• 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!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

It's been a mix. The huge cuts JFK did benefited every bracket, but were more concentrated on reducing the tax burden on the middle class. The cuts Reagan, Bush2 and Clinton made all benefited every bracket to some extent, but were all more focused on the rich. They cut the hell out of capital gains in particular. But, overall, taxes are definitely lower for all brackets today than they were before the great society. Unfortunately, they're actually too low. We can't afford to keep them this low. For a while the GOP was refusing to acknowledge that, but I'm glad to see that they're starting to accept it in the GOP as well in recent weeks. That's a good sign that we might actually have a shot at real deficit reduction.
if Bush's tax cut helped the rich more than the poor, why did the rich wind up paying a larger percentage of all federal income taxes after the cuts were in place?
 
if Bush's tax cut helped the rich more than the poor, why did the rich wind up paying a larger percentage of all federal income taxes after the cuts were in place?

Umm, because the rich got richer and thus had more income to tax.
 
How much wealth in this country should an individual be allowed to mass?

j-mac

As much as he can. However, that has nothing to do with policies that favor the rich. They really don't need us giving them more help than we give the middle class. Lose the middle class, and the country has a problem. Your question suggests you miss the point.

He points out that this help to the wealthy and business put more people below the line, and this is what led to less making enough to pay more. You want more to pay more, help the middle class at least as much as you vote to help the wealthy.
 
Umm, because the rich got richer and thus had more income to tax.

Wrong. While the top 1% did experience a slight increase in their share of total AGI (17.5% to 20%), their share of all income taxes paid increased more (33.9% to 38%). You can have your own opinions, you can't have your own facts.
 
Wrong. While the top 1% did experience a slight increase in their share of total AGI (17.5% to 20%), their share of all income taxes paid increased more (33.9% to 38%). You can have your own opinions, you can't have your own facts.

So assuming for the sake of argument that your figures are correct, I was not wrong. MOST of the increase in their share of taxes is attributable to the fact that they made relatively more than everyone else.
 
So assuming for the sake of argument that your figures are correct, I was not wrong. MOST of the increase in their share of taxes is attributable to the fact that they made relatively more than everyone else.

You didn't say "most" in your prior post when you implied my comment was incorrect, which it wasn't.
 
They feel that they are being screwed over because all the economic growth in this country- which is created by all the hard working people- is ending up in the pockets of a very small number of people. GDP per capita in the US has increased by around 300% since the 1960s and productivity per year per worker has increased almost as much. But the median income has only increased 40% during that same period. In the 60s a family only needed to have one person working 40 hours a week to provide housing, health care, food, transportation, etc. Now it takes two or more people working and they're being expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week. Despite that, they're having a harder time covering those same basics.

What these people and most others are failing to realize is why this is happening and they are refusing to admit or accept responsibility for the role they played in creating it. You want to compare life today to life in the 60's and wonder why people need to work so much? People have changed the way they spend. A working man for him family in the 60's wasn't blowing half the money we are today. People choose to ignore the fact that they are the driving force behind companies shipping jobs overseas. People choose to ignore the fact that they are the ones shoveling money into the pockets of these large corporations. If a company here chooses to keep its labor in the United States their pricing cant be as low as the companies that was paying slave wages in sweat shops in Asia. And the majority of American consumers will go buy the cheaper product and reward the company that took the jobs and left rather than the companies that are trying to survive here in the US. Americans demands to cheap food have driven the common farmers into the pocket of large corporations. We force these farmers to sell thier meat and vegetables for next to nothing so they can enjoy $1 cheeseburgers. I cannot help but laugh at the OWS idiots who are standing out there bitching about big business while drinking starbucks, eatming mcdonalds, wearing nike clothing, talking on thier i phones, living in thier chinese made tents in parks with a bunch of walmart bought goods. Way to stick it to big business morons.
 
Even Republicans know WND is a joke, but if you believe them, that explains a lot.

Wiki:
WND has published articles that have created controversies and criticism of the site by other media outlets.
[edit]9/11 attacks

On September 13, 2001, WND published a commentary by Anthony C. LoBaido regarding the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., two days earlier. In his column, LoBaido outlined what he regarded as the moral depravity of America in general and New York in particular, asking whether, "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America."[SUP][21][/SUP] Commentators Virginia Postrel of Reason magazine and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal criticized LoBaido and Joseph Farah for the piece and called for columnists Hugh Hewitt and Bill O'Reilly to sever their ties with WND, prompting Farah to respond with a column of his own explaining that the article did not reflect the viewpoint of WND, and that it, like most other commentary pieces, had not been reviewed before being published.[SUP][22][/SUP]

[edit]Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

WorldNetDaily has emerged as a leading outlet publicizing conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship status, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and is thus not eligible to serve as president.[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] Such claims are considered unsubstantiated or debunked by most news sources. After the 2008 presidential campaign, WND began an online petition to have Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate released to the public. The website also unsuccessfully urged Supreme Court justices to hear several lawsuits aiming to release Obama's birth certificate.[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][non-primary source needed][/SUP]
[edit]Libel lawsuit


On September 20, 2000, WND published an article[SUP][27][/SUP] claiming that a Savannah, Tennessee car dealer, and fund-raiser for then-Vice President Al Gore, had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a "subject" of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a "dope dealer," and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. In 2001 the car dealer, Clark Jones, filed a lawsuit[SUP][28][/SUP] against WND; the reporters, Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays; the Center for Public Integrity, which had underwritten Thompson and Hays' reporting on the article and related ones[SUP][29][/SUP] and various Tennessee publications and broadcasters who he accused of repeating the claim, claiming libel and defamation. The lawsuit had been scheduled to go to trial in March 2008;[SUP][30][/SUP] but, on February 13, 2008, WND announced that a confidential out-of-court settlement had been reached with Jones.[SUP][31][/SUP]A settlement statement jointly drafted by all parties in the lawsuit stated that a Freedom of Information Act request showed that the allegations had been false, and that WND had misquoted sources.[SUP][31][/SUP]

[edit]Feud with LGBT conservatives


WND has also come out against LGBT participants in the Republican party and their associates. In 2010, when writer and pundit Ann Coulter accepted the invitation to attend and speak at GOProud's Homocon 2010 event, Farah announced the withdrawal of Coulter's name from the list of speakers at the company's Taking America Back conference.[SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][non-primary source needed][/SUP] Coulter responded by saying that speaking engagements do not imply endorsement of the hosting organization; however, after Farah published private emails between himself and Coulter, Coulter called him a “publicity
whore” and a “swine” in an email to the Daily Caller blog.


Care to compare that with the inaccuracies of say move on, or huff post?


J-mac
 
IMO, Occupy Wall Street is creating a caricature of rampant corporate greed and blaming complex societal challenges on that caricature. The reality is that overleverage (domestic nonfinancial debt), structural economic changes still unfolding from the Information Revolution, dramatic decline in barriers to cross-border flows of information/capaital/goods, broad demographic changes, fiscal challenges, among other factors, have shaped the present environment. The U.S. needs to adapt to the changes to overcome its challenges and realize its opportunities. Attacking a caricature as the OWS movement is doing, only misses the core problem. It also risks further dividing a society that is already relatively divided at present when it comes to some of the major issues.
 
Does this mean the revolution will be called off?

What is your problem?

Would you deem it a good thing if not a single American got upset about the enonomic disaster created by the Wall Street cabal?

Do you actually enjoy watching America pervert into a corrupt, fascist plutocracy?
 
Wrong. While the top 1% did experience a slight increase in their share of total AGI (17.5% to 20%), their share of all income taxes paid increased more (33.9% to 38%). You can have your own opinions, you can't have your own facts.

I don't know where you get your info, but you should practice what you preach, you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

An article in the Economist states the answer quite simply: “In America the income share of the rich has grown faster than the share of taxes paid.
Data from the Tax Foundation bears this out. Between 1987 and 2008, the share of income controlled by the top 1% grew to 20% from 12%. That signals a total share growth of 67%. During the same period, their share of taxes went to 28% from 24%, suggesting share growth of 17%.
In other words, the top 1% share of income grew nearly five times faster than their share of taxes.
Why the Rich Pay 40% of Taxes - The Wealth Report - WSJ
 
I don't know where you get your info, but you should practice what you preach, you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

An article in the Economist states the answer quite simply: “In America the income share of the rich has grown faster than the share of taxes paid.
Data from the Tax Foundation bears this out. Between 1987 and 2008, the share of income controlled by the top 1% grew to 20% from 12%. That signals a total share growth of 67%. During the same period, their share of taxes went to 28% from 24%, suggesting share growth of 17%.
In other words, the top 1% share of income grew nearly five times faster than their share of taxes.
Why the Rich Pay 40% of Taxes - The Wealth Report - WSJ


Ok, so are you saying that people should be limited as to the wealth, or the rate at which they can amass said wealth?
 
Ok, so are you saying that people should be limited as to the wealth, or the rate at which they can amass said wealth?

I would never say that. But they do need to pay higher taxes.
 
I would never say that. But they do need to pay higher taxes.

And have less help from government. Favoring the wealthy over the middleclass and working men and women is what has helped create the gap and shrinking middle class.
 
What is your problem?

Would you deem it a good thing if not a single American got upset about the enonomic disaster created by the Wall Street cabal?

Do you actually enjoy watching America pervert into a corrupt, fascist plutocracy?
You have the wrong enemy. Your enemy is the US Federal government. But you do not even recognize it. And fascism? Well, with 80,000 federal regulations I think we have it.
 
Last edited:
I would never say that. But they do need to pay higher taxes.

And how is this going to help bridge the gap exactly?

The rich have less money... and the .... government? has more?


Unless you are saying we should tax the rich and give to the poor via government handouts...........
 
I would never say that. But they do need to pay higher taxes.

What percentage of their income should go to the federal government?
 
What percentage of their income should go to the federal government?

Not sure there is an exact number, and more likley it will change from time to time, as it always has. I would support going back to the pre-Bush tax cuts.

But, this is also what I would say, and this is in repsonse to Caine as well, this would be more about reducing the deficit than it is about helping the middle class. To help the middle class, we need to remove our focus for policies that benefit the wealthy and business more than anyone else, and look for polices that help the middle class and working people more. And it isn't like I have a certain policy in mind, as I suspect it would be a few different polcies, but that the focus should be placed where the most help is needed.
 
Simply put its not the governments fault the rich are getting richer. Not entirely anyway. You want to balance the wealth, stop giving your money to big corporations. Support your local businesses. This isn't complicated.
 
Simply put its not the governments fault the rich are getting richer. Not entirely anyway. You want to balance the wealth, stop giving your money to big corporations. Support your local businesses. This isn't complicated.

There is a bit of that, however, a lot of law facilitates the support of corporation over small business. There's so much entanglement of State and Corporation that the Corporation benefits heavily from lax oversight, to continual tax payer subsidies and tax incentives. Small business doesn't get everything that corporate gets, the playing field is not level (as it would be in free market), and it is facilitated through power of State.
 
There is a bit of that, however, a lot of law facilitates the support of corporation over small business. There's so much entanglement of State and Corporation that the Corporation benefits heavily from lax oversight, to continual tax payer subsidies and tax incentives. Small business doesn't get everything that corporate gets, the playing field is not level (as it would be in free market), and it is facilitated through power of State.

Regardless of that, you have the choice in who you give your money to. These corporations wouldn't have anything to tax and it wouldnt matter if people simply used their money more responsibly. Small businesses cannot compete with these big businesses because big businesses outsource, employ slave wages, abuse employees, water down products ect. But we as consumers give them all our money and force any company that wants to compete to do the same thing. Its not the government, it's us. As long as consumers reward big businesses for these tactics they are going to continue to do them. No matter how much you, me, OWS, teaparty or any one else doesnt like it, as long as we all keep funneling all of our money to these organizations they aren't going to change. Money matters. Not words.
 
Regardless of that, you have the choice in who you give your money to. These corporations wouldn't have anything to tax and it wouldnt matter if people simply used their money more responsibly. Small businesses cannot compete with these big businesses because big businesses outsource, employ slave wages, abuse employees, water down products ect. But we as consumers give them all our money and force any company that wants to compete to do the same thing. Its not the government, it's us. As long as consumers reward big businesses for these tactics they are going to continue to do them. No matter how much you, me, OWS, teaparty or any one else doesnt like it, as long as we all keep funneling all of our money to these organizations they aren't going to change. Money matters. Not words.

You act like we all make conscience choices when buying. At no point have I ever chosen to support Monsanto, but I have probably given them far more money than I care to know about.
 
Back
Top Bottom