• 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!

Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike

Ockham said:
It won't salvage anything - the amount being cut is insignificant when spread over 10 years. It's symbolic and political only.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Republocrats. Nothing they do is significant, just enough to pretend that they are doing something so they can sit around and blame the other side for **** not getting done.
 
Conservative said:
I answered the question now when will you?
Click to expand...

Where have you posted that? I did not see an answer. The last "conservative" gave us Department of Homeland Security (2011 operating budget was what, nearly a trillion?), Real ID Act which got bogged down because the States started to oppose such a gross and draconian expansion of government, Patriot Act, warrentless surveillance and taps, wars which still haven't ended (my god, we fought WW II faster than this). All expansions of government, all increased spending, all increased State Building and interventionism. How are we any different than the Democrats who have done the same? Where is your decrease?
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
I don't see it as blind loyalty but instead reaction to actual results. Results matter more than rhetoric and why would you vote for someone whose results are worse today than when he took office. That isn't the case with Bush, GDP was up significantly as was employment in 2004 plus the candidate was Kerry.

I will not vote for a third party because all that does is re-elect Obama. that was proven in NY 23 and NY 26. It was also proven in 1992 when Perot took a large percentage of the vote and that was more than enough to elect Clinton.

I guess in your world reacting to results is being brainwashed whereas doing what your union says isn't? The Republican Party doesn't care what you or I make and that makes it better than the Democrat Party of today. I believe in personal responsiblity and not govt. responsibility on personal issues. Show me where Democrats have ever held anyone accountable for failure?
Click to expand...
you prove my point....it has been republican economic policy since reagan that has led us to this point, now it is time to pay the piper...bush left office just in time to avoid the consequences of his economic policy, economic policy of republicans for several decades now...the republican mantra, cut taxes cut taxes cut taxes, cutting taxes is the cure all...no, it isnt....and the republican party doesnt care what you make? lol, sweet jeezus, YES THEY DO!! they want the rich richer, corporations richer, their campaign donors richer, they are the party of big(wanting to get bigger) business, and the wealthy, and do everything in their power to help business, and have little regard for those actually making the product, providing the services that this country needs/uses, and scream from the rooftops if those who actually make the products and provide the services ask for a little more whipped cream on their collective piece of the pie. they attempt to change regulations regarding when overtime has to be paid, argue against minimum wage laws, and lose their damned minds when you mention 'union'...they don't care what you make?:lamo seems to me they make an effort to keep the actual worker 'in his place', seem to think that we should lick their boots, and be damned thankful we have that 'minimum wage' job that doesnt pay the bills , and all the while trying to gut social programs and safety nets, gut education funding(god forbid you try to get an education so you can move up and join their club, can't have that, we need those low wage workers)

They don't care what you make? yeah, tell that line of BS to someone else.
 
teamosil said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about.... I was the one saying we should adjust for inflation. I am saying that adjusted for inflation a number of presidents have added as much or more to the debt in a single term.



I'm not sure if you didn't understand my points or just chose not to respond to them, but either way I guess it is a concession.



Kiddo, the top income earners are paying lower percentages of taxes than they have in 100 years and less than they pay in any other first world country. So, by your standards, are the entire first world and the US for the last 100 years "socialist"?

Socialism is a system where the workers control the means of production. That historically has been by the government owning and running all the businesses. Nothing remotely like that is going on in the US or being proposed by anyone. Obviously.

When you just blurt out "socialism!" over and over given these two things, that just makes you look ignorant.
Click to expand...

Guess being right makes me ignorant in your book. 47% of income earners pay zero in FIT so what is their percentage and fair share? you telling me that an income earner cannot pay a $100 a year or something? As usual focus on percentage of income and not the amount paid. Top 1% pay 38% of all taxes paid and liberals don't believe that is their fair share?
 
randel said:
you prove my point....it has been republican economic policy since reagan that has led us to this point, now it is time to pay the piper...bush left office just in time to avoid the consequences of his economic policy, economic policy of republicans for several decades now...the republican mantra, cut taxes cut taxes cut taxes, cutting taxes is the cure all...no, it isnt....and the republican party doesnt care what you make? lol, sweet jeezus, YES THEY DO!! they want the rich richer, corporations richer, their campaign donors richer, they are the party of big(wanting to get bigger) business, and the wealthy, and do everything in their power to help business, and have little regard for those actually making the product, providing the services that this country needs/uses, and scream from the rooftops if those who actually make the products and provide the services ask for a little more whipped cream on their collective piece of the pie. they attempt to change regulations regarding when overtime has to be paid, argue against minimum wage laws, and lose their damned minds when you mention 'union'...they don't care what you make?:lamo seems to me they make an effort to keep the actual worker 'in his place', seem to think that we should lick their boots, and be damned thankful we have that 'minimum wage' job that doesnt pay the bills , and all the while trying to gut social programs and safety nets, gut education funding(god forbid you try to get an education so you can move up and join their club, can't have that, we need those low wage workers)

They don't care what you make? yeah, tell that line of BS to someone else.
Click to expand...

I know this is hard for you to understand as it would take a civics understanding but Congress sets the legislative agenda and it was the Bush Budget passed and supported by the democrat congress in 2008 for 2009 that led to the debt and poor economic results generated. Very few if any Republicans supported that budget but that escapes you. I answered your question so when are you going to answer mine? Your post just goes to show how little you know about our economy and how this is nothing more than class warfare perpetuated by the union thugs. Those evil corporations hire about 20% of the workers, Democrat policies hurt the small busiensses.
 
Conservative said:
What is amazing is that people look back at the 40's and believe that is applicable today. We have laws on the books today so why are unions needed? Look at what unions have done to Detroit today?
Click to expand...
the laws are only as good as the people who write them, and enforce them....legislation is introduced all the time to try and change labor law, to change laws regarding health and safety(usually for the worse, and by republicans) , to change how and when overtime is paid, ......unions serve as watchdogs on labor law, so please , spare me the 'we don't need unions' bs
 
Conservative said:
I know this is hard for you to understand as it would take a civics understanding but Congress sets the legislative agenda and it was the Bush Budget passed and supported by the democrat congress in 2008 for 2009 that led to the debt and poor economic results generated. Very few if any Republicans supported that budget but that escapes you. I answered your question so when are you going to answer mine? Your post just goes to show how little you know about our economy and how this is nothing more than class warfare perpetuated by the union thugs. Those evil corporations hire about 20% of the workers, Democrat policies hurt the small busiensses.
Click to expand...
you seem to want to ignore(not that i'm shocked by it) that your republican boys have screwed the snot out of the pooch over the last 30 + years economically, with all the tax cuts and empty promises.....i know that is hard for you to understand, and you should probably take a couple of economic courses, i'm sure it could help you, perhaps you should look into that. (see how that works? implying that someone is ignorant or stupid? more people than just you can play that game, just sayin')
 
Conservative said:
Guess being right makes me ignorant in your book. 47% of income earners pay zero in FIT so what is their percentage and fair share? you telling me that an income earner cannot pay a $100 a year or something? As usual focus on percentage of income and not the amount paid. Top 1% pay 38% of all taxes paid and liberals don't believe that is their fair share?
Click to expand...

Why would we just look at the federal income taxes in a vacuum? They're designed that way in part to counter balance all the other regressive taxes. It's just an overt attempt by the right to distort the figures.
 
I'm still waiting to hear a Conversative explain how the Republican method of cutting taxes and reducing regulations have been an overall boon for America. How it will result in a different outcome then the previous 3 budget busting Republican presidents and the debt increases they have given the American people.
 
Tettsuo said:
I'm still waiting to hear a Conversative explain how the Republican method of cutting taxes and reducing regulations have been an overall boon for America. How it will result in a different outcome then the previous 3 budget busting Republican presidents and the debt increases they have given the American people.
Click to expand...
doesnt matter what their results were, they had the magical (R) next to their name, that is all that mattered.
 
randel said:
the laws are only as good as the people who write them, and enforce them....legislation is introduced all the time to try and change labor law, to change laws regarding health and safety(usually for the worse, and by republicans) , to change how and when overtime is paid, ......unions serve as watchdogs on labor law, so please , spare me the 'we don't need unions' bs
Click to expand...


So making new laws is the answer when the govt. doesn't enforce the laws on the books now? Brilliant! I love people with clubs as watchdogs, don't you?
 
randel said:
agreed...we need spending cuts and tax increases if we are ever going to dig our way out of this mess.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that the US is not a democracy and therefore what we want is irrelevant.

There's no guarantee that any tax increase will be applied toward paying off the debt or that any idiotic spending will be cut.

It's more likely that the tax plan obama is proposing will merely punish the lower millionaires by taxing them and diverting their money to the very rich who control Congress (Wallstreet, oil cos., etc.).

The federal govt. is just a big hole for money to go into.
 
randel said:
you seem to want to ignore(not that i'm shocked by it) that your republican boys have screwed the snot out of the pooch over the last 30 + years economically, with all the tax cuts and empty promises.....i know that is hard for you to understand, and you should probably take a couple of economic courses, i'm sure it could help you, perhaps you should look into that. (see how that works? implying that someone is ignorant or stupid? more people than just you can play that game, just sayin')
Click to expand...

that is your opinion not put the data up to support that claim? BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the Treasury Dept don't agree with you. Why are they wrong?
 
teamosil said:
Why would we just look at the federal income taxes in a vacuum? They're designed that way in part to counter balance all the other regressive taxes. It's just an overt attempt by the right to distort the figures.
Click to expand...

Why? because FIT funds the Federal Govt. How have I distorted the figures? By the way what do you think a rise in Federal Income taxes are going to do to state tax revenue?
 
randel said:
doesnt matter what their results were, they had the magical (R) next to their name, that is all that mattered.
Click to expand...

It is obvious to me that results don't matter to you because you never post any. Obama has been in office 2 1/2 years so what are his results over that period of time that justify re-election? He has an approval rating for 39% so the question is why?
 
Tettsuo said:
You're arguing a strawman. I'm not supporting larger government. I'm in support of a functional government. To have a function government, we need to fund it. That's it. There's no more to it than that. I agree we have fat to trim. I'm definitely pro-cost cutting but I'm not for starving the beast as it was that so-called beast that enable the rich to become so. Cutting that makes it harder for those seeking wealth to get there.
Click to expand...

Starving the beast is usually a good idea, because beasts are bad.
 
Ikari said:
And I have asked you now MULTIPLE TIMES, when was the last time conservatives reduced the size of government.
Click to expand...

Post 76 answered your question and post 77 was your response
 
Conservative said:
Post 76 answered your question and post 77 was your response
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. Your answer to my question "When was the last time conservatives reduced the size of government" was that Republicans HAVE NOT reduced the size of government. Which is true. So if neither party is reducing the size of government, why should I promote one side of that government over the other? The status quo is as the status quo is. And if I do not like it, why is it then logical to support it?
 
There is wide public support for raising taxes for the rich:

19 Different Polls Show That Americans Support Tax Increases To Cut Deficit

Here is just a sampling of the polls:

"In the June 9 ABC News poll 61% of Americans believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit, and 57% of those polled said that deficit reduction should include both tax increases and spending cuts.

A Pew poll found that more people blame the nation’s involvement in wars than tax cuts or spending for the deficit. The poll also found wide support for increasing taxes, as 67% said the more high earners income should be subject to being taxed for Social Security, and 66% support raising taxes on incomes over $250,000, and 62% support closing corporate tax loopholes.

A Bloomberg poll taken in May found that only 33% of those surveyed thought that it would be possible to lower the deficit without raising taxes, 64% expressed the belief that it isn’t possible to lower the deficit without raising taxes.

An April CBS News/NY Times poll showed that 72% of people favored raising taxes on the wealthy in order to reduce the deficit. A March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81% of those surveyed would support a tax on millionaires that would be used for deficit reduction, and 68% supported eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those who make over $250,000."

To see the other poll results, see here:
19 Different Polls Show That Americans Support Tax Increases To Cut Deficit
 
Conservative said:
Why? because FIT funds the Federal Govt. How have I distorted the figures? By the way what do you think a rise in Federal Income taxes are going to do to state tax revenue?
Click to expand...

No that's not true. The federal government also collects capital gains, corporate taxes, FICA, estate, gift and payroll taxes. FICA and payroll taxes are regressive. Capital gains is in reality regressive because it is a much, much, lower rate than the rate they tax wages at and the rich get a much larger percentage of their income through investment than other people do. Estate taxes are hard to classify. They only kick in after $2.5 million and they are a type of income that mostly is collected by the rich, so it is mostly a big fat tax exemption for the rich on a source of income. But, they do kick in above that again now that we let that part of the Bush tax handouts expire. So, I wouldn't really say it fits neatly in either regressive or progressive territory. Same with gifts. So 3 of the 4 federal taxes are regressive, but you just want to look at the 1 out of 4 that is progressive and draw conclusions based just on that?

Not to even mention state taxes, which are much more regressive. Sales taxes are steeply regressive. Property, unemployment and disability taxes are all regressive. And most states either have no income tax, a flat income tax, or a marginally progressive income tax with maybe just two brackets, so they aren't even offsetting the regresiveness of their other taxes like the fed is trying to do. So, even just looking at all federal taxes is misleading, since the overall tax burden people face is much more regressive than just the federal part.

So, statements like you made about "how can the Democrats say the rich aren't paying their fair share" that only cite to federal income taxes are at best misleading. Whether or not they're paying their fair share would depend on the percentage of ALL taxes that they pay- state, federal, income, sales, property, capital gains, FICA, etc.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
OK, fair enough. Your answer to my question "When was the last time conservatives reduced the size of government" was that Republicans HAVE NOT reduced the size of government. Which is true. So if neither party is reducing the size of government, why should I promote one side of that government over the other? The status quo is as the status quo is. And if I do not like it, why is it then logical to support it?
Click to expand...

Because the alternative is a lot worse and as long as Obama is the headliner that will be the case.
 
Catawba said:
There is wide public support for raising taxes for the rich:

19 Different Polls Show That Americans Support Tax Increases To Cut Deficit

Here is just a sampling of the polls:

"In the June 9 ABC News poll 61% of Americans believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit, and 57% of those polled said that deficit reduction should include both tax increases and spending cuts.

A Pew poll found that more people blame the nation’s involvement in wars than tax cuts or spending for the deficit. The poll also found wide support for increasing taxes, as 67% said the more high earners income should be subject to being taxed for Social Security, and 66% support raising taxes on incomes over $250,000, and 62% support closing corporate tax loopholes.

A Bloomberg poll taken in May found that only 33% of those surveyed thought that it would be possible to lower the deficit without raising taxes, 64% expressed the belief that it isn’t possible to lower the deficit without raising taxes.

An April CBS News/NY Times poll showed that 72% of people favored raising taxes on the wealthy in order to reduce the deficit. A March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81% of those surveyed would support a tax on millionaires that would be used for deficit reduction, and 68% supported eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those who make over $250,000."

To see the other poll results, see here:
19 Different Polls Show That Americans Support Tax Increases To Cut Deficit
Click to expand...

Since when does more revenue lead to deficit reduction? History shows it leads to more spending. Let's see the spending cuts and put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work before raising taxes. Then take SS and Medicare off budget first, submit spending cuts back to at least 2008 levels, set up a fund for the revenue to go to deficit reduction and then I will consider tax cuts. Thanks for the polls though. Wonder how those 47% of income earners that don't pay any FIT voted in the polls?
 
teamosil said:
No that's not true. The federal government also collects capital gains, corporate taxes, FICA, estate, gift and payroll taxes. FICA and payroll taxes are regressive. Capital gains is in reality regressive because it is a much, much, lower rate than the rate they tax wages at and the rich get a much larger percentage of their income through investment than other people do. Estate taxes are hard to classify. They only kick in after $2.5 million and they are a type of income that mostly is collected by the rich, so it is mostly a big fat tax exemption for the rich on a source of income. But, they do kick in above that again now that we let that part of the Bush tax handouts expire. So, I wouldn't really say it fits neatly in either regressive or progressive territory. Same with gifts. So 3 of the 4 federal taxes are regressive, but you just want to look at the 1 out of 4 that is progressive and draw conclusions based just on that?

Not to even mention state taxes, which are much more regressive. Sales taxes are steeply regressive. Property, unemployment and disability taxes are all regressive. And most states either have no income tax, a flat income tax, or a marginally progressive income tax with maybe just two brackets, so they aren't even offsetting the regresiveness of their other taxes like the fed is trying to do. So, even just looking at all federal taxes is misleading, since the overall tax burden people face is much more regressive than just the federal part.

So, statements like you made about "how can the Democrats say the rich aren't paying their fair share" that only cite to federal income taxes are at best misleading. Whether or not they're paying their fair share would depend on the percentage of ALL taxes that they pay- state, federal, income, sales, property, capital gains, FICA, etc.
Click to expand...

FICA funds SS and Medicare, FIT is the largest tax revenue source of the Federal govt. followed by Corporate taxes, and Excise taxes. FICA shouldn't have anything to do with the funding of the Govt.

Still waiting for your definition of fair share that the rich should pay? Think that those income earners who aren't paying any FIT are paying their fair share? Where is your outrage?
 
Conservative said:
Because the alternative is a lot worse and as long as Obama is the headliner that will be the case.
Click to expand...
Actually, recent history has shown us that any Republican president is bad for the country as long as they tow the Republican mantra of trickle down/supply side economics.

Until Republicans find a new way to address issued other than cut taxes and reduce regulations, I'll continue to vote Democrat. Their was is proven to not do what they claim it will.

It would certainly be better if a 3rd party was available and had viable ideas, but as of right now, it doesn't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom