• 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!

ABC's "20/20 - Lessons from Billionaires: Tax ME to create jobs IN AMERICA!"

There is every indication that the $540 billion raised from the private sector will only be used to increase the bureaucracy, or used as venture capital to assist Barrack Obama supporters. Had what happened with Solyndra happened at Haliburton or Enron, people would have gone to jail.

People did go to jail over Enron (unless what you're really referring to is "people from within the government who approved the funding for such ventures"). To that, I can agree if it could be proven that there was wrong doing on the part of government officials.
 
They say it because as BILLIONAIRES they know they'll never truly lose money. They have so much that even if you increase their taxes by 10% they'll still have more than enough money in profits to pay for it. Besides, they'll just find other business ventures to invest in to make still more money. If you listened to those billionaires in the interviews, you should have heard them say they want to reinvest their earnings right here in AMERICA on AMERICAN businesses that create products right here IN AMERICA! You and I both know that manufacturing has gone down in this country for years. As such, these wealthy individuals have little choice but to invest their money overseas. Doesn't it then make sense that if you want them to bring that money AND those jobs back here in the U.S., you have to create manufacturing jobs here IN AMERICA?

As one of the supporters of the Occupy movement, I WANT the 1% to increase to %5...10%...20%....25%...50%. I want more Americans to become part of the wealth class. I do envy them, but in a good way. I think most of us would be lying if we said we didn't want their oppulance. My only beef is with those who act like those investment bankers in the book, "Too Big to Fail" who fought among themselves not about what was the right thing to do to preserve the properity of the nation, but rather they fought among themselves to retain or GAIN a larger piece of the economic pie and cared less about the fate of the nation. That's what I have a problem with. That's what the Occupy movement is trying to convey to all of America.

Let's reverse this argument just for a second, however, and direct it at the poor. I don't blame all poor people for their economic situation. I know some who are poor not by their own choosing or their own doing. Some got into unforeseen accidents and have medical bills they can't afford. Some lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Some went from a two-income household to one primary bread winner; in some cases it was due to one spouse losing his/her job, in others, one wage earned left (divorce). These people I have no problem whatsoever lending a helping hand to. But those who take advantage of the entitlement system and are, in fact, lazy and don't want to work but instead purposely rely on WIC, TANF, Medicaid/SSDI - those people I do have a problem with. But make no mistake, there IS a difference between the two bottom extremes just as there is a difference between the two top extremes. Moreover, to think that laziness and addictive behavior only happens with certain demographics, i.e., Blacks, Hispanics or other minority groups alone, is just wrong! It happens with people across ALL racial divides.

Once people start viewing things not from one extreme or the other, but seek a more middle-ground point of view, then and only then I believe will this nation beging to really change.

The only way it could become the 50% is if we became a very homogeneous society with very few industries and virtually no growth. If we became the 5 or 10% that might work. Most of us have to work for someone rather than have someone work for us in order to employ large numbers of people. We need very wealthy people because wealth provides great incentive. If you put a cap on wealth, growth and innovation will slow down considerably. I agree we need to shift the balance a bit but you need to be more realistic.
 
People did go to jail over Enron (unless what you're really referring to is "people from within the government who approved the funding for such ventures"). To that, I can agree if it could be proven that there was wrong doing on the part of government officials.

It seems that the connections go right to the top.

How a community organizer with no executive or business experience became the president of the United States, and a major venture capitalist with public money as well, will be debated for decades to come. I guess the Germans, Italians and Japanese frequently slap ther foreheads as well and ask, "What the hell were we thinking??"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ergy-company/2011/10/07/gIQACDqSTL_story.html
 
The only way it could become the 50% is if we became a very homogeneous society with very few industries and virtually no growth. If we became the 5 or 10% that might work. Most of us have to work for someone rather than have someone work for us in order to employ large numbers of people. We need very wealthy people because wealth provides great incentive. If you put a cap on wealth, growth and innovation will slow down considerably. I agree we need to shift the balance a bit but you need to be more realistic.

I admit my 50% rant was rather extreme, but you do get my point. The wealth imbalance in this country has to change.
 
That all sounds nice and looks good on paper, but what is the plan in the event that capital gains decrease, because the new taxes suddenly took the profit out of it and you end up with less tax revenue?

Because, that has never happened in the history of the US, even when taxes were much higher than anything being proposed.
 
There is every indication that the $540 billion raised from the private sector will only be used to increase the bureaucracy, or used as venture capital to assist Barrack Obama supporters. Had what happened with Solyndra happened at Haliburton or Enron, people would have gone to jail.

I thought you were suggesting the revenue wouldn't be significant??? Now, that I have shown that it would be, you wish to move the goalpost now? You have zero credibility for deficit reduction by calling for further sacrifice by the middle class while continuing the $540 billion a year in tax cuts to the wealthy.
 
I admit my 50% rant was rather extreme, but you do get my point. The wealth imbalance in this country has to change.

It will change alright. Everyone except the government and the unions will be poorer. Those who see the writing on the wall are already leaving and taking their money with them.

More Rich Americans Renounce U.S. Citizenship for Lower Taxes - DailyFinance

A Growing Trend of Leaving America - US News and World Report

Amazon.com: Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis ofAmerican Capitalism (9780670019076): Kevin Phillips: Books

I have tourist property in Costa Rica and see middle class and wealthier Americans arriving regularly. They may love their country for what it was but they won't bet their future on it.
 
I thought you were suggesting the revenue wouldn't be significant??? Now, that I have shown that it would be, you wish to move the goalpost now? You have zero credibility for deficit reduction by calling for further sacrifice by the middle class while continuing the $540 billion a year in tax cuts to the wealthy.

You have shown it would be? I don't think you realize how much debt there, what little effect this will have on it, or what the higher taxes will mean. People will not just suffer in silence.
 
You have shown it would be? I don't think you realize how much debt there, what little effect this will have on it, or what the higher taxes will mean. People will not just suffer in silence.

You don't consider $540 billion significant?

It took 30 years to accumulate our massive debt. $540 billion dollars x 30 years = $16.2 trillion dollars. And that's without the spending cuts that need to be made for the military industrial complex, and in health care costs.

By contrast, how much were the spending cuts by the GOP on public radio?

Who are you talking about suffering from eliminating some of the tax breaks for the rich?
 
But that's NOT what you said. You said:



Your commentary did NOT address the argument you're attempting to levy now, i.e. public employee taxation does not create a net profit for government entities. To which, I ask "how do you know this to be a fact"?

Are you taking into consideration local, state and property taxes? Can you link to any report that supports your claim that all taxes paid by public (or federal) employees is tax neutral or comes at a lose in state/federal revenue?



Ummm...yes, you did. From your post #59 on page 6 to this thread...



To which I responded with the sell of savings bonds by the Treasury as a way the federal government generates revenue after you went off on yet another wild tangent claiming that the "stealfromus bill" :roll raised taxes which has been proven to be false countless times. Do you still claim you never made such statements?

That's right. Government employees don't pay taxes. The government just keeps part of their paycheck.

As far as profitable revenue goes, there is none, as far as the government is concerned.
 
I'm curious, apdst, who do you think set most of the tax policies the nation is following today? Moreover, whose tax plan is the nation following today?

Here's a clue: They're not called "the Bush tax cuts" for nothing.

And since Clinton didn't raise taxes nor initiate any significant changes in tax policy that I'm aware of during his tenure but both Reagan, Bush-I and Bush-II did, who do you think is/are the main drivers of our nation's current tax policy? Remember: Aside from the Bush tax cuts, our tax code has remained largely the same since...what...1986? And who was in office at the time?

C'mon, man...stop with the talking heads rhetoric and think before you post!

Do you even know what your point is? :rofl
 
Because, that has never happened in the history of the US, even when taxes were much higher than anything being proposed.

Yeah and private businesses are spending money left and right, right now. Yes?
 
Yeah and private businesses are spending money left and right, right now. Yes?

Good point, I thought the tax cuts the GOP said had to be extended to the rich last year was going to spur the economy. I don't see it!
 
Good point, I thought the tax cuts the GOP said had to be extended to the rich last year was going to spur the economy. I don't see it!

They're not spending money, because of the threats of higher taxes and more government regulations. When Obama is voted out, things will improve by default of his absence.
 
They're not spending money, because of the threats of higher taxes and more government regulations. When Obama is voted out, things will improve by default of his absence.

So all through the last decade when the rich weren't spending money in this country, it was because they were afraid Obama was going to be president some day???

That's some logic you got going for you there!
 
Catawba;1059918647A 5% surtax on millionaire's as proposed by Senate Democrats would generate an additional $447 billion dollars. [URL="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/10/05/WP-Senate-Dems-Propose-Millionaire-Surtax.aspx#page1" said:
Senate Democrats Propose Millionaire Surtax[/URL]

The problem is that this $447b is proposed revenue from 2012-2021. The spending is proposed 2012-2014. Until the revenue is collected we will have to borrow to enable the spending. And what if these revenues do not materialize?
 
You don't consider $540 billion significant?

No. That's just what Barrack Obama spent on one useless solar company. Why would you want to take money earned by other people in order that Barrack Obama, someone with no business experience whatsoever, can use it as venture capital to buy useless stock that the smart money won't touch?


It took 30 years to accumulate our massive debt. $540 billion dollars x 30 years = $16.2 trillion dollars. And that's without the spending cuts that need to be made for the military industrial complex, and in health care costs.

It's too late. That money is not going to make any difference now. It will just encourage more people to leave rather than see their money going down some federal sinkhole.
By contrast, how much were the spending cuts by the GOP on public radio?

It doesn't matter. You're still looking for fault rather than looking to the future. Lashing out, blaming this person or that, this partyor that. It's too late. It doesn't matter anymore.

Who are you talking about suffering from eliminating some of the tax breaks for the rich?

The rich don't have enough money to get the country out of this massive debt but even if they did, unless attitudes change, the US will just go back in debt again. They simply cannot carry their weight.
 
So all through the last decade when the rich weren't spending money in this country, it was because they were afraid Obama was going to be president some day???

That's some logic you got going for you there!

it's amazing that so many people are complaining that jobs are leaving America and yet you haven't even noticed, or don't know why.
 
Do you even know what your point is? :rofl

Sure I do...to counter your arguments.

EDIT: First, you claimed that the only way the fed generated revenue was through taxes from the private sector. I reminded you that there are other ways the government makes money, i.e., via the sell of bonds and other financial instuments.

Second, you claimed government employees don't pay taxes. My own experience proves you wrong there.

Third, you questioned whose tax policies where costing the country. I reminded you we're still under the Bush tax cut policies (as extended by Pres. Obama).

And before you say it, I also corrected myself concerning Clinton raising taxes.

So, yes, I know what my points were. Problem is, you'll continue to deny your claims.
 
Last edited:
So all through the last decade when the rich weren't spending money in this country, it was because they were afraid Obama was going to be president some day???

That's some logic you got going for you there!

Um, I don't know if you were sleeping for a few years, but do you remember the 5% unemployment rate for the better part of the decade?

Somebody was spending money, because people were working.
 
Sure I do...to counter your arguments.

First, you claimed that the only way the fed generated revenue was through taxes. I reminded you that there are other ways the government makes money, i.e., via the sell of bonds and other financial instuments.

Well, I never said that, but whatever. :rofl

Second, you claimed government employees don't pay taxes. My own experience proves you wrong there.

They don't. They simply give part of their salary back to their employer. Call what you want, but that's not, "tax revenue". That would be like me charging my employees a fee to work at my company and then calling it profit.

Third, you questioned whose tax policies where costing the country. I reminded you we're still under the Bush tax cut policies (as extended by Pres. Obama).

I never said that, either. But hey, spin it how you want, I reckon. :lamo
 
Last edited:
No. That's just what Barrack Obama spent on one useless solar company. Why would you want to take money earned by other people in order that Barrack Obama, someone with no business experience whatsoever, can use it as venture capital to buy useless stock that the smart money won't touch?

NOT QUITE, the Solyndra loan was $535 MILLION...not billion
 
That makes it ok?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! But I believe it to be disingenuous to compare $535m to $547b making invalid points and detracting from the essence of the debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom