Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,898,352 times
Reputation: 4512

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
We are 16 trillion and counting in debt. To address that some of it will have to be increased revenue's. I'm O.K. with that as long as there are cuts to go along with it.
A bunch of Democrats and sane Republicans once got together and proposed a 3:1 plan of revenue cuts to tax increases. Obama decided to ignore the advice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Jawjah
2,468 posts, read 1,918,983 times
Reputation: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.XXX View Post
Our dear marxist leader on his way in transforming American into socialist state...

Obama...spending cuts...yea right...lol..lol...lol...lol...lol...everytime he lies his ears get bigger!!!...maybe I should start calling him dumbo..

Attachment 107059

Obama Says U.S. Needs Revenue Along With Spending Cuts - Bloomberg
he's advocating a balanced approach of revenue and cuts.

Leave alone Obama's ears, I want to see how long your nose has grown after you keep posting misleading lies in your threads
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:12 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
A bunch of Democrats and sane Republicans once got together and proposed a 3:1 plan of revenue cuts to tax increases. Obama decided to ignore the advice.
We paid for a commission to devise a plan to address the debt. I do not recall if they were 3:1 or what their exacts numbers were but their recommendations have been tossed aside and their recommendations were cuts with increased revenue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:23 AM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,240,412 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
We paid for a commission to devise a plan to address the debt. I do not recall if they were 3:1 or what their exacts numbers were but their recommendations have been tossed aside and their recommendations were cuts with increased revenue.
You mean, increased taxes.

How many times between 2000 and 2008 were the budgets BALANCED?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
We paid for a commission to devise a plan to address the debt. I do not recall if they were 3:1 or what their exacts numbers were but their recommendations have been tossed aside and their recommendations were cuts with increased revenue.
We actually had multiple commissions and the proposals from all of them were ignored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:27 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJiveMan View Post
You mean, increased taxes.
Sure, but there is no reason to get into long discussions over what words are used here.

Quote:
How many times between 2000 and 2008 were the budgets BALANCED?
None. Which should be a blight on the politicians records who were responsible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:43 AM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,240,412 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Sure, but there is no reason to get into long discussions over what words are used here.



None. Which should be a blight on the politicians records who were responsible.
Some people differentiate the meanings of taxes and revenues. Some think they do not mean the same things, going by other threads in the P&OC forum.

Obama ran on the platform of doing away with the Bush tax cuts, and people of America must have liked the message sent, otherwise, he would have lost the election.

And nobody using this forum can tell me a majority of Americans are just so ignorant that they didn't know taxes would go up. People are not that stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 12:09 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJiveMan View Post
Some people differentiate the meanings of taxes and revenues. Some think they do not mean the same things, going by other threads in the P&OC forum.
They aren't the same thing. Still it's not the discussion I was after.

Quote:
Obama ran on the platform of doing away with the Bush tax cuts, and people of America must have liked the message sent, otherwise, he would have lost the election.

And nobody using this forum can tell me a majority of Americans are just so ignorant that they didn't know taxes would go up. People are not that stupid.
I never argued against them going up did I?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 12:11 PM
 
5,705 posts, read 3,671,155 times
Reputation: 3907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.XXX View Post
Our dear marxist leader on his way in transforming American into socialist state...

Obama...spending cuts...yea right...lol..lol...lol...lol...lol...everytime he lies his ears get bigger!!!...maybe I should start calling him dumbo..

Attachment 107059

Obama Says U.S. Needs Revenue Along With Spending Cuts - Bloomberg
I suppose you want to eliminate the deficit with more tax breaks???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 12:43 PM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,240,412 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
They aren't the same thing. Still it's not the discussion I was after.



I never argued against them going up did I?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
We paid for a commission to devise a plan to address the debt. I do not recall if they were 3:1 or what their exacts numbers were but their recommendations have been tossed aside and their recommendations were cuts with increased revenue.
Increased revenue actually means higher taxes, or higher tax rates? No?
Or, revenue can also mean money taken from one government agency and allocated to another.
Is this what you meant?

If the government decides to cut defense funding for instance, might they use the revenue from that and allocate it to another?

Revenue can also mean money coming in from sales of bonds?

Some people are totally against any increases of tax or revenue from tax.
Lack of sufficient revenue has gotten government where they are now, along with spending for wars and so forth.
I think Obama is trying to strike a balance of cutting while raising revenue.

Where's MTATech when you need him/her?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:30 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top