• 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 Dems to call for expiration of Bush tax rates in debt-limit deal

TurtleDude said:
Another fail-I was using the term death tax as a freshman at yale in a debate on the issue at the Yale Political Union. "Resolved the death tax be abolished". October 1977
Click to expand...

Yet again, for a time beyond count or reckoning, you resort to the slick tactic of using your own personal experiences or history to extract yourself from a tight spot of your own making. This is something you often do and then of course you hide behind your privacy and nobody can check out the validity of what you say.

That is intellectually dishonest in the extreme and is not at all what debate consists of.
 
The Democrats are going out of their way to loose everything in 2012.
 
apdst said:
The Democrats are going out of their way to loose everything in 2012.
Click to expand...

You discovered the secret plan!!!!!

Okay fellow dems --- who squealed?
 
TurtleDude said:
still hung up on that wiki article? since everyone knows what death tax means it doesn't fit your idiotic definition
Click to expand...
there is no such thing as a death tax
 
donc said:
Almost as unconstitutional as undeclared wars eh?
Click to expand...
Yes! Exactly donc.
The one term president Obama's splendid little war had not yet been approved by the Congress, has it? I admit I have not watched any news since Friday. Perhaps Congress declared war on Friday evening, or Saturday, or even today.

Welcome to the right side.
 
donc said:
This **** didn't start with Obama it stated with the Korean Conflict.
Click to expand...
Awesome. Congress has funded the war in Korea in every year since it began in June 1950. It continues to pay for it today.
 
Thunder said:
its very simple: if the GOP expects the middle-class to suffer in terms of budget cuts, lower pension benefits, and loss of collective bargaining rights..than the wealthy have to sacrifice too....buy paying a little more in taxes.

or should the poor and middle class bare ALL the burden of reducing the deficit?
Click to expand...
.

just pointing out, since Republicans means-test the benefits in order to reduce their expenditures, the wealthy are actually losing the most
 
Misterveritis said:
Awesome. Congress has funded the war in Korea in every year since it began in June 1950. It continues to pay for it today.
Click to expand...

well, Congress has specifically approved each one as well. that's what's so breathtaking about the Obama decision to ignore the War Powers Act - his defense agrees that it is Constitutional, that Presidents should seek the authority of Congress within so many days, etc..... it's just that that kind of stuff doesn't apply to him.
 
cpwill said:
well, Congress has specifically approved each one as well. that's what's so breathtaking about the Obama decision to ignore the War Powers Act - his defense agrees that it is Constitutional, that Presidents should seek the authority of Congress within so many days, etc..... it's just that that kind of stuff doesn't apply to him.
Click to expand...
Granted. The one term president Obama, quite possibly believes he is our king. For the sake of the nation he must be defeated. If he succeeds the nation fails.
 
TurtleDude said:
not for someone who makes as little as you do
Click to expand...

Making a personal attack on someone does not translate into you being able to show that the act of death is taxed anywhere in the USA.
 
haymarket said:
Making a personal attack on someone does not translate into you being able to show that the act of death is taxed anywhere in the USA.
Click to expand...

He obviously doesn't pay death taxes. therefore they don't exist in his world
 
haymarket said:
...show that the act of death is taxed anywhere in the USA.
Click to expand...
Calling the death tax what is is makes sense to me. Someone dies. The government, like circling vultures, swoop in to pick the dead bones clean. It is abhorrent.
 
haymarket said:
My mind was made up a very long time ago. No dilemma at all... for me. But I imagine the harsh reality of just who is responsible for that 47% kicks you pretty hard when you have to face it.
Click to expand...

Not really, because you want to end tax cuts, so then we need to add them back onto the rolls. You don't seem to understand the concept behind the tax cuts.
 
haymarket said:
They do not exist in the real world either.
Click to expand...

Look at the bright side. Even should you have adequate wealth, you won't live to see your estate pay your death tax :)

Put another way: If a tree falls next to you, but you are dead, you won't hear it.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Look at the bright side. Even should you have adequate wealth, you won't live to see your estate pay your death tax :)

Put another way: If a tree falls next to you, but you are dead, you won't hear it.
Click to expand...

If that were to happen his estate would Sue George W Bush for causing it
 
haymarket said:
You march to the tune called by right wing ideologues of the Republican Party who ordered you and your ilk to start using DEATH TAX and you jumped up and followed your masters orders.

There is no tax on death.
Click to expand...

Well arent you just a special little snowflake?
Jealous someone on the right is doing the same thing you are doing on the left?
Cmon. All you are doing is arguing over the semantics of the name of something. After you die, the US government taxes a portion of your estate that should rightfully go to your spouse, children, etc. Calling it a death tax isnt too far of a reach.
 
haymarket said:
You march to the tune called by right wing ideologues of the Republican Party who ordered you and your ilk to start using DEATH TAX and you jumped up and followed your masters orders.

There is no tax on death.
Click to expand...

No, but there is a tax on your estate after you're dead. Not on you're estate, but one someone else's estate.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Well arent you just a special little snowflake?
Jealous someone on the right is doing the same thing you are doing on the left?
Cmon. All you are doing is arguing over the semantics of the name of something. After you die, the US government taxes a portion of your estate that should rightfully go to your spouse, children, etc. Calling it a death tax isnt too far of a reach.
Click to expand...

A reach is a reach is a reach.

W. Shakespeare.
 
apdst said:
No, but there is a tax on your estate after you're dead. Not on you're estate, but one someone else's estate.
Click to expand...

Only because it was given to them. If it was not given to them, there would be no tax. Rich people can avoid the estate tax by going out Viking style in a huge pyre with all their goodies sending them to Valhalla.
 
Taxes are at the lowest level as a % of gdp since the fifties, we are the lowest taxed industrial nation. Countries such as Denmark, (48%) Germany,(35%) have a higher tax rate than we do and they have a growing economies and lower unemployment.

Speaken of the fifties, consumer spending made up about 60% to 65% of gdp, which held until the gipper years of the early eighties, where it grew to 70%, which is where it is now.

Alas, this rise in consumer spending/consumption has now flatlinined for the middleclass. flatlined since the gipper years.Hhmm…I wonder why?:confused: As Paul Harvey would say… Now for the "Rest of the Story".

The only (real income) growth from the early eighties was concentrated at the top 1 percent, which increased 176% adjusted for inflation, versus 69% for the top 20% overall….WTF ANDY. :shock:

Saying that we shouldn’t raise taxes is so much winger bull****. We should be raising taxes on those that have benefited the most.:rock
 
I'm curious, why is it only the dreaded "wealth redistribution" when the poor reap the benefits, but it's completely ignored when we pass laws that do nothing more than put money into wealthy people's pockets?

In the midst of a recession, how can simply giving money to the class of people known for hoarding wealth and not putting back into the economy, via infrastructure or consumption, possibly lead to recovery? The only people who ever see any significant portion of the wealth possessed by the richest members of this county... are other rich people! They buy and sell ownership of companies from each other, profits that are seen by no one but the people already at the top. And, of course, the deals they reach funnel more and more money upward. Wealthy economics is a closed circuit. Every dollar that goes into that pool essentially disappears from the economy for good.
 
donc said:
Taxes are at the lowest level as a % of gdp since the fifties, we are the lowest taxed industrial nation. Countries such as Denmark, (48%) Germany,(35%) have a higher tax rate than we do and they have a growing economies and lower unemployment.

Speaken of the fifties, consumer spending made up about 60% to 65% of gdp, which held until the gipper years of the early eighties, where it grew to 70%, which is where it is now.

Alas, this rise in consumer spending/consumption has now flatlinined for the middleclass. flatlined since the gipper years.Hhmm…I wonder why?:confused: As Paul Harvey would say… Now for the "Rest of the Story".

The only (real income) growth from the early eighties was concentrated at the top 1 percent, which increased 176% adjusted for inflation, versus 69% for the top 20% overall….WTF ANDY. :shock:

Saying that we shouldn’t raise taxes is so much winger bull****. We should be raising taxes on those that have benefited the most.:rock
Click to expand...

those who benefit the most are those who have full citizenship and pay no federal income taxes. they need to pay more if taxes have to be raised. when 95% of the country pay less taxes than the other 5% the problem is not what the five percent pay but what the rest do.

you also labor under the delusion that those who are at the top "benefitted the most" from government. in reality government benefits those at the bottom the most-people who would have starved to death without government.

we have always had people who prospered but its our poor who have improved their lots the most with the advent of welfare socialism and the only reason why they don't pay their fair share is because they have the same voting rights as those who have taxation and representation
 
Paschendale said:
I'm curious, why is it only the dreaded "wealth redistribution" when the poor reap the benefits, but it's completely ignored when we pass laws that do nothing more than put money into wealthy people's pockets?

In the midst of a recession, how can simply giving money to the class of people known for hoarding wealth and not putting back into the economy, via infrastructure or consumption, possibly lead to recovery? The only people who ever see any significant portion of the wealth possessed by the richest members of this county... are other rich people! They buy and sell ownership of companies from each other, profits that are seen by no one but the people already at the top. And, of course, the deals they reach funnel more and more money upward. Wealthy economics is a closed circuit. Every dollar that goes into that pool essentially disappears from the economy for good.
Click to expand...

can you name a law that put money in mY pocket that came from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom