• 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: U.S. Poverty Rate Spikes, Nearly 50 Million Americans Affected

Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry but I never used those words.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Then you shouldn't have argued with me. But you did:

Boo Radley said:
Harshaw said:
Ah, the infamous "gap between the rich and the poor," as though that in and of itself is meaningful, much less the debate-ender some seem to think it is.
Click to expand...

It actually is, and why there is some 47% not paying income taxes.
Click to expand...

So, it "actually is" what? In and of itself meaningful, or a debate-ender (in which case it would have to be in and of itself meaningful)?

You say I'm "mistaken" and presenting a "strawman," so you tell me, big guy -- what "is" it?


In fact in many posts I've noted other factors as well. And you have yet address the point. I'm willing to bet you never will.
Click to expand...

Address what "point"? The tax structure? I did that many posts ago. It's a red herring. Dude, look -- "uh-HUHH!!!" isn't an argument no matter how many times you try to make it one.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
No. A country with a weak middle class, with mostly haves and have nots, has more than a few problems.
Click to expand...
Nothing about a large gap between the poor and wealthy inherently denotes a weak middle class.

Still waiting for you to addess the specific questions I asked about policies, etc.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So your "plan" to end poverty is to tax the top 400 people enough to pay for supporting the bottom 40,000,000? Who needs a job (or the education to get one) if the gov't will just give you the benefits of a job without all of that darned effort? USA, USA, USA...
Click to expand...

That is your plan

There should be an upper limit to what an individual could earn in the US and ow many assists they control.

Lets say $200,000 income limit and a 50 million assets limit per person.

If a person finds these wealth limits too restrictive then perhaps they can leave the US and live somewhere else

(And that is $200,000 per week, you would think that income level would satisfy even the most greedy and satanic of US plutocrats)
 
Klown said:
That is your plan
There should be an upper limit to what an individual could earn in the US and ow many assists they control.
Click to expand...
"Should"? Who are you to say what someone else is allowed to have?
Please provide an objective argument for this limit - that is, one not based on your opinion and/or version of morality.
 
H. Lee White said:
Really. Show what growth would have been w/o the tax hikes.
Click to expand...
I don't have access to a Magic 8 ball at the moment, but I make that statement due to the fact that we were comfortably residing at full employment with uninterrupted periods of healthy growth and innovation during said time period. As mentioned before, that's not to say that those tax rates are optimal in today's setting, but to insist that they were prohibitive would be quite a stretch.
 
Klown said:
That is your plan

There should be an upper limit to what an individual could earn in the US and ow many assists they control.

Lets say $200,000 income limit and a 50 million assets limit per person.

If a person finds these wealth limits too restrictive then perhaps they can leave the US and live somewhere else

(And that is $200,000 per week, you would think that income level would satisfy even the most greedy and satanic of US plutocrats)
Click to expand...

Meet some of those approximately 34,500 folks, in the US alone, that exceed your limits and ask for their support:

The Richest People in America - Forbes

The Free Press -- Independent News Media from Columbus, Ohio
 
H. Lee White said:
"Should"? Who are you to say what someone else is allowed to have?
Please provide an objective argument for this limit - that is, one not based on your opinion and/or version of morality.
Click to expand...

Who are you to dictate that a massive proportion of society should live in poverty and lack basic human rights such as health care access, just because you wish to cater for the greed, decadence and waste of a tiny group of fascist Plutocrats - most of whom are criminals anyway

If you dont wish to live in a society or community whereby certain values and morals are unheld, why dont you leave and live in Antartica or in the dessert BY YOURSELF?
 
Klown said:
Who are you to dictate....
Click to expand...
I'm sorry... we're discussing -your- subjective, moral position that -you- should be able to dictate what -you- think others should be allowed to have.
Please answer the question, and please provide the objective argumenr I asked for.
 
A poverty rate of 16%？which is much higher than that of China
 
H. Lee White said:
So, you admit there's no concrete support for your statement. Thank you.
Click to expand...
LOL! You requested figures that are incalculable, comedic requests are likely to be met with comedic retorts. In the meantime, point out the figures within said time period that would indicate that tax rates were prohibitive in any way shape or form.

fredgraph.png
 
a351 said:
LOL! You requested figures that are incalculable...
Click to expand...
Yes... and so your statement is based on your speculation, rather than anyting concrete.
Arguments based on nothing but speculation - that is, arguments - such as yours - that have no concrete support - are not compelling and can be safely discarded.
 
Last edited:
H. Lee White said:
Yes... and so your statement is based on your speculation, rather than anyting concrete. Arguments based on nothing but speculation - that is, arguments - such as yours - that have no concrete support, are not compelling and can be safely discarded.
Click to expand...
Not in reality, no. My statement is that Clinton era tax rates didn't inhibit growth during said time period, a conclusion easily drawn by a quick glance at some relevant figures from the time period. Your argument (I use the term loosely), is centered around requesting information that cannot possibly be derived without the aid of a ouija board or similar device, while simultaneously offering up absolutely nothing that would even hint that tax rates stymied growth in any conceivable manner. A pretty silly exercise if you ask me.
 
H. Lee White said:
I'm sorry... we're discussing -your- subjective, moral position that -you- should be able to dictate what -you- think others should be allowed to have.
Please answer the question, and please provide the objective argumenr I asked for.
Click to expand...

and you are accusing me of being dictatorial - lol

The Gestapo has issued orders from high command "You vill unsa ze qvestion or ze will be terminated"

set up your own society of fascists and corporate greed sociopaths and psychopaths - and live together happily ever after

But dont impose your immoral fascist corporate garbage upon others

The next thing you will be saying is that you are a devoted Christian
 
Klown said:
and you are accusing me of being dictatorial
Click to expand...
Again - the discussion here is YOUR posiiton and YOUR version of what should and shoud not be.
Please answer the question, and please provide the objective argument I asked for.
 
a351 said:
Not in reality, no.
Click to expand...
Yes, in reality, yes.
Your purely speculative argument needn't be considered, and shall not be.

My statement is that Clinton era tax rates didn't inhibit growth during said time period, a conclusion easily drawn by a quick glance at some relevant figures from the time period.
Your argument (I use the term loosely), is centered around requesting information that cannot possibly be derived without the aid of a ouija board or similar device
Click to expand...
You very clearly fail to see the self-contradicting nature of these two lines.
 
H. Lee White said:
Again - the discussion here is YOUR posiiton and YOUR version of what should and shoud not be.
Please answer the question, and please provide the objective argument I asked for.
Click to expand...

Please?

That is a very unusual plea technique coming from a devotee of satanistic based greed and fascism

Are you sure youre a committed Christian?

Take your delusional 9mm and 0.45 calibre cowardice and run along like a little warthog
 
H. Lee White said:
Yes, in reality, yes.
Your purely speculative argument needn't be considered, and shall not be.
Click to expand...
What's speculative about it? Was growth during the decade sub-par? Employment? Investment? Consumer Spending? Any positive results to speak of yielded from slashing said tax rates? Bueller? Bueller?
 
Last edited:
Klown said:
Please?
That is a very unusual plea technique coming from a devotee of satanistic based greed and fascism
Click to expand...
We both clearly understand you cannot present an objective argument to support what you believe "should" be.
Absent that objective argument, only the unthinking will ever agree with you.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do realize there is a connection to this and republican policies. We've been cutting taxes for some time, favoring wealthy and business over workers and poor, and you think this had no effect? You think only Obama is to blame?
Click to expand...

I was wondering when "it's Bush's fault" would show up. Sure enough, in the first liberal post to the thread.
 
This is actually the fault of the unions.

They have forced us to send American jobs to China as fast as we can.

Blue collar Americans are overpaid.
 
H. Lee White said:
We both clearly understand you cannot present an objective argument to support what you believe "should" be.
Absent that objective argument, only the unthinking will ever agree with you.
Click to expand...

Interesting how you cannot counter any of my statements with rational arguments and evidence

I can see why you resort to behaving like a corporate firearm parrot and violate the delusional offenses that you accuse others of perpetrating.

Enjoy your fascist corporate US tyrannical slave based ignorance Mr White
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom