• 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 Tax supporters=what is more important to you

Obama Tax Supporters=What is more Important to You

  • Saving the tax cuts for yourself (and the rich)

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Sticking it to the rich with a tax hike for everyone

    Votes: 10 90.9%

  • Total voters
    11
those who want the rich to pay more and vote for big government

the bottom 60% of the voters are generally paying less in taxes to the federal government than they are getting back in federal handouts.

That's not very specific. At the bottom, they dont have ****, so you waste your time there. The middle, well, those are the people who actually buy, so if there is any one who needs a break in order to spend, they're the ones. Top end of the middle, me, I pay, and am willing to pay more. So why do you and some at the top (if that is really where you are) whine so much?
 
1) Keeping the Bush/Obama tax rates for the "middle class"


2) sticking it to the rich with a tax hike



You do realize most everyone is going to vote stick it to the rich because you started the thread right ? lol
 
hell, I can eat the tax-hike.

so let's let the cuts expire..and eventually we'll renew them for just the middle-class.
 
you are assuming the dems will hold both houses. I don't think the dems will get congress or hold the senate. so the GOP will give Obama an all or nothing bill if he were able to win.

right now I give the GOP 80% of holding the house, 65% of getting the senate and 50-50 on the WH

What about a deal exchanging some of the sequester defense cuts in exchange for the gifts to the wealthy? That's an attractive package in Congress and the ONLY way those cuts are not going through.
 
That's not very specific. At the bottom, they dont have ****, so you waste your time there. The middle, well, those are the people who actually buy, so if there is any one who needs a break in order to spend, they're the ones. Top end of the middle, me, I pay, and am willing to pay more. So why do you and some at the top (if that is really where you are) whine so much?

Actually that is not true. When you start paying as much as us in the top one percent you can claim we are whining

we aren't the ones demanding more and more government like the ObamaTaxCare scheme
 
You do realize most everyone is going to vote stick it to the rich because you started the thread right ? lol

I couldn't care less-if the parasite support team all had to pay more taxes they wouldn't be so quick to demand more government
 
What about a deal exchanging some of the sequester defense cuts in exchange for the gifts to the wealthy? That's an attractive package in Congress and the ONLY way those cuts are not going through.

when the wealthy are paying 40% of the FIT what gifts are you emotobabbling about

when the top one percent pay less of the FIT than their share of the Federal income than you can start claiming such unadulterated bovine excrement
 
The fact that this is phrased as "sticking it to the rich" shows a lot of the problem. "Pay a bit more in taxes, but not enough to actually affect your lifestyle, which is already incredibly luxurious" is somehow sticking it to someone. Throwing somebody out of their house is sticking it to them. Stealing their retirement is sticking it to them. Letting someone's kids die because they only work at Wal-Mart and don't get good health insurance is sticking it to them. Shipping someone's job to India is sticking it to them. There is literally no possible income tax short of 90+% that could do damage on that level to "the rich". That's the point of being rich. Such people are insulated against whatever comes their way. 31%? 35%? 39%? Those numbers make no difference on the lives of the wealthy 1% of this nation. 50% tax on their incomes wouldn't make a difference in their lives, and it would make a huge difference in the debt that future generations will face.
 
Mitt Romney's and Warren Buffett's tax rate will increase to 20%. Oh noes!!!!!
 
The fact that this is phrased as "sticking it to the rich" shows a lot of the problem. "Pay a bit more in taxes, but not enough to actually affect your lifestyle, which is already incredibly luxurious" is somehow sticking it to someone. Throwing somebody out of their house is sticking it to them. Stealing their retirement is sticking it to them. Letting someone's kids die because they only work at Wal-Mart and don't get good health insurance is sticking it to them. Shipping someone's job to India is sticking it to them. There is literally no possible income tax short of 90+% that could do damage on that level to "the rich". That's the point of being rich. Such people are insulated against whatever comes their way. 31%? 35%? 39%? Those numbers make no difference on the lives of the wealthy 1% of this nation. 50% tax on their incomes wouldn't make a difference in their lives, and it would make a huge difference in the debt that future generations will face.


you make lots of assumptions from an obvious position of ignorance. how do you know that another 30-50K in taxes is not going to affect lifestyles.

what makes people making a few hundred K a year any different than people in the upper middle class who are one medical emergency or firing away from being way over extended.

the tax is not based on how much money you have left over but what you take in and if you spend a lot-bought a big house based on the Bush tax rates, have three kids at Amherst or Cornell etc you don't have much extra

People like you think that the "rich" only have the same monthly expenses you do which is idiotic
 
Mitt Romney's and Warren Buffett's tax rate will increase to 20%. Oh noes!!!!!

yours should increase to the point you are paying the same amount as I do. Then you can whine.

until then you are living off the taxes of people like me and you ought to be a bit more appreciative of us who fund your existence
 
yours should increase to the point you are paying the same amount as I do. Then you can whine.

until then you are living off the taxes of people like me and you ought to be a bit more appreciative of us who fund your existence



I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney, so you are barking up the wrong tree for sympathy for Romney having to pay a 20% tax rate.
 
I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney, so you are barking up the wrong tree for sympathy for Romney having to pay a 20% tax rate.

not on like income

stop lying
 
its worth it just to hear the wealthy complain.

:)

that is actually more rational than most of the arguments from the far left
 
we aren't the ones demanding more and more government like the ObamaTaxCare scheme


You've forgotten that nearly every single Republican voted for the Iraq war vs a majority of Democrats that voted against it.
 
You've forgotten that nearly every single Republican voted for the Iraq war vs a majority of Democrats that voted against it.

that war pales in comparison with the dem "war on poverty" when it comes to costs and creating dependents
 
that war pales in comparison with the dem "war on poverty" when it comes to costs and creating dependents

The war on poverty reduced poverty and therefore benefited the people of this country without sacrificing 5,000 of our young men and women. How did the GOP war on Iraq benefit the people of this country.
 
if paying down the debt (rather than pandering for votes) really mattered the middle class tax "cuts" would go first since they involve more money

Ah, but that's not how it works and it's certainly not what most Republicans have been saying about how to generate revenue while also paying down the debt and reducing the deficit. They say jobs equate to consumer spending which in turn generates tax revenue. So, if we are to somehow get to the end point - more revenue - does it not make sense to implement a prudent plan to meet that objective? A plan that consists of:

1. Raising taxes on the one class of tax payers who have shown themselves to be "recession proof" - the rich?

2. Keeping marginal tax rates at present levels for those who can least afford a tax increase - the middle-class - thereby allowing them to "keep more of what they earn" so that this, the largest group of consumers can go out and do what consumers do - spend money?

3. Cut out federal waste and excess spending wherever savings can be found.

IMO, the President's "balanced approach" concept makes sense.
 
The war on poverty reduced poverty and therefore benefited the people of this country without sacrificing 5,000 of our young men and women. How did the GOP war on Iraq benefit the people of this country.

the war on poverty wasted billions, spent more than the entire worth of the fortune five hundred, created massive intergenerational dependence and massive numbers of robotic dem voters (which was the purpose al along)
 
Ah, but that's not how it works and it's certainly not what most Republicans have been saying about how to generate revenue while also paying down the debt and reducing the deficit. They say jobs equate to consumer spending which in turn generates tax revenue. So, if we are to somehow get to the end point - more revenue - does it not make sense to implement a prudent plan to meet that objective? A plan that consists of:

1. Raising taxes on the one class of tax payers who have shown themselves to be "recession proof" - the rich?

2. Keeping marginal tax rates at present levels for those who can least afford a tax increase - the middle-class - thereby allowing them to "keep more of what they earn" so that this, the largest group of consumers can go out and do what consumers do - spend money?

3. Cut out federal waste and excess spending wherever savings can be found.

IMO, the President's "balanced approach" concept makes sense.

the interesting point I have made for years that is never addressed is the following

if the middle class is told that there is a deficit

and they are told that only the rich should be taxed more to pay for it

the middle class won't worry about the deficit and they will assume the government can keep on spending on them since the rich will pay the bills
 
Actually that is not true. When you start paying as much as us in the top one percent you can claim we are whining

we aren't the ones demanding more and more government like the ObamaTaxCare scheme

Yeah, from 35% to 39%, wild crazy ****.

But I said nothing that wasn't ture. The top would not trade places with those below. The are crying crocodile tears, playing victim. But, they know they don't want to be where others are.
 
The GOP will say all or nothing and Obama will to be on record vetoing a bill he signed into law a couple years ago

that will really help that turd's standing

Obama will say either defense sequestration cuts go ahead in full or taxes go back to NORMAL for the top bracket. You choose. The Bush tax cuts have always been temporary, I know you think they are the gift that keeps on giving, but the reason they have ALWAYS been temporary is they cost too damn much. You top bracket people have really been cleaning up lately and the "extra" money the Govt. was taking that Bush based the cuts on for those gifts is long gone.
But you should also remember that you will get the same break the lower brackets get if they keep those cuts at least until the economy has recovered. You will still get the same tax cuts on all your income below $250,000 so don't be so smug about an all or nothing ultimatum. Obama made it VERY clear 2 years ago, those top bracket cuts will NOT be renewed again while he is President. Believe him.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom