• 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 will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

Jetboogieman said:
How the hell is that so?

That is by far actually dumber then suggesting he's a muslim from Kenya because that statement is so off the charts idiotic as it is untrue.

Class Warfare?

Just because he wants to raise taxes on people that are already rich... and not even by a massively substancial amount...

Yep Class Warfare at it's worse...
Click to expand...

It's been said many times that if you continue to take money from "the rich" sooner or later the rich will run out of money. Or they will just leave the country, as many are doing, in order that they remain rich. What then?

If people worked hard all their lives they should enjoy the rewards, rather than give it to a government who is wasting trillions of dollars, never created any wealth whatsoever, and who can't even balance a budget.

It is no more right that political leaders attack the rich than they should attack the poor. BHO is pitting one class against another, and that is clear.

The United States at one time had a huge middle class, and it is shrinking. But that is due to government spending and taxation policies rather than "fat cat" "rich" people getting an unfair share.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Spending indeed needs to be cut, but short of totally bringing all through troops home and allowing unemployment benefits to end there is no way to reduce spending significantly.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem you've looked into this spedning thing too closely, Tlmorg02. The pork barrel alone is huge.
 
Thread: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy
Click to expand...

Someone who leaves an estate of $1.5 million is not wealthy. The estate of someone leaving $1.5 million is going to be taxed somewhere around 25%...on money they've already paid tax on. It's nothing more than confiscation of wealth.
 
Grant said:
A good idea, perhaps. Or that a budget cannot be exceeded without the consent of the governed.
Click to expand...

Where would the limit be then? What if it were left to the governed to fund a war? Would we stop fighting because the people lost the will to pay for unpleasant necessities?
 
tlmorg02 said:
Where would the limit be then? What if it were left to the governed to fund a war? Would we stop fighting because the people lost the will to pay for unpleasant necessities?
Click to expand...

Yes, if the people want to stop a war, they can stop it's funding if it goes over budget. Of course they must understand they'll have to live with the consequences.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Where would the limit be then? What if it were left to the governed to fund a war? Would we stop fighting because the people lost the will to pay for unpleasant necessities?
Click to expand...

we did during vietnam
 
Another unintended consequence by the Obama administration besides becoming dependent on Canada for their oil (and we appreciate it!) is that Canadian doctors who were working in the States are now returning to Canada. Doctors apparently are "rich" there too and they don't care for "Obamacare".

DOCTOR DRAIN TURNS TO GAIN

As well, because of the "tax the rich" policies, and Canada's lower corporate tax rate, we are beginning to welcome many more American companies and entrepreneurs.

Of course all of this is good for Canada, and other countries no doubt, but I feel to see how this can be good for the American people.
 
phattonez said:
If that's true then why do you pay your waiter, or your chef, or the guy who parks your car? Hmm, those services must be worth something then.
Click to expand...

China: "Uncle Sam, your banker will see you now."
 
tlmorg02 said:
Spending indeed needs to be cut, but short of totally bringing all through troops home and allowing unemployment benefits to end there is no way to reduce spending significantly.
Click to expand...

I can think of a few examples: end foreign aid, significantly cut welfare benefits, end farm subsidies, etc. Social security and welfare are huge parts of the budget. Stop spending so much there and you're on your way. Look at this list of government agencies and departments, how many do you see that you would just completely eliminate?

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (A): USA.gov
 
phattonez said:
I can think of a few examples: end foreign aid, significantly cut welfare benefits, end farm subsidies, etc. Social security and welfare are huge parts of the budget. Stop spending so much there and you're on your way. Look at this list of government agencies and departments, how many do you see that you would just completely eliminate?

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (A): USA.gov
Click to expand...

Social security should not be touched and if it were never used for other things it would be fine now. As to the rest of the list, I would cut 90%, there are many I think are necessary, but most are uneeded.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Social security should not be touched and if it were never used for other things it would be fine now.
Click to expand...

Except we can't trust the government to do that, so we should get rid of it and let people save money for themselves.
 
phattonez said:
Except we can't trust the government to do that, so we should get rid of it and let people save money for themselves.
Click to expand...

except for the fact that most people are too stupid to save that money for themselves, therefore the liberals will never allow us to get rid of SS.


I hate SS. I have been paying into the system for nearly 30 years and I will likely never see a ****ing dime of my money back because the govt will deem that due to my own efforts to have a career that provides a decent retirement, I will make too much money in retirement to get SS.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
Except we can't trust the government to do that, so we should get rid of it and let people save money for themselves.
Click to expand...

If people save it for themselves we will have many homeless people in old age.
 
tlmorg02 said:
If people save it for themselves we will have many homeless people in old age.
Click to expand...

not really, what will cause many homeless people in old age is the fact that they won't save it. instead they will spend it on beer, cigs, tattoos, boobjobs, new cars, etc.
 
tlmorg02 said:
If people save it for themselves we will have many homeless people in old age.
Click to expand...

Of their own accord? Then let them rely on charity if they make the stupid decision to not save enough money for retirement.
 
phattonez said:
Of their own accord? Then let them rely on charity if they make the stupid decision to not save enough money for retirement.
Click to expand...

You could do that, but it will cause much chaos and instability in the country.
 
tlmorg02 said:
You could do that, but it will cause much chaos and instability in the country.
Click to expand...

that's what ohbummacare's death panels are for. too stupid to save for retirement...off with your head.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Do you really believe the death panel stuff?
Click to expand...

wouldn't know...like all the congressmen who voted for obamacare...I didn't read the bill :lol:
 
tlmorg02 said:
You could do that, but it will cause much chaos and instability in the country.
Click to expand...

Phase it out gradually. I never said just take it away all at once. Pay off the people who have paid into it and end it for anyone who has not currently paid into it.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Do you really believe the death panel stuff?
Click to expand...

It's a little hyperbolic, but artificially lowering the cost of care means care has to be rationed by some other method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom