Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

Catawba said:

"Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969 in the 1998 federal budget; the budgets for 1999, 2000, and 2001 also had surpluses."

Presidency of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah.

Go back a few post and read up on it.

Mycroft said:

Give me a break. This isn't some fantasy world we are living in.

The legislation is never written the way you envision...it's always written as: Implement increased taxes now...promise to cut a certain amount over a certain period of time. The result: Taxes increase right now...the cuts never happen.

The only way to end this procedure is to implement spending cuts...with no conditions. Just do it. After we see reduced government spending, THEN...we can talk about tax increases.

But, of course, as long as there are Democrats around...especially if they control at least one branch of Congress...this'll never happen. The result: What we have now...both sides trying to spin things to make the other side look bad...and nothing getting done.

So it goes.

Click to expand...

Funny but it is the Republican led House that is screaming about budget cuts that will cost millions of jobs. You seem to be all alone out there unless you count the Europeans who budget cut themselves right back into a recession. I guess you must be one of those that do better in recessions or you wouldn't be so anxious to put us back in one. U.S. Govt. spending has been at 20% of GDP for the last 20 years and revenue hs been at 15% since the Bush tax cuts, spending is not the crux of the debt problem, revenue is.

Mycroft said:

Blah, blah, blah.

Go back a few post and read up on it.

Click to expand...

As referenced above, this part of the historical record,

"Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969 in the 1998 federal budget; the budgets for 1999, 2000, and 2001 also had surpluses."

It is your prerogative to ignore if you wish, but it is still part of the historical record.

Mycroft said:

No it wasn't.

Click to expand...

"2008: The controversy started during the 2008 Presidential election campaign. One of Obama's campaign promises was to create a government program, similar to that used by Congress, that would extend health care insurance coverage to everyone. He also wanted a national electronic information exchange system to provide patient care records to any doctor who needed it. Critics called this socialism, since it involved the government in mandatory health care for everyone, similar to countries in Europe and Canada. It was ironic that these same legislators didn't have the same objection to their own government-sponsored health care."

Obamacare Facts

Catawba said:

"2008: The controversy started during the 2008 Presidential election campaign. One of Obama's campaign promises was to create a government program, similar to that used by Congress, that would extend health care insurance coverage to everyone. He also wanted a national electronic information exchange system to provide patient care records to any doctor who needed it. Critics called this socialism, since it involved the government in mandatory health care for everyone, similar to countries in Europe and Canada. It was ironic that these same legislators didn't have the same objection to their own government-sponsored health care."

Obamacare Facts

Click to expand...

What I find ironic is that what the Democrats ended up foisting upon the American People is not what Obama promised. But then again, maybe I shouldn't find it ironic, since it's not the only thing he lied about.

Mycroft said:

What I find ironic is that what the Democrats ended up foisting upon the American People is not what Obama promised. But then again, maybe I shouldn't find it ironic, since it's not the only thing he lied about.

Click to expand...

The president and the majority of Democrats made it very clear they preferred the public option, but in the end the conservatives won out and instead adopted the alternative to UHC they had developed previously. So, at least now everyone will have access to health care and the lower cost of electronic transfer of health records. The plan now is to get more progressives elected to upgrade to a public option.

Mycroft said:

Give me a break. This isn't some fantasy world we are living in.

The legislation is never written the way you envision...it's always written as: Implement increased taxes now...promise to cut a certain amount over a certain period of time. The result: Taxes increase right now...the cuts never happen.

The only way to end this procedure is to implement spending cuts...with no conditions. Just do it. After we see reduced government spending, THEN...we can talk about tax increases.

But, of course, as long as there are Democrats around...especially if they control at least one branch of Congress...this'll never happen. The result: What we have now...both sides trying to spin things to make the other side look bad...and nothing getting done.

So it goes.

Click to expand...

How about if we increase taxes, reduce spending and write into the law which does both that a specific amount MUST be used to retire the debt?

iguanaman said:

Funny but it is the Republican led House that is screaming about budget cuts that will cost millions of jobs. You seem to be all alone out there unless you count the Europeans who budget cut themselves right back into a recession. I guess you must be one of those that do better in recessions or you wouldn't be so anxious to put us back in one. U.S. Govt. spending has been at 20% of GDP for the last 20 years and revenue hs been at 15% since the Bush tax cuts, spending is not the crux of the debt problem, revenue is.

Click to expand...

You should read up on the legislation passed by the Republican-led House...that is stalled in the Democratic-led Senate. Most of it concerns getting rid of the massive government control that is driving spending...including Obamacare. Also, since...as you say...spending has been at 20% of GDP and revenue has been at 15%...reducing spending (ie, reducing the size, scope and power of government) is preferable. That way, that percentage you speak of won't increase when the economy turns sour.

On another note, Obama is doing just fine in putting us back in a recession without implementing GOP proposals. Just look at the latest news about our pathetic economic growth. He's been failing for almost four years...and you want to do more of the same? Doesn't sound very smart to me.

Catawba said:

The president and the majority of Democrats made it very clear they preferred the public option, but in the end the conservatives won out and instead adopted the alternative to UHC they had developed previously. So, at least now everyone will have access to health care and the lower cost of electronic transfer of health records. The plan now is to get more progressives elected to upgrade to a public option.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure you are correct on what the plan is...but you are wrong to connect the Republicans with any of it. In fact, it was certain Democrats who objected to the public option...and that objection is why we have Obamacare. Obama, Pelosi and Reid HAD to pass something and they made whatever deals were necessary with their own Party members to do it. The Republicans were shut out of the whole stinking thing, so don't try to spin it as being THEIR fault.

haymarket said:

How about if we increase taxes, reduce spending and write into the law which does both that a specific amount MUST be used to retire the debt?

Click to expand...

No.

The only way to ensure that spending is cut is to pass a budget that spends less money. Anything else...such as your suggestion...can be ignored or changed at any time after such a law is passed.

Of course, spending won't get cut because the Democrats won't pass such a budget...and here we are.

Mycroft said:

No.

The only way to ensure that spending is cut is to pass a budget that spends less money. Anything else...such as your suggestion...can be ignored or changed at any time after such a law is passed.

Of course, spending won't get cut because the Democrats won't pass such a budget...and here we are.

Click to expand...

MY way or the highway. Nice attitude you have. :roll::roll:

Your own plan seems to ignore that spending cuts also can be changed - but that does not stop you from insisting upon them over everything and to the exclusion of all other measures.

You claim that Democrats would not vote for such a budget. When was one offered which did what I suggest? Never.

I could just as easilly say that Republicans would never vote for that same budget. And I have no evidence of them taking that position.

TurtleDude said:

1) Keeping the Bush/Obama tax rates for the "middle class"


2) sticking it to the rich with a tax hike

Click to expand...

I believe this is known as a false choice.

How about there are some things that the private sector does best, some things the government does best, and others that work best with public/private collaboration. The government may not be perfect, but it provides a net good.

Someone has to pay for everything that the government does. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure. Currently as a nation we're paying 14% of GDP in taxes, and that is totally unsustainable. We need to be paying closer to 20%.

Over the last 30 years, virtually all of the economic growth has gone to the top 1%... a top 1% that pays a lower rate in taxes than those who make less.

We need to raise revenue. What is so wrong about starting with the people who are booming before we start passing austerity measures on those who are struggling?

haymarket said:

MY way or the highway. Nice attitude you have. :roll::roll:

Your own plan seems to ignore that spending cuts also can be changed - but that does not stop you from insisting upon them over everything and to the exclusion of all other measures.

You claim that Democrats would not vote for such a budget. When was one offered which did what I suggest? Never.

I could just as easilly say that Republicans would never vote for that same budget. And I have no evidence of them taking that position.

Click to expand...

If a budget is passed for the next fiscal year that reduces overall spending, then that's the budget. If any changes are made to it in the course of that fiscal year, we will have on record who changed the budget. This scenario is unacceptable to the Democrats because they won't take responsibility for their actions. They only want to blame Republicans.

The House HAS passed a budget that reduces spending...what happened to it? That, of course, is a rhetorical question because we all KNOW what happened to it. Reid happened to it.

Now...something similar to what you suggested has been passed at least twice that I know of...both times with the same results. The Democrats didn't follow through on their promise. Why, on earth, do you think they will follow through on their promise if something like what you suggest is passed? Do you have evidence of Republicans breaking a similar promise?

Mithros said:

I believe this is known as a false choice.

How about there are some things that the private sector does best, some things the government does best, and others that work best with public/private collaboration. The government may not be perfect, but it provides a net good.

Someone has to pay for everything that the government does. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure. Currently as a nation we're paying 14% of GDP in taxes, and that is totally unsustainable. We need to be paying closer to 20%.

Over the last 30 years, virtually all of the economic growth has gone to the top 1%... a top 1% that pays a lower rate in taxes than those who make less.

We need to raise revenue. What is so wrong about starting with the people who are booming before we start passing austerity measures on those who are struggling?

Click to expand...

Well...you make the same argument that iguanaman made...and you get the same response I gave him:

"Also, since...as you say...spending has been at 20% of GDP and revenue has been at 15%...reducing spending (ie, reducing the size, scope and power of government) is preferable. That way, that percentage you speak of won't increase when the economy turns sour."

I will add this: The reason the ratio between taxes and spending is unsustainable isn't because we are not taxing enough...it's because we are spending almost two trillion too much.

Mycroft said:

Oh, I'm sure you are correct on what the plan is...but you are wrong to connect the Republicans with any of it. In fact, it was certain Democrats who objected to the public option...and that objection is why we have Obamacare. Obama, Pelosi and Reid HAD to pass something and they made whatever deals were necessary with their own Party members to do it. The Republicans were shut out of the whole stinking thing, so don't try to spin it as being THEIR fault.

Click to expand...

First, the insurance mandate was created by conservatives:

"An individual mandate to purchase healthcare was initially proposed by the politically conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as an alternative to single-payer health care. From its inception, the idea of an individual mandate was championed by Republican politicians as a free-market approach to health-care reform.[2][3] The individual mandate was felt to resonate with conservative principles of individual responsibility, and conservative groups recognized that the healthcare market was unique."

Health insurance mandate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, a majority of the Senate Democrats supported the public option:

"# Senator State Comment
1 Akaka HI Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
2 Baucus MT Said reason for voting against on Senate Finance was the need for 60 votes
3 Bennet CO Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
4 Bingaman NM Voted for Schumer’s “level playing field” public option on Senate Finance
5 Boxer CA Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
6 Brown OH Voted for HELP Committee public option
7 Burris IL Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
8 Byrd “In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American.”
9 Cantwell WA Voted for Schumer level playing field on Senate Finance
10 Cardin MD Voted for Kennedy resolution demanding public option in May
11 Carper DE Voted for Schumer’s “level playing field” public option on Senate Finance
12 Casey PA Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
13 Dodd CT Voted for HELP Committee public option
14 Dorgan ND I do believe that some sort of public option needs to be part of the proposal, along with a focus on bringing down health care costs and prevention.
15 Durbin IL Voted for Kennedy resolution demanding public option in May
16 Feingold WI Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
17 Feinstein CA Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
18 Franken MN Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
19 Gillibrand NY Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
20 Hagan NC Voted for HELP Committee public option
21 Harkin IA Voted for HELP Committee public option
22 Inouye HI Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
23 Johnson SD I asked, “What about the bill are you opposed to?” He replied, “That it doesn’t have a robust public option”.a
24 Kaufman DE Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
25 Kerry MA Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
26 Klobuchar MN “I would prefer a public option that would be a competitive option that would allow people to buy into a Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which is a series of private plans.”
27 Kohl WI Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
28 Lautenberg NJ Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
29 Leahy VT Voted for Kennedy resolution demanding public option in May
30 Levin MI Voted for Kennedy resolution demanding public option in May
31 McCaskill MO Voted for Schumer’s level playing field on Senate Finance
32 Menendez NJ Voted for Schumer level playing field on Senate Finance
33 Merkley OR Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
34 Mikulski MD Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
35 Murray WA Voted for HELP Committee public option
36 Nelson (Bill) FL Voted for Schumer’s “level playing field” public option on Senate Finance
37 Reed RI Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
38 Reid NV “I’ve told people, whoever will listen, that I am in favor of the public option.”
39 Rockefeller WV Voted for Schumer Level Playing Field public option on Senate Finance Committee
40 Sanders VT Voted for HELP Committee public option
41 Schumer NY Sponsor of Schumer Amendment
42 Shaheen NH Voted for Kennedy resolution demanding public option in May
43 Specter PA Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
44 Stabenow MI Voted for Schumer’s level playing field on Senate Finance
45 Tester MT “We need competition, and if we get a public option that will help Montana. I will support it.”
46 Udall CO “I support the President’s plan to include the public option as a tool help reform our broken health care system. But above all, any reform must be done in a deficit-neutral way and must provide choice, stability and security for those who have insurance.”
47 Udall NM Voted for Kennedy resolution demanding public option in May
48 Warner VA “It’s not a make or break thing–he wants to see a health reform bill that contains costs, and if it includes a public option…he would vote for it.”
49 Webb VA Told the Huffington Post he is open to a public health care option.
50 Whitehouse RI Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option
51 Wyden OR Signed Oct 8 letter demanding public option"
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/29-11

Mithros said:

Over the last 30 years, virtually all of the economic growth has gone to the top 1%... a top 1% that pays a lower rate in taxes than those who make less.

Click to expand...

These are careless statements. All the growth "has gone to" the top 1%? That does not even make sense. Which tax rate(s) are you referring to that the top 1% pays a lower one than his poorer neighbor? I don't know of a single one.

We need to raise revenue. What is so wrong about starting with the people who are booming before we start passing austerity measures on those who are struggling?

Click to expand...

It's not a priority to focus on income when the outlays are out of control. It's like giving someone a blood transfusion before addressing their severed artery.

Neomalthusian said:

These are careless statements. All the growth "has gone to" the top 1%? That does not even make sense. Which tax rate(s) are you referring to that the top 1% pays a lower one than his poorer neighbor? I don't know of a single one.



It's not a priority to focus on income when the outlays are out of control. It's like giving someone a blood transfusion before addressing their severed artery.

Click to expand...

Virtually all the economic growth has gone to the top 1%. It's a pretty small statement. I don't see the need to only quote "has gone to".

You're right that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but unfortunately it's true.
http://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/income-growth-by-6-income-shares-1980-2008.png

As for the top earners paying less in taxes than the upper middle class, that's fairly well established.
Effective Income Tax Rates - Graphic - NYTimes.com
The top 1% pays on average slightly less than the top 10% in Federal income tax. This becomes more pronounced as you go up the income ladder. The top 400 wage earners payed an effective tax rate of 16%, about the same as the top 25%.

But... remember, this is just INCOME tax. We may never talk about it, but payroll tax is another 14.2% (including both employer and employee) contributions that everyone pays on the first 108k. That's by far the biggest tax burden on the bottom 75%.

If you're making 150k-250k of taxable income (ie.. up to about 350k gross) then you have a right to be ticked off at the tax code. You're paying the highest rates. Above that, the richer you are, the lower the percentage you pay.

Catawba said:

First, the insurance mandate was created by conservatives:



Secondly, a majority of the Senate Democrats supported the public option:

Click to expand...

So what? The Republicans never acted on it...the Democrats did, even though the people told them not to.

Making a statement or signing a letter doesn't equal a vote.

Furthermore, I noticed you left this off:

"So, should we conclude that the 51 Democrats in the Senate who said they support a public option when 60 votes were needed were all full of ****, now that the bar is down to 50 and they’re still not moving?"

haymarket said:

The current debt is just shy of $16 trillion dollars.
Each day we add some $3 billion 900 million dollars to that total.

U.S. National Debt Clock

The current years federal budget is $3.7 trillion dollars.

Just how much would each component of your 'plan' (and I use that term very very loosely) in paying that deficit and ending the annual deficit and the total debt?

Tell us with each of your 'proposals' how much we would be saving.

look at your proposals

Limit the government to its constitutional functions



The Supreme Court does this. The government can have no unconstitutional functions. Since you are cutting nothing - you are sving nothing. Turtle does not get to decide what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. That has already been done.



Okay. And how much is that going to save?



So you want to have a fire sale an get rid of Yosemite,Yellowstone and the rest. And how much will that raise and where is the public support for such a radical and extremely short term idea?

Lets look at the right wing wet dream on this issue since both Ryan and Santorum have eagerly lapped it up

GOP Budget Calls For Fire Sale Of Public Lands While Preserving $40 Billion In Tax Breaks To Big Oil | ThinkProgress




And how much would that save from the federal budget?



And how much would that save us?

And what then is the total of your savings?

end the war on drugs-that will eliminate 75% of the federal law enforcement costs

Click to expand...

wo what you are saying is that your dem masters' plans to screw the rich amount to a cup full of spit in an ocean of red ink

this is the chickens coming home to roost on FDR's idiocy called the new deal and its massive expansion of the government

Mycroft said:

Your kidding me...right?

The people don't decide anything. The politicians do.

If the people decided anything, we wouldn't be saddled with that crappy Obamacare. The people didn't want it. Heck, a bunch of politicians...on both sides...didn't want it. That didn't stop us from getting it, though.

LOL!!!

"The people will decide..."

Click to expand...

Of love Catawba's madame DeFarge channeling. THE CITIZENS WILL DECIDE YOUR FATE!!

In reality

the minions are pawns of their rich elite masters who tell them how to think

Mycroft said:

Give me a break. This isn't some fantasy world we are living in.

The legislation is never written the way you envision...it's always written as: Implement increased taxes now...promise to cut a certain amount over a certain period of time. The result: Taxes increase right now...the cuts never happen.

The only way to end this procedure is to implement spending cuts...with no conditions. Just do it. After we see reduced government spending, THEN...we can talk about tax increases.

But, of course, as long as there are Democrats around...especially if they control at least one branch of Congress...this'll never happen. The result: What we have now...both sides trying to spin things to make the other side look bad...and nothing getting done.

So it goes.

Click to expand...

While I'm sure you're wrong about what ahs and hasn't been written, it is neither here nor there. The fact is it can be written. Lacking the will, is no excuse. It either is what needs to be done or it isn't, and you either argue for what is needed, or concede it simply won't be fixed. Neither cuts not raising taxes alone will solve the problem. Sorry.

Boo Radley said:

While I'm sure you're wrong about what ahs and hasn't been written, it is neither here nor there. The fact is it can be written. Lacking the will, is no excuse. It either is what needs to be done or it isn't, and you either argue for what is needed, or concede it simply won't be fixed. Neither cuts not raising taxes alone will solve the problem. Sorry.

Click to expand...

Well, given the established contention between the two Parties, it's a given that neither your solution nor mine will be implemented any time soon...if at all. All we have to look forward to is the government going further down the deficit hole. So I do concede that it won't get fixed.

On the other hand, I reject the notion that we must raise taxes, while at the same time, cut spending. Frankly, I don't trust Washington to ever cut spending unless they are forced to...therefore raising taxes only serves to give them more money to spend.

While I don't really want to see it, perhaps a Balanced Budget Amendment is the only thing that will fix things.

Mycroft said:

So what? The Republicans never acted on it...the Democrats did, even though the people told them not to.

Click to expand...

You can try to spin it any way (or color) you want. It doesn't change the fact that a majority of Democrats supported the Public option, which the public supported, vs a majority of Republicans that opposed the public option.

Mycroft said:

Well, given the established contention between the two Parties, it's a given that neither your solution nor mine will be implemented any time soon...if at all. All we have to look forward to is the government going further down the deficit hole. So I do concede that it won't get fixed.

On the other hand, I reject the notion that we must raise taxes, while at the same time, cut spending. Frankly, I don't trust Washington to ever cut spending unless they are forced to...therefore raising taxes only serves to give them more money to spend.

While I don't really want to see it, perhaps a Balanced Budget Amendment is the only thing that will fix things.

Click to expand...

This is sadly true, but we share some of that blame as voters as well. We've swollowed the vitrol whole and feed the beast. I would prefer holding our leaders feet to the fire, and holding them to working out a solution and not false magic like no tax pledges.

Boo Radley said:

This is sadly true, but we share some of that blame as voters as well. We've swollowed the vitrol whole and feed the beast. I would prefer holding our leaders feet to the fire, and holding them to working out a solution and not false magic like no tax pledges.

Click to expand...

LOL!!!

Who the hell cares about no tax pledges?

The Republicans don't want tax increases because it's the wrong thing to do.

Talk about "feeding the beast"...that's what you'll get if they raise taxes on anyone. Feeding the government spending beast.