• 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!

Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

apdst said:
What if this guy gets his big break in a few years and wants to leave his fortune to his children, so they don't have to live in a trailer park, anymore? I know, it's not likely to happen with Obama in office, but, what if it did?
Click to expand...

Yes and what if he lost his job and had to sell his trailer, or dozens of other "what ifs?"

ricksfolly
 
washunut said:
If we define wealthy as Obama does then I would love the middle class to sudsidize me. They can even come over and wash my Jag.
Click to expand...

Wealth is a relative thing. Median income in the country is about $50,000 a year. So for most of the country who are having a hard time getting by under today's prices making only that much, someone making over $200,000 with a Jag and the leisure time to wash it, seems pretty wealthy to them.
 
Catawba said:
Each to their own opinions. I think your post exhibits a certain amount of idiocy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because you Libbos are smarter than the rest of us. Right?
 
apdst said:
How do you figure that?
Click to expand...

I posted it on another thread. It was an IRS study that showed that the top 100 earners in the country paid a marginal tax rate of 17% (I think it was in 2007-2008). And the part about hiding money is just fact. Derivatives and off shore accounts are designed for just that. It is not illegal, it just exists.

Another awesome thing these people can do is trade with money they don't even have (just like banks supplying mortages with backing that doesn't exist). These are called futures. They hedge futures with options called puts and calls. These guys are super smart and they make tons of money off of stocks they never owned. It's impressive but it does not make them worth anything to society. I'd rather watch them on ESPN winning the World Series of Poker.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
What part of, "after wasteful spending is cut," do you not understand?
Click to expand...

All spending. Denocrats passed pay go and it stopped nothing. If you say wasteful they will justify all spending and none will be wasteful
 
Catawba said:
So did Bush before him. I agree we are spending too much and big cuts need to be made. But that is only part of the problem. We are still in recovery from one of the worst recessions in history, and we continue to reduce our revenue by continuing to provide the tax cuts to the wealthy. Same mistake Reagan and Bush made. Unless you have enough revenue to pay your bills you are always going to have debt.

Reagan and Bush both increased spending and reduced revenues. Obama has proposed reducing the percentage of spending back to the days of Eisenhower, and increasing revenue by eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy. That makes more sense to me if the goal is to reduce our National debt.
Click to expand...

So because Bush did it, it is okay Obama does it?
 
Clearly, we need to keep cutting taxes for the rich.

I mean, if we taxed them more... they might not be able to afford as many houses. And that is not acceptable.

4-17-09inc-f1.jpg
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not there. And I think a CNNpolled show some 78-81% (depending on which one we're talking about) said not to touch those two. There's that disconnect again.

The military is more popular in terms of cuts, and there are easier places there to cut. But, fighting two wars, something we didn't have to do, won't be easily ended or dealt with. So costs will continue.
Click to expand...

Of the ANTI-MILITARY want us to cut their spending first! Naturally sacred entitlement cows can't be touched. That's the liberal way, doing what's clearly unconsitutional.
 
TheBook said:
Clearly, we need to keep cutting taxes for the rich.

I mean, if we taxed them more... they might not be able to afford as many houses. And that is not acceptable.

4-17-09inc-f1.jpg
Click to expand...

Building houses creates work does it? And creating work creates jobs does it?
 
Wiseone said:
Ya like back when we had full employment and no debt. Wait when was that again?
Click to expand...

We were never debt free, and the founders never intend that we would be. That's why debt is actually in the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom