• 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 Proved Last Night who benefits from Government spending

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Obama claimed that everyone has to sacrifice. So that means the rich have to pay even more taxes while everyone else does not. SO what will everyone sacrifice if they can keep their Bush tax rates? THEY GET LESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

So the rich sacrifice by paying taxes, everyone else loses some government handouts or benefits

Using Obamalogic that prove the rich pay for the programs and everyone else benefits from them
 
Obama claimed that everyone has to sacrifice. So that means the rich have to pay even more taxes while everyone else does not. SO what will everyone sacrifice if they can keep their Bush tax rates? THEY GET LESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

So the rich sacrifice by paying taxes, everyone else loses some government handouts or benefits

Using Obamalogic that prove the rich pay for the programs and everyone else benefits from them

yeah, he asked for shared sacrifice. no surprise you're against that. when we cut spending, who do you think is affected? the wealthy? lol!
 
Do we really need another "Life isn't fair for rich people!" thread? We get it dude.
 
I think it all depends on what kind of country you want to live in.

If you're going to cut funding to programs that help the disadvantaged, yet leave a few percentage points of taxes, when theyre obviously not helping to spur the economy, and the rich lived quite comfortably before they had them it would seem to make sense to the outsider that the balanced approach is the way to go.

However obamas approach does not cut enough spending that I will tell you.

A few percent should not be the catalyst for a financial meltdown of epic proportions.
 
It's been an oft-lamented problem throughout history that "the poor" hold too much sway in govt. Almost axiomatic at this point that "the poor" hold vastly disproportional influence in govt vs the amount of money they spend on politicians.
 
yeah, he asked for shared sacrifice. no surprise you're against that. when we cut spending, who do you think is affected? the wealthy? lol!

so you agree with me

the rich fund programs and the rest of Americans use them

cutting taxes is a benefit for the rich

increasing spending is a benefit for everyone else

so all the crap that the reason why the rich should pay more is because they benefit most from the government is nonsense

their duty is to fund everyone else's benefits
 
I think it all depends on what kind of country you want to live in.

If you're going to cut funding to programs that help the disadvantaged, yet leave a few percentage points of taxes, when theyre obviously not helping to spur the economy, and the rich lived quite comfortably before they had them it would seem to make sense to the outsider that the balanced approach is the way to go.

However obamas approach does not cut enough spending that I will tell you.

A few percent should not b

e the catalyst for a financial meltdown of epic proportions.

I reject the foundations of most of those on the left that taxes should be based purely on what the rich can afford. most of those not paying any federal income taxes could afford some since until the Bush-Obama tax rates they were paying taxes.
 
turtlydude said:
the rich fund programs and the rest of Americans use them

Well, since the poor and middle class fund the rich in the first place, this seems entirely fair.
 
Well, since the poor and middle class fund the rich in the first place, this seems entirely fair.

that has no basis in fact except you are right about many of those who are rich through government office. In that case you are absolutely right
 
I don't think there is a single person on here, of any political lean that wants to see our Government spend more money then it currently takes in. And I'd also bet that most folks on here would support some form of National health care program if, "we could afford it." There are ton's of good idea's out there to help the poor and unfortunate, but we simply can't afford most of them.

Considering our Governments track record to date, I can't see any reason, any one would consider (a tax increase) giving the Government more money, so that it can be spent where it's not needed. Our Government is just simply irresponsible, to the point of being criminal in the way they use our tax dollars. Until some point where our elected leaders show some fiscal responsibility, Why? Why would anyone want to give them more money?....H
 
turtledude said:
that has no basis in fact except you are right about many of those who are rich through government office. In that case you are absolutely right

You surely can't claim that the wealthy actually produced their own wealth. Their poor and middle class employees did most of that. I suggest you actually read the wealth of nations by Adam Smith (you know, the classic work of economics on which capitalism is based); he explains this in considerable detail. And he would take a very dim view of the "don't raise taxes on the rich" clamour that is raised by some folks these days.
 
If the government is to spend less then they take in defense needs to be cut along with the other big two. Cutting discretionary spending is going to hurt the economy. I believe that the big three don't need to be cut across the board but reformed. SS needs to be given to those who actually need it, currently there is little eligibility requirements except if you pay into it. SS and medicare is for people who worked hard but cannot afford the increasing cost of living and bad economy which we currently have. Medicare and welfare need to have stricter oversight on the beneficiaries. People who want these programs need to be thoroughly checked by the government. Too many people abuse these programs by using them as a supplement to what they already have. We could save a ton of money without ridiculous spending cuts that wouldhurt the economy. We need more discretionary funding like the stimulus and less waist and entitlement spending.
 
yeah, he asked for shared sacrifice. no surprise you're against that. when we cut spending, who do you think is affected? the wealthy? lol!

I'm down for that. let's means-test the entitlements.
 
You surely can't claim that the wealthy actually produced their own wealth. Their poor and middle class employees did most of that. I suggest you actually read the wealth of nations by Adam Smith (you know, the classic work of economics on which capitalism is based); he explains this in considerable detail. And he would take a very dim view of the "don't raise taxes on the rich" clamour that is raised by some folks these days.

its funny watching the far left (several quote Smith) refer to someone like Smith while ignoring our founding fathers and their views on income taxes. As if you are in a position to speak for what Smith would say today
 
I'm down for that. let's means-test the entitlements.

Social Security would have never passed even in the New Deal era if it was nothing more than another redistribution of income scheme
 
turtledude said:
its funny watching the far left (several quote Smith) refer to someone like Smith while ignoring our founding fathers and their views on income taxes.

Just because I didn't mention them doesn't mean I ignore them...though I would also admit that I don't quite have the hero worship for them that some do. I'd be perfectly fine with abolishing income tax and payroll tax altogether, provided that we also went back to before corporations were considered legal persons and we could figure out one other trick: now that we have income and payroll tax, and have had them for some time, it's fairly easy to show that a great deal of wealth has been extorted, through taxation, from the middle and lower classes. There has been wealth redistribution, and it's all been flowing upward lately. Figure out how to reverse that and reset to, say, a few years after World War I, and I'd be fine with doing away with income and payroll tax. We could then go with what Smith said we need to do to have a wealthy nation: deregulate prices and regulate wages.

turtledude said:
As if you are in a position to speak for what Smith would say today

If I am not, why are you in a position to speak for what the founding fathers would say today?
 
Do we really need another "Life isn't fair for rich people!" thread? We get it dude.

Hes taking que from the Environmentalists...peta...gay marriage propronents...Annoy everyone constantly and they will start to believe you....WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! lol

I have to admit though turtle that this pitiful plea by you almost had my crying :mrgreen::shock::2wave::::roll:
 
Last edited:
Just because I didn't mention them doesn't mean I ignore them...though I would also admit that I don't quite have the hero worship for them that some do. I'd be perfectly fine with abolishing income tax and payroll tax altogether, provided that we also went back to before corporations were considered legal persons and we could figure out one other trick: now that we have income and payroll tax, and have had them for some time, it's fairly easy to show that a great deal of wealth has been extorted, through taxation, from the middle and lower classes. There has been wealth redistribution, and it's all been flowing upward lately. Figure out how to reverse that and reset to, say, a few years after World War I, and I'd be fine with doing away with income and payroll tax. We could then go with what Smith said we need to do to have a wealthy nation: deregulate prices and regulate wages.



If I am not, why are you in a position to speak for what the founding fathers would say today?

we have the constitution, and the papers created by those who ratified it. There is an entire subject called constitutional scholarship surrounding that subject.

taxation is not sending money to the most industrious people. commerce is. that is where the welfare socialist nitwits fail. They pretend that its the tax structure that allows the most talented people (and in some cases the most lucky) to get rich. that is false. The tax system today actually prevents lots of people from getting richer because it punishes thrift and the estate tax prevents the somewhat rich from getting really rich
 
Do we really need another "Life isn't fair for rich people!" thread? We get it dude.

do we really need another non relevant diversion from someone who is part of the soak the rich crowd?-most of the threads you whine about were started by your fellow travelers and I was pointing out the obvious intent of the speech
 
we have the constitution, and the papers created by those who ratified it. There is an entire subject called constitutional scholarship surrounding that subject.

taxation is not sending money to the most industrious people. commerce is. that is where the welfare socialist nitwits fail. They pretend that its the tax structure that allows the most talented people (and in some cases the most lucky) to get rich. that is false. The tax system today actually prevents lots of people from getting richer because it punishes thrift and the estate tax prevents the somewhat rich from getting really rich

Bold is mine

So they aren't capable of earning it for themselves?

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, until there are no rich no more". I'd Love to Change the World. -Alvin Lee
 
do we really need another non relevant diversion from someone who is part of the soak the rich crowd?-most of the threads you whine about were started by your fellow travelers and I was pointing out the obvious intent of the speech

Let me paraphrase that for you...

Yes, I will keep complaining about the rich paying slightly more in taxes. I'd much rather live in a country where half live in squalor and filth and the other half live in mansions.
 
I love rich people. I have an IPod (Steve Jobs), I'm on a Windows 7 OS (Bill Gates), I'm watching ESPN talk about the NFL. I don;t see why we should not tax them more, there effective tax rate is still lower than most places in the world. Money of this rich people benefited from the government anyway (internet and computers). There tax dollars are needed to keep this country running. We should cut spending, but even after we do we still need to tax them more. The amount they are being taxed is not high enough to stifle innovation.
 
TurtleDude said:
we have the constitution, and the papers created by those who ratified it. There is an entire subject called constitutional scholarship surrounding that subject.

Just as we have "The Wealth of Nations" and "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," along with various minor works. We also have his correspondence, notes from his students, and things written about him by his contemporaries. And of course, there are plenty of scholars of Smith. So I ask once again: if we cannot know what Smith would have said about today's world, why can we know what the founding fathers would have thought?

TurtleDude said:
taxation is not sending money to the most industrious people.

I agree. It is sending money to the wealthy, however.

Turtledude said:
Commerce is.

This, however, I think is not really correct, unless you adjust the meaning of the word "industrious" so that this is true by definition. There is a profound difference between money and wealth.

turtledude said:
that is where the welfare socialist nitwits fail. They pretend that its the tax structure that allows the most talented people (and in some cases the most lucky) to get rich. that is false.

It's incomplete, but not false.

Turtledude said:
The tax system today actually prevents lots of people from getting richer because it punishes thrift and the estate tax prevents the somewhat rich from getting really rich.

I have no problem with someone earning money. But the rich, by and large, do not earn their money. They use complicated rules they've paid to have set up to cause money to accrue to them.

I agree that the way to fix this is not more taxes, though more taxes for the wealthy is a short-term remedy. Ultimately, however, we need to change our culture and also how money works, as well as what it is founded upon.
 
Let me paraphrase that for you...

first of all the poor in this country live far better than even the middle class in at least half the nations in the world

secondly, there is no proof that higher taxes on the rich have reduced poverty. what it has done is enriched the politicians who pander to class envy to get elected

third, using your marxist logic-as long as anyone is in poverty taxes on the rich should keep rise. If someone has no car someone with two should be forced to give one to the other person
 
Just as we have "The Wealth of Nations" and "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," along with various minor works. We also have his correspondence, notes from his students, and things written about him by his contemporaries. And of course, there are plenty of scholars of Smith. So I ask once again: if we cannot know what Smith would have said about today's world, why can we know what the founding fathers would have thought?



I agree. It is sending money to the wealthy, however.



This, however, I think is not really correct, unless you adjust the meaning of the word "industrious" so that this is true by definition. There is a profound difference between money and wealth.



It's incomplete, but not false.



I have no problem with someone earning money. But the rich, by and large, do not earn their money. They use complicated rules they've paid to have set up to cause money to accrue to them.

I agree that the way to fix this is not more taxes, though more taxes for the wealthy is a short-term remedy. Ultimately, however, we need to change our culture and also how money works, as well as what it is founded upon.

Adam Smith's book is not the law of the land

and what we need to change is the attitude if you fail someone else is at fault and has a duty to bail you out
 
Back
Top Bottom