• 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!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

The government can't create weath, nor jobs.

:agree: You would think that in their quest for ever-more revenue, though, they might have figured out by now that overly draconian regulations on business does tend to put people out of work when those businesses go under, or leave for more equitable treatment elsewhere in the world. :sigh: I like clean air and water as much as anyone else, but c'mon...the trend is not looking good for the jobless...

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:
 
Yup.:peace

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

National Taxpayers UnionTax Basics
... Who Pays Income Taxes? Are You Paying Too Much in Taxes? Taxes ... Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid. Top 1%. $343,927. 36.73. Top 5%.

[h=2]Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?[/h]
Tax Year 2009
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%​
$343,927​
36.73​
Top 5%​
$154,643​
58.66​
Top 10%​
$112,124​
70.47​
Top 25%​
$66,193​
87.30​
Top 50%​
$32,396​
97.75​
Bottom 50%​
<$32,396​
2.25​
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service


Individually the rich are paying far less than they would have paid before the Bush tax cuts. Also, your deceptive report doesn't account for tax shelters which are available to people like Mitt Romney, but not to people like me. Just saying.
 
Individually the rich are paying far less than they would have paid before the Bush tax cuts. Also, your deceptive report doesn't account for tax shelters which are available to people like Mitt Romney, but not to people like me. Just saying.

And yet the top 10% of earners pay more than 70% of all federal income taxes. Looks pretty progressive to me.:peace
 
The government can't create weath, nor jobs.

Are you telling me, the space program, the military industrial complex, the internet didn't create any jobs or wealth? LMMFAO
 
Which doesn't address his post..
And yet the top 10% of earners pay more than 70% of all federal income taxes.
As you would say, address his post, Jack, or withdraw..
 
I think the fact that Obamacare has been such a failure... that it was not, and probably will not ever be, ready for prime time and that was precisely [ as well as in general the imprudence of the damn thing ] what those in the conservative tea parties wing of the Republican party were trying to emphasize, highlight, to warn and rail against... and that when it comes to a real down-the-line accounting, who was for, who was against and who was truly confrontationally against this super clunker, people will finally understand whose hearts were in the proper place.

Folks like McCain have marginalized themselves... they are just the buffers which the other team uses to pass these things on to the American people... we needed someone to stand up finally, to say, "STOP!!!" ...to risk a little, to draw a REAL line in the sand... to actually start the battle...not just appease.

Nobody will be allowed to go long believing the Republicans' hearts were in the right place when most their ideology and almost all their policy runs contrary to the interests of the vast majority of struggling Americans. Their power lasts as long as they can keep gerrymandering, conning, capitalizing on Democrat mistakes, and just generally stalling things out as long as they can.
 
Last edited:
The technology developed by the space program and the military industrial complex is why we are such an advanced Nation, for better or worse..
Are you telling me, the space program,
the military industrial complex, the internet didn't create any jobs or wealth? LMMFAO
People who act like there is no partnership between the private sector and the military
haven't noticed the GOP House of NO spend more on the DoD than what the Joint Chiefs ask for .
 
Are you telling me, the space program, the military industrial complex, the internet didn't create any jobs or wealth? LMMFAO

Those jobs were created by private companies, not the government.
 
Then let's get back to slavery.

Obamacare is unconstitutional even if tyrants from all three branches of government approved it. Voters never voted for an amendment that would allow such a monstrous thing to happen as did happen. You are mistaken.

If we are not going to follow the constitutional limits let's just declare that we are no longer a Constitutional Republic and let the revolution begin.

The list of "unconstitutional" overreach here in the USA is long. Most of it approved by SCOTUS long before Obama was a sprouting seed in his mamma's uterus.

In my mind ninety percent of the guns laws, like thoes which ban felons from possessing weapons, are like that. So too are all the infringements on protections against search and siezure. We now have Habeas Corpus requirements denied by SCOTUS. And, in some ways, even the Constitutional protection against the Quartering of Soldiers has been ignored as no Knock Warrants which give agents of the government the Right to enter your home uninvited to arrest you and set up temporary base there as they build a case against you.

Obamacare is the least egregious of any of those gvt overreaches I listed, but yet few "Conservatives" ever rail against those infringements. So...excuse me for calling out their hypocrisy.
 
Okay, let's say "tax". I think it's wrong for the government to tax money from one person and give it to someone else. Do you disagree with this opinion?

All tax is collection from one person and then the government uses it for various services.
 
So you're OK with the income redistribution concept but prefer to call taxation, for that purpose, "taking by force of law"?

When people voluntarily join with others in a group endeavor they automatically agree to give up some of their wants and needs and autonomy for the benefits of the group. Your membership and participation is purely voluntary and you can change that at any time you may wish.
 
I suggest you review the data. The GWB tax cuts made the federal income tax more progressive.

[h=3]Tax Code Became More Progressive after the Bush Tax Cuts[/h]www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba606.pdf‎
Tax Code Became More. Progressive after the Bush Tax Cuts by Michael D. Stroup. Critics complain that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts gave the greatest tax ...:peace
Okay, your link is deceptive. You've already said the Bush tax cuts eliminated tax payers. whenever you eliminate tax payers, even just a few, the percentage of taxes paid by a group is going to rise. It's mathematical, even if no tax cuts were given but tax payers are eliminated you would get the rise. The top 1% of tax payers contained more people before the tax cuts than were in top 1% after the tax cut. This is because you are breaking into groups using percentages not numbers of people. You can bet the top 100 earners paid less in taxes after the Bush tax cuts than they did before.

There is an saying: "Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Do Figure" :peace
 
Okay, your link is deceptive. You've already said the Bush tax cuts eliminated tax payers. whenever you eliminate tax payers, even just a few, the percentage of taxes paid by a group is going to rise. It's mathematical, even if no tax cuts were given but tax payers are eliminated you would get the rise. The top 1% of tax payers contained more people before the tax cuts than were in top 1% after the tax cut. This is because you are breaking into groups using percentages not numbers of people. You can bet the top 100 earners paid less in taxes after the Bush tax cuts than they did before.

There is an saying: "Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Do Figure" :peace

Of course they paid less. It was a tax cut. But they did not escape their income tax obligation, whereas many at the bottom were relieved of their burden, thereby making the tax code more progressive.:peace
 
When people voluntarily join with others in a group endeavor they automatically agree to give up some of their wants and needs and autonomy for the benefits of the group. Your membership and participation is purely voluntary and you can change that at any time you may wish.
I wish the people who are so virulently against the social contract would leave for greener pastures to Mongolia, Somalia, Bermuda and Chile.
 
All tax is collection from one person and then the government uses it for various services.

Agreed. I just don't agree that it is right for the government to simply hand out tax revenues to individuals. It seems too similar to ought right theft.
 
Agreed. I just don't agree that it is right for the government to simply hand out tax revenues to individuals. It seems too similar to ought right theft.

Your phrase "simply hand out tax revenues" implies that a person does not deserve those revenues and has not earned them. That is not the case with Social Security. Not only is that not robbery but it is not what you describe either.

Or don't you believe in both parties honoring their commitments to each other?
 
Are you telling me, the space program, the military industrial complex, the internet didn't create any jobs or wealth? LMMFAO

Of course they didn't. You seem to be confused between the government paying people with taxpayers dollars and companies creating jobs without taxpayer dollars.

If jobs was all there is to it then the government could hire 20 million people today and there would be full employment. You reckon that would work?
 
That is not the case with Social Security. Not only is that not robbery but it is not what you describe either.
Actually it is precisely the case with Social Security and Medicare too. People who succumb to the "sunk cost fallacy" engage in mental backflips to justify continuing to pay into Social Security.
 
Of course they paid less. It was a tax cut. But they did not escape their income tax obligation, whereas many at the bottom were relieved of their burden, thereby making the tax code more progressive.:peace
Sorry, you can only count the people who are paying taxes. According to your definition, if a city was wiped out by H-bomb that would be a progressive tax cut. :peace
 
Actually it is precisely the case with Social Security and Medicare too. People who succumb to the "sunk cost fallacy" engage in mental backflips to justify continuing to pay into Social Security.

It is not at all the case with Social Security as people enter into a commitment with the government and pay a certain amount set by the government for over forty years and in return receive an amount back based on their pay in.
 
Back
Top Bottom