• 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 Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

Why? Because you say so? Doesn't appear that facts have any place in your vocabulary or in your real life.

You should look up what a fact is. If you can't prove it numerically or at least without some sort of consensus or expert support, then what you have is pure conjecture. And, of course, that is what you have.
 
You should look up what a fact is. If you can't prove it numerically or at least without some sort of consensus or expert support, then what you have is pure conjecture. And, of course, that is what you have.

Where have you been? The Stimulus One was passed and signed in February 2009, it was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. The unemployment rate has never been at 8% since passage and there are more unemployed now than when Obama took office and the U-6 Unemployment rate is 16.2% or over 25 million unemployed and underemployed.

So this stimulus failed and Obama wants more spending so exactly what more do you need not that it will matter to a liberal as you will just ignore the data.
 
Here is how these polls go: "Hey person who isn't going to get his taxes raised, how about we raise taxes on these rich guys. Person says hey, that would be a great idea."

which is why we need a flat or consumption tax.
 
What else is new, other than the amount Obama now says is the evil "rich" just went down to $200K from $250K....Funny how that keeps creeping down...

j-mac

Why do you disagree with the notion that the wealthy should pay their fair share?

Who benefits most from a sound economy, public services, and infrastructure?

A. The employees or
B. The board of directors

A. The average consumer
B. The CEO

A. The Middle income family with a checking account
B. The Wall street banker...


And what they don't tell you on FOX is that safety net programs that maintain a standard of living actually keep the economy rolling...and the rich get richer...
 
Why do you disagree with the notion that the wealthy should pay their fair share?

Who benefits most from a sound economy, public services, and infrastructure.

A. The employees or
B. The board of directors

A. The average consumer
B. The CEO

A. The Middle income family with a checking account
B. The Wall street banker...


And what they don't tell you on FOX is that safety net programs that maintain a standard of living actually keep the economy rolling...and the rich get richer...

one of the biggest lies going around these days is obumble's claim that the group that already pays 40% of the income tax and all the estate taxes aren't paying their fair share.
 
Obumble has already conceded that the rich get the least value out of government. That is why Obumble noted that when everyone has to sacrifice most of the country will sacrifice by having less government while the rich need to pay more taxes.

iF the rich really benefited the most from government than the rich would be sacrificing the most when government is cut
 
Ah, why don't they put a poll out there .. just asking a simple question ..... would you mind seeing "your" taxes raised ?

While it's easy to say yeah lets tax someone else .. as long as it isn't me, I somehow think that polling numbers would change drastically if it was their money they were talking about.

How about this? We "reduce" the tax rates on everyone who makes more money than me to the tax rate I pay. Wait, that would be an increase for a lot of them... Oh well, it was a thought.
 
I asked you a question, why do you believe a word Obama tells you and I am waiting for an answer? What happens if you are wrong?
This has nothing to do with what Obama says dude. It has to do with what is in the healthcare bill. Just because you hate Obama and don't trust him doesn't give the leeway to lie about what's in the bill. Til you get back on topic and actually comment on the fact that the healthcare bill is not socialized medicine I'm just going to assume that you're not capable of understanding what I'm telling you and will just go ahead and give you no further attention bro.
 
How about this? We "reduce" the tax rates on everyone who makes more money than me to the tax rate I pay. Wait, that would be an increase for a lot of them... Oh well, it was a thought.

I find that hard to believe.
 
And what they don't tell you on FOX is that safety net programs that maintain a standard of living actually keep the economy rolling...and the rich get richer...

Then let's all get in on the safety net programs. Think how great the economy would be then.
 
This has nothing to do with what Obama says dude. It has to do with what is in the healthcare bill. Just because you hate Obama and don't trust him doesn't give the leeway to lie about what's in the bill. Til you get back on topic and actually comment on the fact that the healthcare bill is not socialized medicine I'm just going to assume that you're not capable of understanding what I'm telling you and will just go ahead and give you no further attention bro.

You believe what you want to believe and when you are wrong you will be off on some other subject. The mandate will be ruled unconstitutional and the rest of the problem will die. There is no room in this country for govt. sponsored healthcare and a federal mandate.

Whether you understand what I am posting is irrelevant as I believe you will get yours on the upcoming election in 2012. Keep buying what Obama tells you as it makes you look foolish.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let me remind everyone to stick to the topic and not make this personal before anyone else gets kicked out of this thread.
 
Then let's all get in on the safety net programs. Think how great the economy would be then.

Because the quality of life for those on social safety nets is ohh-so-great :roll:

Get real.... One should be thankful they are not in need of such programs.
 
Because the quality of life for those on social safety nets is ohh-so-great :roll:

Get real.... One should be thankful they are not in need of such programs.

But the economy would just be outstanding if we could all be on unemplyment benefits, according to you and Pelosi.
 
Where have you been? The Stimulus One was passed and signed in February 2009, it was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. The unemployment rate has never been at 8% since passage and there are more unemployed now than when Obama took office and the U-6 Unemployment rate is 16.2% or over 25 million unemployed and underemployed.

So this stimulus failed and Obama wants more spending so exactly what more do you need not that it will matter to a liberal as you will just ignore the data.

As well. Obama Administration Set to Defend Solyndra Loan at House Panel - WSJ.com

While this is going on.

O'Grady: Canada's Oil Sands Are a Job Gusher - WSJ.com
 
But the economy would just be outstanding if we could all be on unemplyment benefits, according to you and Pelosi.

Only in your mind. I would like you to provide a source for the nonsense in the bold.
 
How about this? We "reduce" the tax rates on everyone who makes more money than me to the tax rate I pay. Wait, that would be an increase for a lot of them... Oh well, it was a thought.

You're getting close, lets do just that .. reduce the rate for everyone, (except for those 45% that pay noting in federal income tax now) then lets cut out all and I mean all deductions, and that means for you as well.

Do that and I could see an increase in revenue, and that being with the top rate being between 20 and 25%
 
What a travesty!

The idea of making wealthier Americans pay just a little extra in taxes (temporarily) so we can have some short term cash to help fix some of our budgetary and economic problems is just sickening. It warrants a giant complaining session in fact.

Look, I'm all for lowering taxes at times when it makes sense strategically, but this is not one of them. Let's try to fix our budget without making deep cuts to programs that may be the difference between life or death for some folks, and then reassess the situation when when things even back out.

I don't think an approach based on revenue increases and spending cuts is a crazy idea.

Where is this in a bill?
 
Super Erod, now with the ability to leap logic in a single bound, fast enough to not let any information actually catch up with him, flying at the speed of RNC talking points...

You get trounced on a topic and just switch over to another talking point. How sad and predictable... all at once.

LOL, when are YOU PEOPLE going to stop with these tired tactics. Condescending claims of victory only serve for you guys to sit in your little bubble and pat each other on the back. They mean nothing.

Quick, pull out the always useful trump card. Call me a racist, fast!
 
Washington Post-ABC News Poll (washingtonpost.com)


This is supposed to be the exact wording of the poll. Not anything like what you've suggested. I believe that you are very mistaken on what happens during polling.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not playing dumb on purpose. The wording the poll doesn't say anything about to whom these questions were asked. Let's just assume this is an average cross section of people. Given that the people who we are talking about being taxed are a very small minority in this country (Remember, these are the 2% or some ridiculously small number whom everyone claims has all the wealth) then the vast majority of the people being asked the question are not the one's being taxed.
 
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not playing dumb on purpose. The wording the poll doesn't say anything about to whom these questions were asked. Let's just assume this is an average cross section of people. Given that the people who we are talking about being taxed are a very small minority in this country (Remember, these are the 2% or some ridiculously small number whom everyone claims has all the wealth) then the vast majority of the people being asked the question are not the one's being taxed.

The nation as a whole should not suffer because 2% of the population does not want to pay 5% more in taxes. This should be common sense.

Tax revenue as a % of GDP needs to increase: fact or fiction?
 
The nation as a whole should not suffer because 2% of the population does not want to pay 5% more in taxes. This should be common sense.

The nation's so-called suffering is not a result of this 5% of 2%.

Tax revenue as a % of GDP needs to increase: fact or fiction?

Fact, and there also needs to be an energy source that replaces oil, and there needs to be stable currencies and indefinite economic growth and world peace.

Saying this needs to be doesn't mean there's a way to achieve it.

ED-AN743D_Reyno_G_20110615184205.jpg
 
Last edited:
So the US President is eliminating oil subsidies while simultaneously doing whatever he can to make sure that the American people have less access to the energy they need to keep the country running, and more jobs will be lost and costs eventually passed on to the consumer.

Barrack Obama is either seriously stupid or intent on destroying the US economy. There is absolutely nothing in his policies any rational person can defend.

TransCanada in eye of the storm | Energy | Financial Post

So, we should not ask of corporations what we ask of others as they need special help, they need our money, our tax support, and cannot be seen as capable of carrying their fair load. And we should never be cncerned about anything that might be harmful?

I think you reach the wrong conclusions. From your link:

Whatever the outcome, industry is learning from the delays, the anger, the-zero tolerance for accidents, he says. It’s learning that the public has the right to be assured that infrastructure is safe and responsibly built and that projects will be battlegrounds for broader issues.

“The legitimate issues are public safety, reliability, environmental protection,” Mr. Girling said. “And so we had to up our game to improve on all of those fronts. Certainly the incidents that have occurred over the last year would suggest that there is room for improvement, and as an industry we are working to improve on all those fronts.”
 
The nation as a whole should not suffer because 2% of the population does not want to pay 5% more in taxes. This should be common sense.

Tax revenue as a % of GDP needs to increase: fact or fiction?

I don't disagree that some tax increases are in order.
 
Back
Top Bottom