• 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!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

mertex said:
As a middle-class person, yes that is true, but if you are wealthy it only means you get more money to "save".

Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy.
Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says - Bloomberg


The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. So, I don't know what you mean.

Tax Cuts for the Middle Class equal Tax Cuts for Rich


Another Republican/conservative lie. The bail out of the auto industry saved many jobs. Jobs that would have added to the unemployment. The Stimulus also saved many jobs, as well as kept us from going into depression.

While the ARRA did not achieve its initial goals, many, including President Obama, consider it a major success. It has been credited for the large change in GDP growth that occurred between the first quarter of 2009, when GDP declined at more than a 6% annualized rate, and the second quarter, when GDP was roughly unchanged. More broadly, the Administration and others argue that the ARRA has saved up to 2 million jobs and prevented an economic meltdown similar to the Great Depression.

Did Stimulus Create Any Jobs? - Forbes.com


How did I miss it? It was predicted and is considered a normal occurrence for mid-term. That your party got the house is admirable, but whether that is a good thing for the country is yet to be seen. People's votes are mostly a reaction to all the lies the Republicans have been spreading and continue to spread. They have found a way to gain votes and that is through lying and it seems to be working well. However, the truth is bound to come out sooner or later, and then what will your party have?


Perhaps you need to remove your tin-foil hat, it seems to be cutting the blood circulation and impairing your thinking. Reps/cons want Obama to fix in 2 years what took Bush 8 years to accomplish. Perhaps if Bush hadn't committed us to a useless war where we have wasted so much money, our economy wouldn't be in such bad shape. But, Reps/cons are so sure that now that they have gained control of the House, they are going to make everything rosy - I can hardly wait. Let's see how much of what they promised they are able to deliver.
Click to expand...

giving the government more of the wealthy's money, history will suggest that the government will squander it/

the average voter will feel that runaway spending is not a problem because only the rich will face tax increases to pay for the spending and thus the average voter will continue to support those politicians who pander to them and demand that only the rich pay more.

of course in the end the rich will start doing stuff that will hurt people like you who whine that they don't pay enough taxes
 
mertex said:
You think tax-cuts pay for themselves?
Contrary to popular belief, discretionary spending on social entitlement programs such as health care, unemployment benefits and Social Security is nowhere close to the leading cause of the exploding deficits over this past decade. The true culprit is the Bush tax cuts , which accounted for 48 percent of the deficit increase;
TheDartmouth.com | Deficit Danger


Besides, there are good reasons to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress passed a series of massive tax cuts from 2001 to 2006. Their cuts lowered everyone’s taxes, but they were skewed heavily to the wealthy. More than half of the total benefit from the Bush tax cuts this year alone will accrue solely to the richest 5 percent of Americans while the middle 20 percent of Americans will reap only 7 percent of the benefit.

All of these tax cuts were passed with a “sunset” provision that will cause them to expire at the end of 2010. Virtually everyone in Congress agrees with the Obama administration that we should make permanent all of the reduced taxes for those who make less than $250,000—that’s 98 percent of Americans. The disagreement is limited to those cuts that affect the richest 2 percent of Americans—with conservatives demanding that the wealthiest Americans continue to benefit from the Bush administration’s largess.

There are lots of good reasons to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire. Here are just three.

1. Billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy is just about the least efficient use of that money
2.The Bush tax cuts didn’t deliver what they promised
3.The tax cuts for nearly all Americans and American small businesses would stay in place
ttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html



And coddling the rich buys the Reps votes from the wealthy and all the loonies who are still under the impression that some of their money is going to trickle down to them. George H.W.Bush himself called it voodoo economics!


It will help pay off a chunk as opposed to adding:

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion to deficit, panel finds
Click to expand...

I cannot reasons with people who think tax cuts cost money. Its spending that costs money. and tax hikes cost we who pay most of the taxes money.
 
mertex said:
That is the lamest reason I've ever heard about why a wealthy person as Buffett would complain about paying lower taxes!

"Because he wants to ingratiate himself with people who don't want the rich to pay lower taxes?"

Ha,ha, that is such a stupid comment, I can't believe anyone would even come up with something like that!:lamo
Click to expand...

what is stupid is post demonstrating who has no clue and no proper response. Buffett structures his compensation to pay as little tax as possible (tell me what other executive running an operation as big as his only has a salary of 100K? Of course I doubt you know that answer but the average executive in his positon is making at least 5 million a year in salary) and then whines that his compensation comes from sources that are taxed at lower rates than salary income.

of course what you fail to understand is that Buffett pays the top rates on salary income, the top rates on CG income and the top rates on dividend income. But because he structures his compensation to avoid salary as income, his overall rate on his total income is somewhat lower than many people who have mainly salary income

so tell me-why would someone do that and then complain about it?
 
Conservative said:
Whether or not tax increases to the rich increase govt. revenue or not remains to be seen. regardless it is wrong to panalize one group of people over another and there is no evidence that tax increases will reduce the deficit because Congress continues to spend all the money they get. If it is 36 billion dollars great, you just lowered the deficit from 1.3 trillion to 1.264 trillion and you penalized job producers. That is liberal logic?
Click to expand...

its envy and spite that motivates the soak the rich mentality that she spews.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, it sure is and reports ONE PART OF THE DEBT not the TOTAL DEBT which went up. Looks to me like you are the one losing. Let's see if you have the maturity to admit when wrong?
Click to expand...
No, you lost the debate and you don't have decency to admit it. Now you're just making a fool of yourself so I think it best we end our discussion.
 
Moot said:
No, you lost the debate and you don't have decency to admit it. Now you're just making a fool of yourself so I think it best we end our discussion.
Click to expand...

show me the score sheet proving he lost the debate. Awarding yourself a win doesn't count. I think he won actually
 
TurtleDude said:
show me the score sheet proving he lost the debate. Awarding yourself a win doesn't count. I think he won actually
Click to expand...

Let me know if you see the score sheet.

The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It
( Debt Held by the Public vs. Intragovernmental Holdings )

11/04/2010

Current Debt Held by the Public 9,135,679,189,836.64
Intragovernmental Holdings 4,587,760,478,603.54

Total Public Debt Outstanding 13,723,439,668,440.18

Only in the Liberal world can you steal from one account, put it in another, ignore the account you stole it from and call it a budget surplus
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Let me know if you see the score sheet.

The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It
( Debt Held by the Public vs. Intragovernmental Holdings )

11/04/2010

Current Debt Held by the Public 9,135,679,189,836.64
Intragovernmental Holdings 4,587,760,478,603.54

Total Public Debt Outstanding 13,723,439,668,440.18

Only in the Liberal world can you steal from one account, put it in another, ignore the account you stole it from and call it a budget surplus
Click to expand...

moot was permanently disqualified from the contest when she claimed that the rich should pay all the estate tax since they owned all the land or something similar about a month or so ago

its like entering stadium court at Wimbledon carrying a hockey stick
 
Conservative said:
Whether or not tax increases to the rich increase govt. revenue or not remains to be seen. regardless it is wrong to panalize one group of people over another and there is no evidence that tax increases will reduce the deficit because Congress continues to spend all the money they get.
Click to expand...

The folks in Washington are playing a political game, they don't care about what's "better" for the country dear.

I'd rather have the money go towards improving the country than given to the undeserving wealthy in the form of tax cuts. Tax cuts are spending and will add to the deficit. When you have more money going out than coming in it's called "spending".
 
TurtleDude said:
moot was permanently disqualified from the contest when she claimed that the rich should pay all the estate tax since they owned all the land or something similar about a month or so ago

its like entering stadium court at Wimbledon carrying a hockey stick
Click to expand...

Moot is a she?
 
Animus said:
The folks in Washington are playing a political game, they don't care about what's "better" for the country dear.

I'd rather have the money go towards improving the country than given to the undeserving wealthy in the form of tax cuts. Tax cuts are spending and will add to the deficit. When you have more money going out than coming in it's called "spending".
Click to expand...

LOL, Turtle, we have another one. Unbelievable, you keeping more of what you earn when you get a job is an expense to the govt? When you have more money going out than coming in a normal person stops spending. How can anyone take you seriously when you make a statement like you just made?
 
Animus said:
The folks in Washington are playing a political game, they don't care about what's "better" for the country dear.

I'd rather have the money go towards improving the country than given to the undeserving wealthy in the form of tax cuts. Tax cuts are spending and will add to the deficit. When you have more money going out than coming in it's called "spending".
Click to expand...

lets examine all the stupidity in that post

1) who determines who is underserving..I don't recall the tax code having that provision so you must think anyone who is in the top 2% is "undeserving" since all of them are going to get soaked by the dems

2) then you make the moronic mistake of claiming a tax cut is giving someone money. That is akin to saying that if you shoot at a robber before he makes off with all your possessions you made him give you some property

3) spending is not necessarily more going out than coming in. Rich people spend alot but since they have more coming in, they are rich. when you have more going out than coming in its called a negative balance or in government cases a deficit spending.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, Turtle, we have another one. Unbelievable, you keeping more of what you earn when you get a job is an expense to the govt? When you have more money going out than coming in a normal person stops spending. How can anyone take you seriously when you make a statement like you just made?
Click to expand...

the sad thing is that these people actually believe this nonsense. a savage and strange stew of class envy, economic cluelessness and warped welfare-socialism
 
Conservative said:
LOL, Turtle, we have another one. Unbelievable, you keeping more of what you earn when you get a job is an expense to the govt? When you have more money going out than coming in a normal person stops spending. How can anyone take you seriously when you make a statement like you just made?
Click to expand...

No. You keeping more of what you owe is an expense to the government. Did you drive to work this morning on a road? Congratulations you just used a public service provided by the government. Did you call the cops when your neighbors partied too much last Saturday? There ya go. Do your kids go to a public school? That's why you pay tax darling.

When they give you back tax money that you are not entitled to, called "tax cuts", you are contributing to the deficit. If you truly support reducing the deficit, you would hope for tax increases and a reduction in spending. Ofcourse, a reduction in spending will mean Americans will have a lower quality of lifestyle all around which I'm sure they don't want either. Your sense of entitlement is appalling.
 
TurtleDude said:
moot was permanently disqualified from the contest when she claimed that the rich should pay all the estate tax since they owned all the land or something similar about a month or so ago

its like entering stadium court at Wimbledon carrying a hockey stick
Click to expand...
Well, since you erronously assumed all "property" specifically meant "land" I can see why you were so confused. But the hissy fit that went along with your hyperbole was a bit over the top. But I am willing to give it another try and discuss estate tax with you, if you are. So how about it, hot shot?

AnimatedCat.gif
 
Moot said:
Well, since you erronously assumed all "property" specifically meant "land" I can see why you were so confused. But the hissy fit that went along with your hyperbole was a bit over the top. But I am willing to give it another try and discuss estate tax with you, if you are. So how about it, hot shot?

AnimatedCat.gif
Click to expand...

Revisionist history at its finest:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...p-between-rich-and-poor-3.html#post1059011059

Turtledude: "the richest people pay estate taxes-you do not"

You: "Well, since the rich people didn't make the land, then they should pay for it. Why should they have land for free?"

You very clearly believed that the estate tax was a tax on land.
 
TurtleDude said:
lets examine all the stupidity in that post

1) who determines who is underserving..I don't recall the tax code having that provision so you must think anyone who is in the top 2% is "undeserving" since all of them are going to get soaked by the dems.
Click to expand...
We the people do with our votes. If the tea party can vote in favor of the wealthy and against their own best interests, then those same people will vote against the wealthy when they realize the wealthy don't give a rats ass about them.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
Warren Buffet - New York Times, November 26, 2006.


2) then you make the moronic mistake of claiming a tax cut is giving someone money. That is akin to saying that if you shoot at a robber before he makes off with all your possessions you made him give you some property
Click to expand...
Thats right, tax cuts for the rich is just like stealing from everyone else who have to earn their money from their own labor instead of betting against others people's mortgages and retirement funds.

3) spending is not necessarily more going out than coming in. Rich people spend alot but since they have more coming in, they are rich. when you have more going out than coming in its called a negative balance or in government cases a deficit spending.
Click to expand...
Wow, right again, deficit spending is what paid for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. The interest alone on that debt is over $480 billion a year. And now Republicans are promising more tax cuts. Yippeeee, more debt to pay interest on and no promising future economic growth to pay for it. Whoooo hooooo ain't life grand spending future generation's money?
 
RightinNYC said:
Revisionist history at its finest:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...p-between-rich-and-poor-3.html#post1059011059

Turtledude: "the richest people pay estate taxes-you do not"

You: "Well, since the rich people didn't make the land, then they should pay for it. Why should they have land for free?"

You very clearly believed that the estate tax was a tax on land.
Click to expand...
Yes, well er uh, I did say that didn't I. I stand corrected. However, when I said that I was thinking about the Georgist argument in that people who inherited land, didn't earn it and should be taxed higher than someone who earned the money to buy the land in order to use it to create something of value. Otherwise, those who inherit and don't earn their estate through their own labor and hard work, have an unfair advantage over those who do.
 
Last edited:
Animus;1059088836]No. You keeping more of what you owe is an expense to the government. Did you drive to work this morning on a road? Congratulations you just used a public service provided by the government. Did you call the cops when your neighbors partied too much last Saturday? There ya go. Do your kids go to a public school? That's why you pay tax darling.
Click to expand...

Please tell me where you went to school so others can avoid it. Did you buy gasoline when you drove on that road? You pay excise taxes on gasoline and that funds the roads. Do your parents own a home? You pay property taxes on that home which funds the schools and the police/fire depts. You don't have a clue.

When they give you back tax money that you are not entitled to, called "tax cuts", you are contributing to the deficit. If you truly support reducing the deficit, you would hope for tax increases and a reduction in spending. Ofcourse, a reduction in spending will mean Americans will have a lower quality of lifestyle all around which I'm sure they don't want either. Your sense of entitlement is appalling
Click to expand...

Tax cuts aren't giving you anything, the govt. allows you to keep more of what you ear. I really think this is a joke, no one can believe what you are posting.
 
Moot said:
WRONG!!! The debt tripled during Reagan's term. Then after the Cold War ended, the debt went down during Clinton's term. Then when Bush took office, the debt skyrocketed to over $10 TRILLION.

NOPE!!! You are the one denying the CBO data because it doesn't support YOUR claims. That is why you are trying to use Treasury Dept data instead of the CBO.

PURE RUBBISH. You asked why the Treasury reports didn't include Clinton's surplus and I told you why. And now like a typical conservative, you're trying to avoid admitting you were wrong.


Really? Because I checked the Treasury Dept website and guess what? It says you're WRONG.....

Bureau of the Public Debt: Our History

"The buildup to World War II brought the debt up another order of magnitude from $51 billion in 1940 to $260 billion following the war. After this period, the debt's growth closely matched the rate of inflation until the 1980s, when it again began to increase rapidly.
Between 1980 and 1990, the debt more than tripled. The debt shrank briefly after the end of the Cold War, but by the end of FY 2008, the gross national debt had reached $10.3 trillion, about 10 times its 1980 level.
history_debtchart.jpg


Sorry, but the Treasury Department says you've lost the debate.

See the Treasury Dept. chart above. Clinton reduced spending and raised taxes on the wealthy and the national debt turned into a budget surplus. Then Bush came into office, increased spending and cut taxes and the budget surplus quickly turned into a $10.3 trillion national debt. There is no way that reduced revenue will reduce the national debt. Only an idiot would think it does.

Well good, because the reality is you've lost the debate.

:cool:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I should even bother trying to tell you you're wrong. You need to work on your chart reading skills...I'll leave it at that.
 
Moot said:
We the people do with our votes. If the tea party can vote in favor of the wealthy and against their own best interests, then those same people will vote against the wealthy when they realize the wealthy don't give a rats ass about them.

Thats right, tax cuts for the rich is just like stealing from everyone else who have to earn their money from their own labor instead of betting against others people's mortgages and retirement funds.
Click to expand...

You've stumbled upon something profound, but I'm not sure you'll be able to see through the haze of class warfare you're surrounded by. Let's try:

What is a mortgage? It's a loan that allows you to use some rich retired persons money to buy something you otherwise would not be able to afford. You obviously benefit from the transaction in the fact that you now have a place to live, so the rich retired person has performed a service for you, for which you owe them interest in return. If rich people spent every dime they earned, not only would there not be such a thing as a mortgage, they would not have any retirement income other than what they get from the government, which you'll have to pay for.

So, I'll ask you this question. Which is better for the economy: 1-Rich retired person saves more money, allowing them to perform a service for you by lending you said money for mortgages, starting businesses, etc or 2-Raise taxes on rich retired person, decreasing funds available for loans and/or capital for creating jobs?

Or are you really going to say that Barack Obama knows more about good investments than someone like...Warren Buffet?:lamo

I suspect this effort was a waste of time, but it wasn't much effort.
 
This entire thread reminded me of a oldie but a goodie:

818303542-ArguingOnTheInternet-Special_Olympics.jpg
 
FederalRepublic said:
You've stumbled upon something profound, but I'm not sure you'll be able to see through the haze of class warfare you're surrounded by. Let's try:

What is a mortgage? It's a loan that allows you to use some rich retired persons money to buy something you otherwise would not be able to afford. You obviously benefit from the transaction in the fact that you now have a place to live, so the rich retired person has performed a service for you, for which you owe them interest in return. If rich people spent every dime they earned, not only would there not be such a thing as a mortgage, they would not have any retirement income other than what they get from the government, which you'll have to pay for.
Click to expand...
Baloney. Retired people have very little to do with it. The fact is we have a fractional reserve banking system where the banks borrow money from the government to lend to borrowers. It's just like a ponzi scheme, the banks borrow say a thousand dollars from the Feds and keep 10% in reserves and then lends out the remaining $900. As the money is paid back in deposits with interest, the bank can lend out the same $900 again and again and again. It's called the money mulitplier effect and that is how money is expanded through the economy. The game is rigged in favor of the wealthy who have thousands of well paid lobbyists to suck the governments teet dry just to enrich themselves. So you might ask yourself, what the heck are you getting out of it?

So, I'll ask you this question. Which is better for the economy: 1-Rich retired person saves more money, allowing them to perform a service for you by lending you said money for mortgages, starting businesses, etc or 2-Raise taxes on rich retired person, decreasing funds available for loans and/or capital for creating jobs?
Click to expand...
I'll ask you a question, why aren't the banks lending?

Or are you really going to say that Barack Obama knows more about good investments than someone like...Warren Buffet?:lamo
Click to expand...
LAMO, Warren Buffet is one of Obama's economic advisors.

I suspect this effort was a waste of time, but it wasn't much effort.
Click to expand...
Likewise, I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom