• 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!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

You are correct old friend, it started with Ronald Reagan 3 decades ago. With the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it just got worse.



We have never seen the disparity between the classes that we have today in our lifetimes. It has not been this great since before the Great Depression.



True that!



I wouldn't care either if it had not affected our economy and debt and requires the middle class take on more of the nations debt, and cuts to senior's benefits. :peace

Well I did say in a post either more jobs or higher taxes.

What do you think of Obama's job plan bill.
It is my opinion with the way things are; good or bad the unemployed will be for it.
Voting against a job plan bill to create more jobs that would be too gutsy for me.lol:peace
 
Well I did say in a post either more jobs or higher taxes.

What do you think of Obama's job plan bill.
It is my opinion with the way things are; good or bad the unemployed will be for it.
Voting against a job plan bill to create more jobs that would be too gutsy for me.lol:peace

I think it is good, but too small my friend. Given that the House is controlled by the GOP, it is, from a pragmatic viewpoint, the most we could possibly get passed. Even though it doesn't increase the debt, my guess is the Republican's will find some way to kill this proposal. After all it is not in their political interest for there to be more jobs before the election. And we have already seen, during their refusal to raise the debt ceiling to pay our previous debts, that they are perfectly willing to place politics before the good of the country. :peace
 
The point is that Unemployment benefits were on the table to be cut
Yes but not a single time in history have they ever been on the table as a bargaining factor. That is complete bull**** and shows the Republicans true colors just like when the Republicans used the 9/11 first responders bill as a "bargaining" tool.

and the President had to choose what he was going to fight for. If you didn't like the fact that the GOP was ready to cut the benefits, that's another topic.
This is true I dont disagree with that.


The Dems can't control what the GOP thinks and vice versa.
I never said they could.

But the whole point being the Dems and Obama have caved and gave in just about to every single republican demand...
 
But the whole point being the Dems and Obama have caved and gave in just about to every single republican demand...

Actually, the majority of the Dems voted against extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. I've looked it up before.
 
I think it is good, but too small my friend. Given that the House is controlled by the GOP, it is, from a pragmatic viewpoint, the most we could possibly get passed. Even though it doesn't increase the debt, my guess is the Republican's will find some way to kill this proposal. After all it is not in their political interest for there to be more jobs before the election. And we have already seen, during their refusal to raise the debt ceiling to pay our previous debts, that they are perfectly willing to place politics before the good of the country. :peace

43% OF The unemployed haven't worked in 6+months.
You as well as I know that when you are unemployed you are in competition with anybody else that's unemployed for a job.
These people are grasping at anything with the word job on it coming from D.C.

In this bill it was said that any company that hires American workers will get a tax cut.

Perhaps it's not enough but if 20 people get jobs because of this plan it's a start.

Any political organization that goes against a bill to create jobs "any jobs" they might just as well give up now cause who's going to support them?
That's political sucide
Of course the Tea party could come out and say "America has a strong econmy", but didn't McCain try that? lol.:peace
 
Last edited:
Yes but not a single time in history have they ever been on the table as a bargaining factor. That is complete bull**** and shows the Republicans true colors just like when the Republicans used the 9/11 first responders bill as a "bargaining" tool.


This is true I dont disagree with that.



I never said they could.

But the whole point being the Dems and Obama have caved and gave in just about to every single republican demand...

Says what I've been saying Obama is too much of a wimp, but then you got the Tea Party , Republicans on acid with their nose in rich corporation's ass.:peace
 
Which loopholes are you referring to?

I love it when I get to ask that question. :lamo

The tax break for the unemployed poor means nothing
The tax break for the working poor means that they can buy some of the items they need for survival, allows them to keep thier head above water, it does not increase their individual wealth,
The tax break for the middle class means they can replace thier cars tires or maybe buy real butter, the increased monies will end up right back in the hands of those who do not need it
The tax break for the rich allows them to accumulate more wealth they can bank it and draw interest, they can invest it in wall street schemes allowing them to make more money off of the tax breaks.
 
Correction: Republicans controlled both houses of congress for the first 2 years, and they controlled the Senate for the first 6 years, when most of the spending occurred. Congress actually reduced the spending levels that were requested by Reagan.

Republicans controlled only the Senate in 1981 - 1983. Spending bills are created in the House, which was Democrat controlled all during this period.
 
New Data: Congress Reduced Reagan's Budgets slightly.

"September 20, 2010. OK, I finally tracked down exactly what Congress did. There were a few scattered cites on the web to a mysterious House report from 1992, but I could never find it, so I was using ultra-conservative data to be cautious.
But a few days ago, I pulled together my best clues and wrote to the help desk at the Library of Congress. They nailed it in less than a day. Amazing. There is no such report, but they found a table with that name that is published annually and has all the budget results going back to the 1920s or so. Here it is from the government printing office.
The upshot is that Congress actually appropriated less than Reagan's budget requests on average and also less then G.H.W. Bush's. Only by about 0.5%, but Congress shares no blame with Reagan.
I also checked stories in Time magazine and the NYTs for the first Reagan budget, which the supply-siders and Reaganites claim was the big over-run by Congress. Totally wrong. First of all the Senate (with equal say) was Republican, and second, lots of the Southern Dems sided with Reagan and they massacred the more liberal Dems. This budget was only 1/2 a percent high, and it was the Republicans' that did it. The Dems lost.

Was it Really the Democratic Congress?
Reagan won the 1980 presidential election claiming the national debt was at an all time high of $1 trillion, and he would bring it down. It was almost that high, but compared to the size of the American economy it was the smallest it had been in over 50 years. It just looked big because of inflation, but Reagan either did not understand inflation or enjoyed his little deception.
Beyond dispute is the fact that eight years later, when he left office, the debt was $2.6 trillion. "When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain." (Reagan, 1977) By his own standard, he showed an amazing lack of common sense.
Congress Did Not Cause Reagan's Debt
 
The tax break for the unemployed poor means nothing
The tax break for the working poor means that they can buy some of the items they need for survival, allows them to keep thier head above water, it does not increase their individual wealth,
The tax break for the middle class means they can replace thier cars tires or maybe buy real butter, the increased monies will end up right back in the hands of those who do not need it
The tax break for the rich allows them to accumulate more wealth they can bank it and draw interest, they can invest it in wall street schemes allowing them to make more money off of the tax breaks.

A good post, sir.:peace
 
Back
Top Bottom