• 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!

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

pbrauer said:
It's always funny when a conservative who says they believe in the Constitution, when actually they don't.
Click to expand...

I am still waiting and waiting and waiting for you to explain why you believe that expiration of the Bush tax cuts for 2% of the taxpayers will generate 36 billion to the Treasury and will reduce the deficit?

You want so badly to believe what you are told and the question is why? What is it about liberalism and this Administration that hasn't been accurate on any economic prediction that makes you support them to the tune of destroying your own credibility?
 
pbrauer said:
It's always funny when a conservative who says they believe in the Constitution, when actually they don't.
Click to expand...

edify me as to your training in constitutional scholarship so we may evaluate whether you are able to understand who actually believes in the constitution and who does not. I suspect you haven't the education to make such a claim
 
and remind me what sort of persons were able to vote after the creation of the constitution and the republic it fashioned.
 
Objective Voice said:
Why do you guys keep saying that? It is the government's money by virtue of Art 1, Sect. 8 of the Constitution:
Click to expand...

It is not their money. They did nothing to earn it.

.
 
Conservative said:
I was around during JFK and at that time was being raised a Democrat. JFK understood the value of tax cuts and that is exactly what he did in his short tenure. JFK understand that you don't grow tax revenue by raising taxes and thus wouldn't buy this thread topic IMO. His actions spoke louder than the liberal of today's rhetoric.
Click to expand...

It's difficult for them to understand.
They never learned Aesop's fable of the of the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs.
In this case it's a huge gaggle of 'em too.
They've been schooled to rather see them neutered.
.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
edify me as to your training in constitutional scholarship so we may evaluate whether you are able to understand who actually believes in the constitution and who does not. I suspect you haven't the education to make such a claim
Click to expand...

With a statement such as "I am opposed to representation without taxation" you are ill equipped to evaluate anything about the Constitution.
 
pbrauer said:
With a statement such as "I am opposed to representation without taxation" you are ill equipped to evaluate anything about the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I figured as much

the founders didn't believe in non-land owners voting. I don't believe in people who pay no income taxes having a say in how those taxes are raised or collected

The founders worried about that sort of thing

so tell me again, what is your training in constitutional scholarship? DO you hold a law degree or do you just pretend to know what the constitution says.

You also fail to understand that I can be opposed to some rulings or amendments and still support the constitution

I get the fact that you are envious of those who make more than you do.
 
Conservative said:
Of course I can back it up. Maybe if you spent less time on theory and more time focusing on what is actually happening you would have more credibility.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance
Click to expand...

I do not know if you have a problem with reading comprehension, statistics or both; you stated that many of those in the $50k range pay zero federal income tax. Your article states something different, pertaining to median household incomes equal to or under $50k with two children under 17 can pay zero income tax.

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15
Click to expand...

Of course, you will never admit your spin nor lack of clarity. Yet what do i expect from someone who champions "supply side economics" has only a primitive understanding of it.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I do not know if you have a problem with reading comprehension, statistics or both; you stated that many of those in the $50k range pay zero federal income tax. Your article states something different, pertaining to median household incomes equal to or under $50k with two children under 17 can pay zero income tax.



Of course, you will never admit your spin nor lack of clarity. Yet what do i expect from someone who champions "supply side economics" has only a primitive understanding of it.
Click to expand...

do you know at what level of income someone actually starts paying more in federal taxes than they get in federal benefits? while people well below that level are still paying federal income taxes, one doesn't become a net tax payer until they pay more than they receive

any guesses what that number is?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I do not know if you have a problem with reading comprehension, statistics or both; you stated that many of those in the $50k range pay zero federal income tax. Your article states something different, pertaining to median household incomes equal to or under $50k with two children under 17 can pay zero income tax.



Of course, you will never admit your spin nor lack of clarity. Yet what do i expect from someone who champions "supply side economics" has only a primitive understanding of it.
Click to expand...

And of course you will never admit that people making 50,000 don't pay any income taxes regardless of the number. The fact is you seem more worried about what the rich pay instead of the fact that some who could afford to pay something in income taxes actually pay nothing. The fact is this is all about class warfare and diversion from the failures of liberalism and the big govt. that you appear to support.
 
Conservative said:
And of course you will never admit that people making 50,000 don't pay any income taxes regardless of the number.
Click to expand...

Exactly as i expected, both a reading comprehension problem and inability to understand statistics. I do admit that a family of 4 who's household income does not exceed $50k make a $31 profit from the IRS. You on the other hand made a lame attempt to spin it into a scenario where anyone making under $50k pays zero income tax.

The fact is you seem more worried about what the rich pay instead of the fact that some who could afford to pay something in income taxes actually pay nothing.
Click to expand...

Please identify the post in which i am "worried about what the rich pay". If you cannot do this, then apologize for making **** up.


The fact is this is all about class warfare and diversion from the failures of liberalism and the big govt. that you appear to support.
Click to expand...

And there it is.... You are not arguing my statements, only how you perceive me to be from a personal standpoint. Now that's what i call class (pun intended)
 
Goldenboy219;1058967232]Exactly as i expected, both a reading comprehension problem and inability to understand statistics. I do admit that a family of 4 who's household income does not exceed $50k make a $31 profit from the IRS. You on the other hand made a lame attempt to spin it into a scenario where anyone making under $50k pays zero income tax.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said as desperation sets in with another liberal.


Please identify the post in which i am "worried about what the rich pay". If you cannot do this, then apologize for making **** up.
Click to expand...

Is your ego so fragile that you have to demand an apology? do you or do you not support letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the so called rich? If not then I apologize, if you do then my statement stands.




And there it is.... You are not arguing my statements, only how you perceive me to be from a personal standpoint. Now that's what i call class (pun intended)
Click to expand...


I am entitled to my opinion and what I see is someone who advertises themselves as a Libertarian acting and arguing like a liberal. The Thread topic is GOP plan to extend tax cuts for the rich adds 36 billion to the deficits. Is that what you believe?
 
TurtleDude said:
I figured as much

the founders didn't believe in non-land owners voting. I don't believe in people who pay no income taxes having a say in how those taxes are raised or collected

The founders worried about that sort of thing

so tell me again, what is your training in constitutional scholarship? DO you hold a law degree or do you just pretend to know what the constitution says.

You also fail to understand that I can be opposed to some rulings or amendments and still support the constitution

I get the fact that you are envious of those who make more than you do.
Click to expand...

bs-detector.gif


Quinn: "Originally, if you didn't have land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it" | Media Matters for America
 
pbrauer said:
bs-detector.gif


Quinn: "Originally, if you didn't have land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it" | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...

Noticed that you ran from the request for you to explain why you continue to support this Administration who hasn't made an accurate economic prediction in over 2 years and now claims that extending the tax cuts to the rich will add 36 billion to the deficits? You don't seem to be bothers by supporting an ideology that destroys your credibility and makes you look foolish. Wonder why?
 
TurtleDude said:
cute but stupid and evasive

based on your lack of a rational response I will presume you have no training in constitutional law and will treat you as such

envy is all you have
Click to expand...

Not as stupid as saying: "I am opposed to representation without taxation." :lamo :lamo The founders were politicans and had all sorts of views, show me where in the Constitution it says about only land owners being able to vote?
 
pbrauer said:
Not as stupid as saying: "I am opposed to representation without taxation." :lamo :lamo The founders were politicans and had all sorts of views, show me where in the Constitution it says about only land owners being able to vote?
Click to expand...

are you as ignorant of history as well as the constitution?
 
pbrauer said:
Show me where in the Constitution it says about only land owners being able to vote?
Click to expand...

show me where in the constitution women were allowed to vote prior to 1920
 
pbrauer said:
Show me where in the Constitution it says about only land owners being able to vote?
Click to expand...

show me where I said it was in the constitution. IIRC i said the founders worried about non landowners voting (post 782)

do you think the founders were limited to merely authoring the constitution
 
TurtleDude said:
show me where in the constitution women were allowed to vote prior to 1920
Click to expand...

:rofl Show me where in the Constitution it says about only land owners being able to vote?
 
pbrauer said:
:rofl Show me where in the Constitution it says about only land owners being able to vote?
Click to expand...

I guess you weren't able to comprehend my last post

sad
 
pbrauer said:
Post #788 ...
Click to expand...

In other words you cannot find a claim by me that I said the constitution limited voting to landowning males

Thanks
 
TurtleDude said:
In other words you cannot find a claim by me that I said the constitution limited voting to landowning males

Thanks
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
I am opposed to representation without taxation. I have forgotten more about civics than you will ever know so stow your sanctimonious attitude. The main draw for the poor to vote dem is the promises that the dems will give them more of the wealth of others.
Click to expand...

:2wave::2wave::lamo:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom