• 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!

CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The poll finds that 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year. That roughly matches the proposal put forth by the White House, which wants to extend the cuts only for incomes less than $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals.

Well, let's see....since 49% of Americans pay no income tax at all, sounds like we could be talking about a rousing mandate of 4%.
 
Those who refuse to work want those who do work to sustain all their needs, just like a lamb sustains the wolf.
 
Well, let's see....since 49% of Americans pay no income tax at all, sounds like we could be talking about a rousing mandate of 4%.

Really? Reading further...

Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal.
 
Last edited:
Well, let's see....since 49% of Americans pay no income tax at all, sounds like we could be talking about a rousing mandate of 4%.

Yeah! If you don't pay a specific type of tax, you don't DESERVE an opinion on things! Plus, EVERY person who pays no income tax is definitely a class-envy liberal who just wants to steal money from the rich. There are definitely no poor people who vote Republican.
 
I saw a t-shirt design that said something like, "Laws that rob Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support."
 
Margin of error + or - 4%.

That could put it down to 49% instead of 53%.... and bring the 46% up to 50%.

I'd say that makes it pretty much dead even. Hardly a mandate or anything against the cuts staying for those making over $250,000.00
 
Margin of error + or - 4%.

That could put it down to 49% instead of 53%.... and bring the 46% up to 50%.

I'd say that makes it pretty much dead even. Hardly a mandate or anything against the cuts staying for those making over $250,000.00
As Paul Harvey would have said here's the rest of the story:
Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal.
 
As Paul Harvey would have said here's the rest of the story:

those who are rich because of the dem control of the government are going to support dems plans to keep control
 
those who are rich because of the dem control of the government are going to support dems plans to keep control

Did we miss the part of your post where
1- you identify those specific individuals,
2- identify how they became rich because of the government control by the Democratic Party?
 
Those who refuse to work want those who do work to sustain all their needs, just like a lamb sustains the wolf.

Because all poor people are lazy and all rich people are industrious! I forgot!
 
I think those who support tax cuts should read this linked article from a non-bias, non-political source then come back here to defend their position.

LOL...eHow.com? Really? I wrote an article on how to build a bird feeder and I've never done it before. People post as much crap on there as they can, hoping it will be clicked on and they'll get paid. You can't trust anything on there.
 
53% is not a vast majority and there is still a margin of error. Regardless, extending the tax cuts for all is the right thing to do.
 
LOL...eHow.com? Really? I wrote an article on how to build a bird feeder and I've never done it before. People post as much crap on there as they can, hoping it will be clicked on and they'll get paid. You can't trust anything on there.

Frankly, I don't know how information posted there is verified one way or another or how people who post information there get paid. None of that matters to me. What does matter is the accuracy of the information. Nonetheless, since you distrust the informaiton at eHow.com, maybe you can refute the information posted at The Washington Post which also discredits the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts.
 
And if you still discredit the information and statistics mentioned in the Washington Post article, what about the info mentioned in this article from the Christian Science Monitor?

When Congress passed the tax relief act in 2001, the US Treasury had a surplus, which economists predicted would grow to $5.6 trillion 10 years down the road. Instead, the United States has an estimated deficit this year of $1.34 trillion. If the federal government extends all those tax cuts this fall and takes no other actions, America could be looking at $9 trillion or $10 trillion in accumulated red ink over the next decade.Still, it appears that the political will exists to extend many of the tax cuts. On Sept. 8, in a speech in the Cleveland area, President Obama threw down the gauntlet to the GOP, saying that Democrats were "ready, this week ... to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less.

On Sunday on the CBS show "Face the Nation," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said he was still in favor of not raising taxes for all Americans. But, when pressed on whether he would hold middle-class tax cuts hostage to cuts for the wealthy, he said, “If the only option I have is to vote for those at 250 (thousand dollars) and below, of course, I’m going to do that.”


....


Everyone from the poorest taxpayer to the richest saw disposable income rise as a result of the cuts. For example, a middle-class family making $52,224 a year (the middle 20 percent of all filers) had a one-year increase in their take-home pay of 2.4 percent, or $1,016 – almost enough for five nights of camping at Disney's Fort Wilderness Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Fla.

But the top 1 percent did far better: They saw an increase in their disposable income of 5.9 percent, or $72,872 – enough to buy a basic XJ Jaguar.
 
Last edited:
Those who refuse to work want those who do work to sustain all their needs, just like a lamb sustains the wolf.

THOSE WHO REFUSE TO WORK?!

Do you think the vast majority of unemployed people WANT to receive unemployment and food stamps? The vast majority just want to get back into the field so that they stand on their own two feet again and feed their families. But they can't, because there aren't enough jobs for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Yes, all taxation is bad as is all government. I suggest we cut the government to the bare minimum which we will never have consensus on in our society and completely dismantle the system! Never mind that the vast majority of homeless are working poor, taking whatever handouts they have will drive them to get a third or possibly fourth job! We can cut the deficit by gutting whatever glue holding society together! With higher taxes I wouldn't have enough money to buy more chinese ****. etc. blah.
 
THOSE WHO REFUSE TO WORK?!

Do you think the vast majority of unemployed people WANT to receive unemployment and food stamps? The vast majority just want to get back into the field so that they stand on their own two feet again and feed their families. But they can't, because there aren't enough jobs for everyone.
ummm, no, because the unemployement rate doesn't count people who have given up looking for work.

WHICH MEANS

If we counted the REAL unemployement, it is actually much higher than 9.8%, and has grown under Obama...specifically Obama. Under Bush, the was relative consistency between the unemployment rate, as we know it, and the real unemployment rate.
 
When you consider that most wealthy get wealthy from gaining from those that are less wealthy directly or indirectly, taxing them how originally was before Bush W would be fine by me. I think in fact, had GWB not messed with taxes like he did, we would be in a far better situation than we are right now and people would even have less of a problem with the fact that he created 3 giant monsters in the government.

Of course, I am just a blood-sucking socialist that works 60+ hours a week on average what the **** do I know?
 
Most people don't know that most of the tax cuts are going to those who make 250,000 or less, not those who make more then 250,000.

mtm1963
 
Back
Top Bottom