• 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!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

Dated a ginger nurse once. Freak in bed... no idea if it was the ginger, or the nurse though :2dancing:

I married a nurse. I lean towards the nurse. ;)
 
Beware claims of common knowledge when it involves a judgement. You wrongly assume that the judgement of the action is unchallenged, meaning only your spin is acceptable. Like I said earlier, garbage in equals garbage out.

seiu's exemption from the cadillac tax is not a judgement

it's a link, ie, common knowledge

you need to up your game, for the good of your neighbors if not yourself
 
Save the starving billionaires!
 
Without tax cuts? Less. If we were responsble wnough to make sure we could pay for what we spend, which we do with taxes, the deficit would be less.

;)

How about spending less?
 
How about spending less?

If you have really been reading, I argue for cutting spending and raising taxes. That, if the deficit really matters to you, should be what you call for as well. Anything less simply won't do the job.
 
seiu's exemption from the cadillac tax is not a judgement

it's a link, ie, common knowledge

you need to up your game, for the good of your neighbors if not yourself

Then you link it. Don't rely on the claim of common knowledge. And let's keep in mind, a jdgement is the same as a fact. So, you may link someone making that judgment (opinion), but that would not be the same or equal to an objective fact.
 
post 468

it's the law

you talk too much
 
To support J's claim he has to actually provide evidence.
So... in order to support the Obama administrations claim that the CofC uses foreign money to finance campaign ads (a violation of the FEC rules), the administration has to actually provide evidence. I'm glad we finally agree on something.

Or, is it only people who disagree with you that need to back up their claims, while the people who agree with you need not be held to that simple standard?
 
Again, you misread. That it is discrimination, improper discrmination is a judgment. Not fact. Opinion.

whatever little points you're focusing on now, the seiu received a very plum exemption most of its neighbors did not

endless kneejerk argumentation over minutiae is demeaning

ie, you talk too much
 
So... in order to support the Obama administrations claim that the CofC uses foreign money to finance campaign ads (a violation of the FEC rules), the administration has to actually provide evidence. I'm glad we finally agree on something.

Or, is it only people who disagree with you that need to back up their claims, while the people who agree with you need not be held to that simple standard?

Yes, they do. I've said nothing else. And j has to support his claims as well.
 
whatever little points you're focusing on now, the seiu received a very plum exemption most of its neighbors did not

endless kneejerk argumentation over minutiae is demeaning

ie, you talk too much

No, unsupported judgments are demenaing. The truth is it was part of a negotiation and isn't forever. When you use sources that leap to judgements without honestly assessing the situation, you reach a wrong conclusion. Let me help:

Significantly, it exempts insurance plans that were part of state and local collective bargaining agreements – union members – until January 1, 2018. They call this a “transition period” in which unions and re-adjust the way they’ve negotiated wages and health insurance in agreements with employers.

Unions Win Key Concessions in Health Care Negotiations - Political Punch

A lot of people were at the table during this, perhaps too many, including insurance companies.
 
exemptions til 2018 are transition periods, not exemptions

LOL!
 
it's MOOT, mindlessly and demeaningly so

it's a distinction only seen by the microscopic mind

and its impetus, transparently, is the pettiest and most self absorbed need to be right, personally, about essentially nothing

i've seen it from certain sources now a thousand times and, despite its good natured affability, it's stomach turning

carry on
 
it's MOOT, mindlessly and demeaningly so

it's a distinction only seen by the microscopic mind

and its impetus, transparently, is the pettiest and most self absorbed need to be right, personally, about essentially nothing

i've seen it from certain sources now a thousand times and, despite its good natured affability, it's stomach turning

carry on

So, factually, you have nothing, so this is your response. Gotcha. :neener :lamo
 
If you have really been reading, I argue for cutting spending and raising taxes. That, if the deficit really matters to you, should be what you call for as well. Anything less simply won't do the job.

I'm completely for an ACROSS THE BOARD temporary tax increase whose revenue goes specifically to paying down the debt as long as it is directly tied to across the board spending cuts. If the cuts don't happen, or if "emergency spending" makes the cuts worthless, then the tax goes away and money taken is returned.

As I've said elsewhere, I think we should put forward a national 2% sales tax on all non-store bought food or medicine whose revenue is used SOLELY for paying down the debt. It should be tied to a reduction in the budget. Namely that the budget should be adjusted yearly for inflation and then reduced by 3 to 5%. As long as the budget is adhered to and no additional emergency spending occurs then the following year the 2% sales tax remains. If the govenrment fails to reduce the budget or stay under budget then the following year the 2% sales tax goes away and can not return until the Government has been on budget for a full year.

Once the debt is completely paid off the tax would automatically be removed from the books, with a caveat that it can NOT be extended. If politicians want to try to keep the tax they'd have to pass a whole new law. If the government refuses to keep reducing the budget for three straight yeasr then the tax would also expire.

A sales tax such as that would affect "the rich" more while still having an impact on ALL americans so we ALL carry and share the burden and thus are mindful of it. The reduction being tied to the tax makes it so that if the politicians can't sacrifice on their end then they can't force the country to either.
 
If you have really been reading, I argue for cutting spending and raising taxes. That, if the deficit really matters to you, should be what you call for as well. Anything less simply won't do the job.

And the simple question would be how much of a tax increase? On whom? and for how long?


j-mac
 
And the simple question would be how much of a tax increase? On whom? and for how long?


j-mac
Boo wants the rich to pay more taxes not people like him

its the mentality that allows ultra rich dems to gain office

people like Boo need to get walloped with tax increases before the rich do-the rich already pay the price for an overly-expansive government
 
I have found no evidence to support that business doesn't hire due to tax cuts. I can find no objective evidence, and no one has offered any, that shows taxes make any noticable difference in hiring or economic growth. As I pointed oout long ago, history shows a florishing economy with a high tax base and with a low tax base and a struggling economy with a high tax base and with a low tax base. This suggests that taxes really don't play that large a role. Other factors, like consumer spending, are far more important.
1976 to 1988 ought to be enough.

.
 
Back
Top Bottom