• 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!

Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

You are totally lost, the argument here, between myself and "muci", is between a flat tax and progressive taxes at the federal level. I wasn't including state or county or city rates to get to a "total tax" rate.

Of course I am in favor of progressive taxation, it has been used in this country from nearly the start, and I have yet to see you grasp any part of the discussion between muci and I.

More hackish psychobabble. from the start? OMG that is moronic.
 
........ Of course I am in favor of progressive taxation, it has been used in this country from nearly the start, and I have yet to see you grasp any part of the discussion between muci and I.

From "nearly the start" of what ? Of the Republic ? Of the dawn of the entitlement state and all the noodle spine liberals that has created ? Of us starting to go all to crap ? What ?
 
Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
You are totally lost, the argument here, between myself and "muci", is between a flat tax and progressive taxes at the federal level. I wasn't including state or county or city rates to get to a "total tax" rate.

Of course I am in favor of progressive taxation, it has been used in this country from nearly the start, and I have yet to see you grasp any part of the discussion between muci and I.

I have yet to see YOU grasp any part of the discussion between you and I. You are yet to demonstrate that you even understand what I am arguing for.
 
Apr 14, 2012 6:00am

[h=1]Obama Makes Tax Week Push for ‘Sensible’ Buffett Rule[/h]It’s crunch time for the Buffett Rule, and President Obama used his weekly address to make an 11th-hour pitch. Ahead of a planned Senate vote this week on a tax hike on millionaires, Obama ratchets up pressure on Congressional Republicans in an attempt to win a p.r. victory on “fairness” even if the vote fails, as is expected.


“This is not a serious attempt at deficit reduction, and it certainly won’t fulfill his 2009 promise to cut the deficit in half,” said Republican National Committee spokesman Sean Spicer. “No, the Buffett Tax is merely a political ploy.”

The rule is estimated to raise an estimated $47 billion over 10 years. The projected budget deficit in 2012 alone is more than $1 trillion.


Obama Makes Tax Week Push for ‘Sensible’ Buffett Rule - ABC News

What a class warfare joke. $4.7 Billion a year? Really? The Head Start Program wastes much more than that every year. What a buffoon we have in the White House.
 
SS is funded through a PAYROLL tax, not from INCOME TAXES. It is a self-funded insurance plan, it is totally separate from federal fund. You get that money back, you don't get back military costs....well...you get some back if you are a vet....with injuries.

If you really believe in the Constitution, you would not hold to the idea that 3/4 of discretionary spending should be for a standing army. We are not in any way in a "war" situation as we had in WWII, there is no comparison. We are spending on average 54% on military costs now.

Insurance does not pay 100% of it's benefits to all clients, get a ****ing clue. It is a tax on your income, changing the name doesn't change where it comes from. How do you know we aren't in a war like WWII? 54%, show me the data.
 
That debt is just another of the legacys of G.W. Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies. It counts the 2009 deficit as Obama's but he had nothing to do with it.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent—despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

pie_chart_deficit.bmp

If Bush's tax policy was so bad, why did Obama continue it? Hmmmm?
 
If you really believe in the Constitution, you would not hold to the idea that 3/4 of discretionary spending should be for a standing army. We are not in any way in a "war" situation as we had in WWII, there is no comparison. We are spending on average 54% on military costs now.


54% of 33% of spending is on the military. Doesn't have the same ring as what you stated, but its accurate.
 
Insurance does not pay 100% of it's benefits to all clients, get a ****ing clue.
What? If you live long enough, you get it back (often more), if you don't your dependents do. Are you now going off on a tangent on private ins?

It is a tax on your income, changing the name doesn't change where it comes from.
Um, it isn't a matter of "name", it is a matter of benefit....do you get it back as a direct payment....it is called "accounting".
How do you know we aren't in a war like WWII?
Wow..really?.....um, we don't have anywhere near the level of mobilization, participation, economic concentration, etc, towards a war effort. FFS.
54%, show me the data.
For 2009:

Current Military
$965 billion:
• Military Personnel $129 billion
• Operation & Maint. $241 billion
• Procurement $143 billion
• Research & Dev. $79 billion
• Construction $15 billion
• Family Housing $3 billion
• DoD misc. $4 billion
• Retired Pay $70 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $9 billion
• International Security $9 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $35 billion
• State Dept. (partial) $6 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $5 billion
• “Global War on Terror” $200 billion [We added $162 billion to the last item to supplement the Budget’s grossly underestimated $38 billion in “allowances” to be spent in 2009 for the “War on Terror,” which includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan]

Past Military,
$484 billion:
• Veterans’ Benefits $94 billion
• Interest on national debt (80%) created by military spending, $390 billion

Human Resources
$789 billion:
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.

General Government
$304 billion:
• Interest on debt (20%)
• Treasury
• Government personnel
• Justice Dept.
• State Dept.
• Homeland Security (15%)
• International Affairs
• NASA (50%)
• Judicial
• Legislative
• other general govt.

Physical Resources
$117 billion:
• Agriculture
• Interior
• Transportation
• Homeland Security (15%)
• HUD
• Commerce
• Energy (non-military)
• Environmental Protection
• Nat. Science Fdtn.
• Army Corps Engineers
• Fed. Comm. Commission
• other physical resources

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
 
Back
Top Bottom