CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
14
Yes, deficit/fairness concerns No, its about compromise
Debate Score:21
Arguments:16
Total Votes:25
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, deficit/fairness concerns (7)
 
 No, its about compromise (9)

Debate Creator

iamdavidh(4846) pic



Should Democrats Filibuster Obama Proposed Tax Deal?

The Bush tax cuts of 2001 are set to expire. Both sides have agreed to continue the middle class tax cuts.

Pending issues:

Those making over 250k/ year should receive an additional tax cut for money made over the 250k watermark. (It is additional, they still receive a tax cut on the first 250k according to the democratic plan.)

Inheritance tax: This is called "Death Tax" on the right, estates and moneys over a specific 7 figure mark inherited are currently taxed at a lower rate than one's income, significantly so. The democratic plan calls for inheritance to be taxed at the rate at which one would pay if they were to earn the inheritance, instead of inheriting it naturally.

Outside of those two issues, all points are agreed upon.

House democrats, and some Senate democrats wish to get rid of the tax cut over the 250k watermark, and to increase the inheritance tax.

Obama and republicans have agreed to include the cut for over the 250k watermark, and to keep the current inheritance tax. In essense keeping all of the Bush cuts.

These two items alone will add over 700billion to the national deficit.

Many democrats feel this is too expensive, and that it is better for all taxes to go back to the rates during Clinton's Presidency, then to cave on these two issues. Others feel that, with the incoming House Republicans, they will need to sign off on a tax deal with less cuts for the middle class, and more for the rich, if they do not act now.

How should democrats procede?

Other Background:

Clinton supports Obama's compromise.

Over 80% of the population, Republicans included believe the tax cuts for the rich should not continue.

Over 50% of the population believes it is better to discontinue all tax cuts, than to continue tax cuts for the rich.

Contrary to much media, those making over 250k are getting a tax cut either way, just not as large a cut on the money they make over 250k in a year.

Yes, deficit/fairness concerns

Side Score: 7
VS.

No, its about compromise

Side Score: 14
No arguments found. Add one!
2 points

What has added to the debt in this deal is that the money was already spent for raising the tax rate. Keeping these tax rates is not adding to the debt.

Example, you were told you possibly would be getting a 10% raise by your employer. You go out and spend an extra 10% planning to get the raise but then unfortunate things at work cause a cutback on raises so your pay is frozen. The frozen pay did not add to your deficit, you SPENDING the money you thought you were going to get caused your larger deficit.

This is a common slant of goverment,you see goverment plans on an increased budget each year, say 8%. Whenever that 8% is reduced to say 3%, politicians cry the budget is being cut but in reality rather than getting 8% more money they are only getting 3% MORE. They are still getting MORE money yet they cry about budget cuts.

The same tax rates we have had for the last 8 or so years do not add to the deficit. Spending the money politicians THOUGHT they were going to get is the culprit.

SPENDING is the key.

3 years ago | Side: No, its about compromise
iamdavidh(4846) Disputed
1 point

Perhaps. But neither side has proposed anything to be cut, except the new health plan which ironically would cost our country more money, so not really a cut.

The other fact is, whether it is from spending or a lack of income, just the two items listed are going to, right now as things stand, put us an additional 700 billion in debt to China and oil producing Middle Eastern nations.

You can try to explain to them that 700 billion doesn't count because it's income and not spending if you like, but I doubt they will be interested.

The only President since the before WWII to balance the budget was Clinton. Not by coincidence I think during the time our budget was balanced, our economy was the strongest in history - for rich and poor alike.

I originally was all for a filibuster, and was ready to write Obama off as a poet president instead of a progressive, but then Clinton endorsed the deal, so perhaps it is not as bad as it seems on the surface.

However your reasoning seems to be typical of your ideals, and off.

Since this tax cut took effect, almost immediately after in fact, those above the watermark of 250k / year have seen their wealth increase almost exponentially, while the middle and lower class have actually seen a decrease in yearly income.

It seems the tax cut acted as a shift of wealth from the have nots to the haves - which is typical of every Republican presidency since Nixon.

Wealth has been increasing for this group by quite a bit every year for a decade, yet it has not "trickled down" just as it did not in the 80's.

The theory of top down economics has been proven bunk now twice, so the argument really isn't about wether giving cuts to the top 1-2% is good for the economy, we know through trial and error and 10 years of trying that it is not.

The argument is, we know Republicans will try to get an even sweeter deal for the very rich when they are in control of the House, so should Democrats filibuster and let Obama practice his Veto Pen later at the expense of the Middle Class tax cuts? Or should Democrats (and other 98% of the U.S. who have become poorer instead of richer over the last decade) swallow this pill to preserve the small cut for the middle class?

3 years ago | Side: Not sure
MegaDittos(568) Disputed
1 point

How can there be a lack of income if the tax rates stay the same? The tax rates would stay the same as the last 10 years or so, where is the lack of income?Spending....period Jobs,jobs,jobs

"The only President since the before WWII to balance the budget was Clinton"

" but then Clinton endorsed the deal, so perhaps it is not as bad as it seems on the surface."

Here is a great example of a liberal. Liberals believe in a person,a messiah perhaps to cure all that is ill with the world. One person is going to come in and balance a budget, do all that is good for society. On the flip side, one person is evil W, and he has screwed up the world and America. David actually changes his whole view because of one man's words,good or bad it comes down to what one or two chosen people say to him.Clinton or Obama, no philosophy,no ideology,he really doesn't have to stand for anything other than what his one leader says to believe in even when these people flip their beliefs. Very telling

3 years ago | Side: No, its about compromise

When is the class warfare going to end?

NEVER AS LONG AS THERE IS BIG GOVERNMENT AND PROGRESSIVE TAXES!!!

Fundamentally, liberals and Democrats see the deficit and debt as a revenue problem while conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and Constitutionalists see the deficit and debt as a spending problem.

These same liberals and Democrats suggest the middle class is disappearing because of rich evil businessmen coupled by greed, but in reality, the government is killing the middle class through inflationary policies and bad fiscal policy.

The idiom, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is the most misguided misinformation ever to come about. If this is true, if the rich get poorer, the poor get richer. Well, then how? Is the money falling from trees?

This goes back to how wealth is created, it is created by private ownership.

If Bill Gates wasn't as rich as he is, there wouldn't be 100,000 or more jobs created by his behalf. I am sure that those 100,000 people are glad that he is as rich as he is.

Senator Claire McCaskill is so ignorant that she suggests that the government is giving money to wealthy Americans, but in reality, it was their money to begin with, they earned it, so, based on her logic, she thinks that 100% of all income is the government's money, but the government is so benevolent that it only takes the money for what is necessary.

3 years ago | Side: No, its about compromise
iamdavidh(4846) Disputed
1 point

You're description of what liberals believe again shows how little you understand of the two sides of the subject, and how incredibly poor your sources are.

1. as I've explained, liberals don't march lock-in-step like the other side, so you get a variety of views.

2. most view deficit as a combination of incomome and spending... because it is.

And "class warfare" is a right wing talking point.

The tax increase would be 3% if the bush cuts were to expire for this group, which is the same rate they had in the 90's.

And over the last decade the top 2% in the income bracket have seen an increase of income of several percent, while the other 98% have actually seen a fall in income.

If getting the rich richer via lower taxes = more jobs, it would have already happened, and it would have happened in the 80's with Reaganomics.

It does not work as we've seen.

So the belief on the liberal side is that, returning to pre-bush jr tax rates would save 700billion, and not affect the economy.

I agree with this, as does nearly every economist.

I'm just not sure if it is a winnable fight for dems, knowing republicans will all vote "no" in unison to anything Obama proposes - even when he compromises.

3 years ago | Side: Not sure
MegaDittos(568) Disputed
1 point

"If getting the rich richer via lower taxes = more jobs, it would have already happened, "

Is there more or less jobs now that business owners were told since the last Presidential campaign the Bush tax cuts would expire? Businesses look farther ahead than people do and the decisions were made because this administration said over and over these tax rates would expire.

It has already happened 50+ months in a row it happened in the last administration.

Obama now guarantees it will happen.

3 years ago | Side: No, its about compromise
1 point

You're description of what liberals believe again shows how little you understand of the two sides of the subject, and how incredibly poor your sources are.

Good Educate me if I am wrong. I didn't have sources in the past post.

1. as I've explained, liberals don't march lock-in-step like the other side, so you get a variety of views.

Ok, neither do conservatives or Libertarians.

2. most view deficit as a combination of incomome and spending... because it is.

WTF? Income???? Government doesn't have an income. It is called revenue.

The fact that you think government has income just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.

And over the last decade the top 2% in the income bracket have seen an increase of income of several percent, while the other 98% have actually seen a fall in income.

That is because of bad government inflationary polices either fiscal or monetary policy and much of the population has a fixed income. GET IT!!! Inflation rises faster than income wages.

If getting the rich richer via lower taxes = more jobs, it would have already happened, and it would have happened in the 80's with Reaganomics.

Apparently, your lack of history shows. Reaganomics saved America from Carter's Keynesian Economics from 77-81

I agree with this, as does nearly every economist.

Really, that is not what I have found.

"But a majority of a panel of leading economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said that the tax cuts should be renewed for everyone." Economists 2

""I think if the tax cuts expire for everybody, then we'll be back in recession, no doubt. It would be a huge policy mistake," says Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi." Economists 3

3 years ago | Side: No, its about compromise
1 point

Bleh... I don't know. I'm going to trust the president's judgment on this one. He knows what he's doing.

Nate Silver argues the Dems didn't have a good bargaining position. link

3 years ago | Side: No, its about compromise
1 point

I'm going to trust the president's judgment on this one. He knows what he's doing.

Sheep

3 years ago | Side: No, its about compromise
jessald(1906) Disputed
2 points

It's called trust you douche. He's a good guy.

Read the blog post if you want the full argument.

3 years ago | Side: No, its about compromise
MegaDittos(568) Disputed
0 points

Which judgement, the two dozen times he said he would not favor the extention because we will not slip into a double-dip recession because of the actions he took or now when he says we must extend Bush's tax rates or we will slip into a double-dip recession?

3 years ago | Side: Yes, deficit/fairness concerns
jessald(1906) Disputed
2 points

Get your facts straight. He doesn't favor extending the tax cuts for the rich. He favors extending them for the bottom 98%. He still doesn't like the full cuts, but he's going along with them because unlike republicans he cares more about the good of the country than forwarding his political interests.

But apparently that's not good enough for you asshats. You still hate him even when he's agreeing with you. Fucking ridiculous.

3 years ago | Side: No, its about compromise


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.