• 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!"

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

When those tax cuts are paired with starting two wars, yes - they did generate debt.
 
You didn't answer. It was a yes/no question, not a request for wikipedia regurgitation.

Oh you wanted a yes or no answer to a meaningless question?

What does it matter whether Bush came up with the subprime scheme? It was his lack of leadership and lame policies that exacerbated the crisis.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble - The New York Times
 
I think we'll have to wait a few quarters before increase in revenues (by means of taxing) can be realized. Maybe even after the election - assuming he does get reelected. If we were to continuing following Keynesian economics, right now would be the wrong time to raise taxes, though it would be a good time to cut frivolous spending and invest that extra money into stimuli for the economy. Then, after stabilization, taxes and spending cuts can go into place. Right now, it appears Obama is doing the right thing as far as the economy goes, though some would and have argued that he hasn't spent enough.

I think we're about to see a major shake-up with this Super Debt Committee (SDC). More and more Republicans are starting to question the validity of the Norquist anti-tax pledge. Many are saying they only signed the pledge once years ago and did NOT intend for their 1-time committment to be a "lifetime committment". Already, we've seen a willingness on the part of Republicans on the Super Debt Committee to put some tax revenue on the table and atleast one Democrat is giving Republicans credit for their effort. Mind you, their revenue raisers all stem from the elimination of some tax subsidies, but the amount proposed falls way short of what the President has requested to fund his jobs bill. Still, the lack of real effort mostly on the part of Republicans to find a balanced approach to long-term deficit reduction with short-term investments in infrastructer projects, etc., is starting to have a negative impact on Republicans already viewed by most Americans as a party more willing to protect millionaires and billionaires in upholding their anti-tax pledge over upholding their primary duty - to uphold the Constitution and do what is right for the sake of the nation. This article from the Hill.com puts the "protect the wealthy" perception by Republicans in perspective.

Now, granted if the Super Debt Committee fails, there's liable to be backlash across the board for everyone involved - the committee, Republicans, Democrats and quite possibly the President himself. If one side of the political divide shows less willingness to put elements of their party ideology on the table (i.e., Dems with entitlement programs, Reps with tax increases or enough revenue to pay for the President's jobs plan), said party may never recover from the failed negotiations. Moreover, if the debt triggers do go into effect and the $1.5 trillion across the board spending cuts take place as Rep. Hensarling mentioned on the Sunday talkshow circuit, it could really spell disaster for the Republican party.

The country has already had its credit rating lowered once. If the SDC fails to reach a meaningful agreement on deficit reduction that also allows for paying for initiatives to spur job growth, I fear this country will face another credit downgrade and the austerity measures we're seeing play out in Greece and Italy will happen right here. And if you thought scenes from some of the Occupy protests happening across the country are bad now...
 
Last edited:
It's confounding - Faux New's millionaires feed this crap to their viewers, tell them that Libs (who just happen to be the richest in America) are envious of the rich (themselves) and the mentally deficient buy it hook, line and sinker. They repeat the asinine statements they have been led to believe and think that the rest of us are going to believe it too, too funny!


I'll tell you what is truly confounding, and that is that someone can come in here and tag themselves a "moderate", and proceed to regurgitate the most vile, insulting, and ill informed crap they can spew and not one person has a honest moment to say to themselves that maybe, just maybe they should start telling the truth, and start with their own lean.

This post is reprehensible.

j-mac
 
Less wasteful spending together with increased revenues is what will be required to reduce our debt.

Because of the lack of action early on this road to ruin, I am actually beginning to agree somewhat with this. However, because of past dishonesty in matter such as this meme, I would say that at this time, before one damned red cent is raised in taxes, the spending cuts have to come first and be verified as in place.

j-mac
 
Because of the lack of action early on this road to ruin, I am actually beginning to agree somewhat with this. However, because of past dishonesty in matter such as this meme, I would say that at this time, before one damned red cent is raised in taxes, the spending cuts have to come first and be verified as in place.

j-mac

Economists recommend cutting spending in a boom economy. I wouldn't exactly call our economy booming at this point.
 
Economists recommend cutting spending in a boom economy. I wouldn't exactly call our economy booming at this point.


Then I would say no. The track record of libs to make good on their promises is at best dismal.

j-mac
 
Economists recommend cutting spending in a boom economy. I wouldn't exactly call our economy booming at this point.

But economist also recommend against letting total debt get as high as it is...and subsequently as high as projected.
 
But economist also recommend against letting total debt get as high as it is...and subsequently as high as projected.

Yep, and the time they say to cut spending is in boom times. Are we there yet?
 
Yep, and the time they say to cut spending is in boom times. Are we there yet?

Oh, and those economists that you are relying on for half the story here are advocating a tax hike in a recession? If so they aren't much of an economist.

Look Cat, the bottom line is that we may indeed need both this time around but, I want to see the demo's make good first. No Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown this time. Also, in with those tax increases if they come about, need to include a broader base of Americans. Biden talked about getting some skin in the game to be patriotic, well let's see the 47% of people sponging off my labor kick in as well.

j-mac
 
Oh, and those economists that you are relying on for half the story here are advocating a tax hike in a recession? If so they aren't much of an economist.

Look Cat, the bottom line is that we may indeed need both this time around but, I want to see the demo's make good first. No Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown this time. Also, in with those tax increases if they come about, need to include a broader base of Americans. Biden talked about getting some skin in the game to be patriotic, well let's see the 47% of people sponging off my labor kick in as well.

j-mac

This may be the closest we have ever come to agreement J. It seems we both generally think both revenues and spending will have to be addressed over the long haul.

Our main area of difference is who's tax rates should be increased. Since the tax rates have gone down for the rich over the last 30 years for the rich, and increased for the middle class, and we now have for the first time since the Great Depression 80% of the wealth at the top, and since this doesn't allow enough to trickle down to the lower consumer classes to enable them to be consumers, which is necessary for a strong economy, it seems obvious to the majority of the country that some of the progressiveness needs to be restored to our tax system.

The 47% you speak of are the unemployed, underemployed, seniors, and the poor. Jobs that pay a living wage are required to provide taxable incomes. When we have more people working, we have more people paying taxes.

Why do we still give tax breaks to companies for outsourcing American jobs? Don't you think that is a tax break that should be eliminated? The Democrats put up a bill to eliminate it this year and the Republicans voted it down.
 
Every since Warren Buffet said "raise my taxes" because his secretary's effective tax rate is higher than his, I've felt that unless other millionaires and billionaires came out and echoed his "tax me" stance, his words would simply fall on deaf ears and that Conservatives/Republicans would simply see him as "one of Obama's millionaire friends". This article from CNNMoney changes that.

"We want to pay more taxes," said California millionaire Doug Edwards, a former marketing director for Google. "If you're fortunate, and you make more than a million dollars a year, you ought to pay more taxes."

The millionaires want Congress to allow the tax cuts passed during the George W. Bush administration to expire. Some want higher taxes generally.

They planned to push lawmakers to reject any deal that the so-called super committee delivers that doesn't raise taxes on millionaires.

...


"If the super committee bill doesn't raise our taxes, we will ask our fellow citizens to consider killing the bill," said Eric Schoenberg of Franklin Lakes, N.J., an adjunct professor of marketing at Columbia Business School.

They planned to take their message to members of the super committee, Tea Party Republicans including Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas and Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, and even anti-tax champion Grover Norquist.

Their vocal stance is interesting in the wake of several congressional Republicans questioning the validity of their anti-tax pledge spearheaded by anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist. Many Republicans feel they shouldn't be held to a anti-tax pledge they signed years ago and only intended to adhere to it for one election term, not indefinitely. Put in the context of the present impass with the Super Debt Committee and it's very likely one of two possible scenarios could come out of this:

1) Republicans cave and "find" more tax revenue, atleast $500 billion worth to pay for the American Jobs Act; or,

2) Republicans stick to their guns and not allow any additional revenue beyond the $300 billion they've currently put on the table and insist on lowering the tax base primarily for millionaires, thus ensuring that the debt committee remains intrenched along partisan lines and the triggers go into affect.

If the latter happens especially in light of millionaires calling on Congress to end the Bush tax cuts and raise their taxes, you can bet Republicans will lose seats next election cycle.

If the former happens, Republicans can save face and live to fight another day.
 
Last edited:
Every since Warren Buffet said "raise my taxes" because his secretary's effective tax rate is higher than his, I've felt that unless other millionaires and billionaires came out and echoed his "tax me" stance, his words would simply fall on deaf ears and that Conservatives/Republicans would simply see him as "one of Obama's millionaire friends". This article from CNNMoney changes that.



Their vocal stance is interesting in the wake of several congressional Republicans questioning the validity of their anti-tax pledge spearheaded by anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist. Many Republicans feel they shouldn't be held to a anti-tax pledge they signed years ago and only intended to adhere to it for one election term, not indefinitely. Put in the context of the present impass with the Super Debt Committee and it's very likely one of two possible scenarios could come out of this:

1) Republicans cave and "find" more tax revenue, atleast $500 billion worth to pay for the American Jobs Act; or,

2) Republicans stick to their guns and not allow any additional revenue beyond the $300 billion they've currently put on the table and insist on lowering the tax base primarily for millionaires, thus ensuring that the debt committee remains intrenched along partisan lines and the triggers go into affect.

If the latter happens especially in light of millionaires calling on Congress to end the Bush tax cuts and raise their taxes, you can bet Republicans will lose seats next election cycle.

If the former happens, Republicans can save face and live to fight another day.

So you think that this was a stunt by shills for the democratic party who want to frame an election and not serious people?
 
Millionaires ask Congress to raise their taxes

Two-dozen storm Capitol Hill


"WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -

A group of two dozen millionaires stormed Capitol Hill on Wednesday, demanding lawmakers raise their taxes.

"We want to pay more taxes," said California millionaire Doug Edwards, a former marketing director for Google. "If you're fortunate, and you make more than a million dollars a year, you ought to pay more taxes."

The millionaires want Congress to allow the tax cuts passed during the George W. Bush administration to expire. Some want higher taxes generally.

They planned to push lawmakers to reject any deal that the so-called super committee delivers that doesn't raise taxes on millionaires. The 12-lawmaker panel has until next Wednesday to agree on $1.2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years or risk automatic spending cuts.

"If the super committee bill doesn't raise our taxes, we will ask our fellow citizens to consider killing the bill," said Eric Schoenberg of Franklin Lakes, N.J., an adjunct professor of marketing at Columbia Business School."What we're all here today representing is to request the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire -- that's simply the bare minimum," said Ebrahimi, who has also participated in protests in the Occupy Boston movement.

California venture capitalist Garrett Gruener, founder of Ask.com, told left-leaning House members on the Progressive Caucus said he doesn't buy the argument that hiking the tax rates for the wealthy and forcing them to pay more in taxes would stymie business growth.

"Not once have any of my personal investment decisions been a function of marginal tax rates," Gruener said. "We just don't think about it."

Millionaires ask Congress to raise their taxes | Money - Home
 
So you think that this was a stunt by shills for the democratic party who want to frame an election and not serious people?

I think there are plenty of wealthy individuals who realize they've had it good the past few years/decades and are very willing to have their taxes raised for the sake of the country. It's not the first time some of the wealth-class has said, "tax me, I'm good for it".

Millionaires Support Warren Buffett’s Tax on the Rich - The Wealth Report - WSJ

'Occupy' protesters find allies among the wealthy - TODAY News - TODAY.com

Wealth for the Common Good » AFP: ‘Tax us’ to ease deficit, say some wealthy Americans

Raise My Taxes, Please! - Forbes.com

Of course, the common refrain we hear from anti-tax Republicans concerning the rich and their "tax me" decree is "write the Treasury a check". But here's the rub...

If Republicans claim they are listening to the people who they claim they've been listening to since the health care reform debates and well beyond the 2010 midterm election and the wealthy-class does make up a segment of their constituency, then they'd be smart to stop paying hommage to Master Norquist and drop their anti-tax pledge.

Let's face it, assuming Obama is re-elected, the Bush tax cuts will not be extended. And seeing that some Republicans are bringing the anti-tax pledge into question, and more and more we're starting to hear the rich say "tax me because if you don't I'll take this straight to certain members of Congress", congressional Republicans would be foolish to continue ignoring them.
 
Last edited:
I'll tell you what is truly confounding, and that is that someone can come in here and tag themselves a "moderate", and proceed to regurgitate the most vile, insulting, and ill informed crap they can spew and not one person has a honest moment to say to themselves that maybe, just maybe they should start telling the truth, and start with their own lean.

This post is reprehensible.

j-mac

Can't handle the truth? Most cons can't, so they deny everything.
 
Yup, and the 10 years of bush tax cuts created how many net jobs? Don't look like cutting taxes create jobs either.

It's amazing how they can keep insisting that tax cuts create jobs. The tax cuts have been in effect since 2001 - so where are the jobs? Maybe they need a tax cut every year to create more jobs?
 
It's amazing how they can keep insisting that tax cuts create jobs. The tax cuts have been in effect since 2001 - so where are the jobs? Maybe they need a tax cut every year to create more jobs?
there are many good reasons to cut taxes

there are almost no good reasons to raise them
 
there are many good reasons to cut taxes

there are almost no good reasons to raise them

Atleast this acknowledges that there ARE some legitimate reasons for raising taxes, the obvious being "to raise revenue in order to pay down debt". Of course, cutting spending works as well, but with a debt as large as ours is there's just no way to draw it down in any significant timeframe using spending cuts alone.

If this country is to avert stagflation and remain competitive with the global economy - in particular compete with our newest world economic/military power, China (...not a super power yet, but gaining; and mind you, Russia is returning to prominence fast!) - we will need to do a combination of both spending cuts AND increase taxes. Otherwise, the cuts being proposed will force this country to lag behind for years...perhaps decades...while the rest of the world surpasses us in technology, commerce (exports through manufacturing) and possibly military supremacy.

If you "cut-throats" out there believe that cutting spending and only cutting spending is the right way to go (pun intended), be my guess and stand by your position. But when Russia regains their global footing and China begins to really reign supreme, don't say the libbos didn't warn you.
 
Last edited:
Is there a law that prohibits paying more in taxes than what is legally owed?
 
Is there a law that prohibits paying more in taxes than what is legally owed?

Because you think more tax revenue from 200 millionaires = more tax revenue from 6 million millionaires????
 
This may be the closest we have ever come to agreement J. It seems we both generally think both revenues and spending will have to be addressed over the long haul.


I am not an unreasonable person. However, the details can be the sticking point can't they....Such as....

Our main area of difference is who's tax rates should be increased. Since the tax rates have gone down for the rich over the last 30 years for the rich, and increased for the middle class

This part, although a good sound byte, is not factual. For instance my personal bracket covering the median income levels of this country would see a projected $3700.00 rise in my real tax with just the failure to keep the current tax rates in place.

and we now have for the first time since the Great Depression 80% of the wealth at the top

Well, since wealth in this country is a fluid thing, in order for your meme here to be true you'd have to show where the wealth you are talking about is static.

and since this doesn't allow enough to trickle down to the lower consumer classes to enable them to be consumers, which is necessary for a strong economy,

'trickle down' is a narrative constructed by the liberal left in this country. It implies a class structure to success so that the liberal can continually count on class warfare to divide into groups. Which is in the end the only way that the liberal can maintain any hope of political success.

The 47% you speak of are the unemployed, underemployed, seniors, and the poor. Jobs that pay a living wage are required to provide taxable incomes.

Some are sure, and those that truly need societal aid absolutely should receive such, but only under the strictest of circumstances. And not with unlimited incentive to remain on the dole. Those that are able to work, need to be trained and get to it rather than bleed me for my earned income.

it seems obvious to the majority of the country that some of the progressiveness needs to be restored to our tax system.

The problem with what we have now is a progressive system that also breeds class jealousy, and division. For as much as libs love to promote fairness, and justice, how is it either that some pay all while others pay nothing?

Why do we still give tax breaks to companies for outsourcing American jobs? Don't you think that is a tax break that should be eliminated? The Democrats put up a bill to eliminate it this year and the Republicans voted it down.

And yet another liberal talking point. I'll have to hand it to ya Cat, you sure know your pap. Look, it is clear that your particular vision of what this country should be would not be something that would prosper, or give opportunity to anyone other than those chosen to be the bourgeois by the political class. The rest can grovel in the streets for the scraps of bread when available...I thought the world tried that once.


It failed.


j-mac
 
Because you think more tax revenue from 200 millionaires = more tax revenue from 6 million millionaires????

"Millionaires" are going to pay very little more in income tax if the Bush tax cuts go away. As it has been pointed out many times, a good portion of them make their money with capital gains, not income.

Warren Buffet makes a little more than I (my wife and I combined) in income. Disregarding for a moment the tax breaks he will be able to take tax advantage of that i won't, who is going to get hit the hardest by ending the Bush tax cuts? The family making $100 K all in income or Buffet making millions upon millions with very little in income?

No, the "rich" are playing you big time and you are gleefully singing along on the choruses.
 
I am not an unreasonable person. However, the details can be the sticking point can't they....Such as....

This part, although a good sound byte, is not factual.

It is absolutely factual, Reagan raised tax rates for the middle class and lowered tax rates for the top income class:

"KRUGMAN: I’m referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent—but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

For those who don’t want to do the math, Krugman’s “middle-income families with children” were paying a combined burden of 18.4 percent by 1988, up from 17.7 percent in 1980. For these middle-class families, Reagan—who did reduce taxes overall—had actually raised their tax burden."
Krugman offers a useful point, counteracting a decade of spinning

This was followed by W. cutting taxes, but cut more for the wealthy than the middle class.

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study."
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times


Well, since wealth in this country is a fluid thing, in order for your meme here to be true you'd have to show where the wealth you are talking about is static.

Wealth has been getting more and more concentrated at the top over the last 3 decades. Most of us have noticed the pattern. Have you notice the 20 or so polls since January where a majority of Americans think the tax breaks for the rich should be eliminated? Have you noticed people protesting in the streets?



'trickle down' is a narrative constructed by the liberal left in this country. It implies a class structure to success so that the liberal can continually count on class warfare to divide into groups. Which is in the end the only way that the liberal can maintain any hope of political success.

Trickle down economics has been the policy the GOP has promoted for the last 30 years, and still promotes to this day, despite its failure! It worked well for those at the top but didn't trickle down to the middle class.



Some are sure, and those that truly need societal aid absolutely should receive such, but only under the strictest of circumstances. And not with unlimited incentive to remain on the dole. Those that are able to work, need to be trained and get to it rather than bleed me for my earned income.

A third of the 47% are seniors, the remainder don't make enough money to pay a great deal in taxes. If you want them to pay more taxes, they will need to be paid a living wage for full time work, which most conservatives seemed to be opposed to.


The problem with what we have now is a progressive system that also breeds class jealousy, and division. For as much as libs love to promote fairness, and justice, how is it either that some pay all while others pay nothing?

You need to study history. Our tax system is now less progressive than it was under Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.



And yet another liberal talking point. I'll have to hand it to ya Cat, you sure know your pap.

History, its available for all that take the time to look.
 
Back
Top Bottom