• 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!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
disneydude said:
Funny thing.....you guys have no problem with wealth redistribution in the form of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.....but you scream and holler any time the table is turned. You guys are so transparent.
Click to expand...

you must labor under the delusion that taking less from someone who earned something is the same as giving someone money he didn't earn.
 
disneydude said:
Nice dodge....I'll ask again Con: Why do you guys keep trying the same failed trickle down policies and expect the results to be different from before? Perhaps you can try answering this time rather than dancing a shuffle.
Click to expand...

well 80 years of progressive income taxes has really F'd this country up and yet you all continue to support such a system
 
sangha said:
Because some people lose their train of thought. Small things tend to get lost easier than larger things
Click to expand...

Taylor, I'm certainly capable of making a mistake. However, if greenspans says he's wrong, are you suggesting he doesn't know?
 
sangha said:
Just as long as the rich keeping making money
Click to expand...

for which they should be hung

at least the greedheads among em

right, raskolnikov?

party on, peace lovers

seeya at the polls---in poughkeepsie
 
The Prof said:
for which they should be hung

at least the greedheads among em
Click to expand...

nice strawman.

there is nothing wrong with being rich. we NEED the rich, to invest and create jobs and industry and businesses and new drugs and technology. but they do need to pay their fair-share of taxes.

with great wealth..comes greater responsibility.

:)
 
Thunder said:
nice strawman.

there is nothing wrong with being rich. we NEED the rich, to invest and create jobs and industry and businesses and new drugs and technology. but they do need to pay their fair-share of taxes.

with great wealth..comes greater responsibility.

:)
Click to expand...

I have asked this over and over again what is that "fair share" that you are talking about since 38% doesn't seem to be it?
 
Thunder said:
nice strawman.

there is nothing wrong with being rich. we NEED the rich, to invest and create jobs and industry and businesses and new drugs and technology. but they do need to pay their fair-share of taxes.

with great wealth..comes greater responsibility.

:)
Click to expand...

because most of the rich have great responsibility they are rich. They have no duty to be soaked for the benefit of greedy politicians or parasite freeloaders. They don't get any additional benefits from the government so why do they have a duty to pay higher tax rates in addition to far more tax dollars?
 
Conservative said:
I have asked this over and over again what is that "fair share" that you are talking about since 38% doesn't seem to be it?
Click to expand...

The fair share is a tax rate that is proportionate to their share of disposable income. ALL disposable income, not just the income subject to FIT
 
sangha said:
Yes, we were much better off and wealthier 80 years ago :roll:
Click to expand...

we werent about to default on our debt or trillions in the hole
 
Conservative said:
I have asked this over and over again what is that "fair share" that you are talking about since 38% doesn't seem to be it?
Click to expand...

there is no objective basis for their hate the rich nonsense nor do these people ever note that so many people pay nothing despite having the same citizenship benefits as the rich
 
TurtleDude said:
because most of the rich have great responsibility they are rich. They have no duty to be soaked for the benefit of greedy politicians or parasite freeloaders. They don't get any additional benefits from the government so why do they have a duty to pay higher tax rates in addition to far more tax dollars?
Click to expand...

How do you know that they don't get additional benefits from the govt? Do you follow them around and measure the benefits they receive? Maybe you could post the response in the thread devoted to explaining how this could be done.
 
sangha said:
Yes, we were much better off and wealthier 80 years ago :roll:
Click to expand...

It has created class warfare, jealousy, and envy. How many times do I have to post this?

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all taxes.

The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all taxes.

The top 10% of wage earners make 45.8% of all income and pay 69.9% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% make 12.8% of all income and pay 2.7% of all taxes.

Currently approximately 47% of all Americans pay nothing and actually get money back making their tax rate negative.
Click to expand...

Do you think shared sacrifice means 47% not paying any Federal Income Taxes? Who do you think those 47% are going to support, those that want to raise their taxes or those that want to raise the taxes on others?
 
The Prof said:
i wouldn't go that far
Click to expand...

The state balanced budget amendments are a very different deal. Almost none of them actually require the state to balance everything, they just require them to balance operating costs with revenues. That does not include capital expenditures. What that means is that they can actually go way over budget each year. Which in fact they do.

Also, a state just faces much different situation than the nation. States are small, they don't have to fight wars, they don't drive the economy to nearly the same extent, their revenues tend to be more stable since they are less reliant on income taxes usually, etc. You can't really compare their situation to the federal government very accurately.

The Prof said:
every hour that goes by the CUTS get bigger by trillions
Click to expand...

I am very doubtful about that. At present the Republican leadership's strategy is reportedly to put the cap, cut and balance thing in both houses. When it is defeated, the introduce McConnell's bill. What McConnell's bill does is make it so both the house and senate need to vote NOT to increase the debt ceiling if they want to cap debt, but if they don't pass anything, the president can increase the debt himself, and create a committee to review possible savings in the future... That is where it is looking like they're going to end up- doing nothing after having turned down trillions in possible cuts.
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no objective basis for their hate the rich nonsense nor do these people ever note that so many people pay nothing despite having the same citizenship benefits as the rich
Click to expand...

and there is no objective basis for the rightwings' hate the workers nonsense nor do these rightwingers ever note that so many people pay nothing despite having huge incomes
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
They don't get any additional benefits from the government so why do they have a duty to pay higher tax rates in addition to far more tax dollars?
Click to expand...

um...the rich get all sorts of benefits from govt., that the middle-class and poor does not get.

the rich get money from the govt. to invest in R&D, to build new factories, etc etc.

the rich get money & subsidies for their companies, corporations, businesses.

the govt. gives billions of dollars to the rich, that the poor and middle-class never see.

Jesus, do you really think we should only collect in benefits from the govt. what we put in through tax-dollars, and vice-versa??
 
Conservative said:
It has created class warfare, jealousy, and envy. How many times do I have to post this?
Click to expand...

Because there was no class warfare during the Great Depression or before, right :roll:

You can post it as many times as you like, but it will be ignored until you back it up with some evidence.



Do you think shared sacrifice means 47% not paying any Federal Income Taxes? Who do you think those 47% are going to support, those that want to raise their taxes or those that want to raise the taxes on others?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is shared sacrifice.
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no objective basis for their hate the rich nonsense nor do these people ever note that so many people pay nothing despite having the same citizenship benefits as the rich
Click to expand...

It is also easier expecting the govt. to take care of them vs. telling it like it is, taxpayers taking care of them. I wonder why liberals here believe it is someone else's responsibility to take care of them? we are always talking about govt. spending money when we should be talking about the taxpayers funding those who can but do not work
 
Thunder said:
um...the rich get all sorts of benefits from govt., that the middle-class and poor does not get.

the rich get money from the govt. to invest in R&D, to build new factories, etc etc.

the rich get money & subsidies for their companies, corporations, businesses.

the govt. gives billions of dollars to the rich, that the poor and middle-class never see.

Jesus, do you really think we should only collect in benefits from the govt. what we put in through tax-dollars, and vice-versa??
Click to expand...

You call keeping more of what you earn in the form of subsidies as the govt. giving the rich something? Wow?

The govt allowing people to keep more of their money always irks liberals who are scared to death of losing their sacred cow, taxpayer funded support.

Still waiting for what the fair share from the rich is? define it?
 
sangha said:
The were destroyed by bush*'s economic policies, which according to rightwingers like you, was supposed to create jobs. Taxes were cut, so where's the jobs?

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ



BLS.gov
Click to expand...
Hey, thanks for posting that link. Just yesterday, Conservative was denying that a net gain of 23 million jobs were created while Clinton was president, even after I showed him the actual data from BLS.gov; and here, the Wall Street Journal says I'm right and he was wrong * ...

President ............................... Jobs created
Bill Clinton ............................... 23.1 million
Ronald Reagan ......................... 16.0 million
Lyndon Johnson ........................ 11.9 million
Jimmy Carter ........................... 10.5 million
Richard Nixon ............................ 9.4 million
Harry Truman ............................. 8.4 million
John F. Kennedy ......................... 3.6 million
Dwight Eisenhower ...................... 3.5 million
George W. Bush ......................... 3.0 million
George H.W. Bush ...................... 2.5 million
Gerald Ford ................................ 1.8 million

* = ordered by jobs created

Here's that list *, when time in office is factored in:

President ....... Jobs created per year in office
Bill Clinton ................................. 2,900,000
Jimmy Carter ............................. 2,600,000
Lyndon Johnson .......................... 2,300,000
Ronald Reagan ........................... 2,000,000
Richard Nixon ............................. 1,700,000
John F. Kennedy ......................... 1,200,000
Harry Truman ............................. 1,100,000
Dwight Eisenhower ........................ 438,000
George W. Bush ............................ 375,000
George H.W. Bush ......................... 625,000
Gerald Ford .................................. 745,000

* = population not factored in
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom