• 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 Passes Middle-Class Tax Cut as Dems, GOP Try to Reach Compromise

donc said:
How about a rate that had an average growth of 4.0 percent per year for the eight years of his Presidency; That seen The economy grow for 116 consecutive months, the most in history. Created more than 22.5 million jobs.The cherry on top of this pie was,it was the first federal budget surplus since 1969.


This was accomplished in spite of republicans in congress saying that the tax increase would only make matters worse.Kinda sounds like the same song, different verse doesn’t it?

Yes, I believe that a tax rate of 39.6% that we had during the 1990'swould do the job. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that tax rate was higher for EVERYONE in the 1990's, not jus the rich? Are you suggesting the tax rate on the rich was the ONLY reason...if we're buying your premise that taxes alone were the only reason...for the prosperity? If not, why are you seemingly supporting only one portion of it being raised and not the other.

Furthermore, correlation doesn't mean causation. Its ridiculous to ignore every other factor of the 90's that potentially played into the economic status of it and attempt to dishonestly melt it down to a single factor and act like that alone is a telling and absolute fact due to the 90's economy.
 
Zyphlin said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that tax rate was higher for EVERYONE in the 1990's, not jus the rich? Are you suggesting the tax rate on the rich was the ONLY reason...if we're buying your premise that taxes alone were the only reason...for the prosperity? If not, why are you seemingly supporting only one portion of it being raised and not the other.

Furthermore, correlation doesn't mean causation. Its ridiculous to ignore every other factor of the 90's that potentially played into the economic status of it and attempt to dishonestly melt it down to a single factor and act like that alone is a telling and absolute fact due to the 90's economy.
Click to expand...


I just love watching people who are envious screaming for the government to take other peoples' money based on some myth that doing so is going to make the deficit go away. If libs were that interested in getting rid of the deficit why don't you hear them demanding that all the extra constitutional handouts that congress wastes so much money on get pared down?> Why don't they push for tax hikes on the groups that don't pay near enough (and that sure isn't the top 2% who pay about HALF the Federal Income taxes and all of the death taxes)
 
Councilman said:
What is it about the simple idea that people who make over $250,000 a year are the ones who create the jobs.
Click to expand...
I think that you'll find that the number of jobs created by the people in that category are fewer than the ones created by people who are not. The biggest reason taht I think so is that there are so many more small businesses who don't fall into that category than ones who do.
Councilman said:
We don't need more taxes we need less spending.
Click to expand...
We need smarter taxes and smarter spending imho.
 
Last edited:
Cole said:
Curious headline. There is no tax cut. No tax cut is being proposed. The issue is whether or not taxes are going to be increased, which seems to be a message that is escaping even the copy editors.....
Click to expand...
The tax cut is to be extended.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The tax cut is to be extended.
Click to expand...

Am familiar with the situation. Tax rates are either going to remain where they are....or else they will be increased.

Nobody's tax rate is going to be cut in this picture....


.
 
Cole said:
Am familiar with the situation. Tax rates are either going to remain where they are....or else they will be increased.

Nobody's tax rate is going to be cut in this picture....


.
Click to expand...


true, dems want to call it a tax cut yet they never called clinton's nonsense a tax hike. THe fact is, the Bush tax rates have lasted longer than the Clinton Tax Hikes. increasing taxes is a tax hike pure and simple.
 
Cole said:
Am familiar with the situation. Tax rates are either going to remain where they are....or else they will be increased.
Nobody's tax rate is going to be cut in this picture....
Click to expand...
Research the original legislation. It's a tax cut legislation. The tax cuts were temporary. They need to be renewed.
TurtleDude said:
increasing taxes is a tax hike pure and simple.
Click to expand...
The taxes would increase because the tax cuts would expire.

Politicians rarely cleave to Rush Limbaugh's 'rectification of names.'
RUSH Limbaugh:
"If we don't use the correct words, we live public lies. If we live public lies, the political system is a sham. When the political system is a sham, civil order and refinement deteriorate. When civil order and refinement deteriorate, injustice multiplies. As injustice multiplies, eventually the electorate is paralyzed by public lawlessness. So the Sage takes for granted that he use the appropriate words, and follow through on his promises with the appropriate deeds. The Sage must simply never speak lies"​
Or, as Confucius says, "Words mean things."

;)

For what it's worth, if the tax cuts are not extended, the resulting increase in taxes would be the result of legislation passed during GWB's term which set the date on which the tax cuts would expire.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
Research the original legislation. It's a tax cut legislation. The tax cuts were temporary. They need to be renewed.
The taxes would increase because the tax cuts would expire.

Politicians rarely cleave to Rush Limbaugh's 'rectification of names.'
RUSH Limbaugh:
"If we don't use the correct words, we live public lies. If we live public lies, the political system is a sham. When the political system is a sham, civil order and refinement deteriorate. When civil order and refinement deteriorate, injustice multiplies. As injustice multiplies, eventually the electorate is paralyzed by public lawlessness. So the Sage takes for granted that he use the appropriate words, and follow through on his promises with the appropriate deeds. The Sage must simply never speak lies"​
Or, as Confucius says, "Words mean things."

;)

For what it's worth, if the tax cuts are not extended, the resulting increase in taxes would be the result of legislation passed during GWB's term which set the date on which the tax cuts would expire.
Click to expand...

There are other tax hikes that would kick in-the top rate would be 41% rather than the 39.6%
 
Deuce said:
This bill is entirely symbolic because the GOP will block it in the Senate.

We'll end up extending the upper class tax cuts and adding billions more to the deficit.
Click to expand...

LOL, adding billions to the debt? You actually buy the rhetoric that additional tax revenue will be used to pay down the deficit and debt? Why do you continue to buy the lies of this Administration?
 
Deuce said:
This bill is entirely symbolic because the GOP will block it in the Senate.

We'll end up extending the upper class tax cuts and adding billions more to the deficit.
Click to expand...

If I'm a thousand in debt and you refuse to give me money, did you add to my debt?
 
Z3n said:
I hate this ad hom garbage.

So essentially you are a fascist

the weak deserve to die off and struggle because they are by design inferior

discriminate against people who do not conform to your authoritarian and sick worldview

do you think just because you are smart and intelligent you should have special priviledge under the American democratic system?

:D see its easy!
Click to expand...

He pretty much summed you up. LOL
 
donc said:
How about a rate that had an average growth of 4.0 percent per year for the eight years of his Presidency; That seen The economy grow for 116 consecutive months, the most in history. Created more than 22.5 million jobs.The cherry on top of this pie was,it was the first federal budget surplus since 1969.


This was accomplished in spite of republicans in congress saying that the tax increase would only make matters worse.Kinda sounds like the same song, different verse doesn’t it?

Yes, I believe that a tax rate of 39.6% that we had during the 1990'swould do the job. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Apparently you failed to notice that an entirely new market was created in the 1990s, and the subsequent dot-com boom.

It was called the internet. One of your heroes, Al Gore, claims to have created it right before he saved us all from global warming.

Taxes rates had NOTHING to do with the good times of the 90s. If anything, they kept it from being better.

The government wastes the money we give them, just like they would with tax increases now. That money would not go to the debt anyway, it would line the pockets of more foreign banks and butt-buddy companies to Obama. Just like the stimulus money did.
 
Erod said:
Apparently you failed to notice that an entirely new market was created in the 1990s, and the subsequent dot-com boom.

It was called the internet. One of your heroes, Al Gore, claims to have created it right before he saved us all from global warming.

Taxes rates had NOTHING to do with the good times of the 90s. If anything, they kept it from being better.

The government wastes the money we give them, just like they would with tax increases now. That money would not go to the debt anyway, it would line the pockets of more foreign banks and butt-buddy companies to Obama. Just like the stimulus money did.
Click to expand...

That plus the fact that taxes were cut by the Republican Congress in 1997 which of course Donc and others want to ignore. Why people like Donc continue to buy the rhetoric of liberals is beyond me. Seems that far too many buy rhetoric that they want to believe and ignore actual facts.
 
Conservative said:
That plus the fact that taxes were cut by the Republican Congress in 1997 which of course Donc and others want to ignore. Why people like Donc continue to buy the rhetoric of liberals is beyond me. Seems that far too many buy rhetoric that they want to believe and ignore actual facts.
Click to expand...

When you looked at the personal financial positions of most liberals, it becomes pretty clear. They'll charge lunch at Chilli's to the VISA so they have enough cash to make the minimum monthly payment on the same card.
 
Barbbtx said:
For everyone?
Click to expand...

I want one liberal to tell me why it is so important to raise the taxes on anyone considering the fact that there are over 16 million unemployed people today and very low economic growth. Why do some continue to buy the rhetoric from this Administration and believe that higher taxes on 2% of the population is going to increase revenue to the govt. to make a dent in the current year's deficit? Now liberals want to extend unemployment benefits for another year on top of the 2 years now which adds to the deficit and still not receive Federal Income tax revenue fro 47% of the public that don't pay any income taxes. So why the concern about 2% when the percentage not paying any income taxes is well over 50%. Wonder how people who don't pay any income taxes feel about increasing taxes on others?
 
Conservative said:
I want one liberal to tell me why it is so important to raise the taxes on anyone considering the fact that there are over 16 million unemployed people today and very low economic growth. Why do some continue to buy the rhetoric from this Administration and believe that higher taxes on 2% of the population is going to increase revenue to the govt. to make a dent in the current year's deficit? Now liberals want to extend unemployment benefits for another year on top of the 2 years now which adds to the deficit and still not receive Federal Income tax revenue fro 47% of the public that don't pay any income taxes. So why the concern about 2% when the percentage not paying any income taxes is well over 50%. Wonder how people who don't pay any income taxes feel about increasing taxes on others?
Click to expand...
The thing is, this tax issue isn't going to have the much impact one way or another--at least not financially. It's a political issue that the parties are using to rile up their partisans. That's what it's all about, not about our country's financial situation, it's about our political situation.
The energy spent on this topic is disproportionate to its potential impact.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The thing is, this tax issue isn't going to have the much impact one way or another--at least not financially. It's a political issue that the parties are using to rile up their partisans. That's what it's all about, not about our country's financial situation, it's about our political situation.
The energy spent on this topic is disproportionate to its potential impact.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes it is, bigtime.

I'm about to sell all my stock and funds if they don't extend the tax cuts. No way am I paying 20+ percent on my capital gains next year, when I can pay 15 percent now.

If these cuts don't get extended in full by the 15th, you're going to see a massive stock sell-off, and the market will drop below 9,000 again.

Hello, double-dip recession, and world-wide financial chaos.
 
Erod said:
Oh, yes it is, bigtime.

I'm about to sell all my stock and funds if they don't extend the tax cuts. No way am I paying 20+ percent on my capital gains next year, when I can pay 15 percent now.

If these cuts don't get extended in full by the 15th, you're going to see a massive stock sell-off, and the market will drop below 9,000 again.

Hello, double-dip recession, and world-wide financial chaos.
Click to expand...

I guess in a sadistic but satisfying way it is small comfort to know that conservatives would do this knowing full well the international consequences of such a selfish action.
 
Zyphlin said:
First, it was passed by 51 votes, not 50. Its dishonesty in your attempt to seemingly imply that somehow Cheney alone caused this to occur.

Second, exactly why is it so fair, just, and right that the "Rich" pay the same price they were paying prior to the Bush Tax Cuts however apparently everyone else should get the benefits of it.
Click to expand...
Yep, shooter cast the deciding aye, after a tied 50-50 vote. Care to explain the leap you made when you said

“Its dishonesty in your attempt to seemingly imply that somehow Cheney alone caused this to occur?
Click to expand...

Like I stated on another thread, over the life of the tax cuts the middle and the poor have seen their standard of living decline, while the top 1 percent (who own about forty percent of our countries wealth) have seen their standard of living go up.

Lets take a look at the 2001 tax cut. The one percenters averaged $53,123 while the 60 percenters got (shafted) $347.Hhmm…don’t hardly look fair to these two bloodshot eyeballs. :(

Kinda looks to me that some want to start some form of an autocracy in this country. Or am I just getting paranoid in my old age?
 
QUOTE Zyphlin

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that tax rate was higher for EVERYONE in the 1990's, not jus the rich?
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe it was.


Are you suggesting the tax rate on the rich was the ONLY reason...if we're buying your premise that taxes alone were the only reason...for the prosperity?
Click to expand...

No I’m not; where did you get that idea? See post #16.


If not, why are you seemingly supporting only one portion of it being raised and not the other.
Click to expand...

See post #16.

Furthermore, correlation doesn't mean causation.
Click to expand...

You built your slippery slope, have fun on your slide down it.

Its ridiculous to ignore every other factor of the 90's
Click to expand...

I ignored nothing.


that potentially played into the economic status of it and attempt to dishonestly melt it down to a single factor and act like that alone is a telling and absolute fact due to the 90's economy.
Click to expand...

That’s your take on what I posted. Here was the post I was responding to.

“What rate do you think is the fair contribution from the those folks? Is 39% enough...? “
Click to expand...

Now if there is anything else you want to take out of context let me know. :2wave:
 
QUOTE Erod

Apparently you failed to notice that an entirely new market was created in the 1990s, and the subsequent dot-com boom.

It was called the internet. One of your heroes, Al Gore, claims to have created it right before he saved us all from global warming.
Click to expand...


Dot com Boom, or housing bubble, brought to you by the same ponzii scheme. The difference is that this time we had the bush tax-cuts for the entire ten years sinking us into bankruptcy. Along with the two wars.Geesh…wash the brain hang it out to dry.:doh
 
donc said:
No I’m not; where did you get that idea? See post #16.
Click to expand...

Post 16 is you responding to someone specifically talking about the tax cuts given to the 250k to 1 million range, so doesn't answer whether or not you feel it should be put back to where it was 10 years ago for EVERYONE or JUST for the "Rich"
 
donc said:
Dot com Boom, or housing bubble, brought to you by the same ponzii scheme. The difference is that this time we had the bush tax-cuts for the entire ten years sinking us into bankruptcy. Along with the two wars.Geesh…wash the brain hang it out to dry.:doh
Click to expand...

1. You have no idea what a Ponzi scheme is.

2. Economics is not your forte.
 
haymarket said:
I guess in a sadistic but satisfying way it is small comfort to know that conservatives would do this knowing full well the international consequences of such a selfish action.
Click to expand...

What? LOL, holy moly.

So you think I invested in the stock market as a charity donation for the international community?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom