• 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!

Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?


  • Total voters
    55
Did you fall overboard again sailor? Obama has only added 2.6 trillion to the debt, and that was to clean up the ****ing mess left by the last administration.

Btw, if you are truly interested in lowering the debt, why are you opposed discontinuing the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000?

Interesting conservative you are

its not a tax cut for the people making 250K a year, for the majority of this country's history, the most productive people never paid much of any income tax. it was only dems in the 20th Century that jacked the rates up to the point that someone would claim a 35% confiscatory tax rate is a tax cut
 
Interesting conservative you are

I believe in the root form of the term, conserve. To conserve our resources, including our environment. What I find ironic is that most other "conservatives" I've met don't believe in conserving.

its not a tax cut for the people making 250K a year, for the majority of this country's history, the most productive people never paid much of any income tax. it was only dems in the 20th Century that jacked the rates up to the point that someone would claim a 35% confiscatory tax rate is a tax cut.

Our most prosperous time in this country was when the progressive tax system was still progressive, that's why they called it the Golden Era. Reagan and W put an end to that, which started our big climb into debt and the gradual destruction of the middle class, which brings us to where we are today. A course correction is needed to get us back on track.
 
And yet you support Medicare for *all* old fogies, and you are on record fawning over Medicare Part D, which you were certainly never promised.



Then why do you love it so much?



Huh, my welfare? You mean student college loans? Ya, who needs book-learnin' anyway. Back in your day you had to walk 15 miles to school, and you had to do math with a slide rule, right Navy? :roll:

The fact that you want to gut literally every single social program unless it personally benefits you is disgustingly selfish.

I I support medicare for people over 65 who pay for it.......

2 That is welfare....Pay for you own schooling.get a job.......

3 You have entitlement programs...... people pay for them.......



I think any program people pay for they are entitled to unlike you who wnats free bes
 
Interesting conservative you are

its not a tax cut for the people making 250K a year, for the majority of this country's history, the most productive people never paid much of any income tax. it was only dems in the 20th Century that jacked the rates up to the point that someone would claim a 35% confiscatory tax rate is a tax cut

He is no Conservative........
 
You did not support the bail outs but you like it now.........Seems to me you are trying to have it both ways.............

I say let the companies sink or swim.......that is what capitalism is all about......I am consisent.......you are not.............

I agree. Let them sink. It's what they deserve. The bailout shoud have gone to the people.
 
I believe in the root form of the term, conserve. To conserve our resources, including our environment. What I find ironic is that most other "conservatives" I've met don't believe in conserving. .

My bs detector redlined. You are essentially a statist



Our most prosperous time in this country was when the progressive tax system was still progressive, that's why they called it the Golden Era. Reagan and W put an end to that, which started our big climb into debt and the gradual destruction of the middle class, which brings us to where we are today. A course correction is needed to get us back on track.



More BS-the most prosperous time was before the income confiscation tax escalated and you cannot prove a cause and effect

education is the issue, not soaking the hard working to make the untalented feel better. dem entitlement programs have created legions of addicts who have no incentive to work hard and be in the middle or upper middle class
 
I I support medicare for people over 65 who pay for it.......

No you don't. You are on record supporting Medicare proper and Medicare Part D, which are entitlement programs for EVERYONE over 65. Want me to dig up the quote, or will you just admit that you're lying now?

Navy Pride said:
2 That is welfare....Pay for you own schooling.get a job.......

And yet it never even OCCURS to you to get a job to pay for your own retirement and health care. :roll:

Navy Pride said:
3 You have entitlement programs...... people pay for them.......

The difference is that I don't have a problem with those entitlement programs. Sure, some of them need to be reformed, but I'm not the one who constantly bitches about "failed welfare programs" while simultaneously living off them. Hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
My bs detector redlined. You are essentially a statist

I am a conservationist.

More BS-the most prosperous time was before the income confiscation tax escalated and you cannot prove a cause and effect

I can prove that from 1950 until Reagan, our debt did not increase as a percentage of the GDP., despite the high taxes for the top income bracket. So there is no evidence the progressive tax rates hindered our economy.

education is the issue, not soaking the hard working to make the untalented feel better. dem entitlement programs have created legions of addicts who have no incentive to work hard and be in the middle or upper middle class

I agree education is paramount, which is why I am proud Obama made the biggest increase in funding for education in modern history. The changes needed to return our tax system to a progressive one, as our forefathers wisely set up a century ago, have nothing to do with feelings. It is needed to decrease the wealth gap between the middle class and the upper class that began with Reagan's drastic tax cuts to the upper income brackets, so that the middle class again has the purchasing power needed to make our economy work as it did from 1950 until the dismantling of our progressive tax system under Reagan and W.
 
Last edited:
I would say do not extend anything but the capital gains tax cuts.
 
this is idiotic

everyone should be able to keep the same percentage of the next dollar they earn. Your system is a major reason why we have a runaway debt--right now the dems win elections by promising the majority of voters that they can continue to have all their pork and it will be paid for by jacking up the taxes on the minority of voters who pay most of the taxes. The top 1% make 22% of the income but pay 40% of the income taxes and almost all the death confiscation taxes

we should have a system where YOU suffer MORE taxes at the same percentage as I do when there are tax increases.

Like most class warfare jihadists, you fail to understand that if taxes are jacked up on the smartest and most productive people, they engage in tax avoidance strategies that DECREASE the taxes they pay costing parasites big time. Remember the Moronic Clinton LUXURY TAX--who did it hurt? not the rich buying yachts--it hurt the blue collar people who built yachts
You may THINK it's unfair because of Your political stance, which has NO basis in the econonic history of this country... only in what you naively perceive as 'fair'.
So easy on the "Idiotic" unless you have a Mirror handy.

We have a Progressive income tax now, which in your mind is already 'unfair'.
but in FACT, it's clearly not Progressive Enough to prevent greater and greater income disparity and so-called 'working poor.

So that IN FACT, BOTH parties have agreed several times to stimulous checks (ie 600/1200) which benefit the little guy (and effectivley Lower His tax rate far more significantly than bigger earners) and who HAS to spend every penny he makes ALREADY and still has nothing left.
He can't buy enough cars, computers, etc, to support the Stock prices of the rich. So ALL then do agree where relief is more needed.
The Closet 'Proof of the Pudding'.

A Flat Rate Income tax would obviously cause even greater disparity and Raise the taxes of at least the bottom 2/3s (probably 4/5's/80%) of the population now to lower the taxes on the richer.
Of course, Only AN "IDIOT" would propose it, and no one really has seriously tried.

And as to "Class Warfare", I already addressed this, the most myopic of your many Goofy remarks in post #176.

me post #176 said:
[........]

Top Marginal rates are historically near the Bottom. They were 50%-90% when we were a "Communist" country (and had less income disparity) in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and early 80's.
But most posters being young (not to mention hoodwinked).. simply don't remember.

Any attempt to return to Historic NORMS, much less eliminate the extra Bush Pig-fest/Cap Gains/Divs/Estate tax cuts, is "Class warfare".

Just ask Hannity.
Class warfare, as Buffett has said, His side has already won.

-

Perspective

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Table

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250

1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950
 
Last edited:
I am a conservationist.



I can prove that from 1950 until Reagan, our debt did not increase as a percentage of the GDP., despite the high taxes for the top income bracket. So there is no evidence the progressive tax rates hindered our economy.



I agree education is paramount, which is why I am proud Obama made the biggest increase in funding for education in modern history. The changes needed to return our tax system to a progressive one, as our forefathers wisely set up a century ago, have nothing to do with feelings. It is needed to decrease the wealth gap between the middle class and the upper class that began with Reagan's drastic tax cuts to the upper income brackets, so that the middle class again has the purchasing power needed to make our economy work as it did from 1950 until the dismantling of our progressive tax system under Reagan and W.

socialists go through such great contortions justify confiscating wealth from others.

want the gap to decrease? tell those at the bottom to stop engaging in destructive pathologies
 
You may THINK it's unfair because of Your political stance, which has NO basis in the econonic history of this country... only in what you naively perceive as 'fair'.
So easy on the "Idiotic" unless you have a Mirror handy.

We have a Progressive income tax now, which in your mind is already 'unfair'.
but in FACT, it's clearly not Progressive Enough to prevent greater and greater income disparity and so-called 'working poor.

So that IN FACT, BOTH parties have agreed several times to stimulous checks (ie 600/1200) which benefit the little guy (and effectivley Lower His tax rate far more significantly than bigger earners) and who HAS to spend every penny he makes ALREADY and still has nothing left.
He can't buy enough cars, computers, etc, to support the Stock prices of the rich. So ALL then do agree where relief is more needed.
The Closet 'Proof of the Pudding'.

A Flat Rate Income tax would obviously cause even greater disparity and Raise the taxes of at least the bottom 2/3s (probably 4/5's/80%) of the population now to lower the taxes on the richer.
Of course, Only AN "IDIOT" would propose it, and no one really has seriously tried.

And as to "Class Warfare", I already addressed this, the most myopic of your many Goofy remarks in post #176.



Perspective



winners win, losers lose
this country wasn't set up to comfort losers or to increase their numbers

your existence does not justify others having to pay for you to live
 
socialists go through such great contortions justify confiscating wealth from others.

Yeah, those dang ole socialist forefathers! LOL!
 
Last edited:
the concept of social engineering is contrary to our constitution and the income tax was not set up to do what you want and would have never passed if it was billed as the great equalizer as you say it is. We need to scrap the death tax now that we have confiscatory progressive income taxes

the main reason to scrap progressive taxes is that they allow the dems to buy the votes of people like you by promising tax hikes will only be applied to others

with such a system the parasite class will continue to vote into power income redistributionists who will ultimately force the prosperous to leave the nation meaning the parasites' standards of living will go downhill
 
winners win, losers lose
this country wasn't set up to comfort losers or to increase their numbers

your existence does not justify others having to pay for you to live
On the CONTRARY (and since we've now dispensed with many of your red herrings already)

This country was populated originally by Euro-Losers.

The Income tax set up just under 100 years ago/originally to prevent a 'serf-and-casle' system that was developing because People like Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, etc were accumulating vast fortunes while many were scraping.
Living in virtual slave-labor mining towns/railroad gangs.

What made America, America WAS and IS a large Middle Class (progressive income tax), the vast majority therefore with a stake in our democracy.

Some/a Minority of people just Are Much better, in fact WAY Too much better at accumulating the pie than others.
This is fact.
One YOU obvioulsy, from your posts, wouldn't benefit from if cut-throat/pure capitalism was to be instituted.
One I do understand and have benefitted from.
Especially from Bush virtually Halving MY taxes (Capital Gains/Divs) while running up the deficit/YOUR legacy/payback.
Thanks!

If we would revert back to our 'fair' natural state, again, resembling the beginning of the 20th C with a few astonishingly wealthy and a servant class, or perhaps purer/'fairer', 'serf-and-castle' system.

And as already shown, "Class warfare" has been waged and Won for 25 years against the LESS well off, and any attempt to move even one click back towards historically Fair!.... is Idiotically/with great Irony called "Class warfare" when in fact, and especially considering the the Bush years which HALVED Capital Gains and Div taxes on which the rich live, it's realy "COUNTER Class Warfare".

Nothing sadder/goofier than a Poor Fiscal Republican who has been duped into being into thinking he's a Rugged individualist.
Now go trim my hedges in the North Garden.
-

the concept of social engineering is contrary to our constitution and the income tax was not set up to do what you want and would have never passed if it was billed as the great equalizer as you say it is. We need to scrap the death tax now that we have confiscatory progressive income taxes

the main reason to scrap progressive taxes is that they allow the dems to buy the votes of people like you by promising tax hikes will only be applied to others

with such a system the parasite class will continue to vote into power income redistributionists who will ultimately force the prosperous to leave the nation meaning the parasites' standards of living will go downhill
As I said.
Fine. we can just go back to 1900 (Rockeller/Morgan/Mellon).. or 1400 (serf-and-castle) for that matter.
Odds are YOU won't be looking out any window over your little Estate/Duchy, but digging trenches for your dinner with the other hut dwellers.

"social engineeering"/Progressive taxes Worked/Work.

That's why virtually Every advanced Industrial country has it.
In fact Most of the advanced Western Industrial deomcracies have even More progressive systems.


Edit:
I think the point is made/we're done.
No hard feelings if you continue the gardening for 16 hours 6 days a week.
Otherwise I'll have to get a few other posters on the estate.
-
 
Last edited:
socialists always want the US to be like other socialist nations. You can never prove that freedom is a bad thing and the drug of entitlement addiction is a good thing. All the dems do is to create more and more addicts who have to vote dem or lose the handouts
 
Yeah, those dang ole socialist forefathers! LOL!

You are dishonest claiming to be a conservative

the founding fathers had no use for income redistribution or an income tax

you ignore them and paen people like FDR

selective worshipping of the past and dishonest
 
"social engineeering"/Progressive taxes WORKED/WORK.

That's why virtually Every advanced Industrial country has it.. and how they got to BE advanced.
In fact Most of the advanced Western Industrial deomcracies have even More progressive systems.
-

you are claiming that England, Germany and The USA did not become advanced until they started confiscating the wealth of the most productive? LOL
 
the concept of social engineering is contrary to our constitution and the income tax was not set up to do what you want and would have never passed if it was billed as the great equalizer as you say it is.

Oh there were detractors, but the majority won out, and it was provided for in the Constitution, the part that says to promote the general welfare of we the people. That is also how it has been interpreted for about the last century by the rule of law.
 
Oh there were detractors, but the majority won out, and it was provided for in the Constitution, the part that says to promote the general welfare of we the people. That is also how it has been interpreted for about the last century by the rule of law.

you don't have a law degree do you? ONly people unlearned about constitutional law or dishonest claim that the general welfare clause empowers congress to do whatever it wants and ignore the tenth amendment.
 
You are dishonest claiming to be a conservative

Not at all. I am a lower case "c" conservative.

Upper case "C" Conservatives are dishonest when they claim to be conservative.
 
you don't have a law degree do you? ONly people unlearned about constitutional law or dishonest claim that the general welfare clause empowers congress to do whatever it wants and ignore the tenth amendment.

No, I believe in the rule of law, so I leave it the Supreme Court to determine what is Constitutional. And for the last 96 years they have found it to be Constitutional.

Do you not believe in the rule of law?
 
Not at all. I am a lower case "c" conservative.

Upper case "C" Conservatives are dishonest when they claim to be conservative.

nah you aren't you are a statist.
 
No, I believe in the rule of law, so I leave it the Supreme Court to determine what is Constitutional. And for the last 96 years they have found it to be Constitutional.

Do you not believe in the rule of law?

can you find a ruling where the "general welfare clause" was found to be an empowering clause? do you understand the concept?
 
Back
Top Bottom