• 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!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

So your answer then is to send people who aren't paying any Federal Income Taxes a check? How much and why? Amazing how you believe those evil rich people who are paying 38% of all Federal Income Taxes collected AFTER the tax cuts benefit more than people who aren't paying any Federal Income taxes at all? You call yourself "slightly liberal?" That total lack of logic and common sense makes you totally liberal.


Currently with Bush tax cuts:

A single person earning $18,000 per year.

Taxable income of $8,650 in 2010 .

Tax @ 10% = $884

Make Work credit is $400

tax liability is PAY $484

So tell me Conservative, how much tax money do you thing would go into the pot if we managed to grab a few quid off of the working poor?

Who in addition to the ten % they pay in income taxes pay and additional 16% in other taxes.:2wave:
 
Do you mind responding to this video?



Sounds like a poor choice of words on his part if you ask me. It's always the most important political objective for a party to win the next presidential election. Do I agree that President Obama being re-elected would be disastrous? Absolutely. You can see the senator clarify what he meant in the following video. He explains that in 2012 that is indeed the most important political objective of the Republicans, in the meantime, their number one goal is to address the debt and spending problem in order to help the economy get back on it's feet.



For more hateful comments made by senate minority leaders read the following:

"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader,'' Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.'' - Pelosi 2003

"President Bush is a liar," Reid, the Senate's Assistant Majority Leader, said. "He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country." - Harry Reid, 2002

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called President Bush "a loser" during a civics discussion with a group of teenagers at a high school on Friday.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid, D-Nev., told students at Del Sol High School when asked about the president's policies. "I think this guy is a loser." - Harry Reid, 2005
 
Pretending to be a victim doesn't make your posts any more believable.

Try again.


And drive bys do what to show that you know what’s going on?
 
Currently with Bush tax cuts:

A single person earning $18,000 per year.

Taxable income of $8,650 in 2010 .

Tax @ 10% = $884

Make Work credit is $400

tax liability is PAY $484

So tell me Conservative, how much tax money do you thing would go into the pot if we managed to grab a few quid off of the working poor?

Who in addition to the ten % they pay in income taxes pay and additional 16% in other taxes.:2wave:

So tell me how much tax that same person actually pay under the Bush tax cuts? I am sorry that person makes 18,000 a year, what is your solution, another taxpayer check to this individual? Again, you can play your game about all those other taxes but if you don't want to pay excise taxes don't drive a car, you are forced to pay payroll taxes to fund SS and Medicare that already is under funded and going bankrupt so cut the funding to those programs. If you want to live in a particular state you will pay those state taxes that fund schools, police, etc. so let's stop with the argument about other taxes and focus on what is supposed to fund the Federal govt.-Income taxes
 
And drive bys do what to show that you know what’s going on?

"What's going on" is quite plain from the news article. Hundreds of thousands are giving up trying to find a job. Bad for them, but good for Obama since their drop from the role artificially lowers the unemployment rate.

Of course, only fools would not see what is really going on.
 
Not only were the tax cuts stimulative, so were the increases in actual spending by the federal government. For more information, see this article.

I'm not arguing that spending increases don't stimulate the economy. The article you linked was about potential 2009 stimulus so I don't see how it relates to our previous conversation regarding the tax cut in 2003. However, I have a problem with how the stimulus spending stimulated the economy. Essentially you are increasing government transfer payments to temporarily lift GDP (unemployment extension, food stamp increases, temporary employment for infrastructure projects, etc.) You do this buy borrowing demand from the future and spending it today. Now I do think that there should have been some stimulus in 2009 due to the extreme situation presented by the recession. However, I didn't support the size of the package or the frivolity in which it was spent. Maybe if spending had contracted appropriately the following years I could get behind it. In the article you linked the economist calls for a stimulus of $50 -$100 billion. The final total was around $850 billion.

There are also the psychological costs of unemployment extensions and food stamp increases. Now over two years later we have all time record highs in unemployment duration and food stamp recipients. Add to that the demand we stole from our kids and I don't find it justified.

Here are some economists who advised the president AGAINST the stimulus:

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf
 
I'm not arguing that spending increases don't stimulate the economy. The article you linked was about potential 2009 stimulus so I don't see how it relates to our previous conversation regarding the tax cut in 2003. However, I have a problem with how the stimulus spending stimulated the economy. Essentially you are increasing government transfer payments to temporarily lift GDP (unemployment extension, food stamp increases, temporary employment for infrastructure projects, etc.) You do this buy borrowing demand from the future and spending it today. Now I do think that there should have been some stimulus in 2009 due to the extreme situation presented by the recession. However, I didn't support the size of the package or the frivolity in which it was spent. Maybe if spending had contracted appropriately the following years I could get behind it. In the article you linked the economist calls for a stimulus of $50 -$100 billion. The final total was around $850 billion.

Page 3 of the article has a chart that gives an efficiency breakdown of various types of fiscal policy stemming from tax cuts to transfer payments. The article was an address to congress calling for economic stimulus as early as July 2008.

To state that Keynesian stimulus "borrows demand from the future" is inaccurate. The point of enacting such a policy is to create demand, but this does not necessarily require future demand to be repaid. When the government conducts any sort of fiscal stimulus, public saving (government spending minus tax revenue) should go to the negative if it is not already there. This can be achieved on three possible fronts; 1.) decreasing taxes 2.) increasing government expenditures 3.) a mixture of both. Any type of deficit spending, whether it is stimulative or not, requires tax increases in the future to finance said expenditure. Tax revenue is also a component in private saving (income minus (consumption plus taxation)), so it is intuitive that increasing taxes in the future will diminish business investment, but not necessarily future demand.

For an actual article that supports the stimulus which is also quantitative in nature, see this.
 
Currently with Bush tax cuts:

A single person earning $18,000 per year.

Taxable income of $8,650 in 2010 .

Tax @ 10% = $884

Make Work credit is $400

tax liability is PAY $484

So tell me Conservative, how much tax money do you thing would go into the pot if we managed to grab a few quid off of the working poor?

Who in addition to the ten % they pay in income taxes pay and additional 16% in other taxes.:2wave:

Someone making 18 g's a year, isn't going to pay any income taxes.
 
"Living Wage"? You mean like the OWS demand of Living wage? And why look for yet another way to give BS numbers to make the current criminal in the WH look better?

Anyone who actually thinks that this country is better off today than when Obama came into office I would suggest is seriously delusional.

j-mac

Showing that unemployment is actually higher than claimed by the government would make Obama look better, how again?

I'm not sure you understood my post.
 
So, you flunked your reading test, so what's new?

Short of a personal attack, what's your point? Treedancer just said that that person would pay $484 in federal income taxes.

He also said that the working poor pay income taxes.
 
Simply responding to a poster that 47% of income earning households paid zero Federal Income Taxes due to the Bush tax cuts which shows the benefited greater than those evil rich people and that destroys the liberal argument about tax cuts for the rich

Lets give credit where is credit is do. More than 1/3 have incomes below $20,000. (Note: Ronald Reagan made the decision in 1986 to exempt people with incomes below the poverty line from federal income tax. Twenty-five years later, that still seems like a good call.)

Rick Perry: Middle Income Americans Don't Pay Enough Income Taxes - Forbes
 
they are not counting the thousands that are starting to exhaust all their benefits and still dont have work! the UI number is a joke and has always been a joke because they only count the number of people currently on unemployment. there are many that run out of UI way b4 they ever find work again.

not to mention the fix is in on these numbers anyway because there was only 120,00 jobs created but to get those numbers you would need over 400,000
 
Lets give credit where is credit is do. More than 1/3 have incomes below $20,000. (Note: Ronald Reagan made the decision in 1986 to exempt people with incomes below the poverty line from federal income tax. Twenty-five years later, that still seems like a good call.)

Rick Perry: Middle Income Americans Don't Pay Enough Income Taxes - Forbes

Yes, it does still seem like a good call. Reducing payroll taxes on the same individuals seems like a good call, too. I wonder what decision will be made on that particular tax cut?
 
they are not counting the thousands that are starting to exhaust all their benefits and still dont have work! the UI number is a joke and has always been a joke because they only count the number of people currently on unemployment. there are many that run out of UI way b4 they ever find work again.

not to mention the fix is in on these numbers anyway because there was only 120,00 jobs created but to get those numbers you would need over 400,000

they count the same way they always have, so it's relative.
 
they count the same way they always have, so it's relative.

no its not, when u have this long of a bad economy!

people are exhausting their benefits and not finding work but are being counted as if they did just because they no longer receive benefits.
 
no its not, when u have this long of a bad economy!

people are exhausting their benefits and not finding work but are being counted as if they did just because they no longer receive benefits.

which has always happened. are you young, by chance?
 
Short of a personal attack, what's your point? Treedancer just said that that person would pay $484 in federal income taxes.

He also said that the working poor pay income taxes.
They do pay taxes, it depends upon what deductions are claimed and what their taxable income is. Here is the current table:
2011
Married Filing JointlyMarried Filing SeparatelySingleHead of Household
MarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax Brackets
Tax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not Over
10.0%$0$17,00010.0%$0$8,50010.0%$0$8,50010.0%$0$12,150
15.0%$17,000$69,00015.0%$8,500$34,50015.0%$8,500$34,50015.0%$12,150$46,250
25.0%$69,000$139,35025.0%$34,500$69,67525.0%$34,500$83,60025.0%$46,250$119,400
28.0%$139,350$212,30028.0%$69,675$106,15028.0%$83,600$174,40028.0%$119,400$193,350
33.0%$212,300$379,15033.0%$106,150$189,57533.0%$174,400$379,15033.0%$193,350$379,150
35.0%$379,150-35.0%$189,575-35.0%$379,150-35.0%$379,150-
Note: Last law to change rates was the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
 
i like to think i am at 35years!


yea i said that lol

but it is worse in this economy then usual!

it is bad, but we will get through this. enjoy the good news, but you're right, take it with a grain of salt.
 
Back
Top Bottom