• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

We have a Spending Problem, NOT a tax revenue problem

Conservative said:
Why do you have a problem with individuals and business keeping more of what they earn?
Click to expand...

Enacting laws that keep BP, etc. from paying for their own screwups is not letting them keep more of what they earn. It's just bailing it out of its responsibility to private citizens.

Outside of that, they can keep their own earnings, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay for it.

But that's exactly what happens when businesses get subsidies. Either the debt increases (because tax revenues are cut), or the rest of us have to cover what they do not pay.

In other words, it's a handout.

Conservative said:
Do you realize that businesses pass costs on to the consumers?
Click to expand...

We've already been though that. When the companies are an oligopoly/monopoly, increases in those firms' income taxes do not cause an increase in the price of its goods. The price at which their profits are maximized stays the same, regardless of their income tax rate.

If that's not obvious, if those oil firms could simply cover the income tax increases by raising oil prices, then why would those firms oppose eliminating those subsidies?
 
Conservative said:
No, I posted that is what economists claim.
Click to expand...
That's interesting because you posted it as though it were fact when now it seems you are disagreeing with what you posted?

Conservative said:
When are you going to defend the Obama record?
Click to expand...
When I feel it needs defending. He seems to be doing pretty well on his own without any help from me.
 
liblady said:
here's how i see it.......if corporations can take deductions for jets, i should be able to deductions for cars. and btw, there is plenty of support for small business. obama has been incenting them for some time now. most small business earns less than 250k, right?
Click to expand...

Where are those Obama incentives, Obamacare? Regulations? Potential tax increases? Ever run a business? I know what it costs to employ people and what it takes to get rid of an employee as well. Any so called incentives are offset by regulations and tax uncertainty. businesses cannot print money like the govt. Looks to me like Obama has a master plan to implement his socialist utopia here and turn us into Greece
 
pbrauer said:
Funny, only 27% of Republicans are happy with their current choices. In comes Michelle Bachmann who is liked more than Romney for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe I should have said, "<sarcasm>superheroes</sarcasm>"
 
solletica said:
Enacting laws that keep BP, etc. from paying for their own screwups is not letting them keep more of what they earn. It's just bailing it out of its responsibility to private citizens.

Outside of that, they can keep their own earnings, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay for it.

But that's exactly what happens when businesses get subsidies. Either the debt increases (because tax revenues are cut), or the rest of us have to cover what they do not pay.

In other words, it's a handout.



We've already been though that. When the companies are an oligopoly/monopoly, increases in those firms' income taxes do not cause an increase in the price of its goods. The price at which their profits are maximized stays the same, regardless of their income tax rate.

If that's not obvious, if those oil firms could simply cover the income tax increases by raising oil prices, then why would those firms oppose eliminating those subsidies?
Click to expand...

BP has paid for the Gulf disaster which happened during the Obama watch. Enjoy that disaster that is occurring on the Gulf Coast

Sandestin Beach Webcam - Destin Beach Cam | Destin Florida Beaches

When are you going to stop buying what this lying Administration tells you? It makes you look foolish.
 
Conservative said:
No, I posted that is what economists claim. I didn't support TARP as I believe there should be consequences for failure. That is the way it happens in real life.

Always looking for a gotcha moment, aren't you? When are you going to defend the Obama record?
Click to expand...

Banks can and do fail on a regular basis. Even with massive capial injections and the ballooning of the biggest banks balance sheets, over 140 banks failed in 2010. Absent such bailouts, what do you believe the number would have been? How much taxpayer liability would have been on the line during a massive liquidation?
 
Conservative said:
BP has paid for the Gulf disaster which happened during the Obama watch. Enjoy that disaster that is occurring on the Gulf Coast

Sandestin Beach Webcam - Destin Beach Cam | Destin Florida Beaches

When are you going to stop buying what this lying Administration tells you? It makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...
Riiiiight ... because the worst oil spill in the history of mankind doesn't really hurt the environment. :roll:

Animals love being coated with oil -- it's good for their suntan.
 
Thunder said:
the only propaganda being spewed here, is Corporatist, Oil Company, greedy, stingy, private-jet owning lies and deceit.

the Democrats have agreed to trillions of dollars in budget cuts, and in exchange all they ask is that the super-rich pay a little bit more in taxes.

and what do the Republicans do? they walk out of negotiations....to go whine, bitch, moan, and weep.

The Democrats are trying to protect the USA...while the Republicans are trying to protect the fithy-rich.
Click to expand...

so you think that the filthy rich are hurt by the dem schemes? its the filthy rich who run that party

its the so so rich that are screwed blued and tattooed by the welfare socialist plots

so you think someone making 200K a year is SUPER RICH

that is why your party is so blatantly dishonest

they whine about billionaires while intended to rape someone who is basically upper middle class


IF YOUR SCUMBAG POLITICIANS WERE ONLY PROPOSING TAX HIKES ON THOSE MAKING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Banks can and do fail on a regular basis. Even with massive capial injections and the ballooning of the biggest banks balance sheets, over 140 banks failed in 2010. Absent such bailouts, what do you believe the number would have been? How much taxpayer liability would have been on the line during a massive liquidation?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the number would be but I do know that some of the largest banks did not request a bailout and most of the banks have paid back the funds. Where did that payback show up in the budget? I believe we are in a bigger mess today because behavior of the banks has not changed and that TARP rewarded bad behavior. There will never be an improvement until Fannie, Freddie, and AIG are reformed and the govt. has no interest in doing that. They just kick the can down the road.
 
randel said:
ah yes...back to the 'you look foolish if you don't agree with me' line of thinking:roll:
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see another entry in my Conservative-to-English dictionary is warranted ...

foolish (f
oomacr.gif
prime.gif
l
ibreve.gif
sh)
adj.
1. resulting from or showing a lack of agreement with Conservative.​

Hey, wanna see Conservative break out in hives? Watch this ...

Conservative ... you inferred that Reagan brought down the misery index ... how did he do that?

:lamo
 
solletica said:
Enacting laws that keep BP, etc. from paying for their own screwups is not letting them keep more of what they earn. It's just bailing it out of its responsibility to private citizens.

Outside of that, they can keep their own earnings, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay for it.

But that's exactly what happens when businesses get subsidies. Either the debt increases (because tax revenues are cut), or the rest of us have to cover what they do not pay.

In other words, it's a handout.



We've already been though that. When the companies are an oligopoly/monopoly, increases in those firms' income taxes do not cause an increase in the price of its goods. The price at which their profits are maximized stays the same, regardless of their income tax rate.

If that's not obvious, if those oil firms could simply cover the income tax increases by raising oil prices, then why would those firms oppose eliminating those subsidies?
Click to expand...

The oil spill has nothing to do with the debate on taxes on oil companies.

Obama and the Dems wants to remove a tax break that EVERY domestic manufacturer receives on the oil industry alone. Oil companies already get less of a break, as other manufacturers get 9% deduction of profits while oil only gets a 6% reduction. Obama not only wants to single out oil companies, but specifically the top 5 oil companies. They are trying to use the tax code to punish political rivals. Meanwhile the Dems faithful cover this sort of despicable abuse of power with idiotic claims that they only want to stop subsidies to oil.

There is no subsidy being discussed. This sort of politically motivated use of the tax code WILL cause instability as investors have to guess which industry/company this Banana Republic will target next.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
i never said that.

please don't make up claims by your opponents. it does your argument no justice.
Click to expand...
Who else is he going to beat up with his argument if not his strawman?
 
The Dems have, for a longtime, been using the tax code and spending to punish and reward their political rivals and opponents.

Republicans are guilty of this, as well, but if they stuck to their rhetoric they would not be.

Reduce taxes and spending and the government is less able to do this kind of crap.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ahh, I see another entry in my Conservative-to-English dictionary is warranted ...

foolish (f
oomacr.gif
prime.gif
l
ibreve.gif
sh)
adj.
1. resulting from or showing a lack of agreement with Conservative.​

Hey, wanna see Conservative break out in hives? Watch this ...

Conservative ... you inferred that Reagan brought down the misery index ... how did he do that?

:lamo
Click to expand...

Pretty simple, his economic policy reduced unemployment, Obama's economic policy has increased unemployment a major component of the misery index
 
Conservative said:
I don't know what the number would be but I do know that some of the largest banks did not request a bailout and most of the banks have paid back the funds.
Click to expand...

Bank Failures in 2010 cost tax payers over $24 billion

Bank Failures in 2009 cost tax payers over $37 billion.

Bank Failures in 2008 cost tax payers over $19 billion.

Without TARP (and Fed easing), tax payer liabilities would have been in the trillions (IMO). If you would like, i can break it down in a conventional manner that would give a more precise estimation.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Pretty simple, his economic policy reduced unemployment, Obama's economic policy has increased unemployment a major component of the misery index
Click to expand...

Actually, if you take a "per time in office" look, Obama is outperforming Reagan in every important metric (Iremon broke it down on another site).
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Bank Failures in 2010 cost tax payers over $24 billion

Bank Failures in 2009 cost tax payers over $37 billion.

Bank Failures in 2008 cost tax payers over $19 billion.

Without TARP, tax payer liabilities would have been in the trillions (IMO). If you would like, i can break it down in a conventional manner that would give a more precise estimation.
Click to expand...

But why are we liable for their risky behavior? FDIC.
 
Thunder said:
why is the American people liable for the risky behavior of big-banks?

because the GOP believes in holding people accountable for their poor behavior.

err....maybe not. ;)
Click to expand...

I gave you the answer. FDIC. FDR believed that bankers should not be held accoutable for their bad behavior and shifted that burden onto taxpayers.
 
RStringfield said:
But why are we liable for their risky behavior? FDIC.
Click to expand...

For the most part, repealing Glass-Steagal. The script was written when Citi merged with Travelers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom