Page 126 of 136 FirstFirst ... 2676116124125126127128 ... LastLast
Results 1,251 to 1,260 of 1355

Thread: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

  1. #1251
    Advisor
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    02-12-12 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    you tell only part of the story, ignoring that the Clinton tax cuts that went into effect in January 1993 cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994 and then you ignore the GOP tax reductions of 1997 that Clinton signed. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that you continue to buy rhetoric and ignore reality?
    You mean Clinton tax hike 1993. I don't ever use political winnings to determine who is right and who is wrong on substance. the tax reductions weren't targeted at income which is what this whole debate is about, it was capital gains, small business's, education, and items that would help lower income people. Those tax breaks were targeted at certain areas of the economy, but a simple broad tax break on rich income, does not create a large amount of economic activity.

    "Individuals will get a variety of new tax breaks. The law provides a tax credit for children under 17, creates college tuition tax credits and education IRAs, and allows penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts for qualified education expenses and first home purchases. Capital gains taxes are cut, and the rules for taxing home sales are completely revised. Fewer estates will be subject to taxes, and special estate tax breaks are provided for qualifying small businesses and family farms."

  2. #1252
    Advisor
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    02-12-12 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    And if i have not stated this before, I'm for raising everyones taxes, not just the rich, you cannot fix our fiscal issues by simply taxing the rich, or even by simply raising taxes, we need to massively cut military spending, and even a good deal of domestic spending, if we want to really cut into the debt.

  3. #1253
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by FFDP666 View Post
    You mean Clinton tax hike 1993. I don't ever use political winnings to determine who is right and who is wrong on substance. the tax reductions weren't targeted at income which is what this whole debate is about, it was capital gains, small business's, education, and items that would help lower income people. Those tax breaks were targeted at certain areas of the economy, but a simple broad tax break on rich income, does not create a large amount of economic activity.

    "Individuals will get a variety of new tax breaks. The law provides a tax credit for children under 17, creates college tuition tax credits and education IRAs, and allows penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts for qualified education expenses and first home purchases. Capital gains taxes are cut, and the rules for taxing home sales are completely revised. Fewer estates will be subject to taxes, and special estate tax breaks are provided for qualifying small businesses and family farms."
    Yes, you are right, I meant Clinton tax increases that were retroactive to January 1, 1993. What you seem to have a problem with though is understanding that tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer/taxpayer and that benefits the economy. By nature, you keeping more of what you earn isn't an expense to the govt. especially because of the multiplier affect more spendable income has o the economy. Govt. trying to dictate human behavior has created most of the problems we have today which is massive growth in the size of the govt, thus the Government gone Wild

    Special Interests...EXPOSED!!! - YouTube

  4. #1254
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by FFDP666 View Post
    And if i have not stated this before, I'm for raising everyones taxes, not just the rich, you cannot fix our fiscal issues by simply taxing the rich, or even by simply raising taxes, we need to massively cut military spending, and even a good deal of domestic spending, if we want to really cut into the debt.
    Let's see the cuts in spending first, then we can talk about tax increases. Today we have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and that it outrageous. it is up 600 billion dollars from the last Bush budget excluding TARP and the Stimulus Plan although TARP was a LOAN and has mostly been repaid.

  5. #1255
    Advisor
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    02-12-12 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yes, you are right, I meant Clinton tax increases that were retroactive to January 1, 1993. What you seem to have a problem with though is understanding that tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer/taxpayer and that benefits the economy. By nature, you keeping more of what you earn isn't an expense to the govt. especially because of the multiplier affect more spendable income has o the economy. Govt. trying to dictate human behavior has created most of the problems we have today which is massive growth in the size of the govt, thus the Government gone Wild

    Special Interests...EXPOSED!!! - YouTube
    Ok, I'm not going to say that more money in the hands of consumers does not help the economy, it can, but its not an exact science where it always goes that way, like currently for example, when people get more money, a lot of it goes into saving, or paying off credit card debt. So I agree with you on that, at least half way. But how far can we lower taxes to accomplish that goal? That is the important question isn't it. Like i said, it is in no way an exact thing where you really know whats going to happen when you cut taxes, its not always going to do what you want.

  6. #1256
    Advisor
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    02-12-12 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Plus, the government needs more revenue, it just does, theres not way around that, and right now that revenue cannot be achieved by simply cutting taxes would be my argument. For example, I'm sure you've heard of the Warren Buffet thing, and while that dosn't account for all rich people, it accounts for a great deal of the richest peoples wealth, comes from investment banking and such, and when they pay a lower rate for their income than you or I, that is wrong, and stupid.

  7. #1257
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by FFDP666 View Post
    Ok, I'm not going to say that more money in the hands of consumers does not help the economy, it can, but its not an exact science where it always goes that way, like currently for example, when people get more money, a lot of it goes into saving, or paying off credit card debt. So I agree with you on that, at least half way. But how far can we lower taxes to accomplish that goal? That is the important question isn't it. Like i said, it is in no way an exact thing where you really know whats going to happen when you cut taxes, its not always going to do what you want.
    And you have a problem with people putting more money into savings thus needing less of that so called govt. "help?" Looks like we have a difference of opinion as to the role of the Federal Govt. Mine is a limited central govt. with the power at the state and local level and a Federal Govt. that does its main duty, defend the country. What you are missing is that in that 3.7 trillion dollar budget 800 billion is for defense, less than 25% going to the main function defined in the Constitution as the role of the govt.

  8. #1258
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by FFDP666 View Post
    Ok, I'm not going to say that more money in the hands of consumers does not help the economy, it can, but its not an exact science where it always goes that way, like currently for example, when people get more money, a lot of it goes into saving, or paying off credit card debt. So I agree with you on that, at least half way. But how far can we lower taxes to accomplish that goal? That is the important question isn't it. Like i said, it is in no way an exact thing where you really know whats going to happen when you cut taxes, its not always going to do what you want.
    A biilionaire getting a million dollar tax break will not have the same effect as the person making 50k a year will.

  9. #1259
    Advisor
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    02-12-12 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Let's see the cuts in spending first, then we can talk about tax increases. Today we have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and that it outrageous. it is up 600 billion dollars from the last Bush budget excluding TARP and the Stimulus Plan although TARP was a LOAN and has mostly been repaid.
    And this is where my Ron Paul side comes out the most, if we start with cuts, we should start with the part that is the least beneficial to America. Our military budget is way overblown, the expense of maintaining an empire is costly.

  10. #1260
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by FFDP666 View Post
    Plus, the government needs more revenue, it just does, theres not way around that, and right now that revenue cannot be achieved by simply cutting taxes would be my argument. For example, I'm sure you've heard of the Warren Buffet thing, and while that dosn't account for all rich people, it accounts for a great deal of the richest peoples wealth, comes from investment banking and such, and when they pay a lower rate for their income than you or I, that is wrong, and stupid.
    You have bought the liberal bs that the govt. needs the money more than the American taxpayers, why? I don't care what Buffet or anyone else pays in taxes, why do you? If anyone believes the govt. isn't getting enough revenue, send in more to the govt. as a donation.

    Stop buying what you are told, every American has access to the same deductions thus no American is getting a better deal. you continue to buy the liberal rhetoric that it is unfair for the rich to keep more of their income forgetting that it is THEIR INCOME NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •