuts? As someone else pointed out, the Fiscal Cliff is the bi-partisan plan. Obama agreed to it. If he is not willing to play the game, so be it. He is the one who signed the Cliff into existence. The House has a 7% approval rating--they do not have a "mandate" to fix the problem. As the left tries to point out, Obama does. It does not mean he gets what he wants, it just means he has more to lose politically than the GOP. It isn't like our "What are you going to do for me now" electorate will give a tinker's darn about this in 2 years let alone 4.

We'll see.
 
Ryan is a member of Congress. Last I heard, the Constitution still required the Congress to pass laws. Sucks that the left hasn't figured out how to do it by Executive Order, but that is their lot in life. The Speaker has offered revenues. Where are Obama's new cuts? As someone else pointed out, the Fiscal Cliff is the bi-partisan plan. Obama agreed to it. If he is not willing to play the game, so be it. He is the one who signed the Cliff into existence. The House has a 7% approval rating--they do not have a "mandate" to fix the problem. As the left tries to point out, Obama does. It does not mean he gets what he wants, it just means he has more to lose politically than the GOP. It isn't like our "What are you going to do for me now" electorate will give a tinker's darn about this in 2 years let alone 4.

Obama has nothing to lose, the press will see to that. I have little faith in the current DC crowd that gave us this mess. I see the republicants caving again on all but giving up the debt ceiling rights. There is not sufficient time to get any serious entitlement reform done and both sides can play fancy accounting tricks to make more spending be called "cuts" backloaded into part of some 10-year plan.
 
True. According to law they expire in 29 days in bipartisan fashion. Isn't compromise wonderful!

The House will renew them before then, or commit political suicide. I predict they will vote to continue the middle class tax cuts.
 
Your opinion does not interest me.

Dodge noted

"For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004."

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

And, 98% of small businesses will not be affected if the tax rate goes up for those making more than $250,000.

Look at you running to the left wing Politifact to bail you out. Unfortunately it doesn't refute the points I've made.

The Federal Government didn't have a blank check back then where it was spending 3.8T a year like it is now. Finally, and it's the most important fact you keep ignoring, NOBODY paid those rates because of all the loopholes and deductions. So again, instead of you googling Politifact with some hack piece defending Obama, tell me what you believe GDP Growth will be when we raise taxes on small businesses and the evil rich? Again, you're just tossing out garbage in a vacuum without any context.

Federal Spending as a % of GDP after WW2 went down as much as 40%. In contrast it's going up 35% a year since 2010.

Let's look at CA, which is the blueprint for your utopia. 1/3 of all welfare recipients in the nation live in CA, despite the fact they only make up 1/8th of the Population. The effective STATE INCOME TAX RATE IN CA is 10.3% and it's set to increase to 13.3% within 7 years. Another fact you are not adding within your equation is that when the rates were higher, state taxes were nowhere near where they are now. The bottom 50% pay zero income taxes, yet benefit from Government subsidies and hand outs.

We need Economic growth. It's not rocket science. Unfortunately we have to deal with class warfare rhetoric Collectivists who want to divide and demonize.

W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com

Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not. The Obama administration's budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues.

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."

main-qimg-8cc23cc0815af76c8ee7de789cdfa284


Notice the increase in revenue after the evil Bush Tax cuts. We have a spending problem. Not a revenue problem. Have a nice day.

:2wave:
 
Dodge noted



Look at you running to the left wing Politifact to bail you out. Unfortunately it doesn't refute the points I've made.

The Federal Government didn't have a blank check back then where it was spending 3.8T a year like it is now. Finally, and it's the most important fact you keep ignoring, NOBODY paid those rates because of all the loopholes and deductions. So again, instead of you googling Politifact with some hack piece defending Obama, tell me what you believe GDP Growth will be when we raise taxes on small businesses and the evil rich? Again, you're just tossing out garbage in a vacuum without any context.

Federal Spending as a % of GDP after WW2 went down as much as 40%. In contrast it's going up 35% a year since 2010.

Let's look at CA, which is the blueprint for your utopia. 1/3 of all welfare recipients in the nation live in CA, despite the fact they only make up 1/8th of the Population. The effective STATE INCOME TAX RATE IN CA is 10.3% and it's set to increase to 13.3% within 7 years. Another fact you are not adding within your equation is that when the rates were higher, state taxes were nowhere near where they are now. The bottom 50% pay zero income taxes, yet benefit from Government subsidies and hand outs.

We need Economic growth. It's not rocket science. Unfortunately we have to deal with class warfare rhetoric Collectivists who want to divide and demonize.

W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com



main-qimg-8cc23cc0815af76c8ee7de789cdfa284


Notice the increase in revenue after the evil Bush Tax cuts. We have a spending problem. Not a revenue problem. Have a nice day.

:2wave:


As documented above, history shows those of us interested in looking at it, that the effective tax rates for the wealthy were higher than anything being proposed today.

Trickle down economics was a failed experiment and the people have rejected it.
 
OK, so they've finally gotten off the pot. The White House liked their suggestion just about as much as they liked his. Now what? I think the White House is perfectly willing to let the Republicans take us over the financial 'cliff' because they don't want their millionaire buddies taxed at a higher rate.

I think we should go over the cliff. Its going to be the only compromise we are going to get anytime soon. Democrats aren't serious about cutting spending(we need alot) and Republicans aren't serious about raising taxes(we need alot).

Hell, if we cut spending 10% across the board and raised taxes 10% across the board we would be better off than we are now, but you and I both know that would never happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom