• 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 Tax supporters=what is more important to you

Obama Tax Supporters=What is more Important to You

  • Saving the tax cuts for yourself (and the rich)

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Sticking it to the rich with a tax hike for everyone

    Votes: 10 90.9%
  • Total voters
    11
haymarket said:
One would have thought that a fancy Ivy league institution would have had access to books where they explained that a budget had two sides. An imbalance in that budget could then be attributed to both sides.

Perhaps Yale is not quite cracked up to what it claims to be?
Click to expand...

wow talk about a delusional post and no one has come close to establishing merely taxing the rich more will even amount to pissing in the ocean when it comes to the deficit
 
TurtleDude said:
wow talk about a delusional post and no one has come close to establishing merely taxing the rich more will even amount to pissing in the ocean when it comes to the deficit
Click to expand...


Delusional is your post refusing to accept that we need to raise taxes across the board - five point for everyone. You refuse to do that. You prefer to tax your own kids and grandchildren for your spending and your tax cuts.

That speaks volumes about your own self imposed willful delusions.

And no mention of any kind as to how you would propose to pay off this deficit that the right wing cries crocodile tears over. I guess you simply don't give a damn about anything but your own taxes and your own firearms.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Naturally, as they are the most wasteful. Next I would re-institute the Glass-Steagall Act to prevent future bailouts of banks too big to fail,
Click to expand...

1) That's not an expenditure cut. We were talking about decreasing government.
2) The GLB act does not force the government to bail out failed banks.

then I would upgrade our health care system to UHC thereby cutting future health care costs in half,
Click to expand...

1) This isn't an expenditure cut. We were talking about decreasing government.
2) You've never shown that UHCcauses health care costs to halve.

then I would increase the FICA Cap from $106,000 to $180,000 fixing social security for the long term.
Click to expand...

This isn't an expenditure cut. We were talking about decreasing government.

Then I would look at increasing minimum wage to a living wage as an alternative to welfare for all those except the disabled.
Click to expand...

This is an increase in expenditure. We were talking about a decrease.



Go back to post #185. We were talking about shrinking the federal government, and you said "well let's start with the military," and I essentially said, "okay, what else?" In other words, what else would you be willing to do to shrink the federal government?
 
haymarket said:
Delusional is your post refusing to accept that we need to raise taxes across the board - five point for everyone. You refuse to do that. You prefer to tax your own kids and grandchildren for your spending and your tax cuts.

That speaks volumes about your own self imposed willful delusions.

And no mention of any kind as to how you would propose to pay off this deficit that the right wing cries crocodile tears over. I guess you simply don't give a damn about anything but your own taxes and your own firearms.
Click to expand...

when the middle class pays the same share of the federal income tax as its share of the income you can then yap about making the rich-who make 22% of the income but pay almost 40% of the income tax pay more.

and all you care about is your party winning elections by buying the votes with the money of others

your party has created millions of intergenerational suckers of the public tit weakening america with expanded sloth and you don't care as long as the dems win
 
TurtleDude said:
when the middle class pays the same share of the federal income tax as its share of the income you can then yap about making the rich-who make 22% of the income but pay almost 40% of the income tax pay more.

and all you care about is your party winning elections by buying the votes with the money of others

your party has created millions of intergenerational suckers of the public tit weakening america with expanded sloth and you don't care as long as the dems win
Click to expand...

I am on record - repeatedly and often - as saying we need a five point across the board income tax increase on all American earning dollar one.

Tell me how that fits in with the democratic party that you claim is my master.

So what is the Turtle Plan for retiring the deficit? Or is such stuff simply below your consideration since it does not involve protecting your wealth or your firearms?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I am on record - repeatedly and often - as saying we need a five point across the board income tax increase on all American earning dollar one.

Tell me how that fits in with the democratic party that you claim is my master.

So what is the Turtle Plan for retiring the deficit? Or is such stuff simply below your consideration since it does not involve protecting your wealth or your firearms?
Click to expand...

I am on record that there is way too much government and only when the government can prove massive cuts in wasteful spending should ANYONE pay more taxes

and if there are more taxes to pay, it should start with those who pay far less of the income tax burden than their share of the income

because if people get tired of too much taxes they will demand less spending

right now the dems know this so they want to keep spending on the middle class to buy their votes without raising taxes on the middle class so they look to a voting minority to fund their pandering
 
Thunder said:
you mean like reducing the deficit?

that's a waste of money to you?
Click to expand...

Do you really expect the government to apply any revenue increases to reducing the deficit?

I don't.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am on record that there is way too much government and only when the government can prove massive cuts in wasteful spending should ANYONE pay more taxes
Click to expand...

There is NOTHING from you on record as to how to pay the national deficit.

If you favor spending cuts, tell us in actual dollars how much you need to cut to pay that deficit. You never do.
 
Mycroft said:
Do you really expect the government to apply any revenue increases to reducing the deficit?

I don't.
Click to expand...

the dem party has to keep spending to buy the votes of the dependent masses the party panders to
 
haymarket said:
There is NOTHING from you on record as to how to pay the national deficit.

If you favor spending cuts, tell us in actual dollars how much you need to cut to pay that deficit. You never do.
Click to expand...


Limit the government to its constitutional functions

of course that means all the unconstitutional crap FDR rammed through will take a serious shearing

Department of education-get rid of it to start with

sell off lots of federal lands

stop paying for people to have illegitimate kids

cut back by at least 30% our military presence in places like Germany

end the war on drugs-that will eliminate 75% of the federal law enforcement costs
 
Catawba said:
Naturally, as they are the most wasteful. Next I would re-institute the Glass-Steagall Act to prevent future bailouts of banks too big to fail, then I would upgrade our health care system to UHC thereby cutting future health care costs in half, then I would increase the FICA Cap from $106,000 to $180,000 fixing social security for the long term. Then I would look at increasing minimum wage to a living wage as an alternative to welfare for all those except the disabled.
Click to expand...

Jeezus!!

You REALLY want to screw the pooch for our country, don't you?
 
TurtleDude said:
that is an idiotic justification for raising taxes. It would be like telling Roger federer that they are only going to allow him to win one major in a year and justify it by saying he still wouldn't trade places with 50000 other tennis players.

the fact is, the masses think that other people should pay more so they, the masses, can have more
Click to expand...

TD, that's silly. It's no such thing. Is this your way of saying you don't have an argument?

And no, we have a huge debt. Serious people know we have to cut spending and raise taxes. Now, I am not willing to attacked the weakest so the strongest can not have their feelings hurt. The rate is merely a number, and letting the Bush tax cuts (which didn't prevent the recession) expire will give needed revenue. And we should focus on real cuts, preferably where we're most able to handle them, not leaving the most needy adrift. But, there should be some hard choices made. Those on both sides who say we can do neither betray the country and continue the status quo.
 
Boo Radley said:
TD, that's silly. It's no such thing. Is this your way of saying you don't have an argument?

And no, we have a huge debt. Serious people know we have to cut spending and raise taxes. Now, I am not willing to attacked the weakest so the strongest can not have their feelings hurt. The rate is merely a number, and letting the Bush tax cuts (which didn't prevent the recession) expire will give needed revenue. And we should focus on real cuts, preferably where we're most able to handle them, not leaving the most needy adrift. But, there should be some hard choices made. Those on both sides who say we can do neither betray the country and continue the status quo.
Click to expand...

you just don't get it

what will the middle class do when the Dems response to this allegedly horrible deficit is to merely tax the rich more
 
TurtleDude said:
you just don't get it

what will the middle class do when the Dems response to this allegedly horrible deficit is to merely tax the rich more
Click to expand...

Where did I say that is all that should be done? Try addressing what I agrue. There are problems on both sides. But we must understand both cuttig spending and raising taxes need to be done.
 
Raising anyone's income taxes when the unemployment rate is over 8% is a bad idea, imo.

Just how many jobs the rich create is debatable.

But they obviously create many, and taxing them more is not going to get them to create any more then they do now - probably the opposite.

And America needs every job it can get right now.


It just seems to me that this is nothing more then an (understandable) emotional reaction from the resentful masses to the privileged few. And the Dems are trying to parlay that resentment into a few votes.

Normal Washington games - but I say wait until the economy is on firmer ground first.


And please don't tell me about how Obama is doing this primarily to save so much money.

The Dem controlled WH runs up more debt in the last 3 1/2 years then any other POTUS in history (including GWB) and now they are suddenly all fiscally conscious by cutting the deficit by only about 1/15 by this measure?

Please....

This is about votes - little more.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
you have any citations supporting that idiocy and who decides if it is wasteful?
Click to expand...

You are the one that claimed that wasteful military spending was authorized under the Constitution.

And as always, it will be the people that decide what military spending is wasteful, and guess what, despite Romney's admonition that the president was ending the war in Iraq too soon, the majority of people agreed with ending our war there.
 
TurtleDude said:
there is some truth to that-some of it involves paying off contractors of powerful politicians

but its not near the waste that the stuff that has no proper constitutional basis racks up
Click to expand...

What programs have no constitutional basis? Bear in mind that the Constitution specifies that it is the Supreme Court that shall interpret what is Constitutional and what is not?
 
Neomalthusian said:
1) That's not an expenditure cut. We were talking about decreasing government.
2) The GLB act does not force the government to bail out failed banks.



1) This isn't an expenditure cut. We were talking about decreasing government.
2) You've never shown that UHCcauses health care costs to halve.



This isn't an expenditure cut. We were talking about decreasing government.



This is an increase in expenditure. We were talking about a decrease.



Go back to post #185. We were talking about shrinking the federal government, and you said "well let's start with the military," and I essentially said, "okay, what else?" In other words, what else would you be willing to do to shrink the federal government?
Click to expand...



You and others in the far right minority, are the only ones talking about reducing government, and fortunately none of the far right candidates won. All the rest of us care about is reducing the deficit. making life better for people, and improving the economy.

Nevertheless, our allowing the creation of banks too big to fail through GLB was a big factor in our increased debt. Without the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, both parties realized that we were now trapped in the position of having to bailout investment banks to prevent a collapse of the world financial market.

Not too surprising that: "Sanford Weill , the 'one-time poster boy' for creating bank supermarkets (as noted by former FDIC Chairperson Sheila Bair), was conveying during his interview. He essentially called for the return of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, which imposed banking reforms that split banks from other financial institutions such as insurance companies. The conversation revolved around the repeal of the Act, which prohibited commercial banks from acting like investment banks, by taking on much greater risk. Although there are those who will dispute it, there is little doubt that this drastic climate change in contributed to the financial meltdowns of recent years."
Glass-Steagall: Why We Shouldn't Fix Things That Aren't Broken - Seeking Alpha
 
Mycroft said:
Jeezus!!

You REALLY want to screw the pooch for our country, don't you?
Click to expand...

That's what will be required to address our problems. Or, you can just keep hoping for magic to make it all better.
 
Catawba said:
You and others in the far right minority, are the only ones talking about reducing government, and fortunately none of the far right candidates won. All the rest of us care about is reducing the deficit.
Click to expand...

Read that again.

Nevertheless, our allowing the creation of banks too big to fail through GLB was a big factor in our increased debt.
Click to expand...

What increased our debt was our government's decision to bail it out. There was still a choice, even with GLB. Everything the banks and their customers did wrong, was flung back onto us. It was the single greatest discrete transfer of wealth from the public to the private banking sector in the history of the world.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
Read that again.
Click to expand...

Yes, reducing the deficit as we did in the 1990s, (the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years) by both cutting spending, mainly on the military, and increasing the tax rates for the wealthy.



What increased our debt was our government's decision to bail it out. There was still a choice, even with GLB.
Click to expand...

Nope, because we foolishly removed the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, allowing the investment banks to fail would have brought down the whole world economy. The question is will we learn from our mistakes.



Everything the banks and their customers did wrong, was flung back onto us. It was the single greatest discrete transfer of wealth from the public to the private banking sector in the history of the world.
Click to expand...

Exactly why we need to reestablish the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks. As referenced above, even "Sanford Weill , the 'one-time poster boy' for creating bank supermarkets (as noted by former FDIC Chairperson Sheila Bair), was conveying during his interview. He essentially called for the return of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, which imposed banking reforms that split banks from other financial institutions such as insurance companies. The conversation revolved around the repeal of the Act, which prohibited commercial banks from acting like investment banks, by taking on much greater risk. Although there are those who will dispute it, there is little doubt that this drastic climate change in contributed to the financial meltdowns of recent years."
 
Catawba said:
Yes, reducing the deficit as we did in the 1990s...
Click to expand...

You are so all over the map. You just essentially said "righties want to reduce government, thank god they didn't get elected, because the rest of us want to reduce deficits." WTF?

(the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years) by both cutting spending, mainly on the military, and increasing the tax rates for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring a much greater factor, which was the internet bubble.

Nope, because we foolishly removed the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, allowing the investment banks to fail would have brought down the whole world economy.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Because the people who stood to profit from the bailout told you so?

The rich have you by the balls, Catawba. The next time some **** hits the fan, they will warn you that the whole house of cards is about to cave in again and that they need more of your money.

The world wouldn't have ended if we'd let the vacuous financial schemes collapse. It would have sucked for a while, but that would have been corrective of all the BS going on in our financial system. What would have happened is that a lot of rich people would have lost a greater share of their wealth than the rest of us would (because relatively speaking we're already "poor"). This seems like something you'd have wanted. Why are you defending the bailouts when they clearly were a bailout of the rich?
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
You are so all over the map. You just essentially said "righties want to reduce government, thank god they didn't get elected, because the rest of us want to reduce deficits." WTF?
Click to expand...

Trying to keep up with you is all. No, what I said was "Yes, reducing the deficit as we did in the 1990s, (the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years) by both cutting spending, mainly on the military, and increasing the tax rates for the wealthy." The intent was to show it is possible to reduce the deficit without attacking our nations social contract with our seniors.


You're ignoring a much greater factor, which was the internet bubble.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not prove causation. It was also a time of higher tax rates on the wealthy, and just like in the 50's thru the 70's the higher tax rates for the wealthy did not hinder our economy.


How do you know?
Click to expand...

Reasoning.


The rich have you by the balls, Catawba. The next time some **** hits the fan, they will warn you that the whole house of cards is about to cave in again and that they need more of your money.
Click to expand...

Nope, we just need to get more progressive Democrats elected to join the 77 Co-sponsors of HR 1489 to vote in the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act.

The world wouldn't have ended if we'd let the vacuous financial schemes collapse. It would have sucked for a while, but that would have been corrective of all the BS going on in our financial system. What would have happened is that a lot of rich people would have lost a greater share of their wealth than the rest of us would (because relatively speaking we're already "poor"). This seems like something you'd have wanted. Why are you defending the bailouts when they clearly were a bailout of the rich?
Click to expand...

It would have meant worldwide economic collapse, making the Great Depression look like a picnic. Once we have again separated investment banks from commercial banks as they were for 50 years following the Great Depression, then we can let the investment banks fail without dragging everyone else down with them.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Trying to keep up with you is all. No, what I said was "Yes, reducing the deficit as we did in the 1990s, (the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years) by both cutting spending, mainly on the military, and increasing the tax rates for the wealthy." The intent was to show it is possible to reduce the deficit without attacking our nations social contract with our seniors.
Click to expand...

If Bush hadn't done his tax cut thing, he might have found a way to harness the housing bubble and reduce the deficit even further/more consistently, if not even had a few years of true surplus even despite the dot-com bust. But you know what? The point isn't that Bush shouldn't have cut taxes. The point is that you can't simply credit tax policies for deficit reduction when a credit bubble was driving the economic boom (and hence inflating tax revenues) in the first place.

Correlation does not prove causation.
Click to expand...

Yeah!!! Now you're getting it!!!!! Post hoc ergo propter hoc!!!

It was also a time of higher tax rates on the wealthy, and just like in the 50's thru the 70's the higher tax rates for the wealthy did not hinder our economy.
Click to expand...

Times were undeniably different then. The ability to do business elsewhere (sheltered from our tax rates) was much more restricted back then than it is now (with the advent of all our internet and communications technology).
 
Catawba said:
That's what will be required to address our problems. Or, you can just keep hoping for magic to make it all better.
Click to expand...

Your proposals won't address our problems...they will make our problems worse.

I say no thanks to your proposals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom