• 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!

House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

TurtleDude said:
most of those in the top 2% aren't using much if anything of the direct programs funded by the income tax. we need to stop spending on stuff that is not clearly constitutional
Click to expand...


Tell us all about it.....
 
mike2810 said:
For those that want the extension, what are you willing to see Congress cut to pay for it? We have got to quit spending beyond are means. Goes for the govt. as well as people.
Click to expand...

To which extension are you referring; the extension of the tax breaks for the wealthy or the extension of unemployment benefits? Letting the taxes on the wealthy revert to Clinton-era rates (which were much lower than the Reagan-era rates) would more than make up for the cost of the extension of unemployment benefits.
 
zip98053 said:
To which extension are you referring; the extension of the tax breaks for the wealthy or the extension of unemployment benefits? Letting the taxes on the wealthy revert to Clinton-era rates (which were much lower than the Reagan-era rates) would more than make up for the cost of the extension of unemployment benefits.
Click to expand...

why should those who already pay too much taxes have to pay more to fund give aways to people who haven't paid taxes?
 
TurtleDude said:
why should those who already pay too much taxes have to pay more to fund give aways to people who haven't paid taxes?
Click to expand...

You begin the sentence with a false premise. You end the sentence with a false statement.
 
haymarket said:
sure

from Turtle

that is the false premise

that is the false statement.
Click to expand...


*Sigh* ok, let me take it to the extreme because you may not have understood what I was asking you for....

that is the false premise
Click to expand...

How so? Please tell me how the thought of someone that they pay too much in taxes is a false premise.

and

that is the false statement.
Click to expand...

How is this a false statement?

Now please,.....


j-mac
 
Tax rates on higher earners today are among the lowest in the last half century. There is nothing to show that people in that group are paying too much.

Almost everybody pays taxes and there are many different ones that the original poster conveniently and purposely ignores instead obsessing on income taxes. To claim that people do not pay taxes is a intentionally false statement that has been pointed out to that poster time and time and time again but it seems to have failed to deter the individual from continuing to spread the falsehood.
 
haymarket said:
Tax rates on higher earners today are among the lowest in the last half century. There is nothing to show that people in that group are paying too much.
Click to expand...

Ok, so then by that logic, you know 'everyone paying their fair share' couldn't it be said that those that pay a net nothing in tax step up and have to pay into the system that they gain from? Also, who's money do you think that is? The earners? or the governments?

Almost everybody pays taxes and there are many different ones that the original poster conveniently and purposely ignores instead obsessing on income taxes. To claim that people do not pay taxes is a intentionally false statement that has been pointed out to that poster time and time and time again but it seems to have failed to deter the individual from continuing to spread the falsehood.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If consumption taxation was a real consideration, we would have that as the system in this country to fund our governmental projects. We don't because there is a movement today that considers success a bad thing, and wants to punish it.

j-mac
 
haymarket said:
You begin the sentence with a false premise. You end the sentence with a false statement.
Click to expand...

you just make stuff up and run with it. when a group makes 22% of the income and pays 40% of the income tax they are paying too much in taxes.

when a group pays 40% of the income tax and almost all the death confiscation tax yet use NOWHERE NEAR that much of the services their tax dollars pay for, they are overtaxed.
 
j-mac said:
*Sigh* ok, let me take it to the extreme because you may not have understood what I was asking you for....



How so? Please tell me how the thought of someone that they pay too much in taxes is a false premise.

and



How is this a false statement?

Now please,.....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Haymarket believes that all wealth belongs to the government first and those who are "given" more wealth by the "Government" have a duty to pay as much as the government decrees and that decree is "fair"
 
haymarket said:
Tax rates on higher earners today are among the lowest in the last half century. There is nothing to show that people in that group are paying too much.

Almost everybody pays taxes and there are many different ones that the original poster conveniently and purposely ignores instead obsessing on income taxes. To claim that people do not pay taxes is a intentionally false statement that has been pointed out to that poster time and time and time again but it seems to have failed to deter the individual from continuing to spread the falsehood.
Click to expand...

more nonsense. you confuse marginal tax rates with effective tax rates and for most of this country's history there was NO income tax. saying people are Screwed less by a greedy government means that its fair is as moronic as saying that there is no unfair treatment of anyone because there is less institutional bias than there was 60 years ago.
 
TurtleDude said:
Haymarket believes that all wealth belongs to the government first and those who are "given" more wealth by the "Government" have a duty to pay as much as the government decrees and that decree is "fair"
Click to expand...


Yes, I believe that, and that it is not just haymarket, but many liberals today. Yet, how loud are the screams when successful businesses leave the country for cheaper labor, and less taxation overseas, and blame it on greed of the top of that particular company instead of looking at the real reasons they are leaving in the first place.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Yes, I believe that, and that it is not just haymarket, but many liberals today. Yet, how loud are the screams when successful businesses leave the country for cheaper labor, and less taxation overseas, and blame it on greed of the top of that particular company instead of looking at the real reasons they are leaving in the first place.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Dude, regardless of taxes, what motivates them to keep manufacturing jobs here AT ALL!

Are you seriously suggesting that Americans and America will be just fine, if we got rid of all labour laws and wage laws and let people work again for $1 Dollar an hour.

Part of the reason that America became so prosperous was precisely because they had such a huge middle class because of Labour laws and wage laws and finally in the 90's and 2000's it became more financially viable to move overseas fair enough.

But again, should we scrap all these protections?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Dude, regardless of taxes, what motivates them to keep manufacturing jobs here AT ALL!

Are you seriously suggesting that Americans and America will be just fine, if we got rid of all labour laws and wage laws and let people work again for $1 Dollar an hour.

Part of the reason that America became so prosperous was precisely because they had such a huge middle class because of Labour laws and wage laws and finally in the 90's and 2000's it became more financially viable to move overseas fair enough.

But again, should we scrap all these protections?
Click to expand...


You are taking it to the extreme. I said nothing about making wages $1, that is your hyperbole. We can do things with corp tax rates that make it viable for companies to stay here and be competitive. But instead of looking for these solutions, too often liberals in the argument take much your tact in responding which is an all or nothing approach.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
You are taking it to the extreme. I said nothing about making wages $1, that is your hyperbole. We can do things with corp tax rates that make it viable for companies to stay here and be competitive. But instead of looking for these solutions, too often liberals in the argument take much your tact in responding which is an all or nothing approach.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Dude, it's simply not possible. There's no way you can keep things competitive enough to keep manufacturing jobs here in the US or Canada. It's simply not a viable career anymore. The sooner we realise that, the sooner we can have people trained to do different jobs, and not have some of the old manufacturing towns I see here in Ontario that are messed up cause no one's in that field anymore and they didn't know how to do anything else.

No corporate tax rate is gonna change the fact that in China, or Vietnam or El Salvador, there's fewer labour laws, fewer restrictions on work hours and wages, and the ability to hire tons more people to produce more.

In America and Canada and the western world in general, we have an expectation of what we should get for doing a certain job, in essense we're a pain in the ass.
 
TurtleDude said:
Haymarket believes that all wealth belongs to the government first and those who are "given" more wealth by the "Government" have a duty to pay as much as the government decrees and that decree is "fair"
Click to expand...

That is an outright lie and slander. I would ask you to either reprint my words saying just that or print a retraction or apology but I know I am wasting my time.
 
j-mac said:
Yes, I believe that, and that it is not just haymarket, but many liberals today. Yet, how loud are the screams when successful businesses leave the country for cheaper labor, and less taxation overseas, and blame it on greed of the top of that particular company instead of looking at the real reasons they are leaving in the first place.


j-mac
Click to expand...

If you want to believe that about me then please join in with Turtle and search for the statement from me where I said that please. What it seems both of you want to do is the typical tactic of turning someone's ideas into a frankenstein monster version of it, a perversion or it, and twisted and misshapen interpretation which is neither accurate nor fair simply because you are unable to deal with the subtleties of the real truth. It happens so often here that many simply accept it as normal discourse. I will not accept it.

and btw j-mac - I have no desire to attempt to prohibit or stop an American businessman turning his back on his nation and taking his plant to a foreign nation to make things cheaper. If he or she is not bothered by an act of economic treason and can live with themselves for such an action , then that is on them. What I do have a problem with is a stupid nation which stands by like a eunuch in a whore house and watches them do this and then allows them to bring back their cheaply made junk and sell it in American stores. Its unfortunate that the US Constitution does not allow Congress the power to tax such products. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment in this regard.
 
Navy Pride said:
Good for the Republicans.......Unemployment is tax payer money and is not a bottomless pit....This **** has been going on for 2 years.....Maybe some of these free loaders will get off their lazy ass and get a job now...............
Click to expand...
It's the freeloaders fault that unemployment is at levels that are close to double regular levels.
It has not a damn thing to do with the global economic problems---just those damn freeloaders. If they would just go get a damn job.
 
j-mac said:
You are taking it to the extreme. I said nothing about making wages $1, that is your hyperbole. We can do things with corp tax rates that make it viable for companies to stay here and be competitive. But instead of looking for these solutions, too often liberals in the argument take much your tact in responding which is an all or nothing approach.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Sorry, J-Mac. There's nothing we can do to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S. unless we put our Constitution aside. No way can companies be incentivized to pay American wages when they can go to Third World countries and pay pennies.

There's probably more information available for Nike than any other company in the U.S. Here are some stats:

Indonesian workers make $2.46 a day
Vietnamese workers make $l.60 a day
Chinese workers make $1.75 a day
You pay over $100 for shoes that cost less than five dollars to make.


That's where Nike production facilities are located....in Third World countries where it is illegal for workers to organize and collectively bargain for better wages.

- During the 1970's, most Nike shoes were made in South Korea and Taiwan. When workers there gained new freedom to organize and wages began to rise, Nike looked for "greener pastures." It found them in Indonesia, China and most recently Vietnam - countries with no protective labor laws, endless supplies of cheap labor, and authoritarian leaders who outlaw independent labor unions.
Click to expand...

Nike production facts
 
But we do not have to then let them ship those goods back here and sell them to the same people that they committed acts of economic treason against.

The Constitution already speaks to that.
 
haymarket said:
But we do not have to then let them ship those goods back here and sell them to the same people that they committed acts of economic treason against.

The Constitution already speaks to that.
Click to expand...

What you are proposing is a trade war that will affect U.S. Companies that export goods and services to other countries. Not sure you are thinking clearly here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom