• 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!

BREAKING: President Obama Addresses the Nation Tonight at 9

If the graph truly is "crappy" maybe you could explain how instead of just issuing a pronouncment.

I've catch on pretty quick , or at least I think so. There are 2-3 people not worth discussing things with. You are on that list.
 
The corporation pays waaaaay more taxes than the worker. The corporation pay unemploymet, workman's comp, social security and medicare.

Stop with the myths, please.

Corporations pay these things because...


....wait for it....

Conservatism says they should instead of government!

Pure conservatism says wealthy corporations will pay a living wage to workers, and via charitable contributions help prop up those individuals in society who are poor because for one reason or another can't work. Conservatism also says that if you don't form national unions but rather allow "local, in-house unions", the corporation can better deal with "internal problems" rather than leave such to the devices of national unions. How well did that work for the employees until unionizing went national?

How much better is the standard of living for working class Americans today?

Can most middle-class Americans easily survive off the wages they earn today?

Can most Americans claim to earn a living wage?

If one can answer in the affirmative to all of these questions, then I'll stand up and declare "Conservatism rocks!!!" But I bet you can't.

Conservatism looks after one entity and one entity only: The Corporate Interest! And those interests didn't go amok until Reaganomic took hold in this country, i.e., "LOBBYISTS!!!!"
 
Last edited:
Yes, and part of Obama's big plan for solving the debt crisis is saving 1 trillion dollars in Iraq from a war that we are exiting and not going t spend anyway. Creative liberal accounting.

Uh, you do realize that the same "liberal accounting" appears in the Ryan Budget and Boehner's deficit plan, right?
 
You said that you don't have a problem with it either. You said


Now you say that you DO care. How can we believe someone who has changed their position?

No,I don't care, you care about revenue and I showed you where you can get it. I know we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem
 
Uh, you do realize that the same "liberal accounting" appears in the Ryan Budget and Boehner's deficit plan, right?

No,it didn't, the 1 trillion dollars spending cuts for Iraq and Afghanistan were NOT in the Ryan plan, it was a graph showing expenses but weren't part of the cuts. that is liberal spin.
 
If you make 10 million a year and during a divorce your wife wants half, that sucks. 5 million is a lot of freaking money, more than my buddy has to pay to his wife. However, he still has 5 million to live on. He's not in a horrible position.

If you make 20k though, and she wants 10k... you may have to kill her.

The fact that the top 10% pays most of the taxes and the bottom 50% don't pay any shows that the top 10% has all the money and the bottom 50% had diddly.

Far from supporting your argument, this stat undercuts it. You've successfully proven that the rich have the money and are best capable to withstand a tax increase.

Taxes are the lowest they've been in 50-60 years. The rich are doing fantastic right now. If tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires is supposed to help the economy and they're the lowest they've been in 50 years, why aren't we in a boom?
This whole talk reminds me of this clip from the daily show. I think he sums it up quite nicely.

That remains the billion dollar question - one I've been asking for nearly 2 years now. If lower taxes on the rich is suppose to spur job growth, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE JOBS and WHY DO REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO LOOK TOWARD THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS JOBS BILL when he's continued to state it's being held up in (the House of) Congress?
 
Moderator's Warning:
The personal comments need to end, and end now. Stick to talking about the issues, not each other. Don't make me make Digsbe thread ban you.
 
No,I don't care, you care about revenue and I showed you where you can get it. I know we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem

So you criticize others for not caring about it, even though you don't care either?

Adjusted gross income of 50,000 has led to people not paying any FIT and you don't have a problem with that but still want to raise the taxes more on those that do pay most of the taxes without any thought to the consequences. Still waiting for a response as to why you support people earning 50,000 or less paying nothing in FIT, NOTHING, but would rather try to get 70 billion a year from the rich who already pay most of the taxes. That is liberal logic and shows that liberals don't think.

I'll wait for a response from you "as to why you support people earning 50,000 or less paying nothing in FIT"

Sounds like rightwing logic to me
 
I can see it now. Husband comes home and informs his wife they have a spending problem.

hus: Hon we have spending problem

wife: okay

hus: we have to go to a MWF caloric intake schedule to handle this problem.

wife: "caloric intake?" WTF why not just call it what it is ? EATING you dumb ass.
 
Last edited:
So you criticize others for not caring about it, even though you don't care either?



I'll wait for a response from you "as to why you support people earning 50,000 or less paying nothing in FIT"

Sounds like rightwing logic to me

You have never seen me complain about govt. revenue, only about govt. spending. Try to spin that one?

Any logic is better than what I am seeing from liberals. How can liberals keep calling for more revenue and ignore the 56 plus million people earning income not paying any FIT or the 24 million unemployed or under employed Americans not paying full income taxes. How anyone can expect the people paying the most now to pay more is beyond logic and common sense.
 
I can see it now. Husband comes home and informs his wife they have a spending problem.

hus: Hon we have spending problem

wife: okay

hus: we have to go to a MWF caloric intake schedule to handle this problem.

wife: "caloric intake?" WTF why not just call it what ? EATING you dumb ass.

More like

rightwing wife: our bills are more than we make in pay

rightwing husband: We better work fewer hours so we make less money. That will cut our bills in half.

rightwing wife: And don't forget, we can just ignore all the bills for things we bought in the past

rightwing husband: Problem solved. Let's go out to eat
 
You have never seen me complain about govt. revenue, only about govt. spending. Try to spin that one?

So you never said anything about how so many people making 50k or less pay no FIT? I could have sworn that you did

Adjusted gross income of 50,000 has led to people not paying any FIT and you don't have a problem with that but still want to raise the taxes more on those that do pay most of the taxes without any thought to the consequences. Still waiting for a response as to why you support people earning 50,000 or less paying nothing in FIT, NOTHING, but would rather try to get 70 billion a year from the rich who already pay most of the taxes. That is liberal logic and shows that liberals don't think.

Any logic is better than what I am seeing from liberals. How can liberals keep calling for more revenue and ignore the 56 plus million people earning income not paying any FIT or the 24 million unemployed or under employed Americans not paying full income taxes. How anyone can expect the people paying the most now to pay more is beyond logic and common sense.

Gee, and there you go complaining about a lack of revenue from people making less than 50k/yr, even while you say you don't complain about govt revenue. :roll:
 
So you never said anything about how so many people making 50k or less pay no FIT? I could have sworn that you did





Gee, and there you go complaining about a lack of revenue from people making less than 50k/yr, even while you say you don't complain about govt revenue. :roll:

Of course I said it in response to people like you who want to raise more revenue. Showed you exactly where to go to get it.
 
More like

rightwing wife: our bills are more than we make in pay

rightwing husband: We better work fewer hours so we make less money. That will cut our bills in half.

rightwing wife: And don't forget, we can just ignore all the bills for things we bought in the past

rightwing husband: Problem solved. Let's go out to eat

Priceless. The nail can now consider itself hit on the head.
 
leftwing wife: our bills are more than we make in pay

leftwing husband: Don't worry we will get ther "rich" to pay our bills. They have more than they need.

leftwing wife: And don't forget, we can just ignore all the bills for things we bought in the past

leftwing husband: No, we will just get the banks to raise our debt limit on our cards and charge more. Problem solved.
 
Corporations pay these things because...


....wait for it....

Conservatism says they should instead of government!

Oh really? It was Conservatives that passed all those laws?

Pure conservatism says wealthy corporations will pay a living wage to workers, and via charitable contributions help prop up those individuals in society who are poor because for one reason or another can't work. Conservatism also says that if you don't form national unions but rather allow "local, in-house unions", the corporation can better deal with "internal problems" rather than leave such to the devices of national unions. How well did that work for the employees until unionizing went national?

How much better is the standard of living for working class Americans today?

Can most middle-class Americans easily survive off the wages they earn today?

Can most Americans claim to earn a living wage?

If one can answer in the affirmative to all of these questions, then I'll stand up and declare "Conservatism rocks!!!" But I bet you can't.

Conservatism looks after one entity and one entity only: The Corporate Interest! And those interests didn't go amok until Reaganomic took hold in this country, i.e., "LOBBYISTS!!!!"

I think you're very confused.
 
leftwing wife: our bills are more than we make in pay

leftwing husband: Don't worry we will get ther "rich" to pay our bills. They have more than they need.

leftwing wife: And don't forget, we can just ignore all the bills for things we bought in the past

leftwing husband: No, we will just get the banks to raise our debt limit on our cards and charge more. Problem solved.

rich wife: our bills are less than we make in pay

rich husband: So what? We're stll going to make our employees pay our bills. They have more than they need.

rich wife: And don't forget, we can just ignore all the bills for things we bought in the past

rich husband: And we will just get the govt to send us more money and put it on the middle classes credit. Problem solved
 
rich wife: our bills are less than we make in pay

rich husband: So what? We're stll going to make our employees pay our bills. They have more than they need.

rich wife: And don't forget, we can just ignore all the bills for things we bought in the past

rich husband: And we will just get the govt to send us more money and put it on the middle classes credit. Problem solved

Why do you hate rich people?
 
leftwing wife: our bills are more than we make in pay

leftwing husband: Don't worry we will get ther "rich" to pay our bills. They have more than they need.

leftwing wife: And don't forget, we can just ignore all the bills for things we bought in the past

leftwing husband: No, we will just get the banks to raise our debt limit on our cards and charge more. Problem solved.


accuratley said to a T
 
Leftwing Wife: Our bills are more than we make in pay and we owe people money. Let's pay the bills with our credit card. Then we'll work on cutting our expenses and we'll ask your brother who has been living with us, but who hasn't helped out with the light bill in 10 years, to start helping out with the light bill again.

Rightwing Husband: No. Let's not pay our bills, have our credit rating ruined, default on our mortgage, and then all three of us can be on the street.

Leftwing Wife: :doh
 
rich wife: our bills are less than we make in pay

rich husband: So what? We're stll going to make our employees pay our bills. They have more than they need. And we'll keep matching their social security and medicare for them, plus providing them with unemployment insurance workman's comp, right out of our own pockets, not to mention paying for Obamacare.

rich wife: And don't forget, we can just ignore all the bills for things we bought in the past

rich husband: And we will just get the govt to send us more money and put it on the middle classes credit. Problem solved

I fixed that for you.
 
Leftwing Husband: Apparently everyone in this thread only believes in heterosexual marriages.

Leftwing Husband: Yea, I noticed that too.

Leftwing Husband: Wanna go have gay sex?

Leftwing Husband: Is a duck's ass water tight?

Leftwing Husband: Let's find out you silly goose!

Sorry... I couldn't resist.
 
Leftwing Husband: Apparently everyone in this thread only believes in heterosexual marriages.

Leftwing Husband: Yea, I noticed that too.

Leftwing Husband: Wanna go have gay sex?

Leftwing Husband: Is a duck's ass water tight?

Leftwing Husband: Let's find out you silly goose!

Sorry... I couldn't resist.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, just killed any chance of continuing this debate topic.
 
You mean I can end any thread with just a gay joke?!?!

I have work to do :twisted:
 
Back
Top Bottom