• 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!

Democrats Want to Tax Your ATM Withdrawals

With what Democrats are planning, that mattress as an option is looking better every day.

Article is here.

dems never stop scheming how to steal more money from citizens so those lazy parasitic politicians can become even more wealthy without doing anything useful
 
It's a start, but not near enough. I won't cheer until the super rich pay 91 percent taxes, the same percentage they paid back in the 60's.

ricksfolly

you ooze class envy

such a statement is basically a concession you don't have the drive to be rich
 
Social services should have never been the duty of the government. The concept of helping the poor and the homeless are from charities. The cost of war, even if it's an unfavored war, is still within the premise of the federal government. And the fact that social services cost more than the war means that we should cut more of social spending. If you want to start demilitarizing ourselves, I pray you never become a politician. You will be handing our land on a silver platter....

you ought to post more often-that is a great point
 
And you are for allowing the rich to hide their money from the government in offshore accounts, etc and not pair their fair share?

the top 1% make 22% of the income yet pay about 40% of the taxes. The bottom 47% pay no federal income taxes and certainly make alot more than 0 percent of the income. Obviously the rich pay far more than their fair share. 22% Income tax would be a definition of fair. Paying for what they use would be even fairer (and far less than 22%-more like 1%)
 
Why do you hate the rich? Don't you enjoy living in a country where it's possible to become rich? Or do you agree with Obama and think there's a certain point where you've made enough? He never did say how much that would be, but it doesn't matter. Any limit is Un-American in my opinion. So far, this is not a country where limits are set on how successful you can become.

its generally a concession of one or two things

1) the individual understands he doesn't have what it takes to become successfu

2) the individual believes he is brilliant and talented but for some unexplained reason-the market doesn't value him as such so he thinks he has been treated unfairly

and a rather rare but well known situation-the self loathing trust fund idiots who feel guilty about their good luck and feel a need to do some sort of public self flagellation and penance
 
Going by the logic of this thread:

Republicans want private companies to be able to censor your internet content.
 
So you think it's a grand idea that Minnesota and Texas secede from the union? After all, some Republicans have introduced legislation calling for it.

In a word? Yes!!

We have a wouldbe dictator for a president. The best way to combat him, is for all the states to secede. A year ago, I would have said that secession is just nuts, but not now..
 
Going by the logic of this thread:

Republicans want private companies to be able to censor your internet content.

Where in the Constitution does it say that private companies can't censor internet content? Hell, this forum censor's our internet content. I'm betting that Debatepolitics.com is inc'ed, some where, some how. You're a part of the very thing you seem to hate.
 
With what Democrats are planning, that mattress as an option is looking better every day.

Article is here.

Yeah, that will make them really popular in today's flagging economy. :roll:

If they did that I'd just start going inside the bank on Friday and withdrawing all the cash I'd need for the week in person, from the teller.

If they taxed that I'd quit using banks for anything I didn't have to.

Damn it, that money has ALREADY been income-taxed, and a lot of it will be used for something that will cost SALES tax.... heck what's next, a whizz-tax on bathroom visits?
 
Going by the logic of this thread:

Republicans want private companies to be able to censor your internet content.

while the obamunists want the government to be able to do it

you don't have to deal with a private company
 
Bachmann called it extortion, Cantor said stop demonizing BP, Rand Paul called it unAmerican, Steve King said Barton was "spot-on when he called it a 'shakedown.' ".

You're right and it's about time a few Rep grew some onions. I especially love Bachmann and King when it comes to speaking their minds. They are awesome!
 
So you think it's a grand idea that Minnesota and Texas secede from the union? After all, some Republicans have introduced legislation calling for it.

As tempting as it is, my answer is no. We need to stay and fight for the good of the country as a whole.
 
while the obamunists want the government to be able to do it

you don't have to deal with a private company

You do if you want internet access. In most of the country, there's only one or two internet providers. Also, how exactly do "obamunists" want the government to be able to censor content? It's liberals who are the strongest defenders of Net Neutrality.
 
You do if you want internet access. In most of the country, there's only one or two internet providers. Also, how exactly do "obamunists" want the government to be able to censor content? It's liberals who are the strongest defenders of Net Neutrality.

Exactly, because it's a government takeover by the FCC of a system that is not broken.
 
As tempting as it is, my answer is no. We need to stay and fight for the good of the country as a whole.
Well, that was legislation introduced by a couple of Republicans, so according to your theory, you and all other Republicans now own it.
 
Exactly, because it's a government takeover by the FCC of a system that is not broken.

That's just what the corporate lobbyists from the telcoms want you to think. Net Neutrality is, in fact, just the opposite. Net Neutrality advocates no restrictions on the content or ability to access the network by ISP or government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
 
Last edited:
Social services should have never been the duty of the government. The concept of helping the poor and the homeless are from charities. The cost of war, even if it's an unfavored war, is still within the premise of the federal government. And the fact that social services cost more than the war means that we should cut more of social spending. If you want to start demilitarizing ourselves, I pray you never become a politician. You will be handing our land on a silver platter....

So the building and upkeep of infrastructure is social services? Because living in Tennessee, the "conservatives" keep saying you should be able to go get drunk and carry your gun anywhere you'd like - meanwhile, I still don't have sidewalks despite living in a densely populated area. Thank God, we have a small government debt and one of the worst poverty rates in the nation.

That's "job creation" because of those "low tax rates" that help "raise everyone up".

Again, why is it the states with the "best business practices" and lowest tax rates nearly always match up with the highest poverty rates?
 
You're right and it's about time a few Rep grew some onions. I especially love Bachmann and King when it comes to speaking their minds. They are awesome!

I'm glad to see that there are people who support the mentally ill.
 
Back
Top Bottom