• 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’

The debt was probably 9 trillion dollars when he came in. But other than that you are correct. The idea that Obama has made the national debt exponentially larger than any other President is ridiculous. Don't forget it tripled under Reagan
 
Require E-Verify; $5,000 per head fine from the employers, split between the federal government and the agency that makes the bust.

"Supply side" immigration reform. That's what I have always thought was the solution.

Working in construction in SD CA gives great insight into this issue, and making it cost prohibitive to use illegal labor seems a lot more productive than demonizing poor people trying to help their families.

Frankly, the economies so bad right now that many local illegals went home for x-mas and stayed there.
 
Require E-Verify; $5,000 per head fine from the employers, split between the federal government and the agency that makes the bust.

E Verify is a great program, as is secure communities. Of course ICE isn't doing anything though not at all.
 
Fact: Half the country pays NO TAXES now.

j-mac
From the article ptif219 linked to (post #225):

As Bruce Bartlett at The New York Times notes, those in the bottom quintile have incomes of less than $16,812.

...

Bruce Bartlett points out that between 2000 and 2008, during the presidency of George W. Bush, the percentage of filers who paid no federal income tax rose from 25.2 percent to 36.3 percent. During this time, Bartlett says, Republicans added a significant child credit to the tax code, resulting in a rise in nonpayers.

In fact, the number of filers paying no federal income tax has hovered between 40 and 50 percent for the past several years.

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)?
 
Last edited:
Does it matter who created it or who is screwing it up? The fact is when it was created it supposed to be temporary which as we see it is still here

You do realize you're advocating for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, right? ALL of them!!
 
From the [tif219;1059618880]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)?

when is a tax deduction a tax subsidy? ans. when it helps someone else!
 
Really????? And with equal or nearly equal support from both parties??????

Lets look at the facts:

The 2001 Bush tax cuts had the following votes

House of Representative
Republicans YES 211 NO 0 (thats zero)
Democrats YES 28 NO 153

Senate
Republicans YES 46
Democrats YES 12

2003 Bush tax cut bill
House
Republicans YES 224 NO 1
Democrats YES 7 NO 198

Senate
Republicans YES 48 NO 3
Democrats YES 2 NO 46

Add those YES votes up. Republicans cast a total of 529 YES votes for the two Bush tax cut bills. Democrats cast 49 total votes for the same bills. More than ten Republicans cast YES votes for every one Democrat that cast a YES vote.

Given that this was a Republican President who came up with this idea and that over 91% of the YES votes came from Republicans, the idea floated that this was from both parties, is disingenuous in the extreme. And then for the same person to continually and constantly attack Democrats for making this situation possible, it is bordering on intellectual fraud.

I see, so the world started with George Bush?


j-mac

Stop being disingenuous; haymarket just illustrated that this "bottom feeding tax burdern" the Republican/Conservatives have been ranting about particularly since Obama took office was due to Republicans voting overwhelmingly in favor of the tax cuts/credits that have allowed the working poor to pay no federal income taxes. Then you (Reps/Conservs) conveniently frame the argument as if it has been the Democrats/Obama who has given such "gift" to "minorities".

Hypocrisy stinks! But it smells so good when it's uncovered against those who espouse the falsehoods.
 
that seems to be true with so many dems.

they forget how the Wilson era government structured the income tax

how the LBJ war on poverty accentuated New Deal handouts

how the New Deal created all sorts of new powers for congress in degradation of the Tenth amendment

Not a bitch at all. In fact though you have just a little bit off on your actual history....Income tax probably more accurately goes back to Lincoln in the 1860's...

j-mac


I'm sorry, but if you expect Obama to carry the entire burden irrespective of Bush, then you can't point out who ****ed up much earlier in the game. Common logic must apply.

BDBoop makes a very good point here. You can't claim that "this is Obama's economy...stop blaming GW Bush" then conveniently climb in your way-back machine(s) to berate how the income tax was structured only to lay today's taxation problems at the feet of the Dems and Pres. Obama only especially when the current argument isn't the tax structure itself, but rather why do the poor pay little to no federal income tax at all. Clearly, Republicans had no problem with this when the passed the 2001 & 2003 Bush era tax cuts. But now...now that the economy is sufferring...now they want to complain about "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" when they helped create the income/wealth gap!

C'mon, man! That's low-ball even for you!!
 
Last edited:
Republicans were way more Left back then, too.

So, does that mean you'll finally start acknowledging that your side significantly helped to create the economic mess this country now finds itself in, or will you continue to be in denial about the role Republicans have played in helping to nearly bring this country to its knees?
 
I see this bit a lot so why do so many pay nothing for all those great things and others pay 100X or more of what they use?

That "nothing" you keep referring to is "something" in the form of city and state sales and use taxes. Everyone who earns an income no matter how small if it is on your state or the federal taxable income scale pays into the "system" in one way or another.

Therefore, could you atleast try to keep your argument on one side or the other of the taxaction argument, i.e., local/state taxes or federal? (And just to re-emphasize, the argument has already been made and won I might add as to which side of the political divide called for the tax cuts to the working poor since 2001 and again in 2003. Therefore, I fail to see the relevence of continue down this flawed line of reasoning.)
 
Half of the country is, "poor"?

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.
 
Aren't you some sort of teacher? Are you having problems with the structure of the sentence? R-E-C-I-P-I-E-N-T! Meaning ofcourse that they are getting money that I pay in, and they don't.

j-mac

I didn't ask what the word meant. I asked why you think it is significant. To me, it seems you have lept from they don't pay federal income tax to some complaint about recipients. I want a fuller explianation of this leap and why you think just throwing the term out means something, is siginficant.
 
No, we are concerned now because Obama is about to destroy this country with his spending.

j-mac

:roll:

That boat sailed long before Obama. :coffeepap
 
Yet somehow Obama's now captain of that same boat... :coffeepap

Doesn't matter. Elect someone else, and the boat will keep sailing alone, only if it is a conservative, the socialist tactic will become the facist tactic. We're nothing if not unoriginal.


:coffeepap
 
No, we are concerned now because Obama is about to destroy this country with his spending.

j-mac

Another false claim.

TARP and the auto bailout were GW Bush's spending. The ARRA (Stimulus Bill) was Obama's. Can you name any other spending program the President has authorized since the ARRA?
 
Not true they show they are concerned about the out of control spending of Obama. To keep raising the ceiling and not cut spending is hurting our economy

From USAToday.com:

In the past half-century, Congress has acted 78 times to raise, extend or revise the debt limit — the amount of money the government can borrow to repay bond holders. The red ink has risen 49 times under Republican presidents, 29 times under Democrats. It's gone up 10 times since 2001.

Per the graph at the beginning of the article, the debt ceiling has been raised only once since Obama's been in office and that was for the Stimulus Bill.
 
No, we are concerned now because Obama is about to destroy this country with his spending.

j-mac

I'll ask the question again...

Other than the Stimulus Bill and the Libyan "conflict" and extending unemployment benefits which both Dems and Reps agree where necessary (edit), what other spending has President Obama enacted?
 
Nonsense. Obama has increased the deficit more than every other President combined! Now, if you too 100% of earnings in this country you may not be able to cure it. So your post is just talking point silliness.

j-mac

False claim!

The War in Iraq, the War on Terror, TARP and the auto bailout were GWB (not to mention both tax cut packages where atleast one was a direct federal stimulus to consumers via paper check). The Stimulus, unemployment comp, Libya - Obama. I'm sure if you really did the math you'd find the GWB has added significantly to our national debt far and above Obama.
 
wapoobamabudget1.jpg
 
False claim!

The War in Iraq, the War on Terror, TARP and the auto bailout were GWB (not to mention both tax cut packages where atleast one was a direct federal stimulus to consumers via paper check). The Stimulus, unemployment comp, Libya - Obama. I'm sure if you really did the math you'd find the GWB has added significantly to our national debt far and above Obama.

This has got to be among the most ridiculous statements I have read lately. TARP was paid back, Iraq, Afghanistan are a drop in the bucket compared to the $1.5 Trillion expenditures that this administration has laid out as far as the eye can see. Now either, you are purposely ignoring Obama's spending, or ignorant to such, but thanks for the laugh.

j-mac
 
This has got to be among the most ridiculous statements I have read lately. TARP was paid back, Iraq, Afghanistan are a drop in the bucket compared to the $1.5 Trillion expenditures that this administration has laid out as far as the eye can see. Now either, you are purposely ignoring Obama's spending, or ignorant to such, but thanks for the laugh.

j-mac

The stimulus package is temporary spending, a third of which were tax cuts (which you guys say doesn't count). The rest of the deficit is almost entirely caused by reduction in revenues due to the recession and the 2001/2003 tax cuts. Why do you guys purposely ignore the temporary part of the temporary spending?
 
The stimulus package is temporary spending, a third of which were tax cuts (which you guys say doesn't count). The rest of the deficit is almost entirely caused by reduction in revenues due to the recession and the 2001/2003 tax cuts. Why do you guys purposely ignore the temporary part of the temporary spending?

It was money down the rat hole. Other that speculation there is no evidence that the expenditure did ANYTHING concrete to help our situation. And the spending continues.

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom