Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[nehalem]

If Republicans criticized Democrats for ignoring Biblical principles, we'd be hearing nothing but "Church and State, Church and State"

I've told some people at work that separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution or our founding documents. At first they looked at me funny and thought I was lying, because the leftist media has propagated that idea so much it's become a commonly believed myth to the point where many Christians even believe it.

 

[chris4243]

Are we a Christian Nation, that should inscribe into law God's command to help the poor? Are we a Christian Nation that should inscribe into law God's command to not practice homosexuality? Somehow, I think the answer to those questions would usually differ.

 

[Umaro]

Can someone explain to me how closing loopholes is raising taxes? A loophole by definition is a technicality to avoid the intent of the law. If the rate that was agreed upon is 35%, and you're paying 17%, removing the loophole so you pay the 35% you're supposed to isn't a tax raise, it's the intended rate. I mean, I don't see anyone calling this a price hike.

 

[abysmul]

Can someone explain to me how closing loopholes is raising taxes? A loophole by definition is a technicality to avoid the intent of the law. If the rate that was agreed upon is 35%, and you're paying 17%, removing the loophole so you pay the 35% you're supposed to isn't a tax raise, it's the intended rate. I mean, I don't see anyone calling this a price hike.

No, there are countless loopholes that are specific and deliberate in the tax code.

If you whip out your latest paystub and look at the bottom line and it is smaller and the amount of tax that was taken out is larger then that larger number is raise in the amount of taxes taken from you.

A retail company making an advertising mistake does not relate to this topic.

FYI: I'm for a totally flat tax and ZERO exemptions (including for churches and non profits).

 

[MachZer0]

Can someone explain to me how closing loopholes is raising taxes? A loophole by definition is a technicality to avoid the intent of the law. If the rate that was agreed upon is 35%, and you're paying 17%, removing the loophole so you pay the 35% you're supposed to isn't a tax raise, it's the intended rate. I mean, I don't see anyone calling this a price hike.

It's because they are not talking about real loopholes. When they say they want to close the loopholes, they mean they want to eliminate deductions. That increases taxes. When the medical expense deduction was all but eliminated, most of us experienced a tax increase. When the interest rate deduction was eliminated except for mortgage interest, most of us experienced an increase in taxes.

 

[MachZer0]

No, there are countless loopholes that are specific and deliberate in the tax code.

If you whip out your latest paystub and look at the bottom line and it is smaller and the amount of tax that was taken out is larger then that larger number is raise in the amount of taxes taken from you.

A retail company making an advertising mistake does not relate to this topic.

FYI: I'm for a totally flat tax and ZERO exemptions (including for churches and non profits).

Case in point. You're talking about deductions which are not loopholes. Democrats started calling them loopholes because it sounds more sinister than a deduction

 

[MachZer0]

No, there are countless loopholes that are specific and deliberate in the tax code.

If you whip out your latest paystub and look at the bottom line and it is smaller and the amount of tax that was taken out is larger then that larger number is raise in the amount of taxes taken from you.

A retail company making an advertising mistake does not relate to this topic.

FYI: I'm for a totally flat tax and ZERO exemptions (including for churches and non profits).

I'm not sure why churches should pay income tax. the money they have is basically pooled money that has already been taxed. If you had a fellow employee who had a sick child and you took a collection to give to the employee for medical expenses, would you want to include that as income for tax purposes for the person who actually took the collection?

 

[abysmul]

Case in point. You're talking about deductions which are not loopholes. Democrats started calling them loopholes because it sounds more sinister than a deduction

Very sinister indeed.

I'm sure we could get Jeffrey Immelt's opinion on loopholes. You know, Obama's Chairperson of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
The same head of GE... the company that owed nothing in federal income taxes in 2010 despite earning $14 billion, about a third from its U.S. operations.

 

[Umaro]

It's because they are not talking about real loopholes. When they say they want to close the loopholes, they mean they want to eliminate deductions. That increases taxes. When the medical expense deduction was all but eliminated, most of us experienced a tax increase. When the interest rate deduction was eliminated except for mortgage interest, most of us experienced an increase in taxes.

Why should choice industries and individuals get deductions that other industries don't? Also, I'm pretty sure a number of them are unintended loopholes. I don't think the laws were written with the intent that Warren Buffet should pay less as a percentage than his secretary.

And what happened to that "everyone needs to sacrifice" line? Letting deductions that only you get go seems like a perfectly reasonable sacrifice if you're expecting other people to give up things that only apply to them. As far as I can tell those at the top are not taking on any additional sacrifices despite our current troubles.

 

[MachZer0]

Why should choice industries and individuals get deductions that other industries don't? Also, I'm pretty sure a number of them are unintended loopholes. I don't think the laws were written with the intent that Warren Buffet should pay less as a percentage than his secretary.

Can you name some?

And what happened to that "everyone needs to sacrifice" line? Letting deductions that only you get go seems like a perfectly reasonable sacrifice if you're expecting other people to give up things that only apply to them. As far as I can tell those at the top are not taking on any additional sacrifices despite our current troubles.

Deductions encourage business. As Reagan said, if you want less of something, tax t, if you want more of something, subsidize it. So do you want more of business, or less? Obama's plan seems to indicate he wants less business and thus we have unemployment in excess of 9%

 

[abysmul]

Why can't Washington share in the sacrifice? Why not just reduce spending? How about a budget freeze say at 2006 levels (well back behind these trillions of stimulus) and then do an across the board 10% budget cut?

Look at all the Americans that are unemployed, have had pay cuts, increases in benefit costs, reduced hours and such... we have to live with that, we must adapt our lifestyles and budgets for that... why can't Washington do the same to the budget?

 

[MachZer0]

Why can't Washington share in the sacrifice? Why not just reduce spending? How about a budget freeze say at 2006 levels (well back behind these trillions of stimulus) and then do an across the board 10% budget cut?

Look at all the Americans that are unemployed, have had pay cuts, increases in benefit costs, reduced hours and such... we have to live with that, we must adapt our lifestyles and budgets for that... why can't Washington do the same to the budget?

Obama and his family certainly don't seem to be eating peas and sharing the sacrifice

 

[Umaro]

Can you name some?

Like how the Koch brothers, whose business brings in billions, file as a "small business" and pay taxes as such.

Deductions encourage business. As Reagan said, if you want less of something, tax t, if you want more of something, subsidize it. So do you want more of business, or less? Obama's plan seems to indicate he wants less business and thus we have unemployment in excess of 9%

That hasn't come true in any sense of the word. They're not creating jobs with the deductions, so why should they keep them when everyone else is asked to sacrafice? If you expect students to give up scholarships, teachers and firemen to give up pensions, and future generations to take hits to SS and medicare, it seems reasonable that those at the top are asked to close a few loopholes on their personal income that only they get.

Why can't Washington share in the sacrifice? Why not just reduce spending? How about a budget freeze say at 2006 levels (well back behind these trillions of stimulus) and then do an across the board 10% budget cut?

Look at all the Americans that are unemployed, have had pay cuts, increases in benefit costs, reduced hours and such... we have to live with that, we must adapt our lifestyles and budgets for that... why can't Washington do the same to the budget?

Washington is sharing the sacrafice. Obama is currently offering 4:1 cuts to loop hole reductions. You're saying that $4 cut for every $1 in closed loophole isn't a fair enough sacrifice for cutting, and the GOP wants $4 cut for $0 in closed loopholes? What exactly are those at the top sacrificing to help with the problems they also helped create?

 

[szechuan]

Washington is sharing the sacrafice. Obama is currently offering 4:1 cuts to loop hole reductions. You're saying that $4 cut for every $1 in closed loophole isn't a fair enough sacrifice for cutting, and the GOP wants $4 cut for $0 in closed loopholes? What exactly are those at the top sacrificing to help with the problems they also helped create?

100% agree'd

Obama agree'd to tons of cuts he even said he wouldn't mind raising the Medi-care age to 67.

 

[abysmul]

Cuts only is what I'm saying, and the "cuts" are a tiny drop in the bucket spread over a decade or more.

Washington politics as usual. The problem is that Washington is spending astronomically more money than they have (levels never seen before), not that tax revenues are astronomically down.

 

[pgp_protector]

I wonder if this Democrat still thinks this ?

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

...

 

[MachZer0]

Like how the Koch brothers, whose business brings in billions, file as a "small business" and pay taxes as such.

I'm not particularly familiar with the Koch brothers tax returns, but first you said it was choice businesses that got the breaks, now you're indicating that it's the small business getting the breaks. Which is it?

That hasn't come true in any sense of the word. They're not creating jobs with the deductions, so why should they keep them when everyone else is asked to sacrafice? If you expect students to give up scholarships, teachers and firemen to give up pensions, and future generations to take hits to SS and medicare, it seems reasonable that those at the top are asked to close a few loopholes on their personal income that only they get.

You should have listened to Steve Wynn explain. Businesses do not know what to expect from this administration. When he moved his headquarters to China, he said it was because with the current administration in Washington, China is more business friendly

 

[Umaro]

Cuts only is what I'm saying, and the "cuts" are a tiny drop in the bucket spread over a decade or more.

Washington politics as usual. The problem is that Washington is spending astronomically more money than they have (levels never seen before), not that tax revenues are astronomically down.

So you're saying cuts only, which means that you want everyone that isn't rick to sacrifice? If we cut pensions for teachers, that's a government cut, and Washington and teachers are sacrificing. Where's the sacrifice from the wealthy to match that? Or was that "everyone needs to share the sacrifice" talk of the GOP just for show?

I'm not particularly familiar with the Koch brothers tax returns, but first you said it was choice businesses that got the breaks, now you're indicating that it's the small business getting the breaks.
Which is it?

You asked for an example of unintended loopholes. I'm certain that one of the largest corporations the planet has ever seen was not intended to file under "small business" tax rates.

If you want an example of choice businesses getting breaks, look at the corn industry, or the oil companies. They get extra tax breaks that other industries do not.

You should have listened to Steve Wynn explain. Businesses do not know what to expect from this administration. When he moved his headquarters to China, he said it was because with the current administration in Washington, China is more business friendly

The tax cuts have been in place almost a decade longer than Obama has been in office, why didn't we see significant job growth then? The last decade showed us the slowest economic expansion since WWII, and unless Bush was also leaving businesses not knowing what to expect, it doesn't seem a very good explanation.

 

[abysmul]

Debt ceiling debate... DEBT not TAX ceiling debate. We're in this position because of DEBT... spending more than we have.

Oh wealthy sacrifice? About 1/2 of Americans pay no tax. ZERO.

(as noted earlier, I'm pro Flat Tax, but that's a different debate)

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm wondering how many of these cuts are actual cuts.

If I'm spending 10000 a year and plan to spend 11000 next year
But I only make 9000 a year.

If I cut back to 10500 for next year what did I cut ? I'm still spending 500 more than the previous year