• 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!

SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Jack Hays said:
Some of the 1% do it via paycheck, and more of their children serve than you might imagine.:cool:
Click to expand...

REally? Who? Can you name them? Are you talking about getting paid every two weeks. Based on a salery in the top 1%? Who are these people?
 
j-mac said:
Well, Republicans bought into the 'skewed poll' theory more than they should have that's for sure. Doesn't mean that wasn't the case, but too much emphasis was placed on that.



Well look at that will ya? Aren't you the slick bomb thrower? Way to call me a racist without actually calling me a racist....:doh



Nah, unless of course you are saying that you personally know each and every Obama voter? Is that what you are saying dude? There are many reasons for the vote landing the way it did, and some of it may have been that they don't like anything conservative, but a lot more than that is needed to win the Presidency. Maybe that is you projecting why you voted for Obama? Are you one of those haters that would like to see one party in the US? eh? Is that your bag man? You a communist?



don't give me that pap....The market is artificially propped up with fiat currency, that many companies are sitting on because Obama's track record with business is to slap them with one hand, and he pat's their back with the other....They don't trust the Marxist.



Tradition is important. But I wouldn't expect you to understand unless it is something you can point to as a tactic.



Ah, strike a nerve? You obviously do, otherwise why mention it?



Nope, doesn't work that way...You have a constitution to deal with...You don't like this country, may I suggest Venezuela? I hear it is nice this time of year.



Absolutely.



Hate him? Nah...That's a strong emotion. I don't even know him personally...What I dislike are his policies, and his method of governance. But hate him? You don't know what you're talking about.



Yes, and he has taken to the next level, with his own twist of contempt.



Again you are misreading it. Maybe because you are applying the level of hatred you held for GW Bush, and projecting it onto your political opponent.



Because sheep are easily led, especially when you have almost the entire media machine lying for you.



You know, just because you are redundant, doesn't make your false proclamation any more true.



You know, that is the 5th time you have used some form of 'hate' in this post alone? Sounds like a phobia to me.



When in doubt, reach into the cliche grab bag eh?



Recovery? You call this a recovery? :lamo That's a good one!



Well, isn't that the typical tin pot authoritarian response....Despite your lengthy responses, you really don't bring much to the table, outside the usual blather do you?
Click to expand...



There is NO logical reason to accept tradition as a governing law. Just because things were done a certain way, doesn't mean that way was right.

Nope, doesn't work that way...You have a constitution to deal with...You don't like this country, may I suggest Venezuela? I hear it is nice this time of year.
Click to expand...


What on earth does what you said have to do with what i said? What does the constitution have to do with what I said? We've amended it 27 times. Obviously we've done things to move beyond your "traditional" idea of the constitution. Then you toss out this ridiculous Straw Man telling me if I don't like this country, I should leave? Who says I don't like this country? I don't like what people like you are trying to do to it. If you don't like this country...ever consider secession?

Hate him? Nah...That's a strong emotion. I don't even know him personally
Click to expand...

Yeah it is. But what does knowing him have to do with it? You don't have to know somebody personally to hate him. You didn't know Hitler and you hate him right? You do right?
 
Jack Hays said:
Whine and wriggle all you want, the fact remains that they pay at least their share.:roll:
Click to expand...

I think for the most part, people making under a million do, but people in that top of the top group, not even close.

No whining, no wiggling, just facts.
 
Adagio said:
Then you should be able to tell me how and what it is that's been manipulated...both historical and a more personal level. Specifically. Can you?
Click to expand...

The Reagan speech. Im sure you can corroborate the liberal race baiting and dog whistle theories with actual quotes from the parties involved in setting up the event right? Oh. You cant. Well then thats inferrence not proof, and hence manipulation. Im not picking through the entirety of the hard left sewage you call a post anymore, as I said before you just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.



Adagio said:
But your ideology and the Party you vote for...does. There's a reason why blacks voted over 90% for Dems. Latino's at 72%. Gays at 98%, Women at about 60%. I'm not saying that you do. I just have to ask why you would align yourself with a party that is quite open about their views on minorities? Do you somehow think that these people can't grasp the policies put forth by Republicans and Conservatives and how they impact lives in a very targeted way?
Click to expand...

McCain and Rubio working on immigration reform that can pass. Several notable Republicans signing onto the gay marriage brief. How about the HHS flap over contraceptives and the Catholic Church, that may matter to a great many Hispanics. How about the immigrants, legal and illegal having to live near a border infested with crime--think they may want more secure borders? Just some examples.



Adagio said:
Our entire political system seems to be corrupt. Have you ever lived in the South? What you're implying here is that because Obama is part of the Chicago political scene, and that scene is corrupt. Obama is corrupt. How many ways do you want to say the same thing? You're making a broad sweeping generalization.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, grand irony.

Adagio said:
Chicago's political scene is corrupt
Obama is part of the Chicago political scene
Therefore: Obama is corrupt.

The problem here is that while the scene may be corrupt, you cannot lump every politician into that, assuming that they participate in that corruption. Some could be reformers. We have a history of such a thing. Some may even be community organizers who try to fight that corruption.
Click to expand...

Rezko, legalislative warfare on opposition campaigns, unsealing of divorce records harmful to both parties and children, quid pro quo I showed you, etc etc. I didnt assume anything. Obama has dealings some of the most corrupt people in Chicago. Obama has questionable dealings and engages in questionable ethical political tactics any time he fears he cant win at the ballot box. The amazing part is you blowing off an example of subtle quid pro quo then jumping straight forward to assume Im stereotyping poor, poor Obama. What a crock.

Adagio said:
You'll need to be more specific than saying, "I didn't say or portray that". What is "That"??
Click to expand...

Adagio said:
I don't think that works. I already admitted long ago, on this very thread that I knew I could be wrong. In fact, it was me that said I know I can be wrong. Can you say as much? How much more gracefully would you like than my own full admission? Conservatism is NOT infallibly correct. It's inherently flawed. The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning. A person that clints to a logical fallacy when he knows that it's a logical fallacy is irrational so why on earth would I or anybody want to accept irrationality as a way of life, or elect irrational people to govern this country?
Click to expand...

This pile of piss and wind. I didnt say any of that, thats you projecting again. Your a hardline ideologue portraying yourself as an intellectual free thinker. You aren't, not even close. Your criticism flows one direction and thats at your opposition. Btw, your circular logic here assumes from the start with little logical basis. Plus you present a whole host of thoughts and positions as mine that I have not presented. How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?

Adagio said:
Shouldn't be curious at all. Conservatism has a long history of race issues, and they still remain, whether you bring them up or not.
Click to expand...
So does liberalism.

Adagio said:
And conservatives don't do that do they? :roll: You know of course that you're voicing a biased opinion since you call yourself a conservative. You also go to the word; "Extensive" which is vague. It's like when you call for "smaller government". How small? What size exactly do you mean? What would be small according you? Also that the liberal is about the accumulation of power. Sounds just like a talking point. Who gave it to you?

Dick Cheney argued for a Unitary Executive giving more power to the Executive. Karl Rove said he wanted a perpetual Republican Majority. And you're going to tell me who's about the accumulation of power? How do you justify telling me about your absolutist view of who's trying to grab power in light of your own conservatives attempts to do that very thing?
Click to expand...

The whole establishment thing earlier in the thread went right by you. Establishment republicans arent very conservative. Establishment DC on both sides want more power. Establishment GOP are just going along with the power plays and cementing their own positions. I honestly dont know how much smaller, since we havent actually cut government in decades, its pretty hard to tell. Maybe we ought to try it and see if it works before looking down nose dismissal begins.

Whether you like it or not, Liberalism and Democrats have become the party of bigger and bigger government. No one on the left is even making an argument for reduction of anything other than rate of growth and they dont even like that.

Adagio said:
Well, that leaves me with a couple options. Join the TeaParty and take down the entire government of the United States, and it'll be every man for himself. OR...I could choose between the lesser of the other two "evils". Well, I'm not into taking down the US Government. So that's out. That leaves the Liberal Dems or the Conservative Pubs. Based on what I've seen, I'll go with the Dems. I don't agree with Social Darwinism. And the Dems are more in line with my own views.
Click to expand...

Bolded: LOL, smear smear smear. You cant seem to help yourself.
2nd Bolded: Of course you dont.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
I think for the most part, people making under a million do, but people in that top of the top group, not even close.

No whining, no wiggling, just facts.
Click to expand...

What do you consider their fair share then? How much of their money do you have a right to tell them they can keep?
 
Adagio said:
What I responded to was your question over WHY we have a progessive taxation. These are the words of the Conservatives own guy. Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nation.

Do you have your answer now?
Click to expand...

Do you think it was Adam's Smith position that income earners in this country shouldn't pay SOMETHING in federal income taxes or that 51% of the people carry the entire cost of the Federal Govt. funding it with their income taxes? Further the issue was providing or promoting the general welfare with over 100 million on some form of taxpayer assistance?

You seem to have a serious problem responding directly to actual questions made and want to steer the discussion away from the data presented. You made the comment about hate radio so who us where hate radio made up the numbers I presented and define hate radio?
 
Adagio said:
You displayed your hatred for Obama a long while back. I told you then, I have zero respect for anything you post. In fact, I'd put you completely out of my mind as a legitimate poster. Now I remember. I'm really not interested in what you have to say. You're a person that's really filled with hate, and I find that pretty sick.
Click to expand...

Yep, typical liberal bull****, anything that points out facts and data is hatred for the person. What I do is confuse you by pointing out data the refutes the liberal rhetoric. You cannot figure out how an ideology that claims to promote compassion can be such an dire failure. You buy rhetoric and ignore data and facts. No wonder you have no interest in what anyone says that posts same.
 
j-mac said:
What do you consider their fair share then? How much of their money do you have a right to tell them they can keep?
Click to expand...

I would say that the people earning the most money should pay the highest rate, and at the very least, no less than of a fraction than any group below them.

The top 1/10 of 1% earn about 8% of all income and pay about 9%% of total federal taxes. They big lie is that they pay 17% of the taxes, but that is sophistry, it requires one to pretend that no other taxes but income taxes exist, when of course other do exist, and those other taxes are regressive, so they are poored in greater percentages by people earning less than people making more.

And this is just federal taxes.

When you add in state and local taxes, which are almost all regressive (sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc) then the it only gets better.

One would have to willfully ignorant not to understand this, seriously.

I know why rich people talk up the meme of the rich paying such a large share of income taxes, it is the only theoretically progressive tax we have, what I don't understand is why lower income conservatives buy into this big lie. The facts are out there, but not easy to find among all the rhetorical slight of hand, but a person intent on learning the truth can figure it out.
 
conservative said:
yep, typical liberal bull****, anything that points out facts and data is hatred for the person. What i do is confuse you by pointing out data the refutes the liberal rhetoric. You cannot figure out how an ideology that claims to promote compassion can be such an dire failure. You buy rhetoric and ignore data and facts. No wonder you have no interest in what anyone says that posts same.
Click to expand...

Where is the " typical liberal bull**** "in the post that you quoted?:roll:
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
I would say that the people earning the most money should pay the highest rate, and at the very least, no less than of a fraction than any group below them.

The top 1/10 of 1% earn about 8% of all income and pay about 9%% of total federal taxes. They big lie is that they pay 17% of the taxes, but that is sophistry, it requires one to pretend that no other taxes but income taxes exist, when of course other do exist, and those other taxes are regressive, so they are poored in greater percentages by people earning less than people making more.

And this is just federal taxes.

When you add in state and local taxes, which are almost all regressive (sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc) then the it only gets better.

One would have to willfully ignorant not to understand this, seriously.

I know why rich people talk up the meme of the rich paying such a large share of income taxes, it is the only theoretically progressive tax we have, what I don't understand is why lower income conservatives buy into this big lie. The facts are out there, but not easy to find among all the rhetorical slight of hand, but a person intent on learning the truth can figure it out.
Click to expand...

The big lie is what taxes are supposed to fund and what they fund. When you say total Federal Taxes you ignore what income taxes fund, excise, payroll, and corporate taxes and then again you ignore state liability as well as state responsibilities. That way liberals believe they win an argument when you fact in FICA taxes that fund SS and Medicare knowing darn well that FICA is capped making the percentage look worse for the rich.

Here is what your Federal Income Taxes fund and what the rich are paying most of and 47-49% aren't paying any. That seem fair to a liberal

Expenses

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce/Housing Cr
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Income Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest
Click to expand...

So stop buying the liberal rhetoric and get the facts. Tell me that all income earning Americans shouldn't be paying something to these expense items?
 
Conservative said:
Show me where anything I posted displayed hatred for Obama and not simply his policies and results?
Click to expand...

hatred [ˈheɪtrɪd]

a feeling of intense dislike; enmity

You show that Every time you post.Do you not recognize it yourself?:shock:
 
Conservative said:
The big lie is what taxes are supposed to fund and what they fund. When you say total Federal Taxes you ignore what income taxes fund, excise, payroll, and corporate taxes and then again you ignore state liability as well as state responsibilities. That way liberals believe they win an argument when you fact in FICA taxes that fund SS and Medicare knowing darn well that FICA is capped making the percentage look worse for the rich.

Here is what your Federal Income Taxes fund and what the rich are paying most of and 47-49% aren't paying any. That seem fair to a liberal



So stop buying the liberal rhetoric and get the facts. Tell me that all income earning Americans shouldn't be paying something to these expense items?
Click to expand...

This laughable.

Are you, as a conservative, really going to start arguing that by calling a tax (you DO know what a tax is, right?) some name and saying it funds something, that it is somehow different and better than other taxes?

By the way, payroll taxes have been paying for ALL of these things for decades as the surplus payroll taxes go right into the general fund to be spent.

A tax is not voluntary, it is legally required to be paid under penalty of law. If I were to say a tax is called the "defense tax" and blue eyed people pay, and another tax is called the "socialism tax" and green eyed people pay it, it would be the height of idiocy to say that green eyed people don't pay for defense. They pay what they are required to pay by law and what it funds is not up to them, and ultimately, it all goes to the same place, the federal government, to be spent as the government decides to spend it.

I don't think there should be a payroll tax, just have an income tax where the absolute minimum is 7.62% and go from there.

At the very least it would negate the sophistry of arguments like your that pretends that what a tax pays for is relevant in any way. The only way it would be relevant in any way is if the tax were voluntary.

This line of reasoning is simply specious.
 
Whipsnade said:
Now you’re scrambling. Typical conservative tactic.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You gave me the definition of hatred but no specific examples which is what you and others do when you want to change the subject. Obama's results are a total and complete failure as evidenced by the non partisan data. That isn't hatred for Obama, that is the reality of his results.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
This laughable.

Are you, as a conservative, really going to start arguing that by calling a tax (you DO know what a tax is, right?) some name and saying it funds something, that it is somehow different and better than other taxes?

By the way, payroll taxes have been paying for ALL of these things for decades as the surplus payroll taxes go right into the general fund to be spent.

A tax is not voluntary, it is legally required to be paid under penalty of law. If I were to say a tax is called the "defense tax" and blue eyed people pay, and another tax is called the "socialism tax" and green eyed people pay it, it would be the height of idiocy to say that green eyed people don't pay for defense. They pay what they are required to pay by law and what it funds is not up to them, and ultimately, it all goes to the same place, the federal government, to be spent as the government decides to spend it.

I don't think there should be a payroll tax, just have an income tax where the absolute minimum is 7.62% and go from there.

At the very least it would negate the sophistry of arguments like your that pretends that what a tax pays for is relevant in any way. The only way it would be relevant in any way is if the tax were voluntary.

This line of reasoning is simply specious.
Click to expand...

I gave you the list of line items in the budget, which apparently you ignored just like you ignored the purpose of the various taxes. Payroll taxes were put on budget by LBJ to fund the Vietnam War and now liberals like you ignore the purpose of those taxes because you have been brainwashed into believing all taxes fund whatever you want them to fund.

What you show is typical big govt. liberal rhetoric which apparently you believe in that cradle to grave coverage ignoring state and local taxes as well as state and local responsibility. What is the fair share that those evil rich people should pay as a percentage of their income in Federal Income Taxes, FICA, Excise taxes, state and local taxes? What exactly is the federal responsibility and state responsibility in your world?
 
Conservative said:
You gave me the definition of hatred but no specific examples which is what you and others do when you want to change the subject. Obama's results are a total and complete failure as evidenced by the non partisan data. That isn't hatred for Obama, that is the reality of his results.
Click to expand...

every time you post you showcase your hatred(a feeling of intense dislike; enmity ) for OUR COUNTRIES twice elected President.Its kinda sad really.:(
 
Whipsnade said:
every time you post you showcase your hatred(a feeling of intense dislike; enmity ) for OUR COUNTRIES twice elected President.Its kinda sad really.:(
Click to expand...

What is rather sad is the fact that you accept the very poor economic numbers generated by the policies of this President and never hold him responsible for the commitments made, commitments like "halving the deficit" by the end of his first term. It is further sad that rhetoric trumps actual results in your world as you want badly to believe what you are told but the truth is what you are told and what is happening makes you look like a fool.
 
Conservative said:
I gave you the list of line items in the budget, which apparently you ignored just like you ignored the purpose of the various taxes. Payroll taxes were put on budget by LBJ to fund the Vietnam War and now liberals like you ignore the purpose of those taxes because you have been brainwashed into believing all taxes fund whatever you want them to fund.

What you show is typical big govt. liberal rhetoric which apparently you believe in that cradle to grave coverage ignoring state and local taxes as well as state and local responsibility. What is the fair share that those evil rich people should pay as a percentage of their income in Federal Income Taxes, FICA, Excise taxes, state and local taxes? What exactly is the federal responsibility and state responsibility in your world?
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite, what I show is that taxes are taxes. I can't say what I would I would supported at the time, but if you know my positions at all, you would know that I think SS is a horrible inter-generational wealth transfer that could never stand up to changing demographics. I support a needs based SS program in combination with private accounts. But I don't get a choice, I just pay a tax because I have to. I also happen to pay both sides of the payroll tax equation, though I believe that ultimately so does everyone, they just don't get to see it as clearly part of their compensation as self-employed people do. But my point is, I don't get a choice, it is a tax, it doesn't matter what it funds.

In my world, local, state and the federal government are responsible for promoting the general welfare of the citizens. Beyond that, it is dependent on the democratic decisions of the voters and their representatives. I would do things quite differently than the policies in place now, but in many cases, it would be LESS government, and in some cases, it would be more.

I'm not a liberal, I am a pragmatist, it just so happens that in in slightly more cases than not, the liberals have the right ideas, but where they don't, I support conservative policies. Basically I think making policy decisions from a purely ideological point of view guarantees only that you will be very wrong about the half the time.
 
CaptinSarcastic;1061513777]Quite the opposite, what I show is that taxes are taxes. I can't say what I would I would supported at the time, but if you know my positions at all, you would know that I think SS is a horrible inter-generational wealth transfer that could never stand up to changing demographics. I support a needs based SS program in combination with private accounts. But I don't get a choice, I just pay a tax because I have to. I also happen to pay both sides of the payroll tax equation, though I believe that ultimately so does everyone, they just don't get to see it as clearly part of their compensation as self-employed people do. But my point is, I don't get a choice, it is a tax, it doesn't matter what it funds.
Click to expand...

Of course that is what you show because you have been brainwashed into believing that the govt. deserves all the money regardless of the item the tax was supposed to fund. Taxes aren't just taxes as they were set up for a purpose. I gave you the line items the Federal Income taxes were to fund, and then SS and Medicare were to be funded by FICA. SS and Medicare are obligations and promises made to the people forced to contribute, if that money is used which it has been where do the funds come from to pay those people or do you even care?

You pay into SS because you have to and when you retire you expect an income. There are no such obligations for the other budget items as you simply cut them if you don't have the money to spend just like you do in your personal financial statement.

I am still waiting for you to tell me the percentage of income that a rich person should be allowed to keep and what is their fair share in Federal, State, and Local Taxes?
 
Whipsnade said:
every time you post you showcase your hatred(a feeling of intense dislike; enmity ) for OUR COUNTRIES twice elected President.Its kinda sad really.:(
Click to expand...

Yes, yes. And how did you feel from 2000 to 2008?

The dislike may have a great deal to do with policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom