• 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!

Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

Poor TD would only make 1.5 million next year. :(

There is an episode of South Park called "Not A Big Deal" that reminds me of you, TD.

I don't feel like getting infracted for properly responding to that nonsense
 
Obama offered a $4 trillion dollar deficit reduction that included $3 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in tax revenues. I think that is a reasonable compromise.

why cannot Obama just agree to spending cuts?
 
No, I support the 5% increase in capital gains tax rate. I'm saying there would be no negative effects to our economy.

You agree?

Of course you do-you have always supported other people paying more taxes
 
there was absolutely no reason why tax hikes on a small portion of the voters was ever discussed in the first place.

Uhhh yes there were plenty of reasons.... Plenty of reasons...
 
Uhhh yes there were plenty of reasons.... Plenty of reasons...

none whatsoever, if the dems really believed that the government spent too much they could have offered to cut X amount from certain programs in return for the GOP cutting X amount from other programs. To try to argue that the "rich" get some benefit from spending cuts that no one else got and thus the rich have to pay more taxes to "contribute" while everyone else is merely contributing by suffering spending cuts proves

1) the rich don't benefit from government because cuts didn't hurt them but hurts everyone else

2) that all government spending-according to the dems-is necessary and for them to agree to cutting ANYTHING requires them getting more money from the rich to pander to people like you
 
none whatsoever, if the dems really believed that the government spent too much they could have offered to cut X amount from certain programs in return for the GOP cutting X amount from other programs. To try to argue that the "rich" get some benefit from spending cuts that no one else got and thus the rich have to pay more taxes to "contribute" while everyone else is merely contributing by suffering spending cuts proves

1) the rich don't benefit from government because cuts didn't hurt them but hurts everyone else

2) that all government spending-according to the dems-is necessary and for them to agree to cutting ANYTHING requires them getting more money from the rich to pander to people like you

Or maybe it just means that it's idiotic to cut spending in a demand-side economic slump. Possibly it could mean that the wealthy have actually prospered throughout the recession, while everyone else has suffered. That might provide a reason why one might look to the rich first. Or one might recognize that, in a demand-side slowdown, it's beneficial to the overall economy to provide relief to the middle class. And, if it must be paid for NOW -- as Republicans insist it must -- that pulling money from the one sector that is going ganbusters makes the most sense. Just some turtle food for thought.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe it just means that it's idiotic to cut spending in a demand-side economic slump. Possibly it could mean that the wealthy have actually prospered throughout the recession, while everyone else has suffered. That might provide a reason why one might look to the rich first. Or one might recognize that, in a demand-side slowdown, it's beneficial to the overall economy to provide relief to the middle class. And, if it must be paid for NOW -- as Republicans insist it must -- that pulling money from the one sector that is going ganbusters makes the most sense. Just some turtle food for thought.

Some good points. Tell me TD, through out this whole recession who has benefitted the most? Who has been hurt the most? Straight answer please...no need for a bunch of spin.
 
There is a very good reason to treat all income the same. Quite simply, if you create a tax preference for one type of income over another you are distorting the market. You are creating a PREFERENCE for investment income versus earned income.


Great, then you are for the flat tax....Tell me more.


j-mac
 
Yeah I heard all that rhetoric from BHO, the WH, Dems, GOP and all the media talking heads. I also heard how BHO was going to ‘open the books’ on the negotiations to validate all that was said concerning these numbers. To date I have seen no such information, please provide if you know where it is. I question the validity of these AND those voice by the GOP during the negotiations. You realize the annual CBO baseline budget includes a +/-7% increase in spending regardless of the projected revenue. All deficit reduction is scored against this and sometimes against the ‘adjusted baseline’ which assumes things like BTC’s sun setting, wars ending and such. $3/$1 does sound somewhat reasonable but the ‘devil is usually in the details’.

why cannot Obama just agree to spending cuts?

The only time I have seen spending cut during the last 30 years is under the Clinton Administration.

The only way we will reduce the deficit will be if the Democrats and the Republicans agree to both cut spending and eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, just as was done in the Clinton Administration.

Over the last 30 years tax rates have been increased for the middle class and cut for the wealthy.
 
The only time I have seen spending cut during the last 30 years is under the Clinton Administration.


And since all spending originates in congress, that would be Gingrich victory....Good job, are you converting?


j-amc
 
The only time I have seen spending cut during the last 30 years is under the Clinton Administration.

The only way we will reduce the deficit will be if the Democrats and the Republicans agree to both cut spending and eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, just as was done in the Clinton Administration.

Over the last 30 years tax rates have been increased for the middle class and cut for the wealthy.

You know that isn't true.
Why do you repeat the same nonsense, over and over and over, again?

I know I've posted links showing this is completely untrue, to you no less.
Why do you perpetuate this lie?
 
And since all spending originates in congress, that would be Gingrich victory....Good job, are you converting?


j-amc

So it was Gingrich's idea to raise the tax rates which increased revenue????
 
You know that isn't true.
Why do you repeat the same nonsense, over and over and over, again?

I know I've posted links showing this is completely untrue, to you no less.
Why do you perpetuate this lie?

Its historical fact Harry. Do you know what the capital gains and inheritance tax rates were prior to 1981???
 
I think you know better than that....Is there no honest liberal?


j-mac

So it was not Gingrich's idea to increase the revenues which helped reduce the deficit under Clinton. That was my point.
 
So it was not Gingrich's idea to increase the revenues which helped reduce the deficit under Clinton. That was my point.

Your point is irrelevant, fore my point came first, which you dishonestly chose to twist for your own dishonest purpose.


Now straighten up young man.


j-mac
 
Your point is irrelevant, fore my point came first, which you dishonestly chose to twist for your own dishonest purpose.


Now straighten up young man.


j-mac

LOL! You just can't admit that the only time in the last 30 years we reduced deficit spending significantly was during a Democratic Administration when taxes were raised together with cutting spending, can you?

You want to know why that is relevant? Because that is the only way possible to reduce such a large deficit.
 
LOL! You just can't admit that the only time in the last 30 years we reduced deficit spending significantly was during a Democratic Administration when taxes were raised together with cutting spending, can you?

You want to know why that is relevant? Because that is the only way possible to reduce such a large deficit.


There is no doubt in my mind that raising taxes will in the end be the only course that will pull us out of the criminal, massive infusion of fiat money that this administration has perpetrated on this country. It rivals Wiemar.

Now, anyone with the most elementary education in how money works in a system like our knows that when you print money in excess of current demand of needed capital is to claw that excess back in to the treasury to get it out of the system in some way. Now that can usually either happen with inflation, or taxation. We are about to see both on a massive scale. Thanks Barry.

But, in this particular time we also need another component to the mix. Taxation will not achieve this alone. We also need cuts to spending, and I am not talking about baseline decreases that don't slow any spending at all, but real cuts.

Face it. Progressive utopia has failed on a monumental scale. Generational money down a rat hole for nanny state things that haven't produced one iota of real change in poverty rates, government has failed. Yet what we hear from the liberal side these days is not that it has failed, nooooo, we hear that liberals feel they haven't been allowed to do enough of it yet. Also, that it is by the greed of the prosperous, and those actually producing something for the GDP of America that are at fault by their very existence. How dumb does one have to be to fall for this class warfare crap? It is a tangled web woven by disingenuous progressives that chose to lie to their constituents for instant gratification, and long term enslavement. When the entirety of the public wakes up to this truism, I really feel sorry for liberals.....


j-mac
 
There is no doubt in my mind that raising taxes will in the end be the only course that will pull us out of the criminal, massive infusion of fiat money that this administration has perpetrated on this country. It rivals Wiemar. Now, anyone with the most elementary education in how money works in a system like our knows that when you print money in excess of current demand of needed capital is to claw that excess back in to the treasury to get it out of the system in some way. Now that can usually either happen with inflation, or taxation. We are about to see both on a massive scale. Thanks Barry.

If that were the case, wouldn't there high inflation? The inflation rate is historically low.



But, in this particular time we also need another component to the mix. Taxation will not achieve this alone. We also need cuts to spending, and I am not talking about baseline decreases that don't slow any spending at all, but real cuts.

Yep, like those in the Clinton Administration, the only real cuts we've had in the past 30 years. I think he cut military spending in half didn't he? And he didn't start any optional unfunded wars either did he? And he increased capital gains tax rate to 20% didn't he?
 
Apparently, you have some hidden historical information, that no one else has.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Once again, you exclude capital gains and dividends tax rates. That is where most of the disparity in income results from.

Snapshot_Bush-tax-cut.jpg


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy | Economic Policy Institute
 
Back
Top Bottom