• 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!

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

SlevinKelevra said:
uh, it exactly proves my point
Click to expand...

Insofar as you had a point, no, it didn't prove it.

A change in the Government spending as a % of GDP doesn't prove or disprove any cause and effect of that spending on GDP.

In fact, if, for example, Government spending resulted in an ROI of 50%, then the % of GDP would drop while Government spending increased. But if the government was shoveling that same cash into dead end projects like Solyndra and the private sector was in an oil boom you would get the same curve. Which scenario is your curve demonstrating? It doesn't say and I dare to venture a guess that you have no idea.
 
ocean515 said:
The percentage of Americans who meet their DEATH each year and are subject to the DEATH TAX is in direct correlation to the number of Estates to which the DEATH TAX applies.
Click to expand...

And what would that be?
 
jmotivator said:
A change in the Government spending as a % of GDP doesn't prove or disprove any cause and effect of that spending on GDP.
Click to expand...
It looked like con argued that the rise in GDP was a result of fed spending, you seem to be arguing against con.
 
jmotivator said:
Insofar as you had a point, no, it didn't prove it.

A change in the Government spending as a % of GDP doesn't prove or disprove any cause and effect of that spending on GDP.

In fact, if, for example, Government spending resulted in an ROI of 50%, then the % of GDP would drop while Government spending increased. But if the government was shoveling that same cash into dead end projects like Solyndra and the private sector was in an oil boom you would get the same curve. Which scenario is your curve demonstrating? It doesn't say and I dare to venture a guess that you have no idea.
Click to expand...


his point was not about multipliers or ROI.

his point was that the GDP increased ("much") due to an increase in the "G" component in the equation that defines GDP. Which is of course completely at odds with what the data I provided show.
 
NIMBY said:
More like tax revenues being REPLENISHED, after extremely unwise tax cuts since 1983.

I can only repeat former Senate Majority Leader Dole, who led the implementation of these tax cuts, along with Sen. Simpson of Simpson/Bowles fame.

The both called these tax cuts the very worst thing they did in their careers, after retiring of course .
Click to expand...

LOL, more money needed by the Congress and this Administration, what a surprise? What isn't a surprise is how naïve and gullible you are when it comes to liberal rhetoric and failed promises. How much is enough for you? Imagine that a politicians not supporting the taxpayers keeping more of what they earn. Who gets hurt by you keeping more of what you earn, your family?

What bothers me is the continued brainwashed statements by people like you who have no problem with the way Congress and the President spends our money so rather than correct the problem you want to throw more money at it. Brilliant liberal economics, feed the bear and hope he won't eat you
 
Then you disagree with Dole and Simpson in retirement !?

Conservative said:
LOL, more money needed by the Congress and this Administration, what a surprise? What isn't a surprise is how naïve and gullible you are when it comes to liberal rhetoric and failed promises. How much is enough for you? Imagine that a politicians not supporting the taxpayers keeping more of what they earn. Who gets hurt by you keeping more of what you earn, your family?

What bothers me is the continued brainwashed statements by people like you who have no problem with the way Congress and the President spends our money so rather than correct the problem you want to throw more money at it. Brilliant liberal economics, feed the bear and hope he won't eat you
Click to expand...
 
You ask the question "how much is enough for the federal government"?
Look inward and ask the same question about multi-millionaires through multi-billionaires.

Consider the efforts of Rockefeller and Carnegie with respect to making the National Parks and Libraries as great as they are.
As we continue through our second Gilded Age, when do you think the next Great Depression will occur, dwarfing the first one ?

Conservative said:
LOL, more money needed by the Congress and this Administration, what a surprise? What isn't a surprise is how naïve and gullible you are when it comes to liberal rhetoric and failed promises. How much is enough for you? Imagine that a politicians not supporting the taxpayers keeping more of what they earn. Who gets hurt by you keeping more of what you earn, your family?

What bothers me is the continued brainwashed statements by people like you who have no problem with the way Congress and the President spends our money so rather than correct the problem you want to throw more money at it. Brilliant liberal economics, feed the bear and hope he won't eat you
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Then you disagree with Dole and Simpson in retirement !?
Click to expand...

Of course I disagree with anyone especially politicians who believe that people keeping more of what they earn is bad and that is an expense to the govt. What accounting class did you take that makes that kind of claim?

Now I am waiting for you to explain how some rich person prevented you from joining them? If you are rich why aren't you sending more of your income to the Federal Govt. as they do take donations.
 
NIMBY said:
You ask the question "how much is enough for the federal government"?
Look inward and ask the same question about multi-millionaires through multi-billionaires.

Consider the efforts of Rockefeller and Carnegie with respect to making the National Parks and Libraries as great as they are.
As we continue through our second Gilded Age, when do you think the next Great Depression will occur, dwarfing the first one ?
Click to expand...

See, you ask what all socialists ask, how much is enough? Why do you care? How does any rich person hurt you or your family?

With the attitude you and other liberals have there is no question that the next Great Depression will hurt you and those like you a lot more than the top 1%
 
ocean515 said:
The numbers are all available. I'm just curious where your denial is going to take this.
Click to expand...

apparently they are not available to you.

About 2.4 million Americans die each year.

Roughly 33,500 estates filed returns in 2009 but fewer than half—only 14,700—of those estates had to pay any estate tax at all. Estate tax liability totaled $20.6 billion.
Click to expand...

If you do the math, that comes out to 0.006125% of the Americans who died paid the estate tax.

But you and the radical right wants to call a tax which DOES NOT APPLY to 99.99% of the Americans who died as a death tax because an infinitesimal amount of those who died paid it!!!!!!!

That might work in Wonderland using Mad Hatter logic but fails utterly in the real world.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
apparently they are not available to you.

About 2.4 million Americans die each year.
Click to expand...

Of course they are available to me. Just as they are available to you. My condolences to the loved ones of the 2.4 million. Thanks for the opportunity to express that.
 
Conservative said:
Love proud liberals because they show why I could never be a liberal as
I have much higher expectations than adding 7.6 trillion to the debt,
Click to expand...
How much of that added debt was due to interest on the previous total accumulated debt?
Why did the GOP and TEA party walk away from Sen. Coburn's Back-in-Black plan, not to mention sabotaging the Grand Bargain?
I'm sure you agree we'd have a balanced budget by now without those 2 GOP/TEAs holding Boehner back.
having one million more people employed than 7 years ago when the recession began,
Click to expand...
How does that number compare to the highest level of unemployment, at 10.4%?
much of the GDP growth due to govt. spending
Click to expand...
Which the GOP is now taking credit for.
record numbers of discouraged workers during his term
Click to expand...
A direct effect from your party's Great recession.
Gruber sure nailed it in describing the liberal electorate and you appear to have very low expectations.
Click to expand...
Still the lame Gruber insult.
Sorry I just don't see a lot to be proud of
Click to expand...
Until a GOP is President with the same or lower numbers .
 
Conservative said:
See, you ask what all socialists ask, how much is enough? Why do you care? How does any rich person hurt you or your family?

With the attitude you and other liberals have there is no question that the next Great Depression will hurt you and those like you a lot more than the top 1%
Click to expand...

So now I'm a Socialist and a Liberal.

I have to get ready to coach a wrestling meet this evening--a most conservative community of coaches and parents.
Think Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio.

I'll catch up with you later after the SOTU and the GOP spinsters .
 
ocean515 said:
Of course they are available to me. Just as they are available to you. My condolences to the loved ones of the 2.4 million. Thanks for the opportunity to express that.
Click to expand...

About 2.4 million Americans die each year.

Roughly 33,500 estates filed returns in 2009 but fewer than half—only 14,700—of those estates had to pay any estate tax at all. Estate tax liability totaled $20.6 billion.
Click to expand...

If you do the math, that comes out to 0.006125% of the Americans who died paid the estate tax.

But you and the radical right wants to call a tax which DOES NOT APPLY to 99.99% of the Americans who died as a death tax because an infinitesimal amount of those who died paid it!!!!!!!

That might work in Wonderland using Mad Hatter logic but fails utterly in the real world.
 
Conservative said:
Of course I disagree with anyone especially politicians who believe that people keeping more of what they earn is bad and that is an expense to the govt. What accounting class did you take that makes that kind of claim?

Now I am waiting for you to explain how some rich person prevented you from joining them? If you are rich why aren't you sending more of your income to the Federal Govt. as they do take donations.
Click to expand...

As soon as all folks are required to do as you are advising me to do, I'm game.

And just know that I'm for means-testing of all public pensions, not a very popular position in my circles.
Again, until all one million retirees in Illinois don't get COLA for a few years, we don't save billions which are being cut from education right now.

Why are you against closing tax loopholes for yourself, the rich ?
 
And now we have a third GOP response to Obama, Rand Paul.
McConnell made a deal with him and simply just can't say no.

Too bad the DEMs don't have the balls to respond to the GOP responses .
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It looked like con argued that the rise in GDP was a result of fed spending, you seem to be arguing against con.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing for or against either side. I am pointing out that a graph of government spending as a % of GDP doesn't prove or disprove either side of that argument.
 
haymarket said:
About 2.4 million Americans die each year.



If you do the math, that comes out to 0.006125% of the Americans who died paid the estate tax.

But you and the radical right wants to call a tax which DOES NOT APPLY to 99.99% of the Americans who died as a death tax because an infinitesimal amount of those who died paid it!!!!!!!

That might work in Wonderland using Mad Hatter logic but fails utterly in the real world.
Click to expand...

Congratulations! :2dancing:

You took responsibility for yourself, and obtained the information you were seeking.

Given the number, doesn't it embarrass you a bit that the left is so over the top obsessed with the issue? And since when did the number of people involved have any impact on the proper naming of something? "Gee, only .006125% of people are involved, so we can't call something what it is. If the number was like .008125%, we might be able to do that...." Too funny.

Considering the fact that DEATH TAXES impact very few people, and for the most part, proper estate planning avoids most tax consequences, all that is left is a shiny object surrounded by an appeal to greed and envy that is being dangled by the President and the people pulling your strings.

It's rather glorious to see such extreme effort being applied to something that can't be denied, just because it apparently strikes a nerve or something else that I can't understand.
 
jmotivator said:
I am not arguing for or against either side. I am pointing out that a graph of government spending as a % of GDP doesn't prove or disprove either side of that argument.
Click to expand...
But....the fact is.....Con is wrong, GDP gain was not "mostly govt spending"..whether or not you believe the graph showed it or not (and it did, gdp gains happened in spite of flattening govt spending).

Move on, your "point" is lost.
 
ocean515 said:
Congratulations! :2dancing:

You took responsibility for yourself, and obtained the information you were seeking.
Click to expand...

Which proved you wrong. Sorry I took so long getting back but I had myself a nice warm slice of cinnamon pie.

Here is the recipe

Ingredients

Pastry

2 cups Gold Medal™ all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon salt
2/3 cup plus 2 tablespoons shortening
4 to 6 tablespoons cold water

Filling

1/3 to 1/2 cup sugar
1/4 cup Gold Medal™ all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1/8 teaspoon salt
8 cups thinly sliced peeled tart apples (8 medium)
2 tablespoons butter or margarine
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Which proved you wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh no. Not at all. You're obsession doesn't give you the right to pull things out of your rear and make some claim. All you have done by making the effort is to prove how absurd the left's obsession is with the issue itself, and with the almost maniacal rejection of the accurate phrase, DEATH TAXES.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom