• 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!

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

No, the increasing or eliminating the cap does not turn them into welfare programs. You are conflating means testing and the FICA cap.

Okay so seeing, according to you, SS is not a welfare program, then surely you would agree that no one regardless of wealth, should be allowed to take out of SS more then what they have paid in right ?
 
The economy hasn't gotten up to doing relatively well, since the Democrats took over. I don't just blame Obama, I blame the Dems in Congress, too.

We need jobs to fuel the economy, according to most people it is not the governments job to create work, 7 years of the Bush tax cuts only produced new jobs for foreign countries, so it's not the job of the governent to create jobs and tax cuts have not produced jobs so where do you think they will come from? Do you think reducing the deficit will create jobs or cause a rise in unemployment?
 
Okay so seeing, according to you, SS is not a welfare program, then surely you would agree that no one regardless of wealth, should be allowed to take out of SS more then what they have paid in right ?

Wrong the SS trust fund accumulates interest just like any other investment, so those who pay into SS should get a return on investment
 
As has been noted, the Democrats took over Congress under FY2007 when the economy was on the way up and deficits were on the way down. FY2008 2009 2010 all transpired while they were in power.

:shrug:

As has been noted, spending programs passed by republicans under bush*, such as Medicare D, TSA, HSA, wars, servicing the debt (accumulated under repub presidents), record setting and pork laden energy, transportation and ag bills, continued during those years.
 
in july a dept of energy study based on census data found that 98% of americans living below the poverty line have a tv, 81% a microwave, 78% air conditioning, 71% a vcr, 65% a second tv, 65% a dvd, 64% cable, 55% cellphone...

on the other hand, only 29% of americans below the poverty line have an xbox and 28% have a printer

Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox - By Ken McIntyre - The Corner - National Review Online

And during the great depression poor people had cars, farms, owned their homes, etc In many ways, the american poor of old had it better than the american poor of today
 
Okay so seeing, according to you, SS is not a welfare program, then surely you would agree that no one regardless of wealth, should be allowed to take out of SS more then what they have paid in right ?

No, I wouldnt agree with your leading question. I rarely agree to leading questions
 
The economy hasn't gotten up to doing relatively well, since the Democrats took over. I don't just blame Obama, I blame the Dems in Congress, too.

The economy hasn't done "well" in this century...... under the stewardship of either party. One party just happened to take a good economy from the late 1990's and screw up so bad that the next party hasn't been able to pull it out of its tailspin.
 
As has been noted, the Democrats took over Congress under FY2007 when the economy was on the way up and deficits were on the way down. FY2008 2009 2010 all transpired while they were in power.

:shrug:

Another Con talking out of his arse..... deficits on the way down? What are you smoking?

The Bush administration began their term will negligible deficits and then proceeded to pile on .5T annual deficits every year thereafter, until the economy cratered... then the annual Bush deficit climbed to over $1T.... that was what was handed off to the Obama administration: an economy in a very deep recession and $1T of annual deficits. Starting two wars and paying for it by cutting taxes was just ingenious.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

This idea of blaming congress is cute. Though it may have some academic merit, it shows ignorance of how Washington actually works. The wars and tax cuts and other economic policies are orchestrated by the administration. Congress does have a role, but you grossly overstate that role to make your shallow point.
 
And as has been noted in response, the damage had already been done by the time Democrats took over Congress.
Lesse...
1: Attack the GOP
2: Absolve Democrats
3: Defend The Obama.
Good job!
 
Lesse...
1: Attack the GOP
2: Absolve Democrats
3: Defend The Obama.
Good job!

1:No attack the democrats
2:Defend the republicans
3:Defend the Bush
great job!!

Just because we had a republican President does not mean that the republicans had any part in the economic mess we are in, they were just innocent by standers
 
1:No attack the democrats
2:Defend the republicans
3:Defend the Bush
great job!!

Just because we had a republican President does not mean that the republicans had any part in the economic mess we are in, they were just innocent by standers

No, Republicans absolutely had a dark period where they acted more like libs and spent recklessly. Because of that they were trounced in '06, and lost their ability to do that further upon promises of "cleaning up the DC swamp", and "Transparent governance"...Instead what we got was spending on steroids, and more backroom deals than ever....So I guess that the lesson we must take from this past 5 years is that liberals lie.

j-mac
 
No, Republicans absolutely had a dark period where they acted more like libs and spent recklessly. Because of that they were trounced in '06, and lost their ability to do that further upon promises of "cleaning up the DC swamp", and "Transparent governance"...Instead what we got was spending on steroids, and more backroom deals than ever....So I guess that the lesson we must take from this past 5 years is that liberals lie.

j-mac

I would just have to say that your statement about all liberals lying might be a bit of an exaggeration it would be like me saying that all conservatives are liars, sterotyping a person because of their political leaning as liars just seems wrong especially in a forum like this where you don't have to look in the eyes of the other person as you sling insults at them, we need a peoples president a person who puts the good of all of the people first, we are a nation if we were not we would no longer exist, bring back the greatest President of all times FDR
 
Okay so seeing, according to you, SS is not a welfare program, then surely you would agree that no one regardless of wealth, should be allowed to take out of SS more then what they have paid in right ?

But the government did just that, none more so than the Bush Administration. SS receipts helped fund the wars so the rich could keep their tax cuts. Who do you think is responsible now for repaying that debt to SS?
 
bring back the greatest President of all times FDR

I could support that. Having a box of human bones in the White House would certainly present us with a President with more talent and competence than the Zero we have in the White House right now.
 
I could support that. Having a box of human bones in the White House would certainly present us with a President with more talent and competence than the Zero we have in the White House right now.

I doubt that any President faced not only with a failing economy but an opposition party that will go to any extent including ruining the credit rating of our country to defeat him could have done any better then President Obama, I can't believe that anyone would continue to buy the baloney your party keeps selling. Ten years now of the Bush tax cuts and still no job creation in the USA and your party continues to point the finger and blame any thing and every thing but the reason our economy is in trouble. President Obama made one mistake he thought he could work with the party of no, in 2012 the democrats will take back the majorities in both houses, hopefully President Obama will then use his power to set the course to recovery "if" there is one.
 
Most of the oil in the Rocky Mountains is in the form of shale, which is reasonably expensive to extract. The lack of development in the Rocky Mountains is less about regulation and more about economics. As the price of oil rises, the development will commence.

and as technology increases - however, that does not alter the fact that we do not currently drill our west and east coasts, and have limited drilling in Alaska. We have the largest energy reserves in the world and we are stupid not to tap them.

sangha said:
You did nothing to refute the claim that there is less "abject poverty" in Europe than there is in the US, and the size of ones home says very little about the standard of living because SoL is calculated using a number of factors.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.

For example, according to the government's own data, nearly two thirds of households defined by Census as "poor" have cable or satellite television. Eighty five percent have air conditioning.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, and cable or satellite TV reception. He has a VCR, a DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians...

Studies which claim that the U.S. has a higher poverty rate than European nations use a distorted technique that creates higher income standard for assessing poverty in the United States than in other nations. Because of these biased methods, many Americans are deemed "poor" when, in fact, they have higher real incomes than persons identified as "non-poor" in Europe. By contrast, if a fair, uniform standard of comparison is used, the lowest income tenth of the U.S. population is found to have a real income that is roughly equal to, or higher than, most European nations. The median income in the U.S. is also higher than nearly all European nations.
 
and as technology increases - however, that does not alter the fact that we do not currently drill our west and east coasts, and have limited drilling in Alaska. We have the largest energy reserves in the world and we are stupid not to tap them.



For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.

For example, according to the government's own data, nearly two thirds of households defined by Census as "poor" have cable or satellite television. Eighty five percent have air conditioning.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, and cable or satellite TV reception. He has a VCR, a DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians...

Studies which claim that the U.S. has a higher poverty rate than European nations use a distorted technique that creates higher income standard for assessing poverty in the United States than in other nations. Because of these biased methods, many Americans are deemed "poor" when, in fact, they have higher real incomes than persons identified as "non-poor" in Europe. By contrast, if a fair, uniform standard of comparison is used, the lowest income tenth of the U.S. population is found to have a real income that is roughly equal to, or higher than, most European nations. The median income in the U.S. is also higher than nearly all European nations.

More nonsense with nothing to support it. What most americans think poverty is has nothing to do with what poverty is, and your link is full of lies. More than 1 in 5 children in the US are poor. These poor children cannot eat their cable or their air conditioning.

And again you claim that there's a difference in the way that the OECD calculates it's stats, but once again, you got nothing to back it up with. Repeating lies does not make the lies true
 
july 18, dept of energy study based on census data:

98% of americans below the poverty line have a tv, 81% have a microwave, 78% air conditioning, 71% a vcr, 62% a 2nd tv, 65% a dvd, 64% cable, 62% a washer, 55% a cellphone...

on the other hand, only 38% of americans below the poverty line have a personal computer, only 32% have a 3rd tv, 28% have a printer

and only 19% of americans below the poverty line have a big flat screen

Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox - By Ken McIntyre - The Corner - National Review Online
 
july 18, dept of energy study based on census data:

98% of americans below the poverty line have a tv, 81% have a microwave, 78% air conditioning, 71% a vcr, 62% a 2nd tv, 65% a dvd, 64% cable, 62% a washer, 55% a cellphone...

on the other hand, only 38% of americans below the poverty line have a personal computer, only 32% have a 3rd tv, 28% have a printer

and only 19% of americans below the poverty line have a big flat screen

Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox - By Ken McIntyre - The Corner - National Review Online

Funny you guys bring this stuff up.

Bread and circuses, baby.

Do you guys REALLY want a bunch of poor people sitting in their sweltering ****holes with absolutely NOTHING to do but think about their situations?
 
Back
Top Bottom