• 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!

If the debt ceiling is not raised...

Which do you choose

  • Cut spending to match revenue and default on the debt

    Votes: 2 10.0%

  • Cut spending to match revenue and pay the debt service from that revenue

    Votes: 11 55.0%

  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • Total voters
    20
pbrauer said:
Lets not forget that the debt limit was raised 7 times under President Bush - that's almost once per year in office. And much of the debt today is because of the lose if Income tax revenue due the downturn economy. Plus the tax rates haven't been lower in like 50 years.
Click to expand...

this is a somewhat misleading statement - what you mean to say is that tax revenue as a percentage of the economy hasn't been lower in 50 years. but that is a result of the expansion of government and persistent high unemployment - not tax rates, which have not changed from 2007 (when revenue was above the historical average).
 
1Perry said:
A national sales tax would of course hit the poorest the hardest.
Click to expand...

unless, of course, it was matched with a prebate. but that's a debate for another thread.
 
DemonMyst said:
So let me get this straight?? You are complaining because the surplus wasn't big enough?? ROFL!!! You just totally shot yourself in the foot.. When was the last time a president took offive with a budget surplus?? How much did Bush grow the deficit and the debt?? Give me a break dude!!

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - CNN

The surplus was $230 billion according to this..

PRESIDENT CLINTON: THE LARGEST BUDGET SURPLUS AND DEBT PAY-DOWN IN HISTORY

Another one that puts it over $100 billion..

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton | FactCheck.org

$200 billion here.. Seems to me you are simply wrong..

Have a nice day..
Click to expand...

borrowing from Social Security =/= surplus.
 
DemonMyst said:
So let me get this straight?? You are complaining because the surplus wasn't big enough?? ROFL!!! You just totally shot yourself in the foot.. When was the last time a president took offive with a budget surplus?? How much did Bush grow the deficit and the debt?? Give me a break dude!!

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - CNN

The surplus was $230 billion according to this..

PRESIDENT CLINTON: THE LARGEST BUDGET SURPLUS AND DEBT PAY-DOWN IN HISTORY

Another one that puts it over $100 billion..

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton | FactCheck.org

$200 billion here.. Seems to me you are simply wrong..

Have a nice day..
Click to expand...

That budget surplus didn't mean ****. The debt still increased under Clinton. And I'm sorry, but $230 billion isn't even a drop in the bucket against the debt. I don't know why people keep referring to the budget surplus as if it were heaven sent and solved all of our problems, or as if it was indicative of a change in government spending. There were tax increases under Bush1 and Clinton had welfare reform. Still, none of those changes brought about significant savings and didn't reverse or stop increases in the national debt.
 
1Perry said:
You seem to have missed that they are not investing it but sitting on it. I am NOT willing to pay more taxes to make up for what we paid for the sleazebags. Let's make something else clear. Creating bubbles is not "investment". That is just about all Wall Street is good at today.

A tax on trades will not harm investments either. If you are investing in something, you aren't in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out.
Click to expand...

If they're supposedly sitting on it, then how will a capital gains tax get that money back? And what about people like me who invest extra income in order to get a better interest rate on my savings? Why should I be harmed when I already pay an income tax on that money?
 
DashingAmerican said:
I think we should add a national sales tax and close the tax loopholes. There shouldn't be any loopholes at all when it comes to taxes.
Click to expand...

We would end up with a national sales tax and an income tax. The feds already get enough money.
 
phattonez said:
If they're supposedly sitting on it, then how will a capital gains tax get that money back? And what about people like me who invest extra income in order to get a better interest rate on my savings? Why should I be harmed when I already pay an income tax on that money?
Click to expand...

FDR ran through an "uninvested dividends tax". I could see them trying for that again.
 
cpwill said:
FDR ran through an "uninvested dividends tax". I could see them trying for that again.
Click to expand...

What's laughable to me is that people make the claim that the rich are just sitting on this cash. That is nonsense. Anyone with half a brain would have their wealth in some kind of commodity or some investment. Nobody would have their money in a savings account or just stuffed into their mattress. That's an investment scheme that is a sure loser. If we want the rich to invest in companies again as opposed to just securing their wealth, then maybe we should stop messing with the monetary base so that investors can make more accurate predictions about future costs of production. That more than anything else (though threats of new taxation and regulations are up there as well) is what is prohibiting investment in expansion and hiring.
 
Last edited:
It is hard to take anyone seriously who would use a cable news outlet as a reference. Also use of the term "Dude" tells me that you are are also immature as well as being uninformed.
Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus

Read the board make sure you understand it then comment. Putting ones mouth in motion b/4 engaging your brain does not project a bright image.




DemonMyst said:
So let me get this straight?? You are complaining because the surplus wasn't big enough?? ROFL!!! You just totally shot yourself in the foot.. When was the last time a president took offive with a budget surplus?? How much did Bush grow the deficit and the debt?? Give me a break dude!!

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - CNN

The surplus was $230 billion according to this..

PRESIDENT CLINTON: THE LARGEST BUDGET SURPLUS AND DEBT PAY-DOWN IN HISTORY

Another one that puts it over $100 billion..

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton | FactCheck.org

$200 billion here.. Seems to me you are simply wrong..

Have a nice day..
Click to expand...
 
phattonez said:
What's laughable to me is that people make the claim that the rich are just sitting on this cash. That is nonsense. Anyone with half a brain would have their wealth in some kind of commodity or some investment. Nobody would have their money in a savings account or just stuffed into their mattress. That's an investment scheme that is a sure loser. If we want the rich to invest in companies again as opposed to just securing their wealth, then maybe we should stop messing with the monetary base so that investors can make more accurate predictions about future costs of production. That more than anything else (though threats of new taxation and regulations are up there as well) is what is prohibiting investment in expansion and hiring.
Click to expand...

no no no, see, the rich got that way by being really really stupid with money. they can't wait to put all of their wealth into an investment that is guaranteed to lose real value at a constant rate.


i mean gosh. everyone knows that.
 
cpwill said:
unless, of course, it was matched with a prebate. but that's a debate for another thread.
Click to expand...

The person I replied to stated that there should not be any tax loopholes.
 
phattonez said:
If they're supposedly sitting on it, then how will a capital gains tax get that money back?
Click to expand...

Two seprate things. I didn't say they weren't still investing.

And what about people like me who invest extra income in order to get a better interest rate on my savings? Why should I be harmed when I already pay an income tax on that money?
Click to expand...

It is income is it not? Why should you pay less on this income than a guy digging ditches? You can say that one is helping create something but so is the guy building the new business.
 
phattonez said:
What's laughable to me is that people make the claim that the rich are just sitting on this cash. That is nonsense. Anyone with half a brain would have their wealth in some kind of commodity or some investment. Nobody would have their money in a savings account or just stuffed into their mattress. That's an investment scheme that is a sure loser. If we want the rich to invest in companies again as opposed to just securing their wealth, then maybe we should stop messing with the monetary base so that investors can make more accurate predictions about future costs of production. That more than anything else (though threats of new taxation and regulations are up there as well) is what is prohibiting investment in expansion and hiring.
Click to expand...

Rolling their money over and over into things like energy stocks is likely more damaging to the economy than sitting on it. This is a part of the term "sitting on it". They are not creating anything, just messing with prices.

It's why I said that we should tax trades also.
 
Last edited:
An excellent solution to this debt ceiling stalemate was proposed today...by Mitch McConnell, of all people. The National Review has the details:
More Contingency Plan - By Rich Lowry - The Corner - National Review Online

I am 100% supportive of this plan. It essentially allows the minority party to continue using the debt ceiling the way it's always been used - to embarrass the party in power - without giving them the ability to actually cut off our nation's access to credit. Essentially, the debt ceiling would automatically increase unless Congress cast a vote of disapproval (which the president could veto, and could only be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both houses). I hope that this solution can garner bipartisan support. Not only will it provide a way out of THIS standoff, but it will prevent this kind of close call from occurring again in the future.
 
1Perry said:
It is income is it not? Why should you pay less on this income than a guy digging ditches? You can say that one is helping create something but so is the guy building the new business.
Click to expand...

I never implied that I supported the income tax.
 
1Perry said:
Rolling their money over and over into things like energy stocks is likely more damaging to the economy than sitting on it. This is a part of the term "sitting on it". They are not creating anything, just messing with prices.

It's why I said that we should tax trades also.
Click to expand...

They are doing it because it is profitable, and it is profitable because of manipulation of the monetary base. You're looking at proximate causes and not the ultimate cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom