• 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!

Govt. borrows 46 cents of every dollar it spends

Moot said:
FDR's work programs were a blessing for this country at a time when it was sorely needed.
Click to expand...

FDR was one of the country's most beloved president. He was reelected 3 times!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The public works programs did not end the depression, but obviously did temporarily help ease the suffering of many - WWII was what actually ended the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

Another thing that helped bring the country back was increased revenue from raising the tax rates on the wealthy.
 
Fisher said:
Slowing the rate of increase is not decreasing the deficit number. It is a matter of scale--just like most tax increases/decreases are "historic" in their raw revenue number.
Click to expand...


To the majority of us, slowing the rate of increase is preferable to increasing the rate of increase.

Name the last GOP presidential administration that came close to balancing the budget?
 
H. Lee White said:
That's your point now, after you were caught lying about a unanimous vote from Congress.
Click to expand...

I've already told you some Democrats voted against the wasteful spending, but you have not named a single Republican Congressman that voted against the spending!
 
Catawba said:
I've already told you some Democrats voted against the wasteful spending, but you have not named a single Republican Congressman that voted against the spending!
Click to expand...
Again:
That's your point now, after you were caught lying about a unanimous vote from Congress.
Why won't you admit you lied about a unanimous vote from Congress?
 
Catawba said:
To the majority of us, slowing the rate of increase is preferable to increasing the rate of increase.

Name the last GOP presidential administration that came close to balancing the budget?
Click to expand...

Dennis Hastert. Before that FDR. If you want to get into a partisan finger-pointing game, your best question would be who was the last GOP President who operated with a budget surplus. Slowing the rate of increase is obviously preferable to increasing it, but it does not address the problem at hand. Perhaps if we hit the fiscal pothole and people get all quaky in their panties, they will get an idea of what life will be like down the road if we do not do something more aggressive like, oh I don't know, taxing imports, placing an excise tax on unprocessed raw materials exported overseas., etc. beyond just some partisan class warfare "Sock it to the rich with a marginal rate increase that does nothing more than serve as political masturbation" mentality
 
H. Lee White said:
Again:
That's your point now, after you were caught lying about a unanimous vote from Congress.
Why won't you admit you lied about a unanimous vote from Congress?
Click to expand...

I've already admitted that some Democrats voted against the spending. However, every single GOP congressman voted for the wasteful spending.

So much for the GOP claim they want to reduce the deficit!
 
Fisher said:
Dennis Hastert. Before that FDR. If you want to get into a partisan finger-pointing game, your best question would be who was the last GOP President who operated with a budget surplus. Slowing the rate of increase is obviously preferable to increasing it, but it does not address the problem at hand. Perhaps if we hit the fiscal pothole and people get all quaky in their panties, they will get an idea of what life will be like down the road if we do not do something more aggressive like, oh I don't know, taxing imports, placing an excise tax on unprocessed raw materials exported overseas., etc. beyond just some partisan class warfare "Sock it to the rich with a marginal rate increase that does nothing more than serve as political masturbation" mentality
Click to expand...

As half the country owns 1% of its wealth, its obvious to most where the increased revenues are going to have to come from to address our debt. 30 years of trickle down economics has finally caught up with us. Its time to pay the piper!
 
Catawba said:
As half the country owns 1% of its wealth, its obvious to most where the increased revenues are going to have to come from to address our debt.
Click to expand...
Psst.... No one has suggsted that we tax wealth....
 
Catawba said:
Just as I thought, you could not name a Republican presidential Administration that came close to balancing the budget.
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on your subjective defintion of 'close'; given the rabid, bigoted partisanship you exhibit here, it's pretty clear that anything over 0.01% of revenue won't qualify.
 
Catawba said:
I've already admitted that some Democrats voted against the spending. However, every single GOP congressman voted for the wasteful spending.
So much for the GOP claim they want to reduce the deficit!
Click to expand...
That's OK - I'll ask again:
Why won't you admit you lied about a unanimous vote from Congress?
 
Catawba said:
As half the country owns 1% of its wealth, its obvious to most where the increased revenues are going to have to come from to address our debt. 30 years of trickle down economics has finally caught up with us. Its time to pay the piper!
Click to expand...

The problem could just as easily be that all the democrats in those 30 years have adhered to obsolete and failed social welfare programs that hold people down while allowing the wealthy to send the middle class jobs overseas via globalized Clintonized trade policies. If the piper is gonna be paid, then why would you support the democrats who refuse to do anything to actually help poor people by giving up any control whatsoever to the states who are better equipped to adapt to the conditions on the ground?
 
H. Lee White said:
Speaking of not paying attention.... nothing on that site suggests that we tax wealth.
Click to expand...

You'll eventually figure it out. I'll give you a hint - what did the US do (in the 1920's) the last time we had a wealth gap this big?
 
Catawba said:
You'll eventually figure it out. I'll give you a hint - what did the US do (in the 1920's) the last time we had a wealth gap this big?
Click to expand...
(This is great.... Catawaba is letting me set him up to look like an idiot...again....)

I give up. Tell me.
 
H. Lee White said:
(This is great.... Catawaba is letting me set him up to look like an idiot...again....)

I give up. Tell me.
Click to expand...

We increased the tax rates on the wealthy, just as we need to do today to address too much accumulation of wealth at the top.
 
Catawba said:
We increased the tax rates on the wealthy, just as we need to do today to address too much accumulation of wealth at the top.
Click to expand...
Increasing taxes on income does not tax wealth, it taxes income.
So, I ask again: Who has advocated that we tax wealth?
 
H. Lee White said:
Increasing taxes on income does not tax wealth, it taxes income.
So, I ask again: Who has advocated that we tax wealth?
Click to expand...

As historically documented, when income tax rates were increased on the wealthy, that reduced the wealth of those at the top. Funny how that works, isn't it?
 
Catawba said:
As historically documented, when income tax rates were increased on the wealthy, that reduced the wealth of those at the top. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Click to expand...
So, you admit you -cannot- show where anyone has advocated taxing wealth, only income.
Thank you for your admission of failure.
 
H. Lee White said:
So, you admit you -cannot- show where anyone has advocated taxing wealth, only income.
Thank you for your admission of failure.
Click to expand...

What I showed you was how the US addressed income equality after the 1920's, through an increase in income tax rates for the wealthy. That is the same way we plan to address the wealth inequality today, by increasing the tax rates for the wealthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom