• 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 (Continued)

Sheik Yerbuti said:
What on Earth does Reagan's JAR have to do with Obama's? So what if Obama's JAR is lower?
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out the 81-82 recession was worse than the 2007-2009 recession for those that are working now and were working then due to the cost of living at the time. The unemployed are going to be hurt regardless of the recession period but what makes the 81-82 worse is the affect it had on those employed thus the misery index at the time vs when obama took over. Obama's problem however is that 2 1/2 years after taking office the misery index continues to rise where as 2 1/2 years after the 81-82 recession ended the misery index was declining. JAR reflects the leadership of Reagan and the lack of leadership of Obama. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. My bet is that since you never managed anything you believe one can delegate responsibility. Obama wanted the responsibility of the job now, like you, blames everyone else for his failures.
 
Conservative said:
So you are telling me that the 66 million people earning income cannot pay something in FIT for the services they receive?
Click to expand...

Where are you coming up with this 66 million number since we are talking about HOUSEHOLDS on this 47 - 53% thing.
 
winston53660 said:
Where are you coming up with this 66 million number since we are talking about HOUSEHOLDS on this 47 - 53% thing.
Click to expand...

140 million income earners according to BLS X 47%=65.8 million workers paying ZERO NET FIT with many actually getting money back.
 
Conservative said:
So you are telling me that the 66 million people earning income cannot pay something in FIT for the services they receive?
Click to expand...
Why should they? Most pay for services they receive through other taxes. Also, the article say that it's 47% of households which pay no taxes. Are you including households with no income earners in your calculation of 66 million?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Why should they? Most pay for services they receive through other taxes. Also, the article say that it's 47% of households which pay no taxes. Are you including households with no income earners in your calculation of 66 million?
Click to expand...

Obviously you don't understand what FIT funds no matter how many times I post the line items, that is why you have so little credibility.

As posted my number comes from the total employed 140million times 47% which equals 65.8 million Americans working, earning income and paying a net zero in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Liberals want money to fund their bloated budget and Federal Bureaucracy? That is where they need to go to get it or cut the damn programs.
 
Jryan said:
No, the 53% is the name of the organization but even you see it as the 53% of the people (See the lie now?).
Click to expand...

No, the 53% is the organization they belong to which focuses on the 53% of the income earners that aren't paying any FIT
 
Funny how most people are liberals until they join the 47 percent that have to pay taxes.
 
Erod said:
Funny how most people are liberals until they join the 47 percent that have to pay taxes.
Click to expand...

i probably pay more taxes than you, so that's plain false.
 
Conservative said:
As has been pointed out the 81-82 recession was worse than the 2007-2009 recession for those that are working now and were working then due to the cost of living at the time. The unemployed are going to be hurt regardless of the recession period but what makes the 81-82 worse is the affect it had on those employed thus the misery index at the time vs when obama took over. Obama's problem however is that 2 1/2 years after taking office th e misery index continues to rise where as 2 1/2 years after the 81-82 recession ended the misery index was declining. JAR reflects the leadership of Reagan and the lack of leadership of Obama. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. My bet is that since you never managed anything you believe one can delegate responsibility. Obama wanted the responsibility of the job now, like you, blames everyone else for his failures.
Click to expand...
Then you must believe that Reagan was a worse president than Obama since Reagan did indeed have a lower job approval rating than Obama.

:lamo

G'head, this is where you start making exceptions for Reagan's JAR.
 
liblady said:
i probably pay more taxes than you, so that's plain false.
Click to expand...

Do you feel guity about how much you make and pay in taxes? If you care so much about the govt. getting more revenue, why aren't you paying more? Do you really think that the Federal Govt. can handle local social problems or can you do it better yourself by directing your money at those local problems?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Then you must believe that Reagan was a worse president than Obama since Reagan did indeed have a lower job approval rating than Obama.

:lamo

G'head, this is where you start making exceptions for Reagan's JAR.
Click to expand...

You must be hanging around those drug infested anti Wall Street Protests and having the drugs affecting your brain. There is no comparison between Reagan and Obama as Reagan was a leader and Obama cannot even spell the world.
 
Conservative said:
140 million income earners according to BLS X 47%=65.8 million workers paying ZERO NET FIT with many actually getting money back.
Click to expand...

I guess they get enough tax credits like the child tax credit.:shrug:

Should we eliminate things like this the child tax credit?
 
Conservative said:
Obviously you don't understand what FIT funds no matter how many times I post the line items, that is why you have so little credibility.

As posted my number comes from the total employed 140million times 47% which equals 65.8 million Americans working, earning income and paying a net zero in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Liberals want money to fund their bloated budget and Federal Bureaucracy? That is where they need to go to get it or cut the damn programs.
Click to expand...
But the number is 47% of households, not 47% of total employed. Why can't you understand the difference, Con?

Stay away from numbers ... You hurt yourself everytime you mess with them.
 
winston53660 said:
I guess they get enough tax credits like the child tax credit.:shrug:

Should we eliminate things like this the child tax credit?
Click to expand...

Guess they do so should we eliminate tax loopholes on all income earners?
 
Conservative said:
Do you feel guity about how much you make and pay in taxes? If you care so much about the govt. getting more revenue, why aren't you paying more? Do you really think that the Federal Govt. can handle local social problems or can you do it better yourself by directing your money at those local problems?
Click to expand...

I think samharris answers the "You can donate as much money to the government as you want" argument.

Some readers will point out that I am free to donate to the treasury even now. But such solitary sacrifice would be utterly ineffectual, and I am no more eager than anyone else is to fill the pork barrels of corrupt politicians. However, if Gates and Buffett created a mechanism that bypassed the current dysfunction of government, earmarking the money for unambiguously worthy projects, I suspect that there are millions of people like myself who would not hesitate to invest in the future of America.
Click to expand...

A New Year’s Resolution for the Rich : Sam Harris

(Although I recommend you read the entire article)
 
Jryan said:
I think samharris answers the "You can donate as much money to the government as you want" argument.



A New Year’s Resolution for the Rich : Sam Harris

(Although I recommend you read the entire article)
Click to expand...

Aw so filling the coffers of corrupt politicians isn't a viable program then why do you want others to contribute more to those same corrupt politicians? Are you actually saying that just maybe contributing more to solving local problems by local taxes actually may be better than sending it to the govt so they can distribute that money to where they deem necessary?
 
Conservative said:
You must be hanging around those drug infested anti Wall Street Protests and having the drugs affecting your brain. There is no comparison between Reagan and Obama as Reagan was a leader and Obama cannot even spell the world.
Click to expand...
But you said Obama's low JAR is indicative of his "failed leadership." But Reagan had a lower JAR than Obama -- why do you hold him to a different standard?
 
Conservative said:
Aw so filling the coffers of corrupt politicians isn't a viable program then why do you want others to contribute more to those same corrupt politicians? Are you actually saying that just maybe contributing more to solving local problems by local taxes actually may be better than sending it to the govt so they can distribute that money to where they deem necessary?
Click to expand...

You must not of read the entire article...
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
But you said Obama's low JAR is indicative of his "failed leadership." But Reagan had a lower JAR than Obama -- why do you hold him to a different standard?
Click to expand...

When exactly did the 1981-82 recession end and what was the approval rating two years after the end of that recession?

Ronald Reagan From the People

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ 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. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
 
Jryan said:
You must not of read the entire article...
Click to expand...

Don't have to read the article to know that local problems are better handled locally than from a bureaucrat in D.C.
 
Conservative said:
When exactly did the 1981-82 recession end and what was the approval rating two years after the end of that recession?

Ronald Reagan From the People

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ 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. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I knew you'd make an exception for Reagan. How can Obama's low JAR be an indication of failed leadership but Reagan's JAR, which sank lower than Obama's, not also be indicative of failed leadership.

I like how you make up your own meanings for low job approval ratings. Apparently, you have one standard for Republicans and a completely different standard for Democrats. Says everything anyone needs to know about you.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Like I said, I knew you'd make an exception for Reagan. How can Obama's low JAR be an indication of failed leadership but Reagan's JAR, which sank lower than Obama's, not also be indicative of failed leadership.

I like how you make up your own meanings for low job approval ratings. Apparently, you have one standard for Republicans and a completely different standard for Democrats. Says everything anyone needs to know about you.
Click to expand...

Can you read the approval ratings? Do you understand the difference between having a pro growth economic plan like Reagan and a Micromanaging massive central govt. plan of Obama's? Apparently not thus you continue to be brainwashed by Obama. That 38% recent poll number for Obama is over 2 years after the end of the recession. Reagan ended up adding 17 million jobs. Think that Obama will generate those kind of numbers?

My standard has always been results, Reagan got positive results and Obama has generated negative economic results. The comparison is a stark contrast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom