• 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!

Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

I think it was 7.8 when he left office. You're free to check that. :coffeepap

It was 4.5% before the Libbos took over Congress, then it went up, steadily, starting in 2007. Might wanna do yer own fact checkin', bro.
 
It was 4.5% before the Libbos took over Congress, then it went up, steadily, starting in 2007. Might wanna do yer own fact checkin', bro.

Make any excuses you want, but the fact is he left when it was 7.8. Now, I don't think the government controls this, but your partisan view ignores facts to blatantly to ignore.
 
not true, they want to screw over obama at any cost, including the economy...boy, this is fun , throwing bombs at the other side.........

If Obama would stop spending like he can never run out of money we would not have this problem. If Obama would create jobs like he spends money we would have little unemployment and a good economy. Sadly all Obama does is spend money with no way to pay for it.
 
Income taxes are not the only taxes.

However:

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

■The 51 percent figure covers only the federal income tax and ignores the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay . As a result, it greatly overstates the share of households that do not pay any federal taxes. Data from the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center show only about 14 percent of households paid neither federal income tax nor payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[3]

■This percentage would be even lower if federal excise taxes on gasoline and other items were taken into account.
■Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In a year like 2009, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)
■Moreover, low-income households as a whole do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households as a group paid an average of 4 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007 (the latest year for which these data are available), not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are — the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007. [4] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Like is common, your side once again overstates the problem to the point of being factually inaccurate.

So you ignore the fact that democrats keep taking people off the income tax roll so they can go after the rich
 
Well they say they do, with the election coming up and the self-inflicted Tea Party problem to deal with.

Their behavior prior to this doesn't indicate anything of the sort.

That is why the lost power and that is why they will go back to conservative values.
 
So you ignore the fact that democrats keep taking people off the income tax roll so they can go after the rich

That doesn't make sense. Republican bracket cuts and increased credits dropped many of the poor off the income tax rolls. You are basically saying that Democrats raising taxes took people off of the tax rolls. That does not make sense.
 
hmmm...then why were they not overly concerned about bush's spending?? so bs, they are suddenly concerned now because there is an election coming up...

Who said that? That is why the GOP lost power in 2006
 
Adpt doesn't use google or fact checks. So you can pretty much assume he's 1) not going to fact check his own arguments and 2) not fact check your arguments.

Make any excuses you want, but the fact is he left when it was 7.8. Now, I don't think the government controls this, but your partisan view ignores facts to blatantly to ignore.

Go fact check who was controlling Congress for the last two years of Bush's second term.
 
Obama inherited a $9 trillion deficit. Are you saying the deficit is now $18 trillion?

thought not.

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov


In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
 
From the article ptif219 linked to (post #225):



I point this out because it kinda flies in the face of the Conservative mantra..."keep more of what you earn". Of course, instilling the child tax credit only helped to reduce the gross income of low wage earners that much more, but here's the rub...

A tax subsidy is a tax subsidy. The question becomes does impossing such a subsidy help the overall economy? Does the child tax credit put more money in the pockets of low-income families and, thus, providing more disposable income and, thus, allowing them to spend and/or save more? You guys (Conservatives) have said so yourselves that all poor people will do with their money is spend it on "things". They can't invest; $16K/annual will buy you very little in today's economy. As such, should the government take away this tax credit for the working poor for the sake of non-investment or should it remain because it spurs 1-time consumer spending (around tax refund time)?

That means Obama did in 2 years what it took Bush 8 years to do
 
Which begs the question, "Why hasn't lower taxes generated more jobs?" Again, the Bush tax cuts have been in effect since 2001, revised in 2003, extended in 2010 and still no significant job growth. Yet we keep hearing the argument that tax cuts create jobs! Or is it that they allow moreso for the wealthiest among us to "keep more of what they earn" with many not putting that money back in circulation within the national economy.

I see both sides of the argument, but IMO what we have here is "forced" conditions for stagflation. Few new jobs; unemployment hovers; no new revenue streams, incomes remain flat; little to no consumer spending = stagflation.

Why did Obama and the democrats extend them?
 
What was the U6 rate after the Democrats took over? I bet you won't post those numbers.

Probably high. I gave you the graph.

But what I never do is idiotically (as you often do) assume that the policies within the year are the cause. Largely because I understand how long bills take to become law. You on the other hand jump on anything that even looks remotely bad for Democrats.
 
That doesn't make sense. Republican bracket cuts and increased credits dropped many of the poor off the income tax rolls. You are basically saying that Democrats raising taxes took people off of the tax rolls. That does not make sense.

36% under Bush now it is 47%
 
Probably high. I gave you the graph.

But what I never do is idiotically (as you often do) assume that the policies within the year are the cause. Largely because I understand how long bills take to become law. You on the other hand jump on anything that even looks remotely bad for Democrats.

As I thought. There's no way you're going to post the U6 numbers for 2007 and 2008.
 
Do you realize you just blasted the Democrats for cutting taxes?

Jesus boy. Do you ever reflect upon the massive internal contridictions you hold?

No I didn't you took it out of context to get that
 
That doesn't make sense. Republican bracket cuts and increased credits dropped many of the poor off the income tax rolls. You are basically saying that Democrats raising taxes took people off of the tax rolls. That does not make sense.

Not only does it not make sense, it's not true. Republicans passed both tax cut measures in 2001 and 2003. Then they insist on more tax cuts be included in the Stimulus. Yet, now they claim the bill was worthless. As such, they've done everything humanly possible to negate any job creation or economic recovery that could have come with it, i.e., trimming state budgets at the expense of public employees and all but forcing public employees into retirement because of the many bills passed that increased expenditures on public employees at a time they claim "the people can ill afford to pay higher taxes". Well, they can claim they didn't raise taxes on anybody and that would be correct. However, they've forced higher costs onto a certain segment of the economy and that IS having a negative impact on the overall economy.

In short, by the states balancing their budgets on the backs of public employees, they are driving more people unto the unemployment rolls (retirements notwithstanding). I know of a few people who have lost their jobs because of statewide budget cuts and these were people who had been employed and doing good work for upwards of 10-12 years.
 
Not only does it not make sense, it's not true. Republicans passed both tax cut measures in 2001 and 2003. Then they insist on more tax cuts be included in the Stimulus. Yet, now they claim the bill was worthless. As such, they've done everything humanly possible to negate any job creation or economic recovery that could have come with it, i.e., trimming state budgets at the expense of public employees and all but forcing public employees into retirement because of the many bills passed that increased expenditures on public employees at a time they claim "the people can ill afford to pay higher taxes". Well, they can claim they didn't raise taxes on anybody and that would be correct. However, they've forced higher costs onto a certain segment of the economy and that IS having a negative impact on the overall economy.

In short, by the states balancing their budgets on the backs of public employees, they are driving more people unto the unemployment rolls (retirements notwithstanding). I know of a few people who have lost their jobs because of statewide budget cuts and these were people who had been employed and doing good work for upwards of 10-12 years.

We should just have a bake sale every Saturday, who would fight against that?
 
Back
Top Bottom