• 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!

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

  • Yes, across the board.

    Votes: 10 15.4%

  • Yes, for infrastructure.

    Votes: 27 41.5%

  • Yes, for education. (K-12)

    Votes: 18 27.7%

  • Yes, for job creation.

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • Yes, for social programs.

    Votes: 15 23.1%

  • Yes, for medical care.

    Votes: 21 32.3%

  • Yes, for the environment.

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • Yes, but... not for some particular programs (please elaborate).

    Votes: 8 12.3%

  • No. None. Not for anything at all.

    Votes: 23 35.4%

  • Undecided. Convince me either way.

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    65
Thunder said:
what does this have to do with the thread?
Click to expand...

if you are so worried about this thread not being sidetracked why are you cluttering it up with this mindless bit of crap?
 
apdst said:
It's my patriotic duty to deny the government as many tax dollars as possible, because the more money they have, the more they will waste. I have to save them from themselves.
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with mindless ideaology that speaks in generalities and never seeks to problem solve. We've all seen too much of this in our time.
 
I am simply speaking to the idea that everyone has a shot at making lots of money and that only the "lazy" are low income workers.
Click to expand...

No one has called them lazy but you.
 
Thunder said:
you seem to be confusing patriotism, with greed & selfishness.
Click to expand...
Nope.

The government is currently spending far too much, trying to do too much, and failing epically.

It doesn't need more money, it needs to spend less.


When it hits 3/4 of its current spending levels, I may be ok with it – but no promises.
 
Thunder said:
Will someone please explain to me the logic behind giving a business, freedom of speech? [...]
Click to expand...
Money = power.

Speech (advertising) can be bought with money. Enough advertising (money) can often buy an election.

Corporations hold a huge amount of money (= political advertising). Thanks to the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, they now hold a huge amount of electoral power, which one can expect to be used mostly to put and keep conservatives in office (who are anti-worker, anti-social, and pro-deregulation).

In summary, the logic is simple -- follow the money.
 
Karl said:
Money = power.

Speech (advertising) can be bought with money. Enough advertising (money) can often buy an election.

Corporations hold a huge amount of money (= political advertising). Thanks to the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, they now hold a huge amount of electoral power, which one can expect to be used mostly to put and keep conservatives in office (who are anti-worker, anti-social, and pro-deregulation).

In summary, the logic is simple -- follow the money.
Click to expand...

as opposed to the unions and the MSM?
 
Karl said:
The problem can be traced to the 14th amendment, I have heard argued, and is basically a very tiny loophole that the Supreme Court has used to award corporate personhood:


14th Amendment (section 1): All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​


If, as I have heard it argued, the words "any natural person" had been used in place of "any person", corporations today would have no right of free speech.
Click to expand...

As corporations have no physical reality, they cannot speak or be prevented from speaking. Only real people can speak or be prevented from speaking. If you intend to stop a corporation from speaking, you must, in effect, be preventing some individual person from speaking.
 
Thunder said:
Will someone please explain to me the logic behind giving a business, freedom of speech?

how about the ability of a businessman to drive his business into the ground, forcing the layoff of hundreds of employees, yet he faces no fiscal penalty?
Click to expand...

The same reason that unions and non-profits can have freedom of speech. We never hear you complain about that.
 
TurtleDude said:
as opposed to the unions and the MSM?
Click to expand...
I disagree with the union provision of Citizens United as well.

The MSM, including Fox, is something that all sides must contend with. However, at least they are transparent (i.e., not hiding behind a short-lived unknown PAC name).
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
I disagree with the union provision of Citizens United as well.

The MSM, including Fox, is something that all sides must contend with. However, at least they are transparent (i.e., not hiding behind a short-lived unknown PAC name).
Click to expand...

where did congress get the power to limit how much anyone or anything spends money on including advocacy advertising?
 
TurtleDude said:
where did congress get the power to limit how much anyone or anything spends money on including advocacy advertising?
Click to expand...
Just a sec.... Thomas Jefferson is taking a snooze right beside me, I'll wake him up and ask :roll:
 
Karl said:
Just a sec.... Thomas Jefferson is taking a snooze right beside me, I'll wake him up and ask :roll:
Click to expand...

I guess that is a cute way of saying "I don't know"
 
Karl said:
No, it's a cute reply to a stupid question.
Click to expand...

I guess if you are clueless about constitutional limits on congress it is stupid. But since you lefties constantly whine about that decision it is a fair question as to why congress even has that power
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess if you are clueless about constitutional limits on congress it is stupid. But since you lefties constantly whine about that decision it is a fair question as to why congress even has that power
Click to expand...

They don't.
 
Karl said:
Numbers from the Heritage Foundation show the U.S. percentage of taxation to GDP to be pretty much middle of the road (26.9% out of a range from 1.4% to 69.7%).

Also, they rank the U.S. 9th out of 179 countries in economic freedom (Hong Kong is ranked first, North Korea last).

Would you care to expound on how that is "reprehensible"?
Click to expand...

In your own source, the US ranks extremely low in both fiscal freedom and in government spending. - Around 140 or so out of 179 in government spending. Had it not been for those 2 areas, we'd have ranked in the "free" range instead of "mostly free" (for whatever the data is worth).
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
In your own source, the US ranks extremely low in both fiscal freedom and in government spending. - Around 140 or so out of 179 in government spending. Had it not been for those 2 areas, we'd have ranked in the "free" range instead of "mostly free" (for whatever the data is worth).
Click to expand...
Cherry picking. And the spending claim is invalidated by the other source (as well as other sources), which happens to be the same group's data.

I do like the sig, however ;)
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
yes, and the law currently says that if your business goes bankrupt, you should not go banktrupt with it.

the law says that you AND your corporation, have seperate rights to freedom of speech.

this, is insane.
Click to expand...

Well, not anymore it doesn't.

If you think coporations and persons aren't the same, open a business, get behind on your taxes and see if they levy your personal bank account, after they empty out your corporate account. See if they put a lein on your home and your other property.
 
radcen said:
I have to disagree on this point. You as an individual still have rights. Always will, so I don't understand where the point of view comes from that an individual gives up rights when they start a business. A business is a thing or an entity that is owned, either by a single person or a group of people. Owning a business is not unlike owning a car. As a car is merely a tool to get from Point A to Point B, a business is merely a tool to make money.

Now, IMO, we can have laws that allow business to do things that individual people cannot necessarily do, and these would also... conceivably... be in the best interests of the people as well, but I would stop short at referring to them as 'rights'. Only living breathing humans should have rights. Rights shouldn't change (much) with time. Business laws can and should change and evolve as necessary.

Just my opinion of how it should be, not saying this is how they are.
Click to expand...

My car doesn't have it's own checking account. My business does. If I want to right a check to a political campaign from my corporate account, I should be able to do that without being taxed on the money, before I do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom