• 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

i'm so tired of people on here, mostly from the right , accusing those who are unemployed , of being 'lazy, no good, pieces of...

in my opinion, no one should say such a thing, it is an outrageous thing to say

in hard times this country is supposed to pull together, help each other

we have, we do

most americans feel we've gone too far

we're changing direction now

the wills of the electorate, of the senate are clear

sorry, i guess

when you care more about a few extra bills in your wallet than you do about your fellow americans...

no one, i feel, is in any better position than any other to question the motives of those with whom one disagrees

no one has a monopoly on caring

senators webb, lieberman, manchin, nelson and feingold care as much for their neighbors, i would presume, as do chuck schumer and jay rockefeller

they have a different recipe, apparently, for what ails us
 
can you promise me that charities can handle all those who have need? or are you one of those that worries more about having a few dollars more in your wallet to buy a latte at starbucks? i'm not asking you to feel guilty for anything, if you have money thats great, if you don't, hey , thats great to, i don't judge you by how much you make.

Charities can't, and it is absurd to use the charity argument as a reason to cut government assistance. Human instinct tells us to fulfill our needs, wants, and desires, both basic and complex. Folks wh give to charity have specific wants that cause them to do so. However, these wants manifest themselves in different formats depending on the person. Some people want to feel good about themselves, so they give to charity. Others want that second jet, or the new big screen TV. It's about what makes the individual feel good.
 
Tell us, logically, why people should "help their neighbor out". I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but you're basically making an appeal to emotion. What are some reasons that you think those who are less fortunate should receive assistance?
common decency....i can't see telling someone 'whats that? lost your job, sucks for you don't it? gonna be a bitch feeding the kids, not to mention yourself'. we send so many billions of dollars overseas in the form of 'aid', but we have a damn fit when it comes to helping our own...i'm not saying that foreign aid should be stopped, but why dont we take care of our own first? also, we spend billions upon billions on two wars, not saying that is right or wrong, but again, we have a fit when it comes to helping those in our population that have need. seems to me from my history classes, that when this country was first founded, we had to 'pull together' for the common good, especially when we were founding the colonies.
 
you can define motivation so broadly your point is true but not a point that most would agree with. but as I noted if someone wants to help people because they like helping people that is the motivation you speak of.

Yes, you have this correct.
 
common decency....i can't see telling someone 'whats that? lost your job, sucks for you don't it? gonna be a bitch feeding the kids, not to mention yourself'. we send so many billions of dollars overseas in the form of 'aid', but we have a damn fit when it comes to helping our own...i'm not saying that foreign aid should be stopped, but why dont we take care of our own first? also, we spend billions upon billions on two wars, not saying that is right or wrong, but again, we have a fit when it comes to helping those in our population that have need. seems to me from my history classes, that when this country was first founded, we had to 'pull together' for the common good, especially when we were founding the colonies.

Common decency doesn't cut it. Why should we be decent?
 
probably not given that high taxes prevent people from giving some more to charities. Your dem masters want to make it even more expensive to give to charities by cutting back on tax deductions for charitable contributions. Why is that?

if your as well off as you claim, higher taxes would not deter you, and should encourage you to donate more, as i believe you can still deduct part of your charitable donations from your taxes.
 
How will raising taxes on the top 2% put 16 million Americans back to work and back paying their full taxes? Noticed that you are still hung up on Reagan in an attempt to divert from the disaster in the WH. Where is that Middle Class tax cut democrats are talking about? My bet it is in the same place the Clinton promise was for a middle class tax cut since you want to review history.

My point is that most of the jobs that were available during Reagan's term in office are GONE to China, India, etc. You know that sucking sound that Ross Perot talked about in 1992.
 
read the rest of the post

It was just more of the same. Appeal to emotion. I'll give you a hint. How does us being "decent" help the US?
 
if your as well off as you claim, higher taxes would not deter you, and should encourage you to donate more, as i believe you can still deduct part of your charitable donations from your taxes.

that is stupid-there are many who aren't as well off who are taxed highly. Why did the dems push to cut back in charitable deductions?
 
Certainly no logic or common sense in your world. Raising taxes means less take home pay for all Americans thus lower spending, and lower profits which then means lower business taxes. so now we still have high unemployment and now lower corporate taxes and you think that is good? That doesn't make any sense at all.

What you ignore and all liberals ignore is the tax revenue increase after the Bush tax cuts of 2003 that came from 8.5 million jobs created and higher corporate taxes. Now you believe that raising taxes somehow will lower the deficit with that many people unemployed? Sorry, that is real voodoo economics.


The Clinton admin raised taxes, increased jobs, and increased revenues. On top of all that it had the closest thing to a balanced budget the US has seen in decades.

Using your logic we can increase taxes and get the same results as lowering taxes
 
It was just more of the same. Appeal to emotion. I'll give you a hint. How does us being "decent" help the US?
not sure i'd call it all an 'appeal to emotion'....alot of it is common sense...i will put some thought into it at work tonight though, and see if i can flesh it out for you...i'm off to bed here in a minute, gotta get a power nap in(shame gotta work tonight..lol...ravens and steelers on sunday night football)
 
But jobs are your big issue and as you have been given jobs were created. 6.5 million during the Bush years. Obama has a net loss of 4 million so raising taxes on the top 2% must be the answer. How many will be created by raising taxes?

Though you are correct that 6.5 million jobs were created during the Bush years, it really isn't that relevant as the economy was collapsing in Q4 2008 and Q1 2009, as the presidency was transferring. In reality, most, if not all of the job loss is attributable to Bush. Of course, if you really want to use job gain as a measure of economic success of a president, then no president was more successful on that front than Jimmy Carter as more than 10 million jobs were created during his presidency (which was 4 years, or half that of Bush)....

If you are truly worried about the deficit, it is really hard to argue with much credibility in favor of extending tax cuts to the highest income individuals. By extending such tax breaks you will certainly compromise government revenue at a time when many worry about deficits with indeterminate, if any, benefit. You can easily raise these taxes and then offer job creation credits to those few that actually do create jobs. Of course, no conservatives advocate such as they 1) are not truly worried about job creation; 2) are not really that worried about the deficit and 3) do not really believe their rhetoric that tax cuts stimulate an economy or they would be in favor of getting the tax cuts that everyone agrees upon done..... they are ONLY interested in their self interests.
 
Last edited:
My point is that most of the jobs that were available during Reagan's term in office are GONE to China, India, etc. You know that sucking sound that Ross Perot talked about in 1992.

What are you talking about ? Reagan dealt with 10.8% unemployment. That means no jobs. Then, as now, if you get the wheels of the economy cranking, there will be jobs. They were there two years ago. The problem is that, unlike Reagan, Obama has pursued policies that stifle the economy and discourage private investment and spending. Its only rocket science to liberals apparently. Written in Greek as well.

Hey Obama ! Its the private sector stupid !!
 
The Clinton admin raised taxes, increased jobs, and increased revenues. On top of all that it had the closest thing to a balanced budget the US has seen in decades.

Using your logic we can increase taxes and get the same results as lowering taxes

Is that right? Do you know what happened in 1994 that really increased jobs? Think about it and get back to me. Obviously some people don't understand basic civics nor have a good grasp of something that happened 16 years ago. You might find out that the Clinton tax increase didn't hold.
 
Though you are correct that 6.5 million jobs were created during the Bush years, it really isn't that relevant as the economy was collapsing in Q4 2008 and Q1 2009, as the presidency was transferring. In reality, most, if not all of the job loss is attributable to Bush. Of course, if you really want to use job gain as a measure of economic success of a president, then no president was more successful on that front than Jimmy Carter as more than 10 million jobs were created during his presidency (which was 4 years, or half that of Bush)....

If you are truly worried about the deficit, it is really hard to argue with much credibility in favor of extending tax cuts to the highest income individuals. By extending such tax breaks you will certainly compromise government revenue at a time when many worry about deficits with indeterminate, if any, benefit. You can easily raise these taxes and then offer job creation credits to those few that actually do create jobs. Of course, no conservatives advocate such as they 1) are not truly worried about job creation; 2) are not really that worried about the deficit and 3) do not really believe their rhetoric that tax cuts stimulate an economy or they would be in favor of getting the tax cuts that everyone agrees upon done..... they are ONLY interested in their self interests.

It does not get much more uninformed than that. That is liberal bass-ackward mantra. No wonder the Democrats screwed things up so bad.
 
if your as well off as you claim, higher taxes would not deter you, and should encourage you to donate more, as i believe you can still deduct part of your charitable donations from your taxes.

Yes I'm sure charities are all for higher taxes because they encourage people to donate more.:confused:
I bet they can't wait until the charitable donation deduction is done away with too. That will really encourage people to give tons more to their favorite charities.:confused:
 
The Clinton admin raised taxes, increased jobs, and increased revenues. On top of all that it had the closest thing to a balanced budget the US has seen in decades.

Using your logic we can increase taxes and get the same results as lowering taxes

Gimme a break. Clinton got reined-in by the Republican House after the '94 elections on fiscal policy, then rode the dot-com boom. Then handed W a recession when dot-com went bust.
 
probably not given that high taxes prevent people from giving some more to charities. Your dem masters want to make it even more expensive to give to charities by cutting back on tax deductions for charitable contributions. Why is that?

Actually higher tax rates actually promote charitable contributions. As taxes increase, the value of the deduction increases. People have higher motivation to give to the charity of their choice rather than give money to the government.
 
What are you talking about ? Reagan dealt with 10.8% unemployment. That means no jobs. Then, as now, if you get the wheels of the economy cranking, there will be jobs. They were there two years ago. The problem is that, unlike Reagan, Obama has pursued policies that stifle the economy and discourage private investment and spending. Its only rocket science to liberals apparently. Written in Greek as well.

Hey Obama ! Its the private sector stupid !!
The Wall Street Journal says you are wrong about the jobs being there two years ago.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ
 
Actually higher tax rates actually promote charitable contributions. As taxes increase, the value of the deduction increases. People have higher motivation to give to the charity of their choice rather than give money to the government.

so explain to me why dems want to make giving to charities more expensive
 
Gimme a break. Clinton got reined-in by the Republican House after the '94 elections on fiscal policy, then rode the dot-com boom. Then handed W a recession when dot-com went bust.

And Bush handed Obama with a much deeper recession.
 
that is stupid-there are many who aren't as well off who are taxed highly. Why did the dems push to cut back in charitable deductions?
I know why. It was to discourage charitable giving and to cause more dependence on government from those down on their luck. A case for growing the government is all this administration cares about.
 
Yes I'm sure charities are all for higher taxes because they encourage people to donate more.:confused:
I bet they can't wait until the charitable donation deduction is done away with too. That will really encourage people to give tons more to their favorite charities.:confused:

some charities did lobby to keep the taxes up-and some wanted the death taxes to continue at a punitive rate for that reason. Of course in some cases that didn't help them-I know of a local charity that lobbied against Bush's cuts to the death tax that got slammed when would be donors decided to punish the charity for its support of massive death taxes.
 
not sure i'd call it all an 'appeal to emotion'....alot of it is common sense...i will put some thought into it at work tonight though, and see if i can flesh it out for you...i'm off to bed here in a minute, gotta get a power nap in(shame gotta work tonight..lol...ravens and steelers on sunday night football)

That's cool. Just trying to understand where your argument is coming from and wanting it to be fleshed out a bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom