• 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 to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

Why do you constant divert from the thread topic by asking off topic questions? Probably a better question is why do I answer them just giving you a forum to troll.

That was a statement not a question.

And when have you ever cared about the topic?
 
I have never misrepresented the numbers off BEA.gov for they are what they are, period. I doubt seriously that you have ever gone to bea.gov, bls.gov, or the U.S. Treasury sites for they don't support your position. Nor do I ever see a response to the question raised, how will raising taxes during these economic times put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work full time. As was pointed out but of course you ignored, Clinton didn't inherit a recession but Clinton did give us a GOP Congress.

"Your" President now wants to raise taxes with high unemployment as symbolism to anyone who is even considering showing initiative, taking risk that it just isn't worth it under this Administration.

Sorry, but you have. And once again, no one has claimed rasing taxes will put people to work. The claim is that cutting them won't. Leaving them alone won't. That taxes don't relate to jobs any way you slice it.

Now focus and try to answer what is actually being said. :coffeepap
 
LMAO...wow are you confused.

Please, explain to us how the rich get rich....

I think it is you that has been lied to.
The rich got rich from either generational wealth passed down or they worked their way to a place of wealth (either by leveraging ideas or others ideas).

But no matter how they achieved their wealth in America, it was done using the power of the society and infrastructure of America. That same infrastructure that the vast majority of Americans paid for to enable that 2% to obtain their vast resources.

So all of the rich, every single one of them, got rich with the help of us all. THEY DID NOT DO IT ALONE.
 
Sorry, but you have. And once again, no one has claimed rasing taxes will put people to work. The claim is that cutting them won't. Leaving them alone won't. That taxes don't relate to jobs any way you slice it.

Now focus and try to answer what is actually being said. :coffeepap

I have tried to focus but the results get in the way of the liberal rhetoric, sorry, but those results show liberalism to be a failure. Your claim that raising taxes or cutting them doesn't have an effect on personal habits is ludicrous.
 
I have tried to focus but the results get in the way of the liberal rhetoric, sorry, but those results show liberalism to be a failure. Your claim that raising taxes or cutting them doesn't have an effect on personal habits is ludicrous.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. You have not even looked at the results. I've given you the results of studies, and you apparently haven't even looked at it. You keep bouncing around, repeating nonsensically phrases you've learned, no matter how poorly they match the conversation or the facts.

:2wave:
 
LMAO...wow are you confused.

Please, explain to us how the rich get rich....

I think it is you that has been lied to.

If there is an error in my reasoning, I am all ears. Or are you going to try to troll your way out of this as Conservative is doing?

It was a proper reply to your post.

Bullcrap it was. Look, I realize that libertarian/conservatives stick up for one another. Your loyalty to each other is unquestioned. All I ask is that you show the same loyalty to this thing called TRUTH. Because in your camp, it's sorely lacking. Posts in this thread are further evidence of this.
 
Bullcrap it was. Look, I realize that libertarian/conservatives stick up for one another. Your loyalty to each other is unquestioned. All I ask is that you show the same loyalty to this thing called TRUTH. Because in your camp, it's sorely lacking. Posts in this thread are further evidence of this.

His post was yours in return. Nothing more. If you do not like it, don't start it.
 
You have yet to prove you are right as you continue to buy the Obama rhetoric and ignore the obama results. We don't need a 3.7 trillion trillion dollar govt and until you define what we need and actually provide cuts to spending, not another dime should go to politicians to waste and create more debt.

You just don't get it do you. You think you can bait me into some petty flame-fest with your continued trolling. What those of us watching your behavior realize is that your arguments have NOTHING. Why do you troll? Who knows, but it sure as hell isn't to direct us toward the truth, something you seem to be highly allergic to. Oh, and you haven't answered my question, and oh, I don't except you to, because oh, I don't think you can.

His post was yours in return. Nothing more. If you do not like it, don't start it.

Stay out of this. I wasn't talking to you. Unless, of course, you want to engage in some actual dialogue.
 
Stay out of this. I wasn't talking to you. Unless, of course, you want to engage in some actual dialogue.

I'd be happy to as long as the arguement isn't Waaaaaaaa.
 
You just don't get it do you. You think you can bait me into some petty flame-fest with your continued trolling. What those of us watching your behavior realize is that your arguments have NOTHING. Why do you troll? Who knows, but it sure as hell isn't to direct us toward the truth, something you seem to be highly allergic to. Oh, and you haven't answered my question, and oh, I don't except you to, because oh, I don't think you can.



Stay out of this. I wasn't talking to you. Unless, of course, you want to engage in some actual dialogue.

I can hardly wait to see some evidence of the truth posted here by a liberal. I give you the non partisan sites that report actual data but instead of verifying my posts you claim I don't provide the truth. I am waiting for you to refute anything I have posted with something other than Op-ed pieces and personal opinions.

The current budget of the U.S. is 3.7 trillion dollars, FACT, Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
there are currently 16.2% unemployed and under employed, FACT bls.gov, Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
current GDP growth is 1%, FACT, bea.gov, U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Debt of the United states up 4 trillion dollars since Obama took office, FACT, Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Now prove those sites aren't the truth and why is it you never post data to back up your point of view?
 
Stay out of this. I wasn't talking to you. Unless, of course, you want to engage in some actual dialogue.

I'd be happy to as long as the arguement isn't Waaaaaaaa.

Moderator's Warning:
You two, and every one else, knock this stuff off and stick to the topic
 
I am all for that. The secretary is likely part of that 47% that pay no federal income taxes.

I know you were just trying to be flipped in your rebuttal, but I think we need to have some perspective on the economics of our day.

We keep hearing from Republicans that 1% of the top wage earners pay 40% of federal income taxes while 47% of low income households pay no federal income taxes. Folks, hold onto your butts because you're about to be educated...

According to the latest IRS data:

Men remain the largest wage earners with a mean income of $75,875/annual and a median income of $57,514. The national mean income level is $69,244; median income is $52,724. (See mean and median income to understand the difference.) The breakdown of mean income by race is as follows:

Whites = $78,017 (3.9 million wage earners)

Hispanics = $57,350 (1.09 million wage earners)

Blacks = $53,702 (780K wage earners)

The number of households by race earning $250,000 or more is as follows:

Whites = 399,844

Hispanics = 457,894

Blacks = 415,552

The above figures look pretty good, right? Let's dig alittle deeper into the statistics and see what else we find...

The 2011 Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (excluding Alaska and Hawaii; they have their own FPL rate): $22,350. Again using the latest IRS data:

The number of male wage earners with income at or below the FPL: 7.3 million

The number of senior citizens (65 and older) living at or below the FPL: 2.2 million (See top of linked IRS website below for details)

The number of single-family homes with at least 4 members in the household at or below the FPL: 582,000

The number of families at or below the FPL: 6.9 million (See top of linked IRS website for single-family homes above)

Why are there so many people below age 65 living in poverty today? Lack of skills that would allow wage earners to move up the economic ladder is a primary limiting factor. That problem persists today. Students living in poverty (low-income families) is the primary reason why most can't graduate high school let alone go on to college. Education beyond high school plays a huge role in uplifting students and families out of poverty. Per the latest Dept. of Education statistics:

Number of minority students living in poverty (Blacks, Hispanics, Native American, Other):

FY2008: 40% (471,898)
FY2009: 41% (538,249)

Note: Refer to page 40, fig. 2.1 of linked DoE report for details

Now, let's look at some positive education numbers:

Percentage of Black high school grads (HSG):

FY2008 Target Grads: 85.5%
FY2008 Actual Grads: 86.9% (+1.4% over target)

FY2009 Target Grads: 85.8%
FY2010 Target Grads: 86%

Percentage of Hispanic high school grads:

FY2008 Target Grads: 70.3%
FY2008 Actual Grads: 75.5 (+5.2% over target)

FY2009 Target Grads: 70.6%
FY2010 Target Grads: 71%

Note: Refer to page 37, fig. 1.6 of linked DoE report. Actual figures for FY2009 and FY2010 grad rates were due out in July, 2011 but have yet to be reported.

Percentage of Black college graduates from historically Black colleges/universities (HBCUs):

FY2008 Target Grads: 39%
FY2008 Actual Grads: 35%

FY2009 Target Grads: 40%
FY2009 Actual Grads: 34%

FY2010 Target Grads: 40%

Percentage of Hispanice college graduates from traditional Hispanic colleges/universities:

FY2008 Target Grads: 37%
FY2008 Actual Grads: 42%

FY2009 Target Grads: 44%
FY2009 Actual Grads: 42%

FY2010 Target Grads: 45%

Note: Refer to page 46, fig. 3.1 of linked DoE report. Actual figures for FY2010 college grads due out in Dec, 2011.
 
Last edited:
I hate to break this to you, but my post was one of the few addressing the thread title. YOU are the one changing the subject.

I hate to break this to you, but this thread isn't about the 2009 stimulus bill.

Nice try though
 
We already give a smaller percentage of our GDP in foreign aid of any first world country:

View attachment 67115902

That's only $18 billion. We can't possibly go lower than that. We ought to be aiming at, at least, coming in in the middle of the pack. We signed a commitment once that we would give 0.7% minimum, but here we are dragging up the rear at 0.13%... Pretty embarrassing for us IMO.

Thanks for the reply. The main issue is we cannot keep spending like we have even with increased revenue. I would prefer to take care of our own first than some other country.
Its only 18B. , but each small program adds up. That statement is what gets us into trouble. its only $x.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. The main issue is we cannot keep spending like we have even with increased revenue. I would prefer to take care of our own first than some other country.
Its only 18B. , but each small program adds up. That statement is what gets us into trouble. its only $x.

What is 18% of our 15 TRILLION GDP? Why in the world would anyone look at percentage instead of dollars in determining Foreign Aid expenditures?
 
Thanks for the reply. The main issue is we cannot keep spending like we have even with increased revenue. I would prefer to take care of our own first than some other country.
Its only 18B. , but each small program adds up. That statement is what gets us into trouble. its only $x.

If you're looking for ways to spend less abroad, why not look at the military instead? We spend about 100 times as much on that.

IMO 0.13% seems below even the bare minimum we can do and respect ourselves. The bible says you should give 10%. Can't we at least hit 1%? Just seems like decency requires it. There are people around the world that starve to death every day for want of the cost of a cup of coffee and who really have no options for saving themselves on their own at all. I really can't see how we can't get the jumbo size instead of the super jumbo size every once in a while and save a bunch of lives...
 
What is 18% of our 15 TRILLION GDP? Why in the world would anyone look at percentage instead of dollars in determining Foreign Aid expenditures?

What the hell are you talking about now? It is $18b. 0.13% of our GDP... It's hard for me to imagine how somebody could be so out of touch as to actually think that we spend 18% of our GDP on foreign aid... Given that you had such a radical misconception about things, does learning that you were so insanely far off change your view of things? Or is your view totally independent from factual reality?
 
Last edited:
What the hell are you talking about now? It is $18b. 0.13% of our GDP...

Foreign aid is 45 billion in the 2010 budget so the question is what country spends more and why is percentage of GDP relevant to you?

Last five years foreign aid from the U.S. treasury dept

International Affairs45.238.628.928.529.5
 
Last edited:
Foreign aid is 45 billion in the 2010 budget so the question is what country spends more and why is percentage of GDP relevant to you?

Last five years foreign aid from the U.S. treasury dept

International Affairs45.238.628.928.529.5

International affairs? That isn't foreign aid...

Regardless, again, 5 minutes ago you apparently thought we spent around $3 TRILLION on foreign aid... More than the entire federal budget... Now that you know how crazy that was, how does that change your view of the world and the government? It must change it radically, right?
 
Last edited:
International affairs? That isn't foreign aid...

Regardless, again, 5 minutes ago you apparently thought we spent around $3 TRILLION on foreign aid... More than the entire federal budget... Now that you know how crazy that was, how does that change your view of the world and the government? It must change it radically, right?

What is the line item in the budget for foreign aid?
 
What is the line item in the budget for foreign aid?

I don't know how it is worded wherever you're looking. I posted the source that shows that it is 0.13% of our GDP. If you want to try to find a different source, feel free.

Regardless though, again, your total world has shifted in the last 15 minutes. You used to think that we were spending a crippling $3 trillion on foreign aid. Now you know it is only $18 billion. That must radically change your perspective on things, right? Talk through those changes in your view.
 
I don't know how it is worded wherever you're looking. I posted the source that shows that it is 0.13% of our GDP. If you want to try to find a different source, feel free.

Regardless though, again, your total world has shifted in the last 15 minutes. You used to think that we were spending a crippling $3 trillion on foreign aid. Now you know it is only $18 billion. That must radically change your perspective on things, right? Talk through those changes in your view.

Foreign aid is in International Affairs and the 2010 budget amount was 45 billion dollars, suggest you learn to get your information from the actual budget
 
Foreign aid is in International Affairs and the 2010 budget amount was 45 billion dollars, suggest you learn to get your information from the actual budget

Why don't you provide a link?
 
Back
Top Bottom