• 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!

Pawlenty's super-rich tax cuts

Jetboogieman said:
MrVicchio said:
If that's all you have to say, go home chum, you clearly don't have a grasp of this subject.
Click to expand...

I have a grasp of the subject, you just don't want to accept that if you cut the spending that's forcing the need to borrow.. you don't have to raise the debt ceiling.

I know, that's a crazy concept and all..
Click to expand...
 
MrVicchio said:
I have a grasp of the subject, you just don't want to accept that if you cut the spending that's forcing the need to borrow.. you don't have to raise the debt ceiling.

I know, that's a crazy concept and all..
Click to expand...

It is not only the spending that is forcing you to borrow... but the lack of a ****ing income base.... and THAT is something Pawlenty and his cohorts dont seem to have the intellectual capacity to grasp.
 
Last edited:
randel said:
Pawlenty's super-rich tax cuts - Jun. 17, 2011


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hey rich folks, Tim Pawlenty wants to cut your taxes. A lot.

Under the terms of his recently revealed economic plan, Americans in the top 20% of earners would see their taxes cut by an average of $23,500, an 8.6 percentage point drop in their tax rate, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.


And the top 1% would get an annual average reduction of $261,000, a 14.8 percentage point drop.

Meanwhile, Americans in the lowest 20% of income would see their taxes drop by an average of only $23, a 0.2 percentage point change in their tax rate.


snip



Add in Pawlenty's corporate tax plan, and all that cutting means the federal government will bring in almost $7.6 trillion less in revenue over ten years.

For a government that already spends far more than it brings in, that spells trouble, according to Rosenberg, who said revenue would end up around 13.5% of GDP, far below historical norms.
Click to expand...


good for him-time to make the parasites take less
 
PeteEU said:
It is not only the spending that is forcing you to borrow... but the lack of a ****ing income base.... and THAT is something Pawlenty and his cohorts dont seem to have the intellectual capacity to grasp.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how some people thing we can pay the bills without generating the revenue to pay them. They shout "cut spending!" But ask them where they want to cut spending and they tuck and run.

Cut spending? How about we stop subsidising the extremely profitable oil industry? NO! How about we cut the welfare off to foreign countries like Pakistan and Isreal? NO! How about we stop giving the uber-rich a free ride? NO!

All they got is a bunch of bitchin' and whining. They got nothing else. No ideas. Nothing. Just a bunch of poo-poo'ing liberals, democrats and Obama.

And the democrats have a tendancy of throwing gasoline on the fire so they need to clean their house too. I think they have handled this mess, handed off to them by the republicans, terribly.
 
Captain America said:
It never ceases to amaze me how some people thing we can pay the bills without generating the revenue to pay them. They shout "cut spending!" But ask them where they want to cut spending and they tuck and run.

Cut spending? How about we stop subsidising the extremely profitable oil industry? NO! How about we cut the welfare off to foreign countries like Pakistan and Isreal? NO! How about we stop giving the uber-rich a free ride? NO!

All they got is a bunch of bitchin' and whining. They got nothing else. No ideas. Nothing. Just a bunch of poo-poo'ing liberals, democrats and Obama.

And the democrats have a tendancy of throwing gasoline on the fire so they need to clean their house too. I think they have handled this mess, handed off to them by the republicans, terribly.
Click to expand...

populist drivel-just how are we subsidizing the oil industry

I want to see your understanding of this demobabbling talking point
 
randel said:
if you read on, he also wants to eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest income, dividends and estates...what the hell is he thinking?
Click to expand...

Cearly he knows that those it the top start businesses and create jobs not government and not those at the bottom.

Until those at the top have confidence In the future they are not going to invest in it.

So far Obama has instilled confidence in anyone I know of.
 
I gave the wrong impression with my replies in this thread. I'm not all for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm for cutting taxes for everyone. I pay sales tax, income tax, estate tax, gas tax, taxes on investment income that I don't even realize the gains of, the only thing I don't pay taxes on right now is the ****ing air I breathe. I just would like to know when liberals would finally hit the limit and say, "We've been taxed enough now." Is there a limit? The debt ceiling debate says there is not.

I don't work for the gov't, they work for me. They take my money by force and spend it in ways I don't approve of. For any other venue, that would be a felony, armed robbery. But for the gov't, it's called taxes.

So no, I do not support any raising of taxes. I will support all lowering of taxes, but would surely prefer it to be for the poorer folks whose tax bills hurt them more than they hurt the more fluent.

I want to make this clear, I do NOT support tax breaks for the wealthy without equal tax breaks for the rich but I know how hard it is to make money, so while I would prefer everyone get tax breaks, not everyone even pays taxes so at least SOMEONE paying the gov't less makes me happy. Wish it was me, but hey, we can't all benefit.
 
Last edited:
randel said:
are you a economically challenged as pawlenty appears to be?
Click to expand...

Well lets see, I have 2 college degrees, one bachelors degree in finance with minors in economics and insurance and an associates in applied science, aviation.

So yes, I'm economically challenged. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Pawlenty showed a willingness for realistic spending cuts like getting rid of ethanol subsidies and raising the retirement, but the rest of his plan is simply unrealistic. I find it annoying that I can't find candidates who combine needed spending cuts without some ridiculous tax cut nonsense.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
I'm not for anarchy at all, but I am for a lean, fit, trim gov't. Not this bloated ass shyt we have today
Click to expand...

Actually it does appear you are for anarchy. Paying for the military, non-military based defense like TSA, homeland security, basic levels of inspection of food so that massive epidemics don't break out, border security and disaster response is far more then your prescribed level of taxes.

Not to mention if we went to zero, the costs of doing business in America would be prohibitively expensive. Imagine having to pay toll roads everywhere. Private security, Private firefighters. The cost of merely installing a water pipe to the private system would be horrendous. Mere infrastructure costs to get products to market would make America one of the most costly places to do business.

People tend to forget that one of the major reasons firms do not relocate overseas is because they have to pay 100% of the infrastructure. That jacks up costs often several times over any cost savings.
 
But the choices of doing those would be mine. Not the govt.

And I dont mind funding the military. But do I need to pay millions to study a ****ing shrimp on a treadmill?
 
MrVicchio said:
Different situation Jet, different countries, your obsession with comparing apples and oranges is unhealthy.
Click to expand...

If you are going to run with that argument, you need to show why the comparison is flawed. Merely saying it's different and then refusing to actually show why the comparison is invalid is just a cop out. And it shows you really don't know why the comparison is invalid.

I agree that Germany is somewhat different based on its percent of manufactured exports as a part of its total economy, but Canada is another story. You have to prove why Germany and Canada cannot be compared to the US.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
But the choices of doing those would be mine. Not the govt.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that businesses would flee the US for countries that provide basic levels of infrastructure via taxation. It is far more efficient for governments to build centralized infrastructure that can serve millions by using relatively small amounts of space and can be quickly repaired and upgraded without having to go through potentially thousands of claims. Ultimately, the backbone of American Capitalism is American Socialism.

But do I need to pay millions to study a ****ing shrimp on a treadmill?
Click to expand...

Not really. But do we need to spend $1 million on studying a fungus? Maybe. Depends what that fungus can do. Like generate oil. Some stuff that appears trivial isn't necessarily trivial.
 
MrVicchio said:
We should raise taxes in stead, and see if that creates jobs and wealth this time, (where it failed every other time in history)
Click to expand...

You have statistical historical data showing the only major change to an economy was increased taxes? Or are you talking out of your butt? Economic data does not exist in a vacuum. You should learn this high school notion.
 
PeteEU said:
It is not only the spending that is forcing you to borrow... but the lack of a ****ing income base.... and THAT is something Pawlenty and his cohorts dont seem to have the intellectual capacity to grasp.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the reason the ****ing revenue base is low, is because there are fewer people working and paying taxes and corporations are making less money and paying less taxes. That is something the Libbos don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to grasp.
 
randel said:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hey rich folks, Tim Pawlenty wants to cut your taxes. A lot.
Click to expand...

Damn You Pawlenty! We want government taking more of our money!

Under the terms of his recently revealed economic plan, Americans in the top 20% of earners would see their taxes cut by an average of $23,500, an 8.6 percentage point drop in their tax rate, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.


And the top 1% would get an annual average reduction of $261,000, a 14.8 percentage point drop.

Meanwhile, Americans in the lowest 20% of income would see their taxes drop by an average of only $23, a 0.2 percentage point change in their tax rate.


snip



Add in Pawlenty's corporate tax plan, and all that cutting means the federal government will bring in almost $7.6 trillion less in revenue over ten years.

For a government that already spends far more than it brings in, that spells trouble, according to Rosenberg, who said revenue would end up around 13.5% of GDP, far below historical norms.
Click to expand...

And the Bush Tax Cuts cost how much again?..........

Federal Tax Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0178231_188011_215361_240687_2567.png


.....Pawlenty's paln would probably double revenues.....to the bewilderment of surprised and unexpected liberal economists.
.
.
.
.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Well lets see, I have 2 college degrees, one bachelors degree in finance with minors in economics and insurance and an associates in applied science, aviation.

So yes, I'm economically challenged. :roll:
Click to expand...
i'd ask that college/university for my money back if i were you.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Don't make me turn this thread around. I'll roll it. I swear I will.
 
Why exactly do we think that people who buy Funyuns, or buildings with their names on them know better what to do with our country's wealth than the people whose literal job it is to execute our will and spend our money in a non-stupid way? All this nonsense about a government's right to our money... It's absurd. THEY work for US. Or at least they would if stopped letting the few wealthiest in this country have all the say. This is the result of our turning control over to corporate interests. A government should exist to do our collective bidding, like protecting our borders, ensuring that no one starves or is illiterate, keeping the roads in repair, and keeping these rich men who think they're above the law in check. The fact that we do not trust our government is indicative of a failing on our part, not theirs. WE must keep them accountable and honest. And we have not. And this insanity is the result.
 
IMO, Governor Pawlenty is running a campaign that focuses on telling people what they want to hear (basically that Americans do need not sacrifice) and in trying to position himself as the boldest tax cutter of all. Almost certainly, his policies would greatly exacerbate the nation's fiscal challenges. His economic growth number is unrealistic. The last time the economy grew by 5% in a year (just a single year) was 1984. The 1960s and 1970s saw four such years in each decade. However, given the structure of today's economy, not to mention its enormous debt overhang (domestic non-financial debt), it is unrealistic to expect such growth, much less on the sustained basis that Governor Pawlenty projects. In sum, his appears to be a campaign that seeks to evade the difficult choices U.S. policy makers will have to make. Perhaps in a stroke of good fortune, his flat debate performance and oscillating remarks on health reform, have indicated that he probably won't be a credible contender.
 
donsutherland1 said:
IMO, Governor Pawlenty is running a campaign that focuses on telling people what they want to hear.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Like his little tirade in South Carolina about bringing the Boeing jobs there. Plays well there, but how do the folks in Washington (the state, not DC) feel about that?

Unfortunately, telling people what they want to hear seems to be strategy that works. Worked for the last 3 Presidents.
 
rocket88 said:
Indeed. Like his little tirade in South Carolina about bringing the Boeing jobs there. Plays well there, but how do the folks in Washington (the state, not DC) feel about that?

Unfortunately, telling people what they want to hear seems to be strategy that works. Worked for the last 3 Presidents.
Click to expand...

It is frankly horrible and he should be ashamed. The "jobs" he wants to bring to South Carolina, a state he could win an election, would come from Washington State, a state he most likely never would win... this kind of "politics" is disgusting to say the least, and yes both sides use it. Hence the electoral college sucks donkey balls.
 
I am for no drastic changes in the tax structure at this time. All of our efforts should be in cutting expenses. We have to stop that snowball running downhill first.
 
Here is the deal in Wisconsin - Taxes are not evil, but excessive taxes due to excessive expenditures are. So, what are excessive expenditures? Education? The people of Wisconsin are in the process of deciding how much expenditure in education in the state is worth. Infrastructure? That is a given. The State Police? That is also a given. There are quite a few other givens here too, and some programs that are "not so given". But it all boils down to this - The people of Wisconsin decide what programs they need, and how much taxes they are willing to pay to support those programs. If they don't like the taxes, then they need to cut programs. If they like the programs, then they need to raise taxes. It's as simple as that. and it's also as simple as corporations paying their fair share too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom