• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bachmann Calls for Higher Taxes

Last edited:
winston53660 said:
No for the vast majority regressive took a bigger bite. Their income taxes went down everything else went up. And for the wealthiest this was great!

For freelancers it was a death nail.
Click to expand...

This is not what your source says. In fact some wealthy people ended up with higher taxes due to fewer loopholes and deductions as your source points out. However, the telling quote from your source is here:

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
Click to expand...

Note that "much of" is less than all of, and it does not include the 1986 tax cuts.
 
cpwill said:
:) according to the Tax Policy Center, currently, the top income tax rate is 35%. In 1988, it was 28%. Given that the woman is a tax attorney, I'm beeeettting that's what she was referencing.

really, the insistence on the part of the left that any conservative minority must be an idiot crazy is getting old.
Click to expand...

Actually I read her comments as referencing Reaganomics. To quote from Wiki's article on Reaganomics(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics):

  1. Reduce Growth of Government spending.
  2. Reduce Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax.
  3. Reduce Government regulation.
  4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.
Click to expand...

If you look at her plan I linked to, it follows those 4 pillars.
 
Redress said:
This is not what your source says. In fact some wealthy people ended up with higher taxes due to fewer loopholes and deductions as your source points out. However, the telling quote from your source is here:



Note that "much of" is less than all of, and it does not include the 1986 tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Which means taxes went up for some
 
Redress said:
Which I have not denied. However, most people paid less.
Click to expand...

I think the tax burden went up on most people.

IN other news:

I do think a 70% marginal rate is too high on the wealthiest.
*except maybe in a time of war.
 
From "TeamBachmann"'s twitter:

Tomorrow, #Michele will make an announcement that is sure to fire up this race. What is it? You'll have to stay tuned to find out. #tcot

Was posted 3-4 hours ago so I think that's today.
----

Talk about short noticed. I'm sure she is going to bite off of Paul's plan which a glimpse was shown yesterday. If so, remember this post! >:-O
 
Last edited:
She just lost my support(not that i was supporting her that much).

Ron Paul 2012!!!
 
Redress said:
Her plan, which I linked to, would be terrible. However, it does not call for raising taxes, which is the point being made. There is no need to dishonestly portray her plan, when it is so easy to argue against it honestly. When people use lies and exaggerations to make a point which should be made honestly, they make all those arguing against it look bad in many people's eyes.
Click to expand...

You're working very hard to ignore the fact that Bachmann didn't realize that tax rates under Reagan were higher than they are today.

There's no doubt that Backmann wants to cut taxes. The point is that she called for instituting the tax rates that we had under Reagan because, idiot that she is, she thinks the rates were lower under Reagan. She's just another loony wingnut who believes the rightwing lies that Obama has raised income taxes when the truth is, he has cut them
 
sangha said:
You're working very hard to ignore the fact that Bachmann didn't realize that tax rates under Reagan were higher than they are today.
Click to expand...

again, as has been already demonstrated - tax rates were both higher and lower under Reagan than they are today - and they were much, much simpler as well. I think we can assume that she mean low and flat.
 
Her big news is that she is adopting a gay black baby and Donald Trump is doing a town meeting with her.
 
sangha said:
You're working very hard to ignore the fact that Bachmann didn't realize that tax rates under Reagan were higher than they are today.

There's no doubt that Backmann wants to cut taxes. The point is that she called for instituting the tax rates that we had under Reagan because, idiot that she is, she thinks the rates were lower under Reagan. She's just another loony wingnut who believes the rightwing lies that Obama has raised income taxes when the truth is, he has cut them
Click to expand...

No, you are working very hard to distort her words. I documented exactly what she was calling for, something you have in fact failed to do. Personally I would be embarrassed to have to lie to be able to argue against bachmann's plan...
 
jasonxe said:
Her big news is that she is adopting a gay black baby and Donald Trump is doing a town meeting with her.
Click to expand...

wait - are you being serious?
 
AdamT said:
Indeed, it is a horrible thing if you NEED that spending to avert a depression, or serious recession. Or if voters actually WANT that spending to support a social safety net.



Yes, it is a horrible thing if you don't have enough revenue to pay for the spending that most Americans want.



Absof*ckinlutely a horrible thing if, as we've seen very recently, a paucity of regulation allows the free market to go haywire and implode.



That was Volckenomics -- not Reaganomics.
Click to expand...
The thing with "spending what most Americans want" is that the "majority" usually wants contradictory things at the same time. Also just because most Americans don't realize that we're in deep deep trouble with our debt and still want Uncle Sam to keep spending like a drunk sailor doesn't make it the right thing to do. The fact is America's broke, we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem, and until more people in America and D.C. want to have an adult conversation about our spending and debt problems we'll continue on a (deserved) road to fiscal Armageddon.
 
neocon1225 said:
The thing with "spending what most Americans want" is that the "majority" usually wants contradictory things at the same time. Also just because most Americans don't realize that we're in deep deep trouble with our debt and still want Uncle Sam to keep spending like a drunk sailor doesn't make it the right thing to do. The fact is America's broke, we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem, and until more people in America and D.C. want to have an adult conversation about our spending and debt problems we'll continue on a (deserved) road to fiscal Armageddon.
Click to expand...

In Introduction to Basic Accounting 101, you will learn that there are TWO sides to a budget - INCOME and EXPENDITURES. Both of those contribute to the bottom line. Most local community colleges offer such a course.
 
As time goes by I am more and more convinced that Bachmann doesn't really know what she is doing, and is in way over her head. It's not necessarily one big thing, but her lack of detail to the little things keep adding up. I keep asking the question, "Is this the type of attention to detail that you want as President?"
 
MaggieD said:
I am sick and tired of the left (or any other part of the spectrum) calling candidates they don't support "dumber than a bag of rocks" in one form or another. It shows their own ignorance and, worse, their stupidity. If one can't argue against a platform, why doesn't one just STFU?
Click to expand...

Its perfectly valid considering that being more intelligent then a bag of rocks is kind of a necessary qualification for the job. The concern here is not so much her platform as the fact that she doesn't appear to understand what her platform is. This will just mean that another idiot who can simply have policy dictated for them by bureaucrats will be in office again, like Bush and Reagan.
 
MaggieD said:
I am sick and tired of the left (or any other part of the spectrum) calling candidates they don't support "dumber than a bag of rocks" in one form or another. It shows their own ignorance and, worse, their stupidity. If one can't argue against a platform, why doesn't one just STFU?
Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from.

But unfortunately in this particular case Bachmann is dumber then a bag of rocks...
 
MaggieD said:
I am sick and tired of the left (or any other part of the spectrum) calling candidates they don't support "dumber than a bag of rocks" in one form or another. It shows their own ignorance and, worse, their stupidity. If one can't argue against a platform, why doesn't one just STFU?
Click to expand...
Sorry but Bachmann comes off as being extremely dumb. I wouldn't say that of Romney, Huntsman, Cain, Gingrich, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels etc. etc. even though I disagree with them on many issues and they're all conservatives. You can either claim I'm saying this because Bachmann is extra conservative-ish, or maybe it's because when I listen to her speak she comes across as a ****ing moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom