• 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
When was the last true spending cut? ever? not a slowdown of growth but a real cut (outside of defense)

None, which is part of the problem. We cut taxes for going on 10 years now, but will not do anything else. It just makes the gap larger. Like I said to truly get at it, the things have to happen at the same time. Link them together so that the affect each other, I don't care, but to truly handle the debt it needs to happen.
 
1) Keeping the Bush/Obama tax rates for the "middle class"


2) sticking it to the rich with a tax hike

Why would saving tax cuts for the middle class necessitate saving them for the rich as well? The Democrats hold all the cards here. If push comes to shove, they can do absolutely nothing and all the tax cuts will expire. Then they can introduce a tax cut for the middle-class...and what Republican would dare oppose it?

Besides, I don't see retaining the Bush tax cuts for the Middle-Class but increasing them for the wealthy as "sticking it to the rich". I see it as a necessary move in order for the government to pay down the debt, thereby reducing the deficit, and maintaining our government's ability to properly function WITHOUT turning up the volumn on the Treasury's printing press.

We can talk cuts to federal spending, saving money by reducing entitlement spending, eliminate certain tax subsidies or rely on commercial papers from the Treasury (i.e., T-Bills) to generate revenue, but all these things alone won't reduce the deficit or eliminate the debt. The Middle-Class really has nothing more to give while the wealth-class has continued to make money even while the economy has struggled along. I think it's only fair and reasonable to ask those who can afford to help keep the government solvent should do so. And if such tax measures work to increase revenue while improving economic outcomes, I say we should do it. After all, we have tried it the other way - lowering taxes for the wealthy - for over a decade now and where has that gotten us?

Answer: Exactly in the debt crisis we find ourselves in now. No, lower taxes for the rich didn't cause the problem, but it certain hasn't created the tricke-down effect in job creation as has been proposed since the Reagan era.
 
Besides, I don't see retaining the Bush tax cuts for the Middle-Class but increasing them for the wealthy as "sticking it to the rich". I see it as a necessary move in order for the government to pay down the debt, thereby reducing the deficit, and maintaining our government's ability to properly function WITHOUT turning up the volumn on the Treasury's printing press.

We can talk cuts to federal spending, saving money by reducing entitlement spending, eliminate certain tax subsidies or rely on commercial papers from the Treasury (i.e., T-Bills) to generate revenue, but all these things alone won't reduce the deficit or eliminate the debt. The Middle-Class really has nothing more to give while the wealth-class has continued to make money even while the economy has struggled along. I think it's only fair and reasonable to ask those who can afford to help keep the government solvent should do so. And if such tax measures work to increase revenue while improving economic outcomes, I say we should do it. After all, we have tried it the other way - lowering taxes for the wealthy - for over a decade now and where has that gotten us?

Answer: Exactly in the debt crisis we find ourselves in now. No, lower taxes for the rich didn't cause the problem, but it certain hasn't created the tricke-down effect in job creation as has been proposed since the Reagan era.


if paying down the debt (rather than pandering for votes) really mattered the middle class tax "cuts" would go first since they involve more money
 
if paying down the debt (rather than pandering for votes) really mattered the middle class tax "cuts" would go first since they involve more money

how about we do both at the same time?

$1 trillion in more tax-revenue from the rich
$3 trillion in spending cuts on the middle-class.

sounds good to me.
 
how about we do both at the same time?

$1 trillion in more tax-revenue from the rich
$3 trillion in spending cuts on the middle-class.

sounds good to me.

are you too cowardly to choose?

if the choice is keeping your tax cuts and the rich would keep theirs OR jacking up their taxes while yours would rise too, what is more important to you

its an easy question

what is more important for you
 
are you too cowardly to choose?

if the choice is keeping your tax cuts and the rich would keep theirs OR jacking up their taxes while yours would rise too, what is more important to you

its an easy question

what is more important for you

Apparently any nuance in anyone's position would go right over your head. :roll:

If for some reason we were faced with that illogical binary choice, I would favor keeping taxes on the rich and middle-class low in the short-term (1-2 years) and raising them in the long-term. This is because economic stimulus is far more important than the deficit in the short term, and a tax cut for the middle-class definitely qualifies as economic stimulus...but in the longer term the deficit will become more important. If even THAT position is too much nuance for you, then let's just say I'd prefer raising them.

Fortunately we won't be facing that choice. Unless the Republicans win both houses of Congress and the presidency (or unless the Democrats cave), we'll be able to keep the middle-class tax cuts but not the tax cuts for the rich.
 
Last edited:
Apparently any nuance in views would go right over your head. :roll:

If for some reason we were faced with that illogical binary choice, I would favor keeping taxes on the rich and middle-class low in the short-term (1-2 years) and raising them in the long-term. If even THAT is too much nuance for you, then let's just say I'd prefer raising them.


its always fun watching those who want a nanny government to take care of them pretending they are smarter than those of us who can do ok without demanding others pay for our existence as you do
 
It is why you cut costs too. People need to realize to really get a handle on this debt, taxes need to go up and spending needs to go down. Doing one or the other will not do it.

This is inaccurate. Revenues need to go up. That is a very different thing from tax rates.
 
how about we do both at the same time?

$1 trillion in more tax-revenue from the rich
$3 trillion in spending cuts on the middle-class.

sounds good to me.

I'd rather just cut spending on the rich, and that way avoid disincentivizing productive behavior.
 
I love your appeal to mediocrity

Its all about the economy. The tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing for the economy to merit the people continuing to allow them.
 
Actually, I think raising everyone's taxes 5% is an excellent idea.

My problem with any increase, however, is that we have absolutely no reason to believe the extra revenue will reduce the deficit. Absolutely none.

Not alone. Anyone serious wants to cut spending an increase taxes. Where we will have real disagreement is where to make the cuts.
 
I am not until the government proves that it can really make cuts-

I am not until the middle class pays the same share of the income tax as their share of the income

Cop out. They can do both at the same time, real and backed by law. No one has to accept anything, except the law.

Oh, and the middle class is taking the biggest beating right now. If anyone needs help, it's them. Working people who can't afford insurance, who are working two, sometimes three jobs. Again, you won't trade places with them, so save the whining for someone who swallows that ****.
 
Last edited:
Cop out. They can do both at the same time, real and backed by law. No one has to accept anything, except the law.

Oh, and the middle class is taking the biggest beating right now. If anyone needs help, it's them. Working people who can't afford insurance, who are working two, sometimes three jobs. Again, you won't trade places with them, so save the whining for someone who swallows that ****.


FIne-then raise the taxes on those who are not paying for even what they use

not on those who are paying for what millons of others use because what you want is to encourage the takers to demand even more

I want to give them proper feedback so as to lessen their demands to suckle more from the public tit
 
Last edited:
Anybody else find it hilarious that democrats will lean on the "there are no jobs" defense in order to justify hiking taxes on the more productive....

but as soon as you claim that the Stimulus has been a failure and that the Obama administration has been a massive wet blanket on job creation, they loudly insist that in fact there has been turn-around and jobs a-plenty?

Let me get this straight...A Republican claims the rich are making jobs, I ask where these jobs are, and you decide I am a Democrat who is "Leaning" on some defense?

1) I am not a Democrat
2) I still ask where the jobs are.
3) I am curious how a Republican can blame our President for the lack of jobs, but be unable to defend a claim that the wealthy are creating them.

Either...Jobs are being created, or they are not....pick one.
 
1) Keeping the Bush/Obama tax rates for the "middle class"

2) sticking it to the rich with a tax hike
Oh, but you misunderstand. Obama has no desire to "stick it to the rich". Per his tv commercials, he's only going to raise their taxes a "little bit".
 
Actually, I think raising everyone's taxes 5% is an excellent idea.

My problem with any increase, however, is that we have absolutely no reason to believe the extra revenue will reduce the deficit. Absolutely none.
I would nominate this for Post of the Day, but it was yesterday.

Maybe Post of Yesterday. :mrgreen:
 
once we're coming out of recession and the economy is on more solid ground, i'd support a return to 1990s rates even if it meant i had to pay more. government is currently underfunded, we borrowed to pay for the wars (and everything else), and we're not doing good things for the dollar right now. since my assets are in dollars, i'd rather have fewer that are worth more than many that aren't worth much.
 
I figured the Obama tax fans would not be able to provide an answer

what means more to you

keeping your tax cuts if it means I keep mine

or sticking it to us "evil rich" but having to suffer a tax hike yourself

what is more important

hikes for everyone

current tax rates for everyone?
You will not receive any answers that are satisfiable to your standards until your silly preconceived notion that everyone that wants to raise taxes, at all, is only doing it out of hatred. That is a defense mechanism you have created for yourself so that you can always revert back to your typical retorts when any uncomfortable information is presented to you or any uncomfortable questions are asked of you. It is basically a strong-hold type defense against learning anything new or gaining any insight. You might enjoy having this barrier, but you will be better off dropping it.

As for my opinion, I think it would be smart of us to let the tax cuts expire except for only the poorest amongst us. I can afford to pay a little bit more in taxes and I think the country would be better for it.
 
why do you believe in giving a wasteful bloated government more money when you already admit it would do nothing to reduce the deficit

why cannot people DEMAND that there be SIGNIFICANT cuts before anyone pays another extra dime to this hog of a government?

I'm on the same track as you, TD. After thinking about it, I believe that any tax increase on anyone should have to be matched with a cut in spending. That'd fix 'em.

We all know that giving our government more money just results in them spending more. I think raising everyone's taxes would be a good thing -- because that would/should mean that everyone pays taxes. Those 47% who don't pay any taxes? They could care less. Give 'em some skin in the game and watch 'em squeal. ;)
 
Not alone. Anyone serious wants to cut spending an increase taxes. Where we will have real disagreement is where to make the cuts.

What's amusing is that there's not a business or a household in our country that can't make a 5% cut across the board in their spending. Quit arguing and just do it. (Not you. Ha!)

To believe that our country/state/county/township/village governments are run "lean-and-mean" is an absolute joke.
 
FIne-then raise the taxes on those who are not paying for even what they use

not on those who are paying for what millons of others use because what you want is to encourage the takers to demand even more

I want to give them proper feedback so as to lessen their demands to suckle more from the public tit

Be specific. Who are these people?
 
Be specific. Who are these people?
those who want the rich to pay more and vote for big government

the bottom 60% of the voters are generally paying less in taxes to the federal government than they are getting back in federal handouts.
 
Oh, but you misunderstand. Obama has no desire to "stick it to the rich". Per his tv commercials, he's only going to raise their taxes a "little bit".

he's a lying SOS.
 
Under the Democrat's plan, "High-income households would see their top two income tax rates increase to 36% and 39.6%, from 33% and 35% today. Their ability to benefit from certain tax breaks would be limited. And their tax rates on capital gains and dividends would increase to 20% from 15% now."

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have proposed a full one-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, including the lower rates on investment income. They do not, however, continue the 2009 expansion of the low- and middle-income tax breaks included in the Democratic plan.

Republicans would extend the current estate tax, which allows for a $5 million exemption level and imposes a top rate of 35%."

"Bottom line under GOP plan: Under the Republican proposal, 15.4% of households would see tax increases, but the increases would primarily hit people making under $80,000, according to a new analysis from the independent Tax Policy Center.

Drilling down, 20% of households making less than $48,000 would see average tax increases as high as $958.

Another 14% in the middle of the income scale (roughly between $48,000 and $80,000) would pay an average of $783 more than they do today.

At the very high end of the income scale -- at least $600,000 -- less than 0.05% would see a tax increase.

Bottom line under Democratic plan: The breakdown gets more complicated for the Democrats' proposal because it doesn't include protection from the AMT for 2013, even though the going assumption is that Democrats would eventually back such a patch.

The AMT is supposed to hit wealthy filers, but without a patch it would hit tens of millions of non-wealthy households. That's why Congress regularly passes one on a bipartisan basis."

Bush tax cuts: What you'd pay under rival plans - Jul. 25, 2012
 
Back
Top Bottom