• 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!

Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    Votes: 21 27.6%
  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    Votes: 48 63.2%
  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 7 9.2%

  • Total voters
    76
What do you hold the current 'CEO' of the USA accountable for?

He's not a CEO.

The president is wrong to keep the practice of rendition. Same with the drone strikes. He also should have fought harder for the public option in healthcare reform.
 
The Government of the United States is a SHAREHOLDER at GM, not a lender. It OWNS (or owned, I think they are selling it the remaining stock to a government owned company) a significant portion of all common stock. Did the same for AIG (which were actually preferred shares). The INTENTION was to be able to hold the stock until it was worth much more than the actual booked investment, but since GM has not been able to do well enough for even the market to value it above the $53.00 break even share price, and it is so embarrassing to the government to own a car company and a car company to be owned by government, it looks as if they will dump some more (some gone already, IIRC) for a loss to end everyone's misery.

And, yes, many of the companies on the list are for-profit businesses. Read their financial statements.

No, they function outside the government and the government is not doing for profit business. The US for people, not profit, kept those businesses afloat, no ownership intended. I'm sorry, but your stretching to try to Mae a square peg fit into a mound hole.
 
You should spend some time INSIDE investment banking to even begin to realize just how far away from reasonable the balance between actually investing vs. churning, playing with M&As, derivatives trading, questionable trading, commodity trading, and outright market manipulation etc. has gone.

It is very easy to bring them back to reality: conflict of interest regulations (keep them OUT of being players in the very stocks/companies they are trading..or SHOULD BE trading on behalf of clients, that and a dozen other things). The greed-above-all factor is so far out of control, there is/was even a serious discussion about manipulating the definitions/regulations that allowed deposit banks' investment arms to designate trade accounts as eligible for FDIC coverage!!!!!!

But most of all, stop the free ride for capital gains and stop double taxation of dividend income. Tax policy is by far the best motivator/director of financial behaviour.

I agreed with you that some investment banks have behaved badly.
All of those use stocks as their underlying assets. They get their value from somewhere, and I'd argue just basic stock trading alone is no enough for Wall Street to provide liquidity. I agree that we should regulate banks from being able to do things like churning, or selling toxic assets to their customers, etc. etc. If we can regulate the greed, then that makes sense, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water and try to kill Wall Street completely. Which if you listen to some people talk, is exactly what they want to do.
 
Ah, so you poo poo a graph using real data, saying there is 'more data' out there, but refuse to produce the data. Instead you take the road of emotion. Go f'n figure.. you identify as a liberal, and that's what liberals do. Emotion over data.

Are you serious that you have never heard of FICA taxes?

"The US government imposes two direct Income taxes. The FIT tax is imposed on almost everything that breathes. The FICA income tax is imposed EXCLUSIVELY on wages up to capped amounts (2008 - $102,000), that are increased annually. Middle-class Workers pay both income taxes, the total of which may significantly exceed the single FIT rate on highly compensated individuals and wealthy pensioners whose capital gains and dividend incomes are taxed at flat rate of only 15%"
http://www.uspublicpolicy.com/fitficaincometaxes.html

As you can see from the graph below, FICA makes up an almost equal percentage of federal taxes as FIT:

2010%20Federal%20Revenues%20Pie.png


The working class has to pay FICA taxes on 100% of their income, but the wealthy who earn most of their income on capital gains, like Romney, pay almost no FICA taxes. That is why the average middle class worker pays a higher percentage of their income on total federal taxes than do people like Romney.

Do you still maintain you were completely unaware of this?
 
The economy was growing up until the financial crisis. And it is recovering slowly back to where it was, but we are still recovering faster then countries like France or Greece.

The economy was growing slower after the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation than it was in the 90's, and there were less new jobs created in 8 years under Bush than were created in 4 years under the Obama administration. And as the non-partisan CBO testified before Congress, unemployment would have been worse with out the stimulus that conservatives opposed.

That is why we reelected the president instead of electing Romney who just proposed a continuation of the tax cuts for the wealthy and more deregulation.
 
when the rich agreed to fund welfare with their $$$$$, they expected people to use welfare as a step up to better themselves....not as a way of life

Step up to what? The Bush Administration left us with 4 people for every job opening! The rich used the tax cuts we agreed to give them to move US jobs overseas, so there was no reason for the working class to continue to allow them. Its that ****ing simple. Sorry Charlie!
 
Step up to what? The Bush Administration left us with 4 people for every job opening!

Bush & Co. did not decide how many jobs there would be or how many people there would be.

Bush's was probably the worst administration in modern history, but the theatrical ways liberals try to blame him for all undesirable economic variables imaginable is absurd.
 
Bush & Co. did not decide how many jobs there would be or how many people there would be.

Bush's was probably the worst administration in modern history, but the theatrical ways liberals try to blame him for all undesirable economic variables imaginable is absurd.

You'll get no argument from me that Bush wasn't an idiot. But we know his doubling down on trickle down economics and deregulation led us to the near depression we had when he left. That is why we rejected the candidates in 08 and last year that promised to continue them.

People warned that the presidential election would be about the economy, and those that ignored the warning must have been surprised by the reelection of the president.
 
A lack of food isn't a problem in our country at least, too much food and the wrong kinds of food are the problems.
That comment was made in response to some fool who suggested that libertarians ought to promote social darwinism.
 
Maybe you could give us some examples of these real business people. Like the CEO's of Ford or GM that type or maybe the robber barons on Wall Street. Maybe ex-president Bush who borrowed money from China rather then raising taxes to finance two wars. Yepper lets get a real business person in office.
Your cynicism is well founded.

The CEOs of Ford, GM and Wall street are EMPLOYEES largely who have robbed shareholders to acquire their stake in the companies they run. Bush...come on...DADDY was the businessman who BUILT Pennzoil, etc., Jr. is just part of the silver spoon set. There are tens of thousands of real businesses in the US that were built by people who understand money and people, and who built the companies that actually drive the ENTIRE economy - Wall Streets and Washington's (which is actually Wall Street's these days).

The problem as I see it is that you Uniparty advocates are so short sighted you only choose between the same-same choices that the Repigs and Dummycrats put on the table. Why WOULD you accept a BushII or an Obama for such an important office? Neither have ANY of the qualities or experience to do the job, and BOTH, just like their political party, are wholly owned subsidiaries of Goldman Sucks.
 
You'll get no argument from me that Bush wasn't an idiot. But we know his doubling down on trickle down economics and deregulation led us to the near depression we had when he left. That is why we rejected the candidates in 08 and last year that promised to continue them.

People warned that the presidential election would be about the economy, and those that ignored the warning must have been surprised by the reelection of the president.
But, let's do remember that the kickoff to this round of truly irresponsible de-regulation was the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton. Further, we witnessed your favourite miracle working saviour show up on camera even before being sworn in with the same economic advisory team the Goldman Sucks ran BushII with. Obama has had 5 years to actually DO something, but all we have seen is more Reagan-size tax and spend idiocy - not to mention the Wall Street bailouts of rewarding his masters for their treachery and incompetence - that has run the debt of the nation through the roof.

Heck, if I was a RRR strategist, I would WANT the PCLL to put their sacrificial lamb back in office to take the fall. IMHO, that is why they ran such totally inappropriate candidates for the last two elections (I mean, have you forgotten Sarah already?????)
 
Step up to what? The Bush Administration left us with 4 people for every job opening! The rich used the tax cuts we agreed to give them to move US jobs overseas, so there was no reason for the working class to continue to allow them. Its that ****ing simple. Sorry Charlie!

sorry charlie, but this problem has been going on long before Bush became POTUS. but, hey, if it makes you feel better to keep bleating "it's all bush's fault' ...then by all means do continue
 
Are you serious that you have never heard of FICA taxes?

Wow, mr. this 20% is more than that 20% is for real. FICA taxes are taken out for social security and medicare. If you paid a damn bit of attention to the original graph, you would have READ that it included social security and medicare taxes (um... FICA!)... here it is again:

article-2256972-16BEDFB0000005DC-324_634x495.jpg

See it up there? So now that you've railed on saying the chart wasn't accurate, and came up with the 'missing' FICA that wasn't missing... What's the new spin we will see next? And you show how you can't even read a pie chart. Even with SS taxes back up to 6.2% as of January 1, that comes nowhere close to the 'revenue' brought in by normal FIT in terms of individuals. When you add in the employer paying the same amount to cover the employees lame ass, the numbers still aren't there in total.

The working class has to pay FICA taxes on 100% of their income, but the wealthy who earn most of their income on capital gains, like Romney, pay almost no FICA taxes. That is why the average middle class worker pays a higher percentage of their income on total federal taxes than do people like Romney.

Again, ignorance is no excuse. The 'rich' in general provide for themselves, they don't need government to do so, thus it they most often don't use SS or medicare, yet pay into it to support the system. Why should they pay MORE into a system they will never use? Don't they pay for enough stuff to take care of you already?
 
Wow, mr. this 20% is more than that 20% is for real. FICA taxes are taken out for social security and medicare. If you paid a damn bit of attention to the original graph, you would have READ that it included social security and medicare taxes (um... FICA!)... here it is again:

View attachment 67140478

See it up there? So now that you've railed on saying the chart wasn't accurate, and came up with the 'missing' FICA that wasn't missing... What's the new spin we will see next? And you show how you can't even read a pie chart. Even with SS taxes back up to 6.2% as of January 1, that comes nowhere close to the 'revenue' brought in by normal FIT in terms of individuals. When you add in the employer paying the same amount to cover the employees lame ass, the numbers still aren't there in total.



Again, ignorance is no excuse. The 'rich' in general provide for themselves, they don't need government to do so, thus it they most often don't use SS or medicare, yet pay into it to support the system. Why should they pay MORE into a system they will never use? Don't they pay for enough stuff to take care of you already?

Your are right ignorance is no excuse The "rich" do provide for their selves by stealing from the poor, how? By buying elected officials who pass laws that protect them. So I hope you are not shedding to many tears for them.
 
sorry charlie, but this problem has been going on long before Bush became POTUS. but, hey, if it makes you feel better to keep bleating "it's all bush's fault' ...then by all means do continue

We the electorate elect a President who is sworn to protect the people, where President Bush is not totally responsible for the economic mess we are in he should have been able to warn the people what was going on instead he was oblivious or just did not care.

Any one that thinks we are going to "ever" recover the standard of living we enjoyed is living in a dream land. Even if we recover the lost jobs the wages of the american worker are going to be much less.

So it's not all President Bushes fault but he was supposed to be steering the ship when it started taking water
 
Your are right ignorance is no excuse The "rich" do provide for their selves by stealing from the poor, how? By buying elected officials who pass laws that protect them. So I hope you are not shedding to many tears for them.

I would LOVE to hear how corporations are "stealing from the poor".
 
So it's not all President Bushes fault but he was supposed to be steering the ship when it started taking water
But, it started leaking from the hole that Clinton drilled in it. Maybe Monica should have warned us. Could have sent out smoke signals with Bill's cigars.

Seriously, though: Bush was neither ignorant of nor careless about de-regulation. He seemed quite anxious to let the laissez-faire model of bank regulation run to its logical conclusion. Stupid is an adjective that comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
But, let's do remember that the kickoff to this round of truly irresponsible de-regulation was the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton. Further, we witnessed your favourite miracle working saviour show up on camera even before being sworn in with the same economic advisory team the Goldman Sucks ran BushII with. Obama has had 5 years to actually DO something, but all we have seen is more Reagan-size tax and spend idiocy - not to mention the Wall Street bailouts of rewarding his masters for their treachery and incompetence - that has run the debt of the nation through the roof.

Glass-Steagall was amended by 3 republicans Gramm–Leach–Bliley, President Clinton did sign the amended act into law, remember that the amended law had to be voted on and passed by the senate and congress before arriving on the president's desk, so there are a lot of hands stirring the pot. President Obama and or no other President will ever be able to put the economic humpdy dumpty back to together again not in 5 years not in 10 years we have entered a period of a global economy wages will have to come down to a point of where we can compete with the 2.8 billion additional workers brought into the new global work place, employment opportunities will reflect the new global work force.

Heck, if I was a RRR strategist, I would WANT the PCLL to put their sacrificial lamb back in office to take the fall. IMHO, that is why they ran such totally inappropriate candidates for the last two elections (I mean, have you forgotten Sarah already?????)

I agree with you the conservative party did not want to be in the oval office, they preferred to be on the outside where they could hold up or prevent any efforts being made towards recovery.
 
I would LOVE to hear how corporations are "stealing from the poor".

I did not say corporationsyou did. But one perfect example would be Wall Street and the housing bubble. Not only did they manage the banks and insurance companies but after the economy went into free fall they collected bonuses. Where did the money come from? Before you answer I will give you a clue the rich got richer and the poor got poorer
 
I did not say corporationsyou did. But one perfect example would be Wall Street and the housing bubble. Not only did they manage the banks and insurance companies but after the economy went into free fall they collected bonuses. Where did the money come from? Before you answer I will give you a clue the rich got richer and the poor got poorer

The housing bubble happened because stupid Americans were going to stupid banks and getting stupid loans.

Joe and Jane make 40K a year between them and go to the bank for a homeowner loan. The banks keep throwing around these great rates (sub-primes) to entice Joe and Jane into taking a loan. Joe and Jane want a $750K house so they apply for a loan, which the bank supplies, and they give them their down payment of $10K.

Okay...so we have a couple making way too low wages going to a bank offering a way too low interest rate for a home that is way too high out of their price range with way too little equity/downpayment. Yeah, I can see how you'd want to blame EVERYONE ELSE for it.

Tell me - do you have even an inkling of financial education, or is this just a bunch of butthurt socialist whining about how you have nothing and they have everything?
 
So it's not all President Bushes fault but he was supposed to be steering the ship when it started taking water

and Obama should have started the bilge pumps instead of steering towards the rocks...plenty of blame to go around
 
The housing bubble happened because stupid Americans were going to stupid banks and getting stupid loans.

Joe and Jane make 40K a year between them and go to the bank for a homeowner loan. The banks keep throwing around these great rates (sub-primes) to entice Joe and Jane into taking a loan. Joe and Jane want a $750K house so they apply for a loan, which the bank supplies, and they give them their down payment of $10K.

Okay...so we have a couple making way too low wages going to a bank offering a way too low interest rate for a home that is way too high out of their price range with way too little equity/downpayment. Yeah, I can see how you'd want to blame EVERYONE ELSE for it.

Tell me - do you have even an inkling of financial education, or is this just a bunch of butthurt socialist whining about how you have nothing and they have everything?

You asked me how corporations steal from the poor I told you and then you reverted to your name calling. So you think that it is okay for the rich to steal from the poor, your opinion and your juvenile name calling says a lot about you.
 
and Obama should have started the bilge pumps instead of steering towards the rocks...plenty of blame to go around

It's easy to say should of and leave it at that, what is it that President Obama should have done that he did not do?
 
Funny thing, as more and more millions of people, that used to be middle class are now living in poverty, were not feeling their lot was improving under trickle down economics and deregulation. Pain has a way of sharpening the senses.

Meanwhile all those rich liberals really really really really really really wish someone would force them to help a brotha out, because you know....they really really really really really really really care.... :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom