• 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!

United States loses its AAA Credit rating from S & P

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Prof said:
candidate obama would raise taxes even if they DON'T yield revenue

charlie gibson (the guy who got the gotcha girl, palin): "in each instance when the rate was dropped the revenue from the tax increased, the govt took in more money, and in the 1980's when the tax was increased to 28% the revenues went down"

obama: "well, charlie, what i've said is i would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness, we saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made 29 billion dollars last year, 29 billion dollars for 50 individuals, and part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries, that's not fair"

charlie: "but history shows when you drop the capital gains tax the revenues go up"

obama: "that might happen or it might not"

FLASHBACK: Obama Says Raising Taxes Not About Revenue But About Fairness - Katie Pavlich

hey, raise the rates---revenues MIGHT go up

LOL!

know who you're dealing with
Click to expand...
Charlie Gibson didn't know what he was talking about. Sure, if a Capital gains tax is lowered, the owner of the asset will wait until he can take advantage of the lower rate. So, in the current year revenue will be lower and the following year the revenue will rise. But long term you have less revenue with the lower rate. It's a math problem.
 
pbrauer said:
Charlie Gibson didn't know what he was talking about.
Click to expand...

LOL!

barack hussein the slasher obama---i will raise capital gains taxes for purposes of fairness to secretaries WHETHER OR NOT revenues increase or decrease

because, after all, as the candidate clearly says, "that MIGHT happen...

"or it MIGHT NOT"

either way, there's not enough revenue in the milky way to make good on 5.3 trillion dollars per year

if something isn't done NOW to fundamentally restructure our budgets, then our big 3 federal entitlements (as well as state pensions) will simply cease to exist as we know them for our next generation

party on, progressives
 
Thunder said:
oh, we will. :)
Click to expand...

It really is a shame that so many continue to support someone with these kind of results. Doesn't make any sense to anyone that has ever produced positive results or managed anything. Only those that buy rhetoric and ignore results don't understand responsibility.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch!
 
Conservative said:
It really is a shame that so many continue to support someone with these kind of results. Doesn't make any sense to anyone that has ever produced positive results or managed anything. Only those that buy rhetoric and ignore results don't understand responsibility.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch!
Click to expand...

BURP....different thread same song.:roll:
 
Conservative said:
As posted, if it is 40% of the current labor force of 140 million is 56 million income earners not paying any taxes. Think those people can pay something? If so why go after the ones paying 38% of the taxes
Click to expand...

There is likely a reason they are exempt. BTW, I keep saying less than 40% and not 40%. A small point, but I do want to be accurate. ;)
 
Conservative said:
It really is a shame that so many continue to support someone with these kind of results. Doesn't make any sense to anyone that has ever produced positive results or managed anything. Only those that buy rhetoric and ignore results don't understand responsibility.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch!
Click to expand...

Well, that's your favorite game, isn't it? How about this: when Obama took over the economy was SHRINKING at a rate of over 6% per year and the economy was losing over 700,000 jobs per MONTH. So in terms of progress, you'd have to say his results are pretty freakin' spectacular.
 
Conservative said:
Notice that you never address the FACT that those evil rich people are paying 38% of the taxes and 47% of income earners most 50,000 or less pay zero. That the liberal definition of fair share?
Click to expand...

Income taxes are designed to be tax discretionary income, which is income after life necessities are paid for. 47% of the people have no discretionary income. Nonetheless, this group pays more than their fair share of other taxes, including employment taxes, sales and use taxes and government fees. The reality is that though we are suppose to have progressive system designed for people to share the pain equally, we actually have a de-facto flat tax with everyone paying about 30%. It turns out that the pain is borne unequally on those least able to pay. No, the upper income is NOT paying their fair share.
 

Attachments

  • Distribution of tax burden.jpg
    Distribution of tax burden.jpg
    26.4 KB · Views: 44
  • Taxes paid by income group.jpg
    Taxes paid by income group.jpg
    16.4 KB · Views: 44
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Well, that's your favorite game, isn't it? How about this: when Obama took over the economy was SHRINKING at a rate of over 6% per year and the economy was losing over 700,000 jobs per MONTH. So in terms of progress, you'd have to say his results are pretty freakin' spectacular.
Click to expand...

The single biggest factor in stopping the decline was TARP. Something everyone loves to hate.
 
Why is it that certain people pretend that taxes that make up a combined revenue greater then income tax simply do not exist?

Last I checked, payroll taxes were about as large as income taxes. But we rarely hear conservative talk about who pays those.
 
washunut said:
The single biggest factor in stopping the decline was TARP. Something everyone loves to hate.
Click to expand...

If the idea was that TARP screwed everyone.
 
obvious Child said:
Why is it that certain people pretend that taxes that make up a combined revenue greater then income tax simply do not exist?

Last I checked, payroll taxes were about as large as income taxes. But we rarely hear conservative talk about who pays those.
Click to expand...

It's more complicated that many want to admit. With credits there are many who get back more money than they spent total in taxes.
 
washunut said:
The single biggest factor in stopping the decline was TARP. Something everyone loves to hate.
Click to expand...

I agree. And we'd be in better shape if Republicans hadn't blocked it the first time around.
 
Boo Radley said:
There is likely a reason they are exempt. BTW, I keep saying less than 40% and not 40%. A small point, but I do want to be accurate. ;)
Click to expand...

If you wanted to be truly accurate you would say that regardless of the percentage there are millions and millions of income earners not paying any Federal Income taxes and collecting any revenue from those people would be a lot more than you can collect from those rich people that Obama wants to use for political gain.
 
AdamT said:
Well, that's your favorite game, isn't it? How about this: when Obama took over the economy was SHRINKING at a rate of over 6% per year and the economy was losing over 700,000 jobs per MONTH. So in terms of progress, you'd have to say his results are pretty freakin' spectacular.
Click to expand...

How many months during the Bush years did the economy shrink and lose 700,000 jobs a month? You want to judge Bush on one year of his Presidency and ignore the affects the Democrat Congress had on that record. Then you want to ignore the 2011 record of Obama, 2 1/2 years after he took office. You call adding 4 trillion to the debt, downgrade of our credit, 25 million unemployed/under employed Americans positive progress?
 
upsideguy said:
Income taxes are designed to be tax discretionary income, which is income after life necessities are paid for. 47% of the people have no discretionary income. Nonetheless, this group pays more than their fair share of other taxes, including employment taxes, sales and use taxes and government fees. The reality is that though we are suppose to have progressive system designed for people to share the pain equally, we actually have a de-facto flat tax with everyone paying about 30%. It turns out that the pain is borne unequally on those least able to pay. No, the upper income is NOT paying their fair share.
Click to expand...

Nice spin, income taxes were to fund the govt. and to get people to pay for the services provided by that govt. Right now 47% are earning income and not paying for those services. That in the liberal world is what you call fair? Still waiting for what that fair share is for the upper income since paying 38% of all income taxes isn't it but zero for millions is?
 
AdamT said:
Well, that's your favorite game, isn't it? How about this: when Obama took over the economy was SHRINKING at a rate of over 6% per year and the economy was losing over 700,000 jobs per MONTH. So in terms of progress, you'd have to say his results are pretty freakin' spectacular.
Click to expand...

I've seen this inane talking point repeated over and over in here by libs that must think everyone is actually stupid enough to buy this crap.

Listen you can't base, and tout success on a presupposition of what might of, could of, or would have happened because these are things that you really can not know with any degree of certainty.

Second, the Obama economy has logged some 400K of unemployment applicants since as far back as I can remember in his Presidency. Now, if you really want to say that adding some 118K jobs is a positive then I would say that simple math disagrees with your spin....That by my calculations is still 282K in the negative.

Then, we have the stimulus that "Sheriff" Joe said was creating all these jobs, when the truth of the matter is that it really wasn't...And the jobs that it did manage to create cost the tax payer in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars to create one job that paid little more than minimum wage. Who got that money? hmmmm....?

And libs answer to all of this is that we didn't waste enough money? how insane is that?

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
I agree. And we'd be in better shape if Republicans hadn't blocked it the first time around.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute here....I thought that TARP was what libs love to bash conservatives with over the head as some wasted money that Bush applied....Now you want to say that repubs blocked it?

I think you've lost your place in your own argument pal....

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Wait a minute here....I thought that TARP was what libs love to bash conservatives with over the head as some wasted money that Bush applied....Now you want to say that repubs blocked it?

I think you've lost your place in your own argument pal....

j-mac
Click to expand...

J-Mac you have some serious growing up to do. Not all liberals think alike just as not all conservatives think alike. Some liberals think TARP did good, most don't. Just as some conservatives think gay marriage should be legal and most think it should be illegal. The fact you are so ridiculously partisan to realize that says more about you gor sure and not in a good way.

It's funny how Conservative and Prof blame Obama for the downgrade when it's congress that controls the pursestrings.

I have no doubt if the teabaggers hadn't made this so dysfunctional that we would not have been downgraded. They wanted no increase in the debt, that simply was not possible and even the GOP realized that. But since the teabaggrrs threw a tantrum, the world saw just how bad our government can't get along.

Also amusing that Teabaggers say cuts are necessary but have no problem with Corporate welfare and rewarding companies that send jobs overseas with cuts in taxes.
 
TheNextEra said:
J-Mac you have some serious growing up to do. Not all liberals think alike just as not all conservatives think alike. Some liberals think TARP did good, most don't. Just as some conservatives think gay marriage should be legal and most think it should be illegal. The fact you are so ridiculously partisan to realize that says more about you gor sure and not in a good way.

It's funny how Conservative and Prof blame Obama for the downgrade when it's congress that controls the pursestrings.

I have no doubt if the teabaggers hadn't made this so dysfunctional that we would not have been downgraded. They wanted no increase in the debt, that simply was not possible and even the GOP realized that. But since the teabaggrrs threw a tantrum, the world saw just how bad our government can't get along.

Also amusing that Teabaggers say cuts are necessary but have no problem with Corporate welfare and rewarding companies that send jobs overseas with cuts in taxes.
Click to expand...

Amazing disdain that liberals have for the Tea Party when it was the original Tea Party that was part of the founding of this nation. Keep spouting the DNC talking points while ignoring that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. For some reason liberals ignore the 3.7 trillion dollar spending spree that Obama has generated. Wonder why?
 
TheNextEra said:
J-Mac you have some serious growing up to do. Not all liberals think alike just as not all conservatives think alike. Some liberals think TARP did good, most don't.
Click to expand...

Your point about group think is correct but I do not see anyone saying that TARP was wrong. At best a very small minority. No, I do not believe most think it was bad.

I have no doubt if the teabaggers hadn't made this so dysfunctional that we would not have been downgraded. They wanted no increase in the debt, that simply was not possible and even the GOP realized that. But since the teabaggrrs threw a tantrum, the world saw just how bad our government can't get along.
Click to expand...

The House passed a bill that raised the level on July 17th. The Senate dismissed it and Obama said he would veto it. It raised the debt level. I'm not generalizing here. I'm being specific. Your recall of what happened is sorely lacking.

Also amusing that Teabaggers say cuts are necessary but have no problem with Corporate welfare and rewarding companies that send jobs overseas with cuts in taxes.
Click to expand...

Not only are you doing what you are complaining about you are outright misrepresenting their positions.

Tea Party Coalition Asks Presidential Candidates to Oppose Corporate Welfare

Tea Party Coalition Asks Presidential Candidates to Oppose Corporate Welfare | Naples TEA Party Patriots
 
Last edited:
how dare you compare the tea party of today with the actual patriots of yesterday. really?
 
liblady said:
how dare you compare the tea party of today with the actual patriots of yesterday. really?
Click to expand...

Obviously history isn't a strong suit of yours. You buy the talking points of liberals and ignore the actual policies being promoted by today's Tea Party. There is very little difference between the two. Low taxes and small limited Federal govt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom