• 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
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.

Fine. Just say "Toby" and I'll stop whipping you.

You resort to this because your argument has zero intellectual, economic, or financial merit. If you want to come here and argue, bring facts and leave opinion behind.
 
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
I am painfully aware of the other side of the Uniparty, but your side has done diddly squat about reigning in Wall Street - except to reward them for their treachery and failure. That is the exact opposite of trying to fix things.

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.
Sorry, that is just nonsense. There is no way ANYONE in North America - ESPECIALLY North American business - does not want to see the economy recover.
 
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?
If Oscar will forgive me: there are about a million things that he SHOULD have done, but did not do. First of all, NOT bailing out failed banks. When a business fails, it FAILS. Rewarding failure by handing them BILLIONS with no strings attached was idiotic in the extreme. Regulating banks was the top priority: stop conflicts of interest where depository institutions are also brokerages, investment banks, insurance companies and so on. If a bank is a depository and lending institution, that is what it should be. No way that the company selling you a common stock should also own stock that it gives itself by the boatload and then churn the public shares to pump up the value - mostly set by IT'S OWN ANALYSTS by the constant stream of pure BS about "markets". Sign on to Basel II - simple thing - any responsible country did so back in Basel I days (did it never occur to Americans why Canadian banks - who drank from all of the same fountains as US banks - had no failures or even serious losses??? - answer = properly regulated and enforced). In other words, our banks do not sit at the table with - or in your case OWN - our legislators and rulemakers, and neither should yours. Not bailing out GM - same deal, if you fail, you fail. That is what business does and how it learns to stop doing stupid things. He should have increased capital gains tax. He should have eliminated double taxation on dividends. He should have kicked lobbyists out of Washington. He should have made derivative trading illegal. He should have operated with a balanced budget that included debt service provisions.

Ah, heck...HE SHOULD HAVE DONE HIS FRIGGING JOB.
 
Last edited:
I am painfully aware of the other side of the Uniparty, but your side has done diddly squat about reigning in Wall Street - except to reward them for their treachery and failure. That is the exact opposite of trying to fix things.
Precisely how would you reign in Wall Street? My opinion is that wall street should be burned to the ground but what would happen to the economy?

Sorry, that is just nonsense. There is no way ANYONE in North America - ESPECIALLY North American business - does not want to see the economy recover.

Really, why would any business want to have seen President Obama re-elected? Why would the tea baggers and the conservative party want to see the economy recover, what happens if in 2014 our economy "it won't be" is in full recovery?
 
Actually CIBC took a bath, but that was because they were the most exposed to the US markets, didnt bring them to the brink of failure just lost a crapload. Your point that Canadian banks were/are better regulated is true though.
 
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%"
Two Direct Income Taxes on Wages: FIT & FICA

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 wealthy also don't use much of the stuff that FICA was supposed to pay for and if the wealthy pay almost no FICA they don't get much back in SS.
 
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.

cause and effect failure

you all reelected a failure because he promised all the little children ice cream and candy
 
That comment was made in response to some fool who suggested that libertarians ought to promote social darwinism.

what part of the libertarian agenda guards against social darwinism>
 
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.

what a moronic comment claiming the "rich steal from the poor. If we rich really did what you claim we'd be paying less than one percent of the taxes rather than 40% of the income taxes and all the death taxes
 
what part of the libertarian agenda guards against social darwinism>

Ooooh oooh! Me, me, Mr. Carta!

Human rights, labor rights, environmental rights and a free and fair market. You know, the stuff that separates them from anarchists.
 
Ooooh oooh! Me, me, Mr. Carta!

Human rights, labor rights, environmental rights and a free and fair market. You know, the stuff that separates them from anarchists.

half that stuff is unwarranted government interference depending on the way you define Labor rights or human rights
 
half that stuff is unwarranted government interference depending on the way you define Labor rights or human rights

But the concepts are there, in that ideology. And they help prevent social darwinism.
 
But the concepts are there, in that ideology. And they help prevent social darwinism.

actually real libertarian policies promote social darwinism unless private charity mitigates against it
 
actually real libertarian policies promote social darwinism unless private charity mitigates against it

Social darwinism is not possible (or, at least, is stemmed) with human, labor, environmental rights and a free and fair market. Individual Darwinism, sure, that's competition, but advantage being taken as a "superior group" against "those that cannot support themselves" not so much.
 
Last edited:
Social darwinism is not possible (or, at least, is stemmed) with human, labor, environmental rights and a free and fair market. Individual Darwinism, sure, that's competition, but advantage being taken as a "superior group" not so much.

you are playing semantic games now.
 
you are playing semantic games now.

The subject is Darwinism and I'm a (social) ecologist. I'm allowed to play with my term. See edit for additional "considerations" in the use of my term.
 
The subject is Darwinism and I'm a (social) ecologist. I'm allowed to play with my term. See edit for additional "considerations".

individuals create society. society engages in darwinism if individuals are subjected to it
 
individuals create society. society engages in darwinism if individuals are subjected to it

And society cannot engage in such with human, labor, environmental rights and a fair and free market. If there is no "advantage" to be taken by the "superior group" then "Darwinism" is right out.
 
If Oscar will forgive me: there are about a million things that he SHOULD have done, but did not do. First of all, NOT bailing out failed banks. When a business fails, it FAILS. Rewarding failure by handing them BILLIONS with no strings attached was idiotic in the extreme. Regulating banks was the top priority: stop conflicts of interest where depository institutions are also brokerages, investment banks, insurance companies and so on. If a bank is a depository and lending institution, that is what it should be. No way that the company selling you a common stock should also own stock that it gives itself by the boatload and then churn the public shares to pump up the value - mostly set by IT'S OWN ANALYSTS by the constant stream of pure BS about "markets". Sign on to Basel II - simple thing - any responsible country did so back in Basel I days (did it never occur to Americans why Canadian banks - who drank from all of the same fountains as US banks - had no failures or even serious losses??? - answer = properly regulated and enforced). In other words, our banks do not sit at the table with - or in your case OWN - our legislators and rulemakers, and neither should yours. Not bailing out GM - same deal, if you fail, you fail. That is what business does and how it learns to stop doing stupid things. He should have increased capital gains tax. He should have eliminated double taxation on dividends. He should have kicked lobbyists out of Washington. He should have made derivative trading illegal. He should have operated with a balanced budget that included debt service provisions.

Ah, heck...HE SHOULD HAVE DONE HIS FRIGGING JOB.

President Obama is not a dictator, he is a president, he has to work with the senate and congress. The USA economy was in free fall when he took office, it's nothing short of a miracle that the USA is not in a depression dragging along Canada and half of the world along. It's apparent that you do not care for him so who among the other party candidates would you have cast your vote for?
 
Fine. Just say "Toby" and I'll stop whipping you.

You resort to this because your argument has zero intellectual, economic, or financial merit. If you want to come here and argue, bring facts and leave opinion behind.

This is the internet it takes no intellect, it takes nothing but arrogance to call people names and treat others with disrespect, so I will place you on my ignore list
 


This whole "fiscal cliff" thing, IMO, is really about one thing. GREED. The same people who are pushing to raise the debt ceiling are the same ones who don't want to pay a little more, and being such an elite small sliver, are probably the same ones who have been benefitting from these overexpenditures. If you are one of the small sliver of wealthiest at the top, you make obscene amounts of money. You live vastly beyond comfortably, and anything you want, you can easily afford ten thousandfold. So what's REALLY going on?

Instead of accusing others of being greedy... why don't YOU pay a little more?
 
what a moronic comment claiming the "rich steal from the poor. If we rich really did what you claim we'd be paying less than one percent of the taxes rather than 40% of the income taxes and all the death taxes

"moronic comment" Is that comment a little below your intellectual level? The rich steal from the poor, think what you want to but when you have the money to buy the laws that you want, to elect those you want in office, when you can influence the law makers, when you can speculate driving up the costs of life essential items, when you can manipulate the stock market, what would you call that? The deck is stacked against most of those who are not born into wealth.
 
"moronic comment" Is that comment a little below your intellectual level? The rich steal from the poor, think what you want to but when you have the money to buy the laws that you want, to elect those you want in office, when you can influence the law makers, when you can speculate driving up the costs of life essential items, when you can manipulate the stock market, what would you call that? The deck is stacked against most of those who are not born into wealth.


your rant is silly. why would the rich steal from the poor. the poor don't have money.

why do so many people make excuses for their own failures?
 
your rant is silly. why would the rich steal from the poor. the poor don't have money.

why do so many people make excuses for their own failures?

Most of the poor do not live in tents, they need food, shelter, health care, transportation. When those with money drive up prices through speculation and stock manipulation some of that money comes from the poor and elderly, now you can label it any way you want to but I call it stealing
 
Back
Top Bottom