• 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

upsideguy said:
I agree that is a part of the story; but only a part. Also playing into this is the decline of unions (that would have also acted to keep some companies from off-shoring manufacturing)View attachment 67179244


However, if you simply look at the multiple of CEO pay to average workers and minimum wage workers, you will note that wealth (in this case, income) disparity has widened significantly without even considering the middle class. Moreover, CEO pay has widened vis-a-vis corporate profits, showing CEO's are getting more "pie" than ever (the fat cats are getting fatter)

View attachment 67179243


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...iple-of-workers-skirts-law-as-sec-delays.html
Click to expand...
Unions are corrupt today. IMHO, they are a cyclical thing. If they weren't corrupt and people thought they would actually have it better with them, they would have more of them.
 
upsideguy said:
I agree that is a part of the story; but only a part. Also playing into this is the decline of unions (that would have also acted to keep some companies from off-shoring manufacturing)View attachment 67179244


However, if you simply look at the multiple of CEO pay to average workers and minimum wage workers, you will note that wealth (in this case, income) disparity has widened significantly without even considering the middle class. Moreover, CEO pay has widened vis-a-vis corporate profits, showing CEO's are getting more "pie" than ever (the fat cats are getting fatter)

View attachment 67179243


CEO Pay 1,795-to-1 Multiple of Wages Skirts U.S. Law - Bloomberg
Click to expand...

How many in the middle class join unions?
 
Napoleon said:
The 47% are the 47% because money doesn't trickle-down. The bottom 50% only possess 2% of the nation's wealth.
Click to expand...

LOL, your opinion is noted. So if you cut taxes on those 47% who don't pay any taxes how much in revenue is the govt. going to get
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Private GDP? LOL....we were discussing US GDP, which includes G, if G declined as GDP gains were realized, the gains could not come from a declining contribution.

Please...stop.
Click to expand...

Can't tell if you are being serious. A graph that plots Government spending as a % of GDP has already differentiated between government contribution to GDP and private sector GDP.

You aren't suggesting that Government spending is not counted towards GDP, are you?
 
iguanaman said:
Actually it is the middle class tax cuts that will help the middle class. The tax increases are to pay for them. I guess it is a foreign language to you but some actually think you need to pay for what you spend. We are sorry that we gave the wealthy too many breaks that now need to be re-evaluated. We led you on and for that we are sorry but some of them need to go back. Capital gains need to go back to what Ronald Reagan proposed...I know...the horror.
Click to expand...

Obama can spend all he wants of his money, but when he steals it out of my pocket and yours, that's when I draw the line. I'm also in agreement with you when you apply that same philosophy to those sucking the welfare teat. If you want to suck, you work, whether it's digging a ditch or making beds in a motel. You try to find work, and you work at it, but don't come to me and demand your welfare check when you gave given nothing back to the society that is supporting you.
 
iguanaman said:
I think the problem is that you are too self-serving to be a creditable debater especially when you claim to be well-off. The Govt. has'nt prevented you from becoming wealthy has it? Have you even thought of the possibility that your fictional "less Govt." might have?
Click to expand...

You sound jealous. Does that mean that you didn't work as hard for your fortune, even though you had the same chance as he?
 
haymarket said:
I followed your link:



It does not say that there is a tax on the death of a person. It says that the tax on the estate and inheritance and other taxes that are imposed because of the death.

Why do you insist on being so personally insulting in your replies? Why can't you simply present the information without all the attached slights, attacks and insults that you throw in?

Do you know what a Boston Cream Pie is?
Click to expand...

Oh please hay. I've read your posts for quite some time, so let's not get indignant about tone now that you've been shown your wrong, about a dozen times. They are called DEATH TAXES. The IRS calls them DEATH TAXES. That's what they are. Deal with it.

Move on.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I even quoted you when I posted it, so you have no excuse.
Click to expand...

My sincere apology, I did not open the link to see the St. Louis Fed breakdown, now exactly what is your point. You think govt. spending is the answer? Where does the govt. get that money? If you are truly a big govt. liberal then you live in the wrong country because this country wasn't built on that principle, but rather a small central govt. with a part time legislature and power resting at the state and local level. Do you have any idea as to the true role of the Federal Govt. or your state and local governments?
 
poweRob said:
The conservative bubble is, as cheney put it, "deficits don't matter" but off course they DO matter when the GOP is out of the white house.. . . . .
Click to expand...

Ridiculous, and out of context.

If a person has a couple of credit cards and runs up a little balance on them (debt) that's normal.

If a person has a couple hundred credit cards, maxed out, then gets new cards to pay the payment on the others, that's insane!

The former is what Cheney referred to.
The latter is what the idiot Obama has done.

Wake up man.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
Ridiculous, and out of context.

If a person has a couple of credit cards and runs up a little balance on them (debt) that's normal.

If a person has a couple hundred credit cards, maxed out, then gets new cards to pay the payment on the others, that's insane!

The former is what Cheney referred to.
The latter is what the idiot Obama has done.

Wake up man.
Click to expand...

Context never matters to a liberal and they will continue to ignore that Obama proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget for this year which was rejected so now he is taking credit for reducing the deficit to still record highs which continues to add billions to the debt. Further we have a debt today exceeding our annual GDP which never happened under either Reagan or Bush.

Liberals will trumpet the call for higher taxes on those evil rich people even though it is a drop in the bucket in terms of projected revenue even if the assumptions are true because it punishes producers and makes liberals feel good.
 
Didn't bother to watch the State of the Union address last night but knew that Obama would be taking credit for that which he didn't do or generate results that are out of context but still motivate his liberal base. Found the following as a pretty good analysis of the speech and claims

FACT CHECK: Obama claims credit for an incomplete recovery | Fox News

Isn't it amazing how we have created a record number of jobs according to the media and Obama but the numbers compared to when the recession began tell a different story which only goes to show you can take any moment in time to show the results you want to show when the real issue is why did people vote for Obama in the first place
 
"Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address | Fox News"

What? He can't borrow it fast enough any more?
 
Conservative said:
Didn't bother to watch the State of the Union address last night but knew that Obama would be taking credit for that which he didn't do or generate results that are out of context but still motivate his liberal base. Found the following as a pretty good analysis of the speech and claims

FACT CHECK: Obama claims credit for an incomplete recovery | Fox News

Isn't it amazing how we have created a record number of jobs according to the media and Obama but the numbers compared to when the recession began tell a different story which only goes to show you can take any moment in time to show the results you want to show when the real issue is why did people vote for Obama in the first place
Click to expand...

110% correct!!
 
Conservative said:
LOL, your opinion is noted. So if you cut taxes on those 47% who don't pay any taxes how much in revenue is the govt. going to get
Click to expand...

There is no established link between tax cuts for anyone and increases in government revenue.
 
fmw said:
"Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address | Fox News"

What? He can't borrow it fast enough any more?
Click to expand...

Nope. Borrowing is not an issue.
 
Conservative said:
Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address | Fox News

Let's here it Obama supporters how does taxing the rich benefit the U.S. economy and how much money is going to be generated to fund the liberal spending appetite?

Class warfare is never going to solve the problems we face in this country and what ever happened to incentive to create more upper class individuals? Growing up I always strove to generate enough money to pay for a family that I hoped to have and fund charities that I want to support. My education process taught me the value of hard work and the desire to succeed. What happened to that philosophy in today's world? Why is it the Federal Government's role to tell the private sector where to spend its own money and on what?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't just be on the rich, but with the way that the last few administrations have spent, we probably do need to raise taxes to pay for what we bought.

Should probably quit spending so much too, but forever war ain't cheap.
 
Napoleon said:
There is no established link between tax cuts for anyone and increases in government revenue.
Click to expand...

Another liberal who doesn't understand economic activity and the benefits of people keeping more of what they earn. Tax cuts have only occurred, real tax cuts(not rebates) have only occurred 3 times since the 60's, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush. All three got incredible economic activity and grew govt. revenue. Liberals want to ignore that. If tax cuts were bad how did govt. revenue grow? You think the 17 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers are paying much in FIT?
 
Ikari said:
It shouldn't just be on the rich, but with the way that the last few administrations have spent, we probably do need to raise taxes to pay for what we bought.

Should probably quit spending so much too, but forever war ain't cheap.
Click to expand...

No, what we need to do is what Obama promised, go through the budget line by line cutting out waste, fraud, duplication and prosecuting abuse. The Attack on the WTC cost the Treasury over a trillion dollars, one incident. We paid for it and that is included in the Bush debt
 
Conservative said:
No, what we need to do is what Obama promised, go through the budget line by line cutting out waste, fraud, duplication and prosecuting abuse. The Attack on the WTC cost the Treasury over a trillion dollars, one incident. We paid for it and that is included in the Bush debt
Click to expand...

I did say we should cut spending. We should. But forever war ain't cheap. This form of interventionism we run against our Peoe and other nations, it costs a lot of money.
 
Ikari said:
I did say we should cut spending. We should. But forever war ain't cheap. This form of interventionism we run against our Peoe and other nations, it costs a lot of money.
Click to expand...

Obama proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget for fiscal year 2015, why? Why do we need that big of a govt?
 
Conservative said:
Another liberal who doesn't understand economic activity and the benefits of people keeping more of what they earn. Tax cuts have only occurred, real tax cuts(not rebates) have only occurred 3 times since the 60's, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush. All three got incredible economic activity and grew govt. revenue. Liberals want to ignore that. If tax cuts were bad how did govt. revenue grow? You think the 17 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers are paying much in FIT?
Click to expand...

Regan's income tax cuts were accompanied by hikes in corporate and capital gains tax rates along with several other tax increases and the elimination of some deductions. Of course, back then Repbulicans referred to tax increases as "revenue enhancers" because the increases in government revenue resulted from increasing taxes not from cutting them. The Bush income tax cuts were also accompanied by tax increases and tariffs. There isn't a single real world example of tax cuts resulting in an increase in revenue. I understand how you think the economy works in relation to government revenue but the reality of it is quite different.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Regan's income tax cuts were accompanied by hikes in corporate and capital gains tax rates along with several other tax increases and the elimination of some deductions. Of course, back then Repbulicans referred to tax increases as "revenue enhancers" because the increases in government revenue resulted from increasing taxes not from cutting them. The Bush income tax cuts were also accompanied by tax increases and tariffs. There isn't a single real world example of tax cuts resulting in an increase in revenue.
Click to expand...

As usual you still don't get it, INCOME TAXES WERE CUT FOR ALL AMERICAN INCOME EARNERS and FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE increased 60%. How did that happen? Do you understand that none of the taxes you mentioned had anything to do with individual income taxes?

Guess you better tell that to the U.S. Treasury which is the bank account of the United States because INCOME TAX REVENUE grew 60% during the Reagan term

I will never understand people like you. Is it ignorance or what that causes you to ignore the actual data and facts?

By the way, how old were you when Reagan was President? Do you have any idea why Reagan agreed to raise those taxes that you mentioned? Think about it, do some research and get back to me? What did the Democrats that Controlled the House offer?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom