• 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!

Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

Since you aren't a liberal (your claim)

Did I claim that? Liberal has so many different meanings these days. I'm sure I'd classify myself as a liberal by some of them, but not as one by some of the others.

how would you know what a liberal thinks?

I'd imagine I'd find out in the same way a conservative does. By talking to them.

Why are you concerned about my opinion on liberals?

For the same reason I'm concerned over unfair/inaccurate opinion Liberals have of Conservatives; I like the truth. And I like to help other people find it. And let other people show me it. Why do you care what anyone else thinks then?

An independent wouldn't care what someone else thinks about someone of another political ideology.

Given that everyone has a political opinion, does this mean independents don't care about what anyone thinks of anyone? This is a prerequisite to being an independent? I spose all of the other independents who shoot down false conservative opinion about liberals, and false liberal opinion about conservatives, should all change their lean.

If you are indeed independent shouldn't you be concerned about the misinformation being spread by liberals in this forum?

I am, when I find it I'll point it out to you. I have before, go read my posts. In the thread on the Bush tax cuts alone I cut down unfair/inaccurate liberal opinion 5 times from memory.

Why aren't you, Mr. Independent, challenging the comments here regarding use taxes vs. income taxes?

I don't know what you specifically mean by "taxes vs. income taxes", but I've pointed out numerous times before the different sources of revenue (in fact, as I recall, I made a graph for just that reason; to separate out income tax from capital gains tax, payroll tax, corporate tax, etc, etc). Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your meaning here.

Contrary to your opinion, I am no following you in this forum and only respond to posts you actually make in forums that I am part of.

?? This one didn't even make sense. I don't think that at all. I go to the main page and click whatever new threads are up on the right hand side. I then read each one and comment where applicable. I don't know why you'd believe that I think you have some weird following of my posts.
 
chances are big, since the GOP policy since day one has been.. do not give the black socialist Muslim in the white house any victory what so ever... hence the party of NO has emerged.

Yet it was the House dems saying **** the president and JUST SAY NO!
 
haymarket;1059149927]All by itself, without considering anything else before the Congress, the refusal of the GOP to pass the bill spending $7 billion to help the families of the dead and the current living responders who are seriously ill is disgraceful, shameful and merits only the greatest contempt. All by itself.

You didn't answer the question, did you read the bill or are you reporting what you have been told. Seems that spending in the name of compassion is all that matters to you. This bill is over 7 billion dollars, 7 BILLION DOLLARS!! What else is in that bill or does it even matter?

But in a real world it is not all by itself.

When you then couple that with the GOP embrace of the wealthy and their desire continue applying oral massage to the rear end of the wealthiest in this land, it is doubly disgraceful, doubly shameful and even more contemptible.


Allowing people to keep more of what they earn has nothing to do with Congressional spending. Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
I can't recall I have ever brought race into it here personally, and of course you guys don't. Denying that the majority of Americans however that do not like Obama--and keep in mind you are going to try and argue against a guy that lives in Kentucky--do not bring his race up though is lying to yourselves. Anyways, I have nothing else to contribute other than Republicans forgot what the word compromise means (they think it means give it all) and Obama forgot what it means (he must think it means take in the ass).

Seriously, where have you been? Dems have been having a hissy fit trying to stop this bill since Obama announced the compromise. Demint didn't come out until later.
 
Did I claim that? Liberal has so many different meanings these days. I'm sure I'd classify myself as a liberal by some of them, but not as one by some of the others.



I'd imagine I'd find out in the same way a conservative does. By talking to them.



For the same reason I'm concerned over unfair/inaccurate opinion Liberals have of Conservatives; I like the truth. And I like to help other people find it. And let other people show me it. Why do you care what anyone else thinks then?



Given that everyone has a political opinion, does this mean independents don't care about what anyone thinks of anyone? This is a prerequisite to being an independent? I spose all of the other independents who shoot down false conservative opinion about liberals, and false liberal opinion about conservatives, should all change their lean.



I am, when I find it I'll point it out to you. I have before, go read my posts. In the thread on the Bush tax cuts alone I cut down unfair/inaccurate liberal opinion 5 times from memory.



I don't know what you specifically mean by "taxes vs. income taxes", but I've pointed out numerous times before the different sources of revenue (in fact, as I recall, I made a graph for just that reason; to separate out income tax from capital gains tax, payroll tax, corporate tax, etc, etc). Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your meaning here.



?? This one didn't even make sense. I don't think that at all. I go to the main page and click whatever new threads are up on the right hand side. I then read each one and comment where applicable. I don't know why you'd believe that I think you have some weird following of my posts.

No, you just took up half a page and said nothing. Congratulations! If you don't know the difference in the various kinds of taxes then nothing I can say will help you. I have no interest in going back to read your posts on other forums only in responding to the inaccurate statements you post here.
 
You totally miss the point. Imagine that. the thread is about a subject of conservative defections from the tax deal. fine. But then several conservative posters - three in a row - attempt to focus in on the issue of racism simply because one poster humorously included it in his post. Its the conservative cause celebre to attack any such charge of racism and make the issue about false charges of racism. The conservative goal is to make even bringing up the word RACISM as such a huge pain in the butt that it is then taken off the table.

Those facts are indeed my friend

And the fact is, it's the dems who came out STRONGLY against the bill.
Demint came out later.
 
If DeMint and the Club for Growth actually have the congressional numbers of support that they think they do, Obama only has one choice. Scrap the whole thing. Demint wants permanent Bush tax cuts. Let them expire. The unemployed will just have to find a way to make money.

It's the house Dems for the most part.

A number of House Democrats are pushing back hard against President Obama’s compromise tax deal, with one calling the plan to extend the Bush tax cuts, “fiscally irresponsible” and “grossly unfair.”
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, is leading the charge. He fired the opening salvo against the President in a letter circulated to House Democrats Monday night, calling on them to vote down the deal because it does not go far enough to protect the middle class.A House Divided: Congressional Dems Oppose Obama's 'Unfair' Tax Deal - The Note
 
Does anyone know (or have an estimate) on how much the Bush tax cuts will cost for only the wealthiest 2 per cent of wage earners over the next 2-years?

Keeping the taxes the same is not a "cost" at all. We are not taking money and giving it to the top 2% anymore than we are spending money on the other 98% to keep their taxes the same. Again, Keeping taxes the same, does not add to the debt. Spending does.


The unemployment benefits, and other goodies in the bill, are a cost. From what I'm hearing it is like an 800 billion some stimulous package.
 
Keeping the taxes the same is not a "cost" at all. We are not taking money and giving it to the top 2% anymore than we are spending money on the other 98% to keep their taxes the same. Again, Keeping taxes the same, does not add to the debt. Spending does.


The unemployment benefits, and other goodies in the bill, are a cost. From what I'm hearing it is like an 800 billion some stimulous package.

Get Ready, America!! Tax the rich! Tax the Rich! Tax the Rich!

British riot pictures - Google Search
 
No, you just took up half a page and said nothing. Congratulations! If you don't know the difference in the various kinds of taxes then nothing I can say will help you. I have no interest in going back to read your posts on other forums only in responding to the inaccurate statements you post here.

*facepalm*

What makes you think I don't know the difference between taxes. Please provide evidence of this. On the contrary, I've separated them out numerous times.

What exactly do you want me to do? Be able to quote the statistics for all federal, state and local taxes off the top of my head? What's your criteria for "knowing the difference in the various kinds of taxes"?

Also, as I recall, the poll tax riots were in response to measures imposed by Margaret Thatcher to create a flat-tax, which led to a massive drop in Conservative Party approval.
 
The Republicans will fight like caged animals to cut taxes for the wealthy but they raise the middle finger to policemen and firefighters who need help in the 911 attacks

Republicans Block Passage of 9/11 Responder Aid Bill | Public Intelligence

This truly sickens me and makes me ashamed that such a political party even exists in this country. I bet Abe Lincoln would have the same reaction.


Even with Monday’s deal between President Obama and top Republicans, no American’s income tax rates will actually decline on January 1 (although, if the deal passes, workers will notice a modest reduction in their payroll taxes in 2011). Yet throughout this debate, the broadcast networks have insisted on framing the debate as about “tax cuts” and “tax breaks,” not about forestalling a tax increase that could jeopardize the weak recovery.[/B]Network reporters used the phrase “tax cut” a total of 71 times to characterize the issue at hand. CBS’s Nancy Cordes, for example, talked about “the battle over the Bush tax cuts” on the November 15 Evening News. Two nights later, NBC’s Chuck Todd related a new poll showing how “49 percent say don’t give the wealthy these tax cuts” — as if the “the wealthy” would be getting some new gift from the government.In contrast, the more accurate term “tax increase” or a synonymous phrase (e.g. tax hike, tax rise) was used only 11 times, or less than one-sixth as often as the phrase “tax cut” was employed.

Surprise! Mainstream Media Frame Tax Debate as About Tax Cuts, Not Tax Hikes | The Right Sphere - Conservative Blogs, Columnists, News and Opinion
 
*facepalm*

What makes you think I don't know the difference between taxes. Please provide evidence of this. On the contrary, I've separated them out numerous times.

What exactly do you want me to do? Be able to quote the statistics for all federal, state and local taxes off the top of my head? What's your criteria for "knowing the difference in the various kinds of taxes"?

Also, as I recall, the poll tax riots were in response to measures imposed by Margaret Thatcher to create a flat-tax, which led to a massive drop in Conservative Party approval.

There is no evidence that many here understand the difference between taxes as evidenced by the posts here. If you aren't one of those then my apology but anyone here that believes tax cuts or people keeping more of what they earn is an expense to the govt. obviously doesn't understand basic accounting nor do they understand that there is no tie between people keeping more of what they earn and spending by Congress. There is no evidence that Congress has ever done what individuals do, match revenue and expenses and if the revenue doesn't equal they spending they cut the spending.
 
Even with Monday’s deal between President Obama and top Republicans, no American’s income tax rates will actually decline on January 1 (although, if the deal passes, workers will notice a modest reduction in their payroll taxes in 2011). Yet throughout this debate, the broadcast networks have insisted on framing the debate as about “tax cuts” and “tax breaks,” not about forestalling a tax increase that could jeopardize the weak recovery.[/B]Network reporters used the phrase “tax cut” a total of 71 times to characterize the issue at hand. CBS’s Nancy Cordes, for example, talked about “the battle over the Bush tax cuts” on the November 15 Evening News. Two nights later, NBC’s Chuck Todd related a new poll showing how “49 percent say don’t give the wealthy these tax cuts” — as if the “the wealthy” would be getting some new gift from the government.In contrast, the more accurate term “tax increase” or a synonymous phrase (e.g. tax hike, tax rise) was used only 11 times, or less than one-sixth as often as the phrase “tax cut” was employed.

Surprise! Mainstream Media Frame Tax Debate as About Tax Cuts, Not Tax Hikes | The Right Sphere - Conservative Blogs, Columnists, News and Opinion


kinda like how faux news insisted on calling the public option "government run healthcare"....directed to do so from management. and btw, the battle IS about the bush tax cuts. how is THAT dishonest?
 
There is no evidence that many here understand the difference between taxes as evidenced by the posts here. If you aren't one of those then my apology but anyone here that believes tax cuts or people keeping more of what they earn is an expense to the govt. obviously doesn't understand basic accounting nor do they understand that there is no tie between people keeping more of what they earn and spending by Congress. There is no evidence that Congress has ever done what individuals do, match revenue and expenses and if the revenue doesn't equal they spending they cut the spending.

from a budget standpoint tax cuts are not in themselves expenses, by definition

I agree with you on what you said above, Congress does spend too much. We probably disagree on what, but that's fine :p
 
Shameful, disgraceful and beyond any rational excuse. Turning their backs on the brave men and women who rushed into those burning buildings on 911. Its just beyond any petty political excuse. Each GOP member who voted NO should have to go to the home of those brave men and women and explain their political excuses and see what reaction they get.

Shame on them.

Why does everything the dems try to do turn into a huge bill full of tons of BS, job killers, future entitlements, good chances of fraud and corruption and then get upset when republicans don't go along?
 
kinda like how faux news insisted on calling the public option "government run healthcare"....directed to do so from management. and btw, the battle IS about the bush tax cuts. how is THAT dishonest?

Because there are no tax cuts, just an extension of the current rates. Calling them tax cuts is dishonest.
 
Because there are no tax cuts, just an extension of the current rates. Calling them tax cuts is dishonest.

the specific quote mentioned was "fight over the bush tax cuts"....and that's exactly what this is. that stupid article is more right wing crap designed to inflame.
 
kinda like how faux news insisted on calling the public option "government run healthcare"....directed to do so from management. and btw, the battle IS about the bush tax cuts. how is THAT dishonest?

Because the media keeps reporting that the republicans want to give the rich a tax cut, when all they want to do is keep them the same. The dems want to give the rich a tax hike. It's terribly misleading the way the media is portraying it. If it passes and everyone's taxes stay the same, people will be wondering where their tax cut is. I mean they keep saying Rep want to give them to the rich and the dems want to give them to the middle class.
 
Because there are no tax cuts, just an extension of the current rates. Calling them tax cuts is dishonest.

Newsflash for you Conservative: the current rates have already been raised. And they were raised by President Bush and the Congress who passed the previous bill. They go into effect on January 1st. They have already been raised and if nothing is done then on the first of next month the government will begin taking the money based on those raised rates.
 
the specific quote mentioned was "fight over the bush tax cuts"....and that's exactly what this is. that stupid article is more right wing crap designed to inflame.

Right, like creating and promoting class warfare doesn't inflame? How about taking a crack at it, explaining how you keeping more of your own money is an expense to the govt?
 
Newsflash for you Conservative: the current rates have already been raised. And they were raised by President Bush and the Congress who passed the previous bill. They go into effect on January 1st. They have already been raised and if nothing is done then on the first of next month the government will begin taking the money based on those raised rates.

Now that is a new take on this entire subject. Keep diverting though, tell me how keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt? Those tax rates don't go up until Jan. 1
 
It is not a new take. it goes back to the historical record established in the Bush Presidency.
 
It is not a new take. it goes back to the historical record established in the Bush Presidency.

And what does that have to do with the thread topic? The sunset provision was put in to pass the Democrat controlled Congress.
 
And what does that have to do with the thread topic? The sunset provision was put in to pass the Democrat controlled Congress.

It is the -- get ready for a word you may not like ..... REALITY of the situation. President Bush and his GOP controlled Congress raised the tax rates and set the date of Jan. 1 of 2011 as that date.
 
Back
Top Bottom