• 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

CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm OK with the central government having more authority than the states. And the central government will be the administrators with the local governments working under them.

And I agree with the problem of duplicate responsibilities and services being a problem. Streamline them. Central government is the adminstrators and directors, the local government impliments the policies.
Click to expand...

Then you are in conflict with our Founders and the Constitution that put the power in the hands of the states, closer to the people. The Founders knew that power corrupts and that is what has happened with the massive growth in the Federal govt. By having the power in the states the people are closer to their leadership. This would be a great thread topic but contrary to this thread topic.
 
Conservative said:
Then you are in conflict with our Founders and the Constitution that put the power in the hands of the states, closer to the people. The Founders knew that power corrupts and that is what has happened with the massive growth in the Federal govt. By having the power in the states the people are closer to their leadership. This would be a great thread topic but contrary to this thread topic.
Click to expand...
doesnt power corruput on the state level, or is it just a federal thing?
 
randel said:
doesnt power corruput on the state level, or is it just a federal thing?
Click to expand...

If it does that power is closer to the people and identifiable vs. being in D.C. and being one of 435. Corrupt officials at the national level are harder to get rid of than state officials and affect more people.
 
randel said:
hey, i'm all for charity, contribute myself, but you do know that many charities are struggling to meet the demand for their services, right?? i'm so tired of people on here, mostly from the right , accusing those who are unemployed , of being 'lazy, no good, pieces of ^^^^, who don't want to work, but on the other hand, screaming about the lack of jobs, AND THEN wanting to cut these people off from unemployment...can you turtle, can you promise me that the charities in this country can meet the demand for aid? can you? no, you can't. can they meet the need long term? again, no they can't. i've no problem with my government helping out those in need...is it abused by some? sure is..by all, no, no it isnt. in hard times this country is supposed to pull together, help each other out, not say to your neighbor, 'sorry, but i guess your just sh^^ outta luck'. that is a piss poor attitude to have, and when you are more concerned about having a few more dollars in your pocket than you are about your fellow citizens, that is a sad commentary on where this country is heading, and what this country is becoming. its not a left or right thing turtle, its about giving a f### about your fellow Americans....when you care more about a few extra bills in your wallet than you do about your fellow americans, that is piss poor.
Click to expand...

Actually you're asking your government to look after your fellow Americans, when fellow Americns should be looking after each other. There is a very big difference.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's cool. Just trying to understand where your argument is coming from and wanting it to be fleshed out a bit.
Click to expand...
i think having some 'safety net' programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits benefit society on the whole...if we don't have 'lifelines' such as these, i believe you would see an uptick in petty crime, crime such as shoplifting, gasoline drive offs, and alot of this crime would be by people who have never had a previous criminal record, but when you have to feed yourself and feed your family, or have fuel to look for a job, you will do things that you know are wrong, do things you are ashamed of, just to survive... if cutting benefits is the path we go down, i guarantee you will hear/see more instances of this type of crime, which of course, will be prosecuted, which cost the taxpayer money for the courts, if found guilty, the person will get anything from probation to prison, both require the tax payer to fork over more cash to pay for lawyers(lets face it, if you are so desperate to steal food or gas, you arent gonna have money for an attorney), for jail space, for prison/jail guards, and if the person is incarcerated, the system has to feed them...i guess it comes down to do we pay for benefits now, or do we pay several times later ? i conceed that yes, some people will abuse benefits, will milk the system for as long as they can, and as hard as they can, but by no means are they the majority. i will also conceed that yes, this costs taxpayers money...but what is cheaper? benefits now that allow people that lifeline to hang on until they can find work, or prosecuting desperate people later?
 
randel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, "We the people" pulled together to help each other not "we the government".

The moment you stop helping your neighbor and expect the government to do it instead you separate society into classes, and these sorts of debates we see here will only rise and continue.

Whether this is deliberate attempt at class warfare or not, I don't know, but the outcome will be the same.
 
randel said:
i think having some 'safety net' programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits benefit society on the whole...if we don't have 'lifelines' such as these, i believe you would see an uptick in petty crime, crime such as shoplifting, gasoline drive offs, and alot of this crime would be by people who have never had a previous criminal record, but when you have to feed yourself and feed your family, or have fuel to look for a job, you will do things that you know are wrong, do things you are ashamed of, just to survive... if cutting benefits is the path we go down, i guarantee you will hear/see more instances of this type of crime, which of course, will be prosecuted, which cost the taxpayer money for the courts, if found guilty, the person will get anything from probation to prison, both require the tax payer to fork over more cash to pay for lawyers(lets face it, if you are so desperate to steal food or gas, you arent gonna have money for an attorney), for jail space, for prison/jail guards, and if the person is incarcerated, the system has to feed them...i guess it comes down to do we pay for benefits now, or do we pay several times later ? i conceed that yes, some people will abuse benefits, will milk the system for as long as they can, and as hard as they can, but by no means are they the majority. i will also conceed that yes, this costs taxpayers money...but what is cheaper? benefits now that allow people that lifeline to hang on until they can find work, or prosecuting desperate people later?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that food stamps and unemployment are state funded issues? They become Federal programs when mandated by the Federal Govt. to extend payments beyond the original intent. Do you have a problem with the word "benefit" when it comes to being unemployed or on food stamps? Those shouldn't be called benefits but should be called what they are, an expense or temporary assistance instead of something that has a positive connotation.
 
Conservative said:
Do you realize that food stamps and unemployment are state funded issues? They become Federal programs when mandated by the Federal Govt. to extend payments beyond the original intent. Do you have a problem with the word "benefit" when it comes to being unemployed or on food stamps? Those shouldn't be called benefits but should be called what they are, an expense or temporary assistance instead of something that has a positive connotation.
Click to expand...
call it what you will, semantics...call it government aid, call it government assistance, calll it benefits...doesnt change my opinion that they are needed and provide a benefit to society as a whole .
 
randel said:
call it what you will, semantics...call it government aid, call it government assistance, calll it benefits...doesnt change my opinion that they are needed and provide a benefit to society as a whole .
Click to expand...

Ok, they are needed and that is why we have state and local governments, to provide assistence to the people in their area. Why do you believe that is a Federal Responsibility instead of a state, local, or charity responsibility? How long do you think we should be providing payments to the unemployed? How about food stamps? Are these supposed to be endless programs that keep all people dependent?
 
randel said:
call it what you will, semantics...call it government aid, call it government assistance, calll it benefits...doesnt change my opinion that they are needed and provide a benefit to society as a whole .
Click to expand...

Then you should define which level of government you are talking about.

If you want the Federal government to look after people on an individual basis, that's a pretty tough task. But if you want State or county officials to do it, where local people understand the situations better, then that is a possibility.

But the Feds are gaining more and more power and removing it from the local level. This should be a concern.
 
Conservative said:
Ok, they are needed and that is why we have state and local governments, to provide assistence to the people in their area. Why do you believe that is a Federal Responsibility instead of a state, local, or charity responsibility? How long do you think we should be providing payments to the unemployed? How about food stamps? Are these supposed to be endless programs that keep all people dependent?
Click to expand...
you suffer from the notion that the intentions of foodstamps and unemployment benefits are meant and designed to keep people dependent....i've received unemployment benefits conservative, it was quite a step down from what i was bringing home each week, i was plenty motivated to look for work. if this economy was going balls to the wall and we had more jobs than we knew what to do with, i'd fully support your posistion that it was time to end the extensions, i dont expect them to go on forever, but at the same time, regardless of what someone said that the 'recession' ended last year, and that the dow jones average has been going up, and that the business climate is improving, this hasnt translated into the job creation that is needed to justify, imo, the termination of unemployment extensions at this time. lets see some job creation, lets see that national average come back down to around 5%, then we can talk about cutting the extensions.
 
Grant said:
Then you should define which level of government you are talking about.

If you want the Federal government to look after people on an individual basis, that's a pretty tough task. But if you want State or county officials to do it, where local people understand the situations better, then that is a possibility.

But the Feds are gaining more and more power and removing it from the local level. This should be a concern.
Click to expand...

As randel has shown, many people don't understand the role of the State and Federal Govt. getting the two confused. When confronted randel goes silent realizing the error and showing the inability to admit when wrong. I posted the line items that the Federal Income taxes fund and again silence because many also don't have a clue as to what the various taxes actually fund and how they are collected.

Still many here believe what this Administration tells them and believe that there is a Middle class tax cut on the table when in reality it is just an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
 
Grant said:
Then you should define which level of government you are talking about.

If you want the Federal government to look after people on an individual basis, that's a pretty tough task. But if you want State or county officials to do it, where local people understand the situations better, then that is a possibility.

But the Feds are gaining more and more power and removing it from the local level. This should be a concern.
Click to expand...
all branches have a role to play.
 
Conservative said:
As randel has shown, many people don't understand the role of the State and Federal Govt. getting the two confused. When confronted randel goes silent realizing the error and showing the inability to admit when wrong. I posted the line items that the Federal Income taxes fund and again silence because many also don't have a clue as to what the various taxes actually fund and how they are collected.

Still many here believe what this Administration tells them and believe that there is a Middle class tax cut on the table when in reality it is just an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...
:roll: all that your post is really worth....
 
randel said:
you suffer from the notion that the intentions of foodstamps and unemployment benefits are meant and designed to keep people dependent....i've received unemployment benefits conservative, it was quite a step down from what i was bringing home each week, i was plenty motivated to look for work. if this economy was going balls to the wall and we had more jobs than we knew what to do with, i'd fully support your posistion that it was time to end the extensions, i dont expect them to go on forever, but at the same time, regardless of what someone said that the 'recession' ended last year, and that the dow jones average has been going up, and that the business climate is improving, this hasnt translated into the job creation that is needed to justify, imo, the termination of unemployment extensions at this time. lets see some job creation, lets see that national average come back down to around 5%, then we can talk about cutting the extensions.
Click to expand...

This Administration is never going to get unemployment back to 5% because of their economic policies so we are going to have unemployment "benefits" for a long, long time and the longer they are in place the less incentive to get a job. Any idea how many of those getting unemployment "benefits" are part of a two income family?

Anyway, the point stands unemployment payments are supposed to be short term and funded by the states not payments forever. Right now that is two years worth of payments for a program designed for 26 months. You don't seem to have a problem with the extension.

How does increasing the taxes on the top 2% put 16 million people back to work and off unemployment "benefits?"
 
randel said:
:roll: all that your post is really worth....
Click to expand...

Over and over you have shown that you don't understand the difference between Federal Income taxes and Use taxes like Excise, Sales, Property, etc. You continue to buy what you are told by this Administration regardless of the accuracy. That doesn't help your credibility. Admitting when wrong would help.
 
Conservative said:
This Administration is never going to get unemployment back to 5% because of their economic policies so we are going to have unemployment "benefits" for a long, long time and the longer they are in place the less incentive to get a job. Any idea how many of those getting unemployment "benefits" are part of a two income family?

Anyway, the point stands unemployment payments are supposed to be short term and funded by the states not payments forever. Right now that is two years worth of payments for a program designed for 26 months. You don't seem to have a problem with the extension.

How does increasing the taxes on the top 2% put 16 million people back to work and off unemployment "benefits?"
Click to expand...
your opinions conservative, and you are certainly entitled to them, no matter how misguided or offtrack they are...you have alot of preconceived notions of who the unemploymed are...apparently, in your own little world, they are all lazy and no good....no sense in continuing this conversation with you, and i will wait for captain courtesy to chime in and continue my discussion with him.
 
Conservative said:
Over and over you have shown that you don't understand the difference between Federal Income taxes and Use taxes like Excise, Sales, Property, etc. You continue to buy what you are told by this Administration regardless of the accuracy. That doesn't help your credibility. Admitting when wrong would help.
Click to expand...
please, please, please take a double dose for yourself of the advice that you hand out.
 
randel said:
your opinions conservative, and you are certainly entitled to them, no matter how misguided or offtrack they are...you have alot of preconceived notions of who the unemploymed are...apparently, in your own little world, they are all lazy and no good....no sense in continuing this conversation with you, and i will wait for captain courtesy to chime in and continue my discussion with him.
Click to expand...

If they are misguided or offtrack then you shouldn't have any problem proving them wrong but you haven't done that. Never did I say that all people were lazy and no good, so great projection on your part. I asked you how long unemployment payments should be available to the terminally unemployed and didn't get an answer. I don't blame you from runnning and I would do the same in the absence of actual facts and data to support my point of view which obviously you don't have.
 
randel said:
please, please, please take a double dose for yourself of the advice that you hand out.
Click to expand...

Prove me wrong and I will admit it. You haven't done that and in fact have been proven wrong when talking about taxes and their use so you are better off running.
 
randel said:
i think having some 'safety net' programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits benefit society on the whole
Click to expand...

i would hope that none of my colleagues would advocate any kind of elimination of social safety nets, we're americans, americans take care of their neighbors in times of need

meanwhile, obama's stimulus for teacher hiring, passed in the middle of "recovery summer," came at the expense of cuts to food stamps

the nyt later reported that school districts coast to coast were taking the aid money and using it NOT to hire teachers as intended but rather to shore up their strained pension funds

public pensions are very close to the heart of the problem, they're obscene, and they're bankrupt, as overinflated and stretched-to-popping as the subprimed housing market

Food Stamps Slashed to Pay for Teacher Jobs Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/business/economy/18teachers.html

Public pensions put state, cities in crisis - SFGate

Steep Losses Pose Crisis for Pensions - washingtonpost.com

the word in germany, where unemployment has reached an 18 year low, is austerity

it's coming here too, it appears, no other way out

i'm a california public school teacher, by the way, i expect only about half of the pension that's been promised me

i approve reforming strs (state teacher retirement system) because in my opinion it is outrageously way too fat, teachers in my position retire in their early 60's with close to $4000 a month

stay up
 
Conservative said:
So Warren Buffet is smarter at spending your money than you are? Interesting, why don't you then send your money to him and allow him to tell you how much you need on a daily purpose and have him send you what he feels is necessary?
Click to expand...

show me where I said that.....then post again with something relevant...
 
Conservative said:
I don't see an answer to the question, you have such outrage over the 100 billion a year spent on the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars but not much on the other 3+ trillion spent on the budget. Take out the 100 billion a year spent on the war and you would be happy?
Click to expand...

which part of the budget is killing the nation's youth for no good reason? IRAQ....
how much of that budget is going into corrupt afghani pockets? Are you in any way profiting from those wars?

If we would fight our wars the same way our enemies do, we could save a lot of lives, and money....

Did you see in the wikileaks that terrorists are getting funded by our "friends" in the middle east, like Saudi Arabia?
 
UtahBill said:
which part of the budget is killing the nation's youth for no good reason? IRAQ....
how much of that budget is going into corrupt afghani pockets? Are you in any way profiting from those wars?

If we would fight our wars the same way our enemies do, we could save a lot of lives, and money....

Did you see in the wikileaks that terrorists are getting funded by our "friends" in the middle east, like Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...

Really, so our all volunteer military is killing the nation's youth? For no good reason? Do you always react in real life or are you ever proactive?

Yes, saw that and it is an outrage. I support cutting off international funding anyway and that starts with those supporting our enemy?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Do you have any idea how lame it is to see liberals fall back on the "marginal rate" arguments, claiming that we had uber-high marginal rates in teh past, and everyone survived. What we also had were mega deductions and exemptions, such that the net rate paid was below half the usual marginal rate back then. Do you think folks were really paying 80-90% of their income in tax ?

It is also lame to have folks make all these claims over and over, as you have in many of your posts, and provide zero credible sources for it. When asked, they post more nonsense. Its getting pretty stupid.
Click to expand...
You are talking about conservatives, right? I have paid taxes since 1963, even when I was just barely in to the Navy, and poor. There are more deductions for families now than there were then. The only deduction that is missing now is the one for interest deductions other than on mortgages, and sales tax. We all paid taxes, the rich paid a higher rate, and we all got along. Now the rich have had a taste of govt sponsored greed, and it is apparently more addictive than crack cocaine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom