• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
I posted the actual BLS data, you don't like it, take it up with them. Why don't you find out what that chart represents instead of making a fool of yourself

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542 13747 13914 14087 13931 13967 13992

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693 14463 14736 14736 15069 15050 14944 15029 0 0 0
Click to expand...
Let me just add...
I've been thru this Nonsensical game conservative plays.
He tries to pin all the Job losss, or lack of gains, on Obama, by Including the first Few months of his Presidency when his policies certainly weren't to blame/had no chance to take efffect.
This includes Jan 2009! during which we lost 800,000 jobs alone and Obama didn't even get sworn in til the 20th of that month!
Not mention the next few Bush-remnant months where losses were heaviest/millions and his policies could not yet have taken effect.
Without those first few Bush-legacy months, his whole debate falls apart. So he can't acknowledge that simple fact. Cognitive dissonance. When reality world meets partisanship.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
:2bump:




...............
Click to expand...
For the life of me, I can't explain why Conservative won't simply offer up the name of that book which he claims documents the observations of America's first families by the secret service?

He must have been lying when he posted that. What other explanation can there be for why he won't tell me the title so I can see for myself if what he posted is true or not?
 
Conservative said:
Bush had no authority to bail them or anyone else out, Congress had to authorize the spending. Congress under Democrat control with Obama voting yes, gave Bush the money to bail out the banks. Bush spent 350 billion of the 700 billion and left 350 billion for Obama. Most of the money loaned has been repaid so where did that appear on the budget of the U.S.? Hint, it didn't
Click to expand...

So if Bush has no responsibility, I suppose he vetoed it, right? And there was an override? You want to blame Obama for everything since he got elected to the Senate, yet Bush has no responsibility for bills that he signed into law? I'm not giving Democrats a pass on this, but I do recall Bush signed it. So he gets some blame for things. I'm not looking to blame Bush for everything, but you're trying to absolve him from bills that he signed.



Like far too many you buy what the media tells you. Some of the banks didn't want the money and the big ones have paid back the loans with interest. Where are the counter proposals to take money out of SS and Medicare? Raising taxes on the working class? You mean the 65 million working class that don't pay any FIT?
Click to expand...

So what does the GOP want to do to balance the budget? You don't want to take money out of SS, Medicare or Defense, and you don't want to raise taxes. Where is this 1.3 trillion going to come from? Is Boehner going to do a magic trick or something? You are saying at the end that taxes should be raised on working class folks. Class warfare!
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Too funny. you point out how 45,000 people got a job with Verizon and you actually try to make that sound negative.

:naughty:

Like I said, good news for America is bad news for you and your ideology.

Now why are you flat out refusing to defend what you post? Is it really that big of a lie that you don't even want to touch it now??


:waiting:


Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?


:waiting:
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

What is funny is that you don't seem to understand that these people were on strike and didn't actually lose their jobs. Doesn't really matter though since over 25 million plus unemployed and under employed Americans exist today over 2 1/2 years after Obama took office. That is bad news for America and to defend it makes you look foolish. Tell me when Bush had 25 million unemployed and under Employed Americans?
 
mbig said:
Let me just add...
I've been thru this Nonsensical game conservative plays.
He tries to pin all the Job losss, or lack of gains, on Obama, by Including the first Few months of his Presidency when his policies certainly weren't to blame/had no chance to take efffect.
This includes Jan 2009! during which we lost 800,000 jobs alone and Obama didn't even get sworn in til the 20th of that month!
Not mention the next few Bush-remnant months where losses were heaviest/millions and his policies could not yet have taken effect.
Without those first few Bush-legacy months, his whole debate falls apart. So he can't acknowledge that simple fact. Cognitive dissonance. When reality world meets partisanship.
Click to expand...

What I have done is confuse you with facts. You want badly to blame Bush for the job losses when it was Democrats in Congress that controlled the legislative process and the purse strings. Whether or not it was the Bush legacy then is irrelevant, it is the Obama legacy today. We are over 2 1/2 years into the Obama Administration and today we have over 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans. That is the record that will be on the ballot in 2012 along with the 4 trillion he has added to the debt. If that is something you can support, so be it. I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 because of his resume then and won't vote for him in 2012 because of his record now.
 
Conservative said:
What is funny is that you don't seem to understand that these people were on strike and didn't actually lose their jobs. Doesn't really matter though since over 25 million plus unemployed and under employed Americans exist today over 2 1/2 years after Obama took office. That is bad news for America and to defend it makes you look foolish. Tell me when Bush had 25 million unemployed and under Employed Americans?
Click to expand...

I know you have replied to this before, but under Hoover the unemployment rate was at 25% (40 million). Should we just ignore history or only the parts you want to?
 
rocket88;1059855119]So if Bush has no responsibility, I suppose he vetoed it, right? And there was an override? You want to blame Obama for everything since he got elected to the Senate, yet Bush has no responsibility for bills that he signed into law? I'm not giving Democrats a pass on this, but I do recall Bush signed it. So he gets some blame for things. I'm not looking to blame Bush for everything, but you're trying to absolve him from bills that he signed.
Click to expand...

Vetoed what? He certainly is responsible for everything until he left office in January 2009 along with the Democrat Congress. I will gladly give Bush blame for anything that happened from 2001-2008 and now look for liberals to give Obama the blame since January 2009 to the present which shows 25 million plus unemployed and under employed Americans, the highest in modern history TODAY!!! This is September 2011 data so how can anyone blame that on Bush?


So what does the GOP want to do to balance the budget? You don't want to take money out of SS, Medicare or Defense, and you don't want to raise taxes. Where is this 1.3 trillion going to come from? Is Boehner going to do a magic trick or something? You are saying at the end that taxes should be raised on working class folks. Class warfare![/QUOTE]

What the GOP wants is to grow out of this debt and that is the only way to do it. It is 14.6 trillion and there isn't enough money available from the rich to make a dent in the deficit and the debt. When will liberals understand that?

Why is SS and Medicare even in the equation. Take it off budget and put it where it belongs. Let's see those 3 for 1 cuts that Obama proposed. I haven't seen them in writing, have you? Tip ONeil made the same Deal with Reagan in the 80's and then the same deal was made with GHW Bush in the early 90's. Did we ever get those cuts?
 
Jryan said:
I know you have replied to this before, but under Hoover the unemployment rate was at 25% (40 million). Should we just ignore history or only the parts you want to?
Click to expand...

BLS didn't exist until around 1948. Since BLS data was generated there never has been this high of unemployment/under employment. Why would you compare Obama record to Hoover? If you want to do that, so be it, the second worst record in total history and the worst in modern history. Does it make you proud to know that is a record that he is second to Hoover in and first in Modern History?
 
Conservative said:
BLS didn't exist until around 1948. Since BLS data was generated there never has been this high of unemployment/under employment. Why would you compare Obama record to Hoover? If you want to do that, so be it, the second worst record in total history and the worst in modern history. Does it make you proud to know that is a record that he is second to Hoover in and first in Modern History?
Click to expand...

Modern history is only present, and to disclude the past shows great ignorance on your part.
 
Jryan said:
Modern history is only present, and to disclude the past shows great ignorance on your part.
Click to expand...

Then you must be very proud that Obama is second to Hoover in having the highest total of unemployed and under Employed Americans in U.S. History. Congratulations, I am sure that is record that the 25 million plus aren't happy to be part of and this is 2 1/2 years after he took office. How is that "Hope and Change" working out for these Americans and you in school?
 
Conservative said:
This is September 2011 data so how can anyone blame that on Bush?
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming that on Bush.

Your response about the bailout was that Obama voted for it. He did. So did many other Democrats. I believe McCain did, as did many Republicans, and Bush signed it. Pretty bi-partisan IMO.




What the GOP wants is to grow out of this debt and that is the only way to do it. It is 14.6 trillion and there isn't enough money available from the rich to make a dent in the deficit and the debt. When will liberals understand that?
Click to expand...

It'll probably require everybody's taxes to go up. When will Conservatives understand that?

Tip ONeil made the same Deal with Reagan in the 80's and then the same deal was made with GHW Bush in the early 90's. Did we ever get those cuts?
Click to expand...

Nope. We didn't get them from Gingrich or Hastert either. Deficit spending is a bi-partisan problem.
 
It'll probably require everybody's taxes to go up. When will Conservatives understand that?
Click to expand...

I would be in favor of increasing taxes on those who already pay taxes.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm not blaming that on Bush.

Your response about the bailout was that Obama voted for it. He did. So did many other Democrats. I believe McCain did, as did many Republicans, and Bush signed it. Pretty bi-partisan IMO.






It'll probably require everybody's taxes to go up. When will Conservatives understand that?



Nope. We didn't get them from Gingrich or Hastert either. Deficit spending is a bi-partisan problem.
Click to expand...

I will never support a tax increase until the loopholes are closed on ALL taxpayers so that the 65 Plus million WORKING Americans pay something in taxes and then actual spending cuts starting with taking the budget back to the 2008 levels. After that is done then we can discuss Tax increases.
 
mbig said:
Let me just add...
I've been thru this Nonsensical game conservative plays.
He tries to pin all the Job losss, or lack of gains, on Obama, by Including the first Few months of his Presidency when his policies certainly weren't to blame/had no chance to take efffect.
This includes Jan 2009! during which we lost 800,000 jobs alone and Obama didn't even get sworn in til the 20th of that month!
Not mention the next few Bush-remnant months where losses were heaviest/millions and his policies could not yet have taken effect.
Without those first few Bush-legacy months, his whole debate falls apart. So he can't acknowledge that simple fact. Cognitive dissonance. When reality world meets partisanship.
Click to expand...

:sword:but Obama was a Democrat Senator, it is all his fault!:sword:


:lamo
 
Conservative said:
I will never support a tax increase until the loopholes are closed on ALL taxpayers so that the 65 Plus million WORKING Americans pay something in taxes and then actual spending cuts starting with taking the budget back to the 2008 levels. After that is done then we can discuss Tax increases.
Click to expand...

Do you have no idea what math is? So what tax rate do you propose on those under 20k per year (Which is probably most of those "65 million plus" workers)?
 
Jryan said:
I would be in favor of increasing taxes on those who already pay taxes.
Click to expand...

that has no use in creating dis-incentives for more idiotic government spending.

I would be in favor of massively cutting government before anyone pays an extra dime in taxes but if taxes must be raised they must be raised on those who now have no incentive to oppose more spending because they don't pay for it
 
TurtleDude said:
that has no use in creating dis-incentives for more idiotic government spending.

I would be in favor of massively cutting government before anyone pays an extra dime in taxes but if taxes must be raised they must be raised on those who now have no incentive to oppose more spending because they don't pay for it
Click to expand...

That last statement has no merit, I as well as anyone else (over 18) in this country have the right to vote.
 
Jryan said:
Do you have no idea what math is? So what tax rate do you propose on those under 20k per year (Which is probably most of those "65 million plus" workers)?
Click to expand...

I support the flat tax period, 15% for all Americans. By the way those under 20k per year is a very small percentage of those 65 million American workers not paying any Federal Income Taxes
 
Conservative said:
I support the flat tax period, 15% for all Americans. By the way those under 20k per year is a very small percentage of those 65 million American workers not paying any Federal Income Taxes
Click to expand...

lol proof for that bull**** you just typed?
 
TurtleDude said:
I would be in favor of massively cutting government before anyone pays an extra dime in taxes but if taxes must be raised they must be raised on those who now have no incentive to oppose more spending because they don't pay for it
Click to expand...

You mean corporations like Exxon/Mobile and their President, CEO, upper executives who benefit immensely from the 84 billion dollars a year the US goverment spends on keeping shipping lanes open right?
 
winston53660 said:
You mean corporations like Exxon/Mobile and their President, CEO, upper executives who benefit immensely from the 84 billion dollars a year the US goverment spends on keeping shipping lanes open right?
Click to expand...

You are so concerned about how much money the govt. gets, why aren't you concerned about how the money is spent?
 
Jryan said:
lol proof for that bull**** you just typed?
Click to expand...

Yep, IRS Data, you can google it and get the information. Doubt seriously that you want that information though because all you want is attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom