• 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

You know, it's funny; Congress is still controlled by Democrats who don't need Republican help to pass this thing. It failed, so . . .

Try actually reading the article before posting... saves on foot-in-mouth disease.

Democrats brought the measure to the floor under fast-track rules that required a two-thirds vote to pass, so the measure fell despite winning a 258-154 majority. Republicans blasted the move since it denied them an opportunity to try to offset its cost.
 
The wealth gap has been steadily widening for some time now. It's hard to garner sympathy for the top 2% when others are struggling to make ends meet.

What is causing the wealth gap to widen and why aren't you and others participating? It apparently isn't hard to whine and complain about what someone else makes. How does penalizing them help you or anyone else?
 
The poor don't need more tax breaks, they need better education, more jobs, and a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD in the investment world....and then they can pay more in taxes...

vicious circle.

IF the poor would take advantage of educational opportunities that exist then they could get better jobs and then they too could bitch about having to pay too much in taxes.

I don't see how further taxing the rich is going to help the poor break out of the cycle of dependency or encourage them to get better educated/trained.
 
Vehicle registration, hunting/fishing licenses, driver's licenses, etc.

I have family in Texas.

Why would businesses care what individual income taxes are? Perhaps it's something else. ;)

Businesses care about the ability to make a profit and lower taxes allow them to do that. Profits aren't bad regardless of what big govt. liberals think. So now driving, fishing, and other use taxes are income taxes? Interesting interpretation. No wonder your state is screwed up. Thanks for sending two divisions of Caterpillar to TX. We appreciate the added revenue that thousands of employees generate.
 
What is causing the wealth gap to widen and why aren't you and others participating? It apparently isn't hard to whine and complain about what someone else makes. How does penalizing them help you or anyone else?

It takes money to make money. People struggling to make ends meet don't have the extra scratch to invest. It's not penalizing, it's noblesse oblige.
 
vicious circle.

IF the poor would take advantage of educational opportunities that exist then they could get better jobs and then they too could bitch about having to pay too much in taxes.

I don't see how further taxing the rich is going to help the poor break out of the cycle of dependency or encourage them to get better educated/trained.

I don't see how tax the poor/middle class out of their homes is going to help either.
 
vicious circle.

IF the poor would take advantage of educational opportunities that exist then they could get better jobs and then they too could bitch about having to pay too much in taxes.

I don't see how further taxing the rich is going to help the poor break out of the cycle of dependency or encourage them to get better educated/trained.

The main part is "better education". Follow with fewer jobless benefits, and more jobs. Some think that only the rich generate jobs, but that is BS. There aren't that many rich, and of the ones that are rich, not that many own companies. Most companies are publicly traded, thousands of owners.
IMO, the last year of High School needs to be enhanced with REALITY, and I don't mean the kind displayed on current TV shows.
We need to make it harder to live on welfare, but at the same time easier to get an education that actually leads to jobs.
Where will the jobs come from? A very large middle class.....
 
I don't understand people like you. Why does the govt. need the money more than you and why are liberals fighting so hard to raise taxes on individuals. Some people just are brainwashed and don't want the facts. You seem to be one of them. Good luck with that.

Did I say I wanted taxes to be raised? Point to anything in my post where I said I was for raising taxes. I did not. I merely made counter-points to your argument concerning the limited tax credits, extensions or reductions made under Pres. Obama. Can't help it if my objectivity ruined your "I hate Obama" tiraide.

I tend to look at a given situation and support concepts that are intended to either remedy the situation or mitigate it to some degree, i.e., tax cuts/credits that are specific for the economic situation of the day. The reason I'm against making any tax cuts permanent is because we live in a capitalistic society where the state of our economy is always changing, constantly in flux. A 10% tax increase today (depending on what the increase was for) might not be as affective 5-10 years from now. So, why make them permanent if chances are the nation's economic situation may very well change in the not too distant future and we find we have to either increase or decrease that same tax because the economics of the day have changed? It's why our tax code is 20 years out of date! Our economy has changed. Now, imagine if made the tax code from 1990 permanent and could not change them to meet today's economic challenges? This is why I think what Republicans are advocating is disasterous to the future of our nation's economy. It's foolhearty to think any other way!!!
 
that's why you don't raise taxes on anybody...you cut BS spending.

And that is where the rubber meets the road. What are you going to cut to make up the massive difference?
 
It takes money to make money. People struggling to make ends meet don't have the extra scratch to invest. It's not penalizing, it's noblesse oblige.

It is noble to whine and complain about what someone else makes and to penalize them for their income? How does raising the taxes on the top 2% benefit you or the country?
 
And that is where the rubber meets the road. What are you going to cut to make up the massive difference?

Told you what we should cut and all I got from you is "good luck with that." Making tough choices is something that liberals never do, as they prefer to whine and complain hoping that the govt. is there to bail them out again.
 
Please stop talking about making tax policy "permanent". It's not like they can make a policy that can never be changed. :lol:
 
It is noble to whine and complain about what someone else makes and to penalize them for their income?

Where's the penalty? How much money could rich people make without all the government largesse and governmental protections they are receiving?

How does raising the taxes on the top 2% benefit you or the country?

It could go a long way toward balancing the budget, for one thing.
 
It is noble to whine and complain about what someone else makes and to penalize them for their income? How does raising the taxes on the top 2% benefit you or the country?

By reducing the deficit, strengthening the dollar, and not allowing foreign nations to hold so much of our debt.
 
Told you what we should cut and all I got from you is "good luck with that." Making tough choices is something that liberals never do, as they prefer to whine and complain hoping that the govt. is there to bail them out again.

Did you figure out how many jobs your proposal would eliminate?
 
vicious circle.

IF the poor would take advantage of educational opportunities that exist then they could get better jobs and then they too could bitch about having to pay too much in taxes.

I don't see how further taxing the rich is going to help the poor break out of the cycle of dependency or encourage them to get better educated/trained.

The argument with allowing the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans at this time isn't about taking that money and putting it back into social services programs. It's about "PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT!!!" Granted, Clinton was able to do it (reduce the deficit) by cutting spending and raising taxes just slightly, but his tax increases were "targetted" and the money did go towards debt reduction. The same thing is being proposed now and most top wage earners don't have a problem with "doing what's necessary by way of those who can help in support of their country". Millianaires know they've had it good since the 80's. From many of the news reports I'm reading, the rich don't seem to have a problem with paying alittle more in taxes. They'll get that money back anyway. So, for them paying an additional $100K in taxes compared to their $10M in earnings...a drop in the bucket. Of course, you'll phrase this as "wealth redistribution". I'd call it that IF the tax revenues were going towards social programs, but from everything I've heard the President say on this matter, it would not.

DEFICIT REDUCTION...those of your party continue to voice this as a montra...time you start putting your "money" were your mouth is.
 
By reducing the deficit, strengthening the dollar, and not allowing foreign nations to hold so much of our debt.

it won't do any of those things if they just spend it on more worthless BS programs. if they get more tax $ they will spend more tax $. govt is like a ****ing drunken sailor on shoreleave. they spend every ****ing dime we send them. raising taxes won't do dick to reduce the deficit.

no new taxes on anyone until they cut freakin spending.
 
it won't do any of those things if they just spend it on more worthless BS programs. if they get more tax $ they will spend more tax $. govt is like a ****ing drunken sailor on shoreleave. they spend every ****ing dime we send them. raising taxes won't do dick to reduce the deficit.

no new taxes on anyone until they cut freakin spending.

It's really not an either/or situation. Both need to happen. You can't just solely cut spending. The deficit is too large.
 
DEFICIT REDUCTION...those of your party continue to voice this as a montra...time you start putting your "money" were your mouth is.

see post above. If I could be guaranteed that the additional revenue would be used to pay down the deficit, I would gladly pay more taxes.

But it wouldn't be, they would find some loophole, or wonderful new bull**** program or bailout to WASTE it on and then we would be worse off than we are now. No deficit reduction and higher taxes.

I don't trust the govt to be fiscally responsible with any more money than they already get.
 
It's really not an either/or situation. Both need to happen. You can't just solely cut spending. The deficit is too large.

that's the point, they won't cut spending. so the additional taxes won't do a damn thing to reduce the deficit.

cut spending THEN raise taxes.

I don't trust em
 
The argument with allowing the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans at this time isn't about taking that money and putting it back into social services programs. It's about "PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT!!!"

tell it to 47 house dems

Dem letter: Keep tax cuts for rich - John Maggs - POLITICO.com

tell it to jiltin joe lieberamn, stiffneck ben nelson, bye bye evan bayh and budget chair kent conrad who's gonna lose his job in 2 years

More Democrats Call for Keeping Tax Cuts - WSJ.com
 
see post above. If I could be guaranteed that the additional revenue would be used to pay down the deficit, I would gladly pay more taxes.

But it wouldn't be, they would find some loophole, or wonderful new bull**** program or bailout to WASTE it on and then we would be worse off than we are now. No deficit reduction and higher taxes.

I don't trust the govt to be fiscally responsible with any more money than they already get.

Let's bring all of our troops home.
 
The argument with allowing the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans at this time isn't about taking that money and putting it back into social services programs. It's about "PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT!!!" Granted, Clinton was able to do it (reduce the deficit) by cutting spending and raising taxes just slightly, but his tax increases were "targetted" and the money did go towards debt reduction. The same thing is being proposed now and most top wage earners don't have a problem with "doing what's necessary by way of those who can help in support of their country". Millianaires know they've had it good since the 80's. From many of the news reports I'm reading, the rich don't seem to have a problem with paying alittle more in taxes. They'll get that money back anyway. So, for them paying an additional $100K in taxes compared to their $10M in earnings...a drop in the bucket. Of course, you'll phrase this as "wealth redistribution". I'd call it that IF the tax revenues were going towards social programs, but from everything I've heard the President say on this matter, it would not.

DEFICIT REDUCTION...those of your party continue to voice this as a montra...time you start putting your "money" were your mouth is.

No, our first Republican Congress in half a century did it. Clinton just waited in the Oral office with Monica and took credit for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom