• 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!

State of the Union Address

The Dragon said:
And most people with a brain of any decency realize that the rich don't need all that money.

What part of that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

the middle class doesn't need it either, but since we can't predict the future, how about we let them keep more of it just the same.
 
Catawba said:
Would you accept military spending being slashed to help reduce the budget deficit?
Click to expand...

Slashed to what? How come no one can ever get a figure for what is fair or how much should be cut from any program you don't like? could it be because you understand that the amount is insignificant to what liberals are spending? Do you have any idea how much in state and local taxes those evil rich people pay? How much charitable contributions they make? How much they give to churches? how much they give to their communities?

Seems like you prefer that the Federal govt. pick the winners and losers rather than the individual taxpayer spending their money wherever they want
 
Conservative said:
Your class envy and jealousy is noted
Click to expand...

You can call people names if it make you feel better about yourself. However. its simply a matter of mathematics. - a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of the money is concentrated at the top.
 
Last edited:
If the presidents (plural) obeyed the constitution and we only warred with a declaration of war from congress as required, we wouldn't NEED such an overwhelming military. And I'm a Vietnam vet. Enlisted and not drafted because it was my duty. We don't need to be meddling overseas. If we do go to war? Do it quick, lethal and final! Not this no collateral damage stupid philosophy. There are no innocents in war!
 
ARealConservative said:
the middle class doesn't need it either, but since we can't predict the future, how about we let them keep more of it just the same.
Click to expand...
If part of my house is being rented out just to help keep said house, I think that qualifies as needing said money. Certainly more so that the upper class.
 
yobarnacle said:
If govt acted responsible, there wouldn't need to be tax hikes on anyone! Both parties are guilty. Financially responsible men, either aquired or inherited wealth, but in either case MAINTAINED wealth, seem to lose perspective in the halls of govt. Hey! A million here and a million there, and after awhile we're talking REAL money! seems the prevailing pork barrel attitude.
Click to expand...
Government acted irresponsibly by cutting revenue (taxes) with the expectation that the revenues received by greater economic activity would make up the difference. Sure it was worth a try once, but to do it over and over and over again is just plain silly. You should not cut revenue without a plan to balance the budget with either cuts or other means of making up the difference.

It's also irresponsible to issue tax cuts that mostly benefit a small portion of the society at the cost of reducing services to those that need them the most.

So I agree, govt acted irresponsibly.
 
Catawba said:
Where have you been misled???
Click to expand...

Maybe when you make statements like this:

Catawba said:
And as you have openly admitted, there is no reason for the middle class to vote to continue the tax cuts for the rich, and the middle class has gotten your message:
Click to expand...

You imply that the middle class has gotten a message about 'tax cuts for the rich' and completely ignore the 'reduce spending' part of the question of the poll you reference.

The Democrats are the only ones that have proposed doing both.
Click to expand...

WRONG! Where there NO Republicans on the debt commission? Were their recommendations ONLY tax related?
 
The Dragon said:
And most people with a brain of any decency realize that the rich don't need all that money.

What part of that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

I don't know about him, but I actually don't understand much of it.

First, how does that cover what he said? You do realize the progressive tax system has proven itself unable to support the welfare state around the world, right? If not, take notice of the fact. It doesn't have the ability to support your wishes.

Second, it doesn't much matter if they need all that money to survive. They earned it and therefore it is their property. A society that respect property doesn't just tax and tax and tax to take away excess money.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
You can call people names if it make you feel better about yourself. However. its simply a matter of mathematics. - a consumer economy cannot prosper when all the money is concentrated at the top.
Click to expand...

So rich people don't spend money? How does a rich person hurt the middle class and the poor? You seem to judge everyone else by your own personal opinions. Because you don't give enough to charity or because Obama doesn't give enough to charity, that is your excuse for supporting a bigger govt to take that money all in the name of compassion yet never getting any compassionate spending or we wouldn't have a 15.2 trillion dollar debt and a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. your class envy and jealousy is noted
 
Catawba said:
Would you accept military spending being slashed to help reduce the budget deficit?
Click to expand...

Absolutely...if a similar amount of slashing was done to entitlement programs. Considering those two groups...entitlement spending and the military...make up roughly 75% of our spending its ridiculous to not address either one.

And before I hear the talking point of "But some entitlements bring in revenue!!!!"...that's true. On the flip side, the federal government is largley singularly responsible for the military spending as opposed to entitlements that can get significant state support, and the maintence of armed forces is unquestionably a constitutional purpose of the federal government where as most entitlements are far more questionable in that nature. So Spare me the pathetic partisan excuse that we should significantly destory one but leave the other mostly untouched save for mild reforms primarily aimed not at reducing the amount spent on them but simply finding new ways to raise more taxes for them.
 
Conservative said:
Slashed to what? How come no one can ever get a figure for what is fair or how much should be cut from any program you don't like? could it be because you understand that the amount is insignificant to what liberals are spending? Do you have any idea how much in state and local taxes those evil rich people pay? How much charitable contributions they make? How much they give to churches? how much they give to their communities?

Seems like you prefer that the Federal govt. pick the winners and losers rather than the individual taxpayer spending their money wherever they want.
Click to expand...


So you suggest that people only contribute what they want to the government, and if that doesn't leave enough money for an imperialistic sized military that would be fine with you?

We spend almost as much of the rest of the world combined on the military. Until we are prepared to slash that kind of overspending, talk of tax cuts is nonsense.
 
The Dragon said:
If part of my house is being rented out just to help keep said house, I think that qualifies as needing said money. Certainly more so that the upper class.
Click to expand...

And people living in a studio apartment can openly claim that you don’t need a house with multiple bathrooms.

Air conditioning is a luxury, etc, etc.

I don’t want to live in a society where a bunch of jealous jerks gets to say how much stuff is too much stuff
 
ARealConservative said:
And people living in a studio apartment can openly claim that you don’t need a house with multiple bathrooms.
Click to expand...
Since apparently it matters to you, our house has only one bathroom. Oh, and no air conditioning. Now are you going to say something of any importance or not?
Probably not... >_>
 
Last edited:
The Dragon said:
Since apparently it matters to you, our house has only one bathroom. Oh, and no air conditioning. Now are you going to say something of any meaning or not?
Probably not... >_>
Click to expand...

A person in a studio apartment notices you had a spare bedroom to rent out. Why do you need a spare bedroom? Seems kind of extravagant to me.
 
ARealConservative said:
A person in a studio apartment notices you had a spare bedroom to rent out. Why do you need a spare bedroom? Seems kind of extravagant to me.
Click to expand...
Gee, I dunno. Maybe my sister recently graduated and moved out?
Also, I love how you accuse us of whining when the rich have millions in spare cash, yet here you are whining about bathrooms and such.
 
Last edited:
The Dragon said:
Gee, I dunno. Maybe my sister recently graduated and moved out?
Click to expand...

So what. You are now living large and society has their eyes set on your lavish ways now. They are coming for you with pitchforks screaming of paying your fair share.
 
Dickieboy said:
Maybe when you make statements like this:

You imply that the middle class has gotten a message about 'tax cuts for the rich' and completely ignore the 'reduce spending' part of the question of the poll you reference.

WRONG! Where there NO Republicans on the debt commission? Were their recommendations ONLY tax related?
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it at all, in fact I noted that the only way in the last 30 years we have significantly reduced the deficit is when we both cut spending and increased taxes.

The congressional Republicans rejected the debt commissions proposals to increase taxes as it goes against the pledge they made to their benefactors.
 
Catawba said:
So you suggest that people only contribute what they want to the government, and if that doesn't leave enough money for an imperialistic sized military that would be fine with you?

We spend almost as much of the rest of the world combined on the military. Until we are prepared to slash that kind of overspending, talk of tax cuts is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Again, no specifics, just rhetoric. how much, Catawba? Stop diverting. The current Military budget is about 750 billion, cut how much? Talk by liberals of sending more money to the govt. is nonsense but apparently you believe the govt. needs the money more than the taxpayers
 
ARealConservative said:
So what. You are now living large and society has their eyes set on your lavish ways now. They are coming for you with pitchforks screaming of paying your fair share.
Click to expand...

yeah, no. that's not how it is. i merely want the wealthy to pay the same rate as i pay.
 
Catawba said:
I didn't ignore it at all, in fact I noted that the only way in the last 30 years we have significantly reduced the deficit is when we both cut spending and increased taxes.

The congressional Republicans rejected the debt commissions proposals to increase taxes as it goes against the pledge they made to their benefactors.
Click to expand...

What proposals of the Bowles/Simpson committee did Obama adopt?
 
liblady said:
yeah, no. that's not how it is. i merely want the wealthy to pay the same rate as i pay.
Click to expand...

Keep buying the rhetoric from the liberal establishment, the wealthy are paying the same rate you are paying for capital gains and are paying a higher rate on their income than you are paying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom