• 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!"

Yeah, and even the ones without jobs should be paying, according to most conservatives, but let's give the rich guys another tax cut, certainly next year must be the year it will start trickling down - after all, how long has it been that you all have been waiting?

There are plenty of jobs to be had in the United States, and even the Mexicans know that. There are plenty of Blue Collar jobs available but too many young people are taking political science courses and the like rather than learning a trade like an electrician, carpenter or plumber. Those participating in the riots apparently don't get this.

And did you know you can by shares in many corporations? Perhaps you can be one of those rich guys too.
 
So the daughter of the farmer that received a share of the farm is a parasite if she doesn't work on the farm but lives on the farm's earnings. Got it. You should try to get under control your class envy, it will eat you alive.

You badly need to keep up. This incredibly stupid and asinine ENVY charge has been smashed and trashed, crushed and flushed so many times that the idea than any right wing apologist who still clings to the fiction is about as relevant as the hula hoop.

Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

Think about it: there have always been rich and poor people in America, so if this is about jealousy, why the protests now? The idea that masses of people suddenly discovered a deep-seated animus/envy toward the rich – after keeping it strategically hidden for decades – is crazy. Where was all that class hatred in the Reagan years, when openly dumping on the poor became fashionable? Where was it in the last two decades, when unions disappeared and CEO pay relative to median incomes started to triple and quadruple? The answer is, it was never there. If anything, just the opposite has been true. Americans for the most part love the rich, even the obnoxious rich. And in recent years, the harder things got, the more we've obsessed over the wealth dream. As unemployment skyrocketed, people tuned in in droves to gawk at Evrémonde-heiresses like Paris Hilton, or watch bullies like Donald Trump fire people on TV.

Moreover, the worse the economy got, the more being a millionaire or a billionaire somehow became a qualification for high office, as people flocked to voting booths to support politicians with names like Bloomberg and Rockefeller and Corzine, names that to voters symbolized success and expertise at a time when few people seemed to have answers. At last count, there were 245 millionaires in congress, including 66 in the Senate. And we hate the rich? Come on. Success is the national religion, and almost everyone is a believer. Americans love winners. But that's just the problem. These guys on Wall Street are not winning – they're cheating. And as much as we love the self-made success story, we hate the cheater that much more. In this country, we cheer for people who hit their own home runs – not shortcut-chasing juicers like Bonds and McGwire, Blankfein and Dimon. That's why it's so obnoxious when people say the protesters are just sore losers who are jealous of these smart guys in suits who beat them at the game of life. This isn't disappointment at having lost. It's anger because those other guys didn't really win. And people now want the score overturned.

Open up you mind, read and learn.


Read more: Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
 
The premise of your argument (the bold) is based on a heroic assumption that any new revenues will go directly to spending for new programs; your speculation is simply biased and fails to take the macroeconomic perspective into consideration.

We do know that short term growth outlooks are sluggish at best, and that current revenue as a % of GDP is near its historic low. Cutting spending during this stage of the game will surely lead to a severe loss of GDP thereby exacerbating the deficit/debt. Whether you like it or not, taxes will need to be increased AND spending will need to be decreased (but only when the private sector is capable of driving growth). By all indications e.g. financial position of corporate America and the current rate of unemployment, now is not the time....

This is a terrible inversion of logic. The private sector has growth issues because of government intrusion and taxation. The new healthcare law is a part of that as well. Companies dont want to hire because the cost per employee is about to double, especially on the lower end of the labor market. Many companies are in a hiring freeze right now, and are learning more efficient methods on labor rather than just hiring. Not saying its all good, as some employees are worked to the bone and getting little out of it.

This situation puts us in a downward spiral. We need market stability and lowered regulation especially on small business that create most of the jobs in the US. Employers can afford to be extremely choosy right now, and outright not hire while having increased profits, small businesses especially are going on lean labor budgets and making due with as little as possible. This is especially true when the forecast doesnt call for anything other than small growth. Why hire when its both going to cost you, and it doesnt look neccessary?

Government on the other hand has been expanding by 4% to 15% for the last 30 years, economic growth or not. Its got to stop and needs to actually be cut.
 
The private sector has growth issues because of government intrusion and taxation.

Effective taxation in the United States is what, 26%?

The new healthcare law is a part of that as well. Companies dont want to hire because the cost per employee is about to double, especially on the lower end of the labor market.

The lower end (i am assuming you are referring to the low skill demographic) is not a driving force behind economic growth in the United States. Yes, we have a heavy reliance on low skilled labor within our borders, but that does not something to brag about.

We need market stability and lowered regulation especially on small business that create most of the jobs in the US.

Such as? You have mentioned the health care reform.


Employers can afford to be extremely choosy right now, and outright not hire while having increased profits, small businesses especially are going on lean labor budgets and making due with as little as possible. This is especially true when the forecast doesnt call for anything other than small growth. Why hire when its both going to cost you, and it doesnt look neccessary?

Which is a pretty good argument for engaging in another round of fiscal stimulus; the private sector is incapable of driving growth required to keep up with the population at this point in time (you would think this would be obvious).
 
You badly need to keep up. This incredibly stupid and asinine ENVY charge has been smashed and trashed, crushed and flushed so many times that the idea than any right wing apologist who still clings to the fiction is about as relevant as the hula hoop.

Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone



Open up you mind, read and learn.


Read more: Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

I would change my tune about the hula hoop, good ser....


Hooping : Hooping.org
 
You badly need to keep up. This incredibly stupid and asinine ENVY charge has been smashed and trashed, crushed and flushed so many times that the idea than any right wing apologist who still clings to the fiction is about as relevant as the hula hoop.

Open up you mind, read and learn.

Read more: Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

You're right...Wall Street is 'cheating'...so why isn't OWS, ODC? No body in NY has the power to correct the cheating. I can just imagine those 'fat cat bankers' looking down from their 'lofty perches' and laughing till the split at the futility of those protesting in NY. OWS needs to collect in W.DC and protest the SEC, DOJ and WH to get some results.
 
You're right...Wall Street is 'cheating'...so why isn't OWS, ODC? No body in NY has the power to correct the cheating. I can just imagine those 'fat cat bankers' looking down from their 'lofty perches' and laughing till the split at the futility of those protesting in NY. OWS needs to collect in W.DC and protest the SEC, DOJ and WH to get some results.

The majority of demonstrators are employed making traveling to DC unrealistic

Occupy Wall Street protesters: The 99% aren't all unemployed liberals | Mail Online

Nearly 15 per cent earn between $50,000 and $80,000 per year, and 13 per cent earn above $75,000.

That said, the percentage of the super rich in the protest somewhat mirrors that of the country as a whole, as only two per cent earn over $150,000.

Participants: The survey was compiled from 1,6,19 responses submitted online at the movement's website throughout the day of October 5
As with all stereotypes, there is a certain degree of truth- or in this case, 70 per cent, as that is the amount that earn less than $50,000.

Half of those surveyed are employed full time, and 20 per cent work part time. Of the remaining 30 per cent, nearly half- 13.1 per cent- identified as unemployed.

Again, this number isn't far off from the national figure, as the unemployment rate still hovers around nine per cent.

Lastly, the participants don't like to be stuck to the political poles, as only 27.3 per cent consider themselves Democrats and the remaining 70 per cent are independents.

Not surprisingly, only 2.4 per cent identified as Republicans

Read more: Occupy Wall Street protesters: The 99% aren't all unemployed liberals | Mail Online
 
Hmmm....A surprisingly astute vision of things to come from the 08 election.

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code - socialist code.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that - rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" - a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism - Latest Headlines - Investors.com


j-mac
 
The majority of demonstrators are employed making traveling to DC unrealistic

Well, I guess they will stay in NY and get no results...unfortunate.
 
Hmmm....A surprisingly astute vision of things to come from the 08 election.

j-mac

But based on the recent report about Wall Street/Bank profits it would seem that his results and his words are contradictory. Also consider that his recent student loan modifications reportedly will do very little materially but really sound good to the 'sheep'. Do you think this was/is intentional?
 
But based on the recent report about Wall Street/Bank profits it would seem that his results and his words are contradictory. Also consider that his recent student loan modifications reportedly will do very little materially but really sound good to the 'sheep'. Do you think this was/is intentional?


Oh absolutely! Socialism is always for the people, Never the Socialist. A cursory knowledge of Marxist theory, and examples of Socialist governments throughout the years shows us that the initial struggle between the proletariat and Bourgeoisie only serves for the Marxist to gain control of the levers of power where they can become the Bourgeoisie and loot the country at the suckers expense.


j-mac
 
Oh absolutely! Socialism is always for the people, Never the Socialist. A cursory knowledge of Marxist theory, and examples of Socialist governments throughout the years shows us that the initial struggle between the proletariat and Bourgeoisie only serves for the Marxist to gain control of the levers of power where they can become the Bourgeoisie and loot the country at the suckers expense.


j-mac

Actually more characteristic of Leninist theory, but I agree with pretty much what you've said here.
 
My previous presumptions were based on the lack of specificity in your posts. I understand THIS ONE. Now can you speak a little more specifically to your desire EMPHASIZING ON 'JUST A LITTLE BIT'? I noted your earlier attempt and found it somewhat short. 3 million millionaires pay $5,000 more will only increase revenue $15b. And as I'm sure you are aware of we have had annual deficits of around $1.5t.

I told you those were imaginary numbers used to illustrate a math problem.

Here are the actual numbers:

"Numbers crunched by the Tax Policy Center show that when you add up the various tax incentives (like mortgage interest deductions, child credits, and deductions for charitable giving) doled out by the U.S. government, top earners end up with the lion's share of benefits. Howard Gleckman at Forbes parses this out:

Those tax breaks are worth an average of $275,000 to those in the top 1 percent (who make at least $668,000) and $1.5 million to those in the top 0.1 percent (who make more than $3 million). These preferences allow those folks at the very top to boost their after-tax incomes by more than 20 percent—more than twice the benefit of those at the bottom.

To put it another way, the highest-income 20 percent enjoy almost two-thirds of the benefits of tax expenditures. More than one-quarter goes to the top 1 percent alone. The bottom 40 percent? They get about 10 percent. For some, it may be enough to zero out their tax bill, but compared to those at the top, it isn't much of an increase in income."


Read more: Are Wealthy Americans Paying Too Much Income Tax? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Now, take those numbers and multiply them by the number of rich getting those tax breaks and multiply by 30 years and let me know what you come up with.

And that doesn't even include the corporate tax breaks.
 
Last edited:
I told you those were imaginary numbers used to illustrate a math problem.

Here are the actual numbers:

Now, take those numbers and multiply them by the number of rich getting those tax breaks and multiply by 30 years and let me know what you come up with.

Why should I spend the time to calculate numbers to make YOUR point? You were the one using 'imaginary numbers'. Then make a failed effort to show the 'real numbers' by copy/pasting an article exerpt. You do it.
 
"Numbers crunched by the Tax Policy Center show that when you add up the various tax incentives (like mortgage interest deductions, child credits, and deductions for charitable giving) doled out by the U.S. government, top earners end up with the lion's share of benefits.


See, here is where I have a problem with this line of class warfare. Liberals often today talk of equality, and all this so called shared sacrifice. But yet when getting serious about looking at what to cut out as far as individual write offs, up come the big three, home interest deduction, child, and charitable deductions. But what is left out in this attack on the wealthy is that their deductions for home, and charity are larger because they have larger homes, and give far more to charity than anyone in the middle class, or poor. And in this case these deductions can not be taken away from one group and left for others. That is about the most unfair thing I can think of. Either do away with all, or quit crying that the wealthy have more.

j-mac
 
See, here is where I have a problem with this line of class warfare. Liberals often today talk of equality, and all this so called shared sacrifice. But yet when getting serious about looking at what to cut out as far as individual write offs, up come the big three, home interest deduction, child, and charitable deductions. But what is left out in this attack on the wealthy is that their deductions for home, and charity are larger because they have larger homes, and give far more to charity than anyone in the middle class, or poor. And in this case these deductions can not be taken away from one group and left for others. That is about the most unfair thing I can think of. Either do away with all, or quit crying that the wealthy have more.

j-mac

I actually agree with you here. However, at least for the home deduction, I can support a cap on the deduction amount (based on family size and house value).

But as far as charitable giving and child deductions, those are where I believe things SHOULD be equal regardless of income.
 
I actually agree with you here. However, at least for the home deduction, I can support a cap on the deduction amount (based on family size and house value).

But as far as charitable giving and child deductions, those are where I believe things SHOULD be equal regardless of income.

Thanks man, but could you go into how capping the mortgage deduction would be a fair thing to do?

j-mac
 
These promonent BILLIONAIRES are also saying "TAX ME! We want to create jobs IN AMERICA because the People want...NEED to work!" "TAX ME! CREATE JOBS IN AMERICA!" Even they agree with the Occupiers need to put America back to work!!
Wouldn't you rather see something like "REDUCE TAXES ON ME, AND I'LL CREATE REAL JOBS IN AMERICA! OH, AND STOP SPENDING SO MUCH DAMN MONEY!!" I know I would....
 
Last edited:
Thanks man, but could you go into how capping the mortgage deduction would be a fair thing to do?

j-mac

If you base it on the two criteria I mentioned (size of family - i.e. a family of 9 won't have the same needs as a family of 4) and home value, you can find a moment where the price of the home goes beyond necessity and into luxury.

For instance, I don't know anyone who could argue that a $5 million home is all "necessary". Let the "necessary" part (we can argue where that point is) be deductible and the "luxury" part not be. Again, I think if this is based on family size (and I would likely add geographic region because of obvious variance), we could come up with something that would be agreeable.

And because it came up as I was typing this: farwell to Joe Frazier.
 
Why should I spend the time to calculate numbers to make YOUR point? You were the one using 'imaginary numbers'. Then make a failed effort to show the 'real numbers' by copy/pasting an article exerpt. You do it.

They are IRS numbers crunched by the Tax Policy Center. Over 30 years it is trillions of dollars.

If we end our optional wars and cut military spending in half, that is trillions more over 30 years. Together, they could retire our national debt.
 
See, here is where I have a problem with this line of class warfare. Liberals often today talk of equality, and all this so called shared sacrifice. But yet when getting serious about looking at what to cut out as far as individual write offs, up come the big three, home interest deduction, child, and charitable deductions. But what is left out in this attack on the wealthy is that their deductions for home, and charity are larger because they have larger homes, and give far more to charity than anyone in the middle class, or poor. And in this case these deductions can not be taken away from one group and left for others. That is about the most unfair thing I can think of. Either do away with all, or quit crying that the wealthy have more.

j-mac

Sorry, fresh out of sympathy for the super rich! They've benefitted from the gutted progressive tax system for the last 30 years at the expense of the middle class and the future generations that will have to pay back the debt partly created by their tax cuts..


See here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/111487-abcs-20-20-lessons-billionaires-tax-me-create-jobs-america-34.html#post1059937496
 
Sorry, fresh out of sympathy for the super rich! They've benefitted from the gutted progressive tax system for the last 30 years at the expense of the middle class and the future generations that will have to pay back the debt partly created by their tax cuts..


See here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/111487-abcs-20-20-lessons-billionaires-tax-me-create-jobs-america-34.html#post1059937496

So the rich are to blame for the government's irresponsible spending?
Their tax cuts generated debt?
That doesn't make sense.
 
So the rich are to blame for the government's irresponsible spending?
Their tax cuts generated debt?
That doesn't make sense.
I do

n't think a food giant like con agra is exactly against food subsidies.
 
So the rich are to blame for the government's irresponsible spending?
Their tax cuts generated debt?
That doesn't make sense.

That isn't what I said.

We the voters are to blame for letting our government for 30 years, cut taxes for the rich while they increased wasteful spending, thereby creating the debt we have today.
 
That isn't what I said.

We the voters are to blame for letting our government for 30 years, cut taxes for the rich while they increased wasteful spending, thereby creating the debt we have today.

Though, you are saying that the rich need to be taxed for the governments out of control spending problem.
That's like having a wife (The Gubament) who doesn't work and doesn't know a damn thing about finances. Next thing you know she dun goof'd and spent more money than she had. Because she doesn't know how to count. Now she comes up with this great scheme to help pay off her debt... to make you work more! Now if you really loved your wife you would want to help her out... but she has this thing called history... and she keeps repeating the same damn mistake. And now all you want to do is divorce her. And yes Money is the leading cause of divorce! ( I think)

Oh wait I was wrong...
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.co...Single/MoneyIsntTheCulpritInMostDivorces.aspx

Damn it... We'll disregard this post. :3oops:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom