• 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

All I am saying that it would make sense to do this thing as a package. This will insure that there is some balance. Also we do not know what exactly this committee will recommend. For all I know they will say that there should be another level of taxes for people over $5 million at a 60% rate. Ot they recommend a VAT tax, etc.

A VAT is what the early predictions are, and that would be destructive at this point here as well. People don't have the money to buy things now, and this top loaded committee hand picked by Obama is going to possibly make things worse.

As for a 60% tax rate on the rich, what do you think that would do to where they invest their money? Think they would keep it here, or take it off shore to lower tax havens?


So we are two months from the date the president set for these folks to report out. We do not even have a budget for 2010-2011 yet.

We didn't have a budget for last year either because the demo's didn't want to show what we now know was yet another 1.3 TRILLION dollar spending spree.

I would like to see the comittee's recommendations voted like the base closings staight up or down. The process gets screwed up by changing tax policy before the vote.

Before we make the tax code more complicated, why not scrap the entire thing and make it easier.

j-mac
 
Now follow along here....If taxes on the top say 10% of income earners are what you say drives the economy in this country, and you want to raise their rates, heck I've seen credible liberals say to 90% or higher, then how is it that 47% of people not paying anything is acceptable to you? Shouldn't everyone pay?
No! Remember it was President Bush who was responsible for taking many of those tax payers (millions) off the tax rolls.



First you have to understand what you are talking about. That highly leveraged paper as you call it, was in response to liberals putting the CRA on steroids then threatening regulators in congress for ringing the warning bell about Fannie, and Freddie. Remember this?
That a right wing myth. The CRA involved only community (Hence its name) banks and didn't require them to take risks, only lower interest rates. You can't blame this mess on low income people, that's stubidity.




Now you can argue that it is all the banks fault, and I would say that an era of abandon did rule in the 90s and early to mid 2000s, but it wasn't without politicians, mostly liberal, egging them on so that they could have their vision of everyone owning a house, forget that they couldn't afford the house they wanted. Now you want to turn and blame the banks for developing a way to hedge their losses that they knew was going to be a result of this unbridled buying? That is really jaw dropping.
President Bush Oct 12, 2002:
790 KABC: 2002 President Bush Speech Offering Road to Home Ownership


Look, you probably don't even realize that it is your money, and my money through savings that makes up the lion share of the capital needed for banks to make loans. That worthless paper as you put it allows banks to lend the money needed to buy things. But you seem to just want big daddy government to take care of everyone. Tell me, where will the government get the money as the rich flee?

Your kidding right? The rich own a vast portion of the wealth in the country, why would the flee?
 
No! Remember it was President Bush who was responsible for taking many of those tax payers (millions) off the tax rolls.




That a right wing myth. The CRA involved only community (Hence its name) banks and didn't require them to take risks, only lower interest rates. You can't blame this mess on low income people, that's stubidity.





President Bush Oct 12, 2002:
790 KABC: 2002 President Bush Speech Offering Road to Home Ownership




Your kidding right? The rich own a vast portion of the wealth in the country, why would the flee?

because they can still own all that and not be subjected to parasitic tax policies

why should they stay when there are so many people who think as you having so many votes?
 
because they can still own all that and not be subjected to parasitic tax policies

why should they stay when there are so many people who think as you having so many votes?
The U.S. has close to the lowest tax rates in the world, hardly parasitic.
 
Explain what? Agian, you did not give historical information or factual information, but instead said if they SAY this, it must be so.



Investment analyst Linda Traynham in her opinion writes:

Again, opinion. Where's the evidence to support the opinion?



This only states that the argument has gained traction. Again, no factual evidence to support that it effects the economy.




:rolleyes: I know asking for factual evidence means you place people in boxes. So, don't let anything stop you. But, you have not given factual information.





If you look, there's even a thread on one such study.

Tax breaks aren't a good way to create jobs.

That's the central point of a study released this week by the backers of Proposition 24, a state ballot initiative that would roll back three business tax breaks approved by the Legislature in 2008 and 2009.

Study: Tax breaks hurt, don't help - DailyBulletin.com

(1) In a 2002 article in the National Tax Journal by William Gale and Samara Potter concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced the size of the economy. As we have stressed in these posts, the distinction between debt-financed and budget-neutral tax cuts is crucial:


Our results do not show that reductions in tax rates have no effect, or negative effects on economic behavior. Rather, the improved incentives--analyzed in isolation--unambiguously increase economic activity, by raising labor supply, human capital, and private saving. Indeed, these factors raise the size of the economy by almost 1 percent. But [the 2001 tax cut] is a set of incentives-- financed by a reduction in public saving. The key point for understanding the growth effects is that the tax-induced increase in private saving is a only a small faction of the decline in public saving, so that [overall] national saving falls substantially. The decline in national saving reduces the capital stock, even after adjusting for international capital flows, by sufficient amounts to reduce GDP and GNP.

tax.com: Tax Cuts Kill Jobs, Part 2

Similarly, a series of tax cuts in 2003 fell far short of targeted job growth. The Bush administration claimed the tax cuts would create 1.4 million jobs, in addition to some 4.1 million jobs expected to be generated over an 18-month period. But EPI tracked the initiative and found that not only did the additional 1.4 million jobs not appear, but the 4.1 million jobs that had been expected without the tax cuts never materialized either. By the end, the economy only saw an additional 2.4 million jobs added to the economy.

Tax cuts won’t create jobs

From your article:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest “bang for the buck,” because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.

News Headlines

Research and Ideas for Shared Prosperity...I'm sure there's no bias there at all. Socialist garbage in, socialist garbage out.
 
No! Remember it was President Bush who was responsible for taking many of those tax payers (millions) off the tax rolls.

Mr. Brauer you are making the same mistake the Obama administration makes. In terms of attempting to turn everything into political stew, you ask those of us in here, of which I believe can rub two brain cells together, to suspend disbelief, and pay no attention to our own lying eyes.

I agree, and I am sure that most of America would agree that in the years of 2000 to 2008 the Repubs became enamored with big government, and spending policies that could only be described as 'liberal like' in their scope.

We (repubs) drank the kool aid that the libs were pushing. Remember the time, I do. Liberals were telling repubs that they needed to be more like them if they wanted to hold on to power. Meanwhile we ignored the voters in 2006, and continued down that liberal path, then the crash in housing came something that I even posted a hearing about that you ignored completely to continue your line, and we paid for being liberal lite at the polls in '08.

Now you want to blame the entire thing on repubs and rewrite history. Bull****!



Watch it this time.


That a right wing myth. The CRA involved only community (Hence its name) banks and didn't require them to take risks, only lower interest rates. You can't blame this mess on low income people, that's stubidity.

I suggest you read up on it a bit, you seem to know nothing of it by your statement here.

Your kidding right? The rich own a vast portion of the wealth in the country, why would the flee?

Because they can. The rich are above all a pragmatic group of people. If a country is starting to persecute them, take their wealth like socialists, and blame them for the country's ills, then why would they stay? Did the wealth of Cuba stay in Castro's rise?


j-mac
 
Research and Ideas for Shared Prosperity...I'm sure there's no bias there at all. Socialist garbage in, socialist garbage out.

I'm sorry, but nothing there is socialism. Can I recommend a good dictinary for you? or perhaps a history book? ;)
 
I'm sorry, but nothing there is socialism. Can I recommend a good dictinary for you? or perhaps a history book? ;)

Nothing there is socialism? Are you for real? have you even read their agenda?

Overview | Agenda for Shared Prosperity

Karl Marx could have written this tripe.

EPI is a marxist organization that has its tentacles into our government sadly.


j-mac
 
Nothing there is socialism? Are you for real? have you even read their agenda?

Overview | Agenda for Shared Prosperity

Karl Marx could have written this tripe.

EPI is a marxist organization that has its tentacles into our government sadly.


j-mac

J be serious. And for Pete's sakes guys, try to be original. And if you say it is socialist, this means it's socialist? Come on j. Just because some are concerned about everyone doesn't mean they are socailist.
 
J be serious. And for Pete's sakes guys, try to be original. And if you say it is socialist, this means it's socialist? Come on j. Just because some are concerned about everyone doesn't mean they are socailist.


Ofcourse it doesn't, but when you have a group like this partnering with Unions, and other Marxist outlets like Apollo project to write the stimulus bill, and when you have language on their own website that is in line with every bit of wealth redistribution transformation BS coming out of the WH, then yes sir, they are indeed cowardly Marxists.


j-mac
 
Ofcourse it doesn't, but when you have a group like this partnering with Unions, and other Marxist outlets like Apollo project to write the stimulus bill, and when you have language on their own website that is in line with every bit of wealth redistribution transformation BS coming out of the WH, then yes sir, they are indeed cowardly Marxists.


j-mac

J, unions are almost as old as the country, and they don't equal marxism. Many union memebers are as American as it gets. Frankly, all these labels are today is just an attempt to paint a foe they can't reason against or make a sound argunment against. it's not only lame, but unoriginal. This tactic is older than unions.
 
I'm sorry, but nothing there is socialism. Can I recommend a good dictinary for you? or perhaps a history book? ;)

"Shared Prosperity" is all I need to hear. Like "Social Justice", it's code for people who want to buy votes with my prosperity, but thanks for the offer.
 
...Just because some are concerned about everyone doesn't mean they are socailist.

Correct. Concern about everyone does not = socialist. Wanting to force everyone to pool all their resources and have a command & control centralized government to distribute said resources is socialist. You are either not being honest with us, or you are not being honest with yourself.
 
Last edited:
Correct. Concern about everyone does not = socialist. Wanting to force everyone to pool all their resources and have a command & control centralized government to distribute said resources is socialist. You are either not being honest with us, or you are not being honest with yourself.

No one's being any more forced then they ever were. There is no centralized control of resources. business is still indeendent and individuals are still as free as they ever were. Nothing new is going on.
 
"Shared Prosperity" is all I need to hear. Like "Social Justice", it's code for people who want to buy votes with my prosperity, but thanks for the offer.

if you listen to key words instead of seeking meaning, you will always be easy to fool.
 
J, unions are almost as old as the country, and they don't equal marxism. Many union memebers are as American as it gets. Frankly, all these labels are today is just an attempt to paint a foe they can't reason against or make a sound argunment against. it's not only lame, but unoriginal. This tactic is older than unions.


If you are making the case that Unions are at the same point that they were at their inception in American culture, then you are not being honest in this debate. Unions resemble little of what they were conceived to do in the beginning.


No one's being any more forced then they ever were.

Sure they are, and the health care law is a prime example.

There is no centralized control of resources.

Yes there is. And examples are surprisingly out in the open.

business is still indeendent and individuals are still as free as they ever were. Nothing new is going on.

Speak to the share holders of GM and Chrysler stock before the bailouts, and then come back and say that....Obama has been attacking contract law from the start.

j-mac
 
Last edited:
Unions resemble little of what they were conceived to do in the beginning.

j-mac

One could say the same thing about almost every institution...

The issue is, keeping the idiots at the top in check so they aren't being Union leader strictly for their own benefit...

(Some of them make a fair bit of coin ;))
 
If you are making the case that Unions are at the same point that they were at their inception in American culture, then you are not being honest in this debate. Unions resemble little of what they were conceived to do in the beginning.

Nothing is exactly the same, nor have I claimed they are. But that doesn't make them unAmerican either.

Sure they are, and the health care law is a prime example.

No they aren't. And no, it isn't. You can pay the tax. You can get your own insurance. You can be responsible. Just like driving without insurance, needing medicial care without insurance and the ability to pay, you hurt others, passing your cost on to others. But, you are not forced any more than you have been. This concept is not new.


Yes there is. And examples are surprisingly out in the open.

No there isn't. Because the biased paraniod mind sees demons eveywhere doesn't mean they are actually there.


Speak to the share holders of GM and Chrysler stock before the bailouts, and then come back and say that....Obama has been attacking contract law from the start.

j-mac

Ummmm, . . . those people came to him hat in hand. They didn't have to do or take anything.
 
no one's forced to do anything, individuals are as free as they ever were, nothing new is going on

Buy Insurance or Go to Jail? - The Note

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Barthold_letter.pdf

LOL!

have you noticed the complete lack of thought which characterizes the expressions of the empty headed obamite remnant lately?

ie, where have all the SERIOUS apologists gone?

what remains is pathetic

When you wake up, you'll find it was all a dream...

ricksfolly
 
that's stupid

the chief of staff of the joint committee on taxation is wide awake
 
Nothing is exactly the same, nor have I claimed they are. But that doesn't make them unAmerican either.

Ofcourse that alone wouldn't make them 'unAmerican'... What does raise questions about that is currently the policies they endorse, the political candidates they back with funding that they refuse to acknowledge where it comes from, and the course of "social justice" they wish to pursue. Their leaders are Marxists, and their membership for the most part are relegated to thuggery to further their goals.

No they aren't. And no, it isn't. You can pay the tax.

Oh, so now its a tax...When promoting this as a bill, and telling the American people that it must be rammed down their throats, all the demo's supporting it all the way up to Obama decried that it wasn't a tax, and pilloried those who said it was as spreading 'misinformation' about the bill. Now all the sudden it is a tax.

You can get your own insurance.

And God help you if your company drops it, or you have to change it in any manner, then you are tossed into the exchange.

You can be responsible.

Responsible, you mean like the 21 year old that opts to pay the $700 tax per year until he gets into an accident, then pick up coverage and make us pay the tab? Great.

Just like driving without insurance, needing medicial care without insurance and the ability to pay, you hurt others, passing your cost on to others.

The Auto insurance analogy is absurd and here is why...Driving in this country is a privilege, not required. Obama is requiring you to own insurance, it is unconstitutional.

But, you are not forced any more than you have been.

That is a lie. period.

This concept is not new.

If everything is so damned great with the agenda that Obama is jamming through, then tell me why the demo's running now are running away from it?

One New York Democrat proclaims that he proudly opposed the federal government’s health care overhaul plan. Another one pledges, in the finest Tea Party spirit, to oppose any future financial bailouts. Still another has rolled out three Republicans in three separate commercials, all vouching for his credentials.

Scott Murphy, an upstate congressman, says in an advertisement that he voted against his party’s wishes because he wants to cut the deficit. More Photos »
But there is one word you will not hear mentioned in any of these campaign advertisements: Democrat.

www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/nyregion/05dems.html

Notice Joe, that isn't the American Thinker saying that, it's the NYTimes....Now what?

Ummmm, . . . those people came to him hat in hand. They didn't have to do or take anything.

He forced their hand with the Fiat nonsense....Remember this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court has delayed the imminent sale of
most of Chrysler's assets to a group led by Italian automaker Fiat.
The justices issued a brief order Monday, just before a temporary stay issued by a lower court was to expire.
Three Indiana state funds - representing police officers and teachers - filed an emergency appeal late Saturday asking the high court to intervene. Those lenders seek greater compensation for their share of Chrysler's nearly $7 billion in secured debt.

High court delays sale of Chrysler assets to Fiat group – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Obama stole those companies, ignored contract law, then gave his union buddies the reins. Great, Yeah, that's American.....


j-mac
 
No one's being any more forced then they ever were. There is no centralized control of resources. business is still indeendent and individuals are still as free as they ever were. Nothing new is going on.

If you want to know why there's so much anger in the country, it's because of garbage like this. Obama wants a single-payer health care system. That necessarily means forcing people who don't want to be a part of it to participate in it. Obama's plan of a cap & trade system would "necessarily" cause energy prices to skyrocket, so that people are forced to use wind & solar (and go the the government for subsidies). Can you honestly try to argue against that being a centralized control of resources? Sure, nothing to see here...move along now sheep.

The fact that Obama didn't get what he wanted doesn't make him any less socialist.
 
if you listen to key words instead of seeking meaning, you will always be easy to fool.

Words mean things and, for the record, I'm not listening to key words and being fooled. I'm hearing key words and tuning the rest out because I already know what follows. You do exactly the same thing in every thread I've read thus far and I did not insinuate that you were a fool...
 
Ummmm, . . . those people came to him hat in hand. They didn't have to do or take anything.

Yeah ??? Tell that to the GM bond holders, many of which were retired people relying on the bonds for their retirement and thousands of others had supposedly safe bonds in their 401k. These people's investments were stolen from them by Obama and given to the UAW.

In one sense you are right, these people didn't have to do anything, but Obama and the union stole their retirement nest egg.
 
Back
Top Bottom