• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What End of Bush Tax Cuts Means for You [W: 1475]

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheDemSocialist said:
Like to see a source on that... Or is this just your opinion? Because last time I checked democrats let the Bush tax cuts pass with ease and only one person in congress tried to filibuster them; Bernie Sanders..
Click to expand...
Byrd Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Byrd Rule is a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to allow Senators, during the Reconciliation Process, to block a piece of legislation if it purports significantly to increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" as set forth in the Budget Act.[SUP][1][/SUP] It is named after West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd.​
 
pbrauer said:
Gas price are not set by the president, they are set by the free market.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, and of course Obama's policies have nothing to do with it? How naive are you really? How is that green energy program working out for you?
 
pbrauer said:
Byrd Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Byrd Rule is a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to allow Senators, during the Reconciliation Process, to block a piece of legislation if it purports significantly to increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" as set forth in the Budget Act.[SUP][1][/SUP] It is named after West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd.​
Click to expand...


I wonder why it is that liberals have a problem with anyone keeping more of what they earn? Could it be that those supporting repeal aren't paying any FIT?
 
Conservative said:
Oh, I see, and of course Obama's policies have nothing to do with it? How naive are you really? How is that green energy program working out for you?
Click to expand...
Quit the rhetorical questions, Con, if you think he's responsible, then PROVE it.
 
pbrauer said:
Quit the rhetorical questions, Con, if you think he's responsible, then PROVE it.
Click to expand...

It has been proven, shutting off drilling in the gulf, stopping the Keystone pipeline, the anti oil rhetoric, the promotion of green energy all have had a negative effect on gasoline production and prices. You made a mistake in voting for Obama in 2008 and it looks like you have learned nothing over the past 3 plus years.
 
Conservative said:
It has been proven, shutting off drilling in the gulf, stopping the Keystone pipeline, the anti oil rhetoric, the promotion of green energy all have had a negative effect on gasoline production and prices. You made a mistake in voting for Obama in 2008 and it looks like you have learned nothing over the past 3 plus years.
Click to expand...

Got it, Bush was responsible for the high prices during his term but Obama has nothing to do with the price now. typical
 
Conservative said:
Almost 50% of INCOME EARNING HOUSEHOLDS do not pay any FIT, so is ZERO their fair share of running the U.S. Govt?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about "fair share," I'm pointing out that you guys are all in a titter about tax increases on one hand, and then on the other you advocate raising taxes on half of the population. If that's what conservatives in this country favor, it should be laid out specifically -- conservatives want to raise your taxes. Unless you're rich, that's class warfare.

Which is it? No tax increases, or raise taxes on 50% of households? Up to you.
 
Conservative said:
Oh, I see, and of course Obama's policies have nothing to do with it? How naive are you really? How is that green energy program working out for you?
Click to expand...


So you concede that then gas first hit $3.00 per gallon, that was Bush's fault.

Or is it only the fault of Democrats? Don't answer, we all know what your answer is.
 
rocket88 said:
Obama said he would do that last time too. Didn't work out that way.

If the tax cuts are supposed to be permanent, why did Bush and the Republican Congress who passed them in the first place set them to expire?
Click to expand...


because the dems would have filibustered the tax cuts if they were permanent
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Like to see a source on that... Or is this just your opinion? Because last time I checked democrats let the Bush tax cuts pass with ease and only one person in congress tried to filibuster them; Bernie Sanders..
Click to expand...

gee that's because they had an agreement. the dems threatened a filibuster if there was not the sunset provisions
 
i'm willing to pay more if it means we can avoid a debt crisis.

if we're getting out of this crisis, there has to be some compromise on both sides. the marginal rates in the 1990s were not unreasonable.
 
rocket88 said:
So wouldn't the Republicans filibuster if they're allowed to expire?
Click to expand...

you don't seem to understand how legislation works

that is incredibly stupid
 
Helix said:
i'm willing to pay more if it means we can avoid a debt crisis.

if we're getting out of this crisis, there has to be some compromise on both sides. the marginal rates in the 1990s were not unreasonable.
Click to expand...


I am not, I pay far too much as it is only to see the government waste billions and the turd in chief tell me I don't pay my "fair share" even though I pay more than 60 million_ people combined in federal income taxes and I sure don't use as much as they do
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't seem to understand how legislation works

that is incredibly stupid
Click to expand...


I understand how it works, but if the Republicans stood united there's no way Harry Reid could stop them. It's a tool that they potentially have if they choose to use it.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm not talking about "fair share," I'm pointing out that you guys are all in a titter about tax increases on one hand, and then on the other you advocate raising taxes on half of the population. If that's what conservatives in this country favor, it should be laid out specifically -- conservatives want to raise your taxes. Unless you're rich, that's class warfare.

Which is it? No tax increases, or raise taxes on 50% of households? Up to you.
Click to expand...

Wrong, my argument is against people trying to raise taxes on those evil rich people while ignoring those that are earning income but aren't paying any FIT and while we have 23 million unemployed and under employed paying very little if any FIT. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. the effort should be to put 23 million unemployed/under employed people back to work paying taxes
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
I understand how it works, but if the Republicans stood united there's no way Harry Reid could stop them. It's a tool that they potentially have if they choose to use it.
Click to expand...


do you realize how moronic that is? the only way the bill passed was with a sunset provision. If the dems didn't support it it would not have passed. To extend the bill the dems have to support it along with the gop. If the dems do nothing the taxes go up. THE GOP CANNOT FILIBUSTER the sunset away. GEEZ
 
TurtleDude said:
I am not, I pay far too much as it is only to see the government waste billions and the turd in chief tell me I don't pay my "fair share" even though I pay more than 60 million_ people combined in federal income taxes and I sure don't use as much as they do
Click to expand...

That's fine, but why doesn't the GOP drop the "no taxes" act and say "We want to raise taxes on half of households. Just not the better half."
 
to make it simpler, a filibuster can BLOCK passage of a bill. A FILIBUSTER CANNOT ENACT A BILL

for the tax cuts to BE EXTENDED there has to be PASSAGE OF AN EXTENSION
 
Navy Pride said:
Do you ever address the topic of a thread anymore?
Click to expand...

If you post stupid ****, expect people to comment on the stupid ****. If you don't want people to comment on the stupid ****, stop saying it.
 
rocket88 said:
That's fine, but why doesn't the GOP drop the "no taxes" act and say "We want to raise taxes on half of households. Just not the better half."
Click to expand...



while I oppose the government getting ANY more money, if it has to increase taxes it needs to increase them on those who haven't gotten the message that the government spends too much

the only way a tax increase will end the deficit is not by getting more money from the rich but by making big spending politicians extinct. and the only tax hike that will do that is one that pisses off the majority of voters

if everyone paid for what they want, we'd have about one 15th the amount of government we have today.

its progressive taxes that have led to a bloated government because the masses vote for the promised handouts that the dems pander to them with, and the masses don't pay the bill-the rich do
 
Navy Pride said:
Actually its pretty simple to me........If you want to pay more taxes then you vote for Hussein Obama.....If tou want taxes to remain the same then you vote for Romney... I can say this without any doubt that a Republican HOR and a Republican president will not let the Tax cuts expire
Click to expand...

Oh look, you are still calling Obama your pretty boy.
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, my argument is against people trying to raise taxes on those evil rich people while ignoring those that are earning income but aren't paying any FIT and while we have 23 million unemployed and under employed paying very little if any FIT. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. the effort should be to put 23 million unemployed/under employed people back to work paying taxes
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, you completely dodged the question. Is it no tax increases, or tax increases for half of households?

If it's the former, then you wouldn't advocate people not paying taxes because you don't want to raise anyone's taxes. You put the words "fair share" in my mouth, so now I'm going to make you answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom