• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

obama ad, building from the bottom up

apdst said:
But, not when the second hand is the government.

If it worked, the Soviet Union wouldn't wouldn't have collapsed.
Click to expand...
The desired effect remains the same, regardless of who the second hand may be.

Completely irrelevant.
 
theseki said:
While I am not an American and could be wrong; dont bills have to come from the Senate and the House of Representatives? I dont believe a President has the power to enact policies unilaterally.

I do agree however; the American government has failed to effectively respond to the economic trouble. I lived through a similar period of slow growth, inactive government, and very conservative policies that failed to address our troubles. I sympathize deeply

Iceland is looking pretty good though. :)
Click to expand...

In this country the president is the Commander in Chief, the top dog, the leader of this country, and it is he that pushes his agenda. And it is his followers, in this case Democrats that do what he wants in most times. The president is to show leadership in all issues that involve this country, and pull people together, not divide them. Obama's policies have killed jobs not provide an environment for economic growth. One tiny example: Obama killed the Keystone pipeline, that would have created 20,000 jobs and a greatly needed supply of friendly oil. But instead he blocked it and would rather send 500 billion a yr to Oil Lords in the middle east rather than open up our land to exploration. This Obama has killed all by himself. Remember he has veto power.
 
Hare said:
The desired effect remains the same, regardless of who the second hand may be.

Completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, taking money from one hand, and giving it to another is a good thing.
 
Born Free said:
If I understand you correctly, taking money from one hand, and giving it to another is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Transfer of wealth just so happens to be the foundation of the economy as we know it.
 
Hare said:
The desired effect remains the same, regardless of who the second hand may be.

Completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

This economy, the greatest in modern history, wasn't built by wealth redistribution.
 
apdst said:
This economy, the greatest in modern history, wasn't built by wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...
Actually, the post WW2 era was positively littered with taxation and bouts of public sector expansion that could both make current policy makers blush and quite easily qualify as wealth redistribution in conservative circles.
 
apdst said:
This economy, the greatest in modern history, wasn't built by wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

Of course it was. The heyday of American economic power came between WWII and the 60s when the top income rate averaged around 90%, the tax code was far more progressive, and safety net programs were put in place.
 
AdamT said:
Of course it was. The heyday of American economic power came between WWII and the 60s when the top income rate averaged around 90%, the tax code was far more progressive, and safety net programs were put in place.
Click to expand...

Averaged 90%? If I'm not mistaken most years there were fewer than 10 individuals that paid that rate.
 
AdamT said:
Of course it was. The heyday of American economic power came between WWII and the 60s when the top income rate averaged around 90%, the tax code was far more progressive, and safety net programs were put in place.
Click to expand...

They may have been a 90% tax rate, but that is not what they were paying.
 
Awesome! said:
Obama states in his latest tv ad that we need to build from the bottom up? How do you do that?
Click to expand...

Well, years ago, I was a construction laborer working 70 hour weeks to feed my family. Then I was laid off, like many Americans today. Because I was trying to support a family, I was able to qualify for pell grants to go back to school, food stamps to stay fed, and federally backed stafford loans to go to school. I used food stamps and unemployment for about 2 months to get my affairs in order to go back to school. I had to move, get a vehicle, and find a job. Then I worked full time and went to school. Using the pell grants for tuition and the stafford loans to subsidize our living expenses, I was able to get off unemployment and food stamps. Then I got an Associate of Applied Science in Surveying. It took me two years, and I came out of school making the national average wage a week after I graduated.

This was 10 years ago, and I haven't needed a dime of assistance since then. I have paid back my loans and the government, through taxation. Now they are seeing a net gain from the investment made in me.

This is what is meant by bottom up. Without the lifeline, I would have been flipping burgers and living with family as I had nothing to market but a strong back, and construction just dried up in my area. I would have been doomed to many years of assistance instead of just two months of hand outs and two years of educations subsidies.

Welfare exploded during Bush's administration, and continued its climb due to the recession. The bottom up approach is throwing out a life line and facilitating opportunity. As opposed to let them eat cake... rich people need all their money and deserve more tax breaks because their rich. The top down strategy caused this explosion in welfare, and the only way to correct it is to provide opportunity to those who would have none without assistance.

My family is living proof of the return on investment with a bottom up approach. Where is the proof that record low taxes is good for the economy?
 
Last edited:
You do it by creating a more just society. Something in how we did in the 40's-60's. You know the times before we had this **** called "trickle down economics" which we all have been waiting for that **** to trickle down..
 
Blue_State said:
They may have been a 90% tax rate, but that is not what they were paying.
Click to expand...

Right, I was referring to the marginal rate. But the top effective rate was also higher than it is now, and it was MUCH higher for the very rich:

A 2007 study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez calculated effective tax rates for various income groups.

For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Taking money out of the private sector, then injecting it back into the private sector doesn't drive the economy.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In fact, that approach is a lot like investing in air conditioners to lower the outside temperature.
 
Hare said:
Transfer of wealth just so happens to be the foundation of the economy as we know it.
Click to expand...

No. The foundation of any successful economy is the creation of wealth, not the redistribution of it.
 
Diogenes said:
No. The foundation of any successful economy is the creation of wealth, not the redistribution of it.
Click to expand...

Too bad the wealth is created at the bottom but largely resides at the top
 
Joe51 said:
Where is the proof that record low taxes is good for the economy?
Click to expand...

Do not confuse tax rates with tax receipts. Higher tax rates can choke the economy and result in lower tax revenues (as Obama proves) while lower tax rates can free the economy and result in higher tax revenues (as Reagan proved). Art Laffer pointed this out over thirty years ago.
 
Fruityfact said:
Too bad the wealth is created at the bottom but largely resides at the top
Click to expand...

That's because those who create the wealth tend to rise to the top. Those who rely on handouts tend to remain at the bottom.
 
Awesome! said:
That is what concerns me. Support the poor and middle class. Assuming what u mean are more social programs? When I was poor and moved up it wasn't thru programs, it was thru work and going to school. The people at the top invested in me and that is what helped me be successful. If u keep taking away from the top, there won't be any more investment...
Click to expand...

Education is a large part of supportng the middle class. We have been supporting the top for too long and now they have amassed a $40 Trillion nest egg that they using for speculating instead of investment.
It's time to fix our prorities.
 
Diogenes said:
Do not confuse tax rates with tax receipts. Higher tax rates can choke the economy and result in lower tax revenues (as Obama proves) while lower tax rates can free the economy and result in higher tax revenues (as Reagan proved). Art Laffer pointed this out over thirty years ago.
Click to expand...

I know the curve. What I fail to understand is how Obama is choking the economy while Reagan freed it when tax rates are at an all time low. What I'm saying is that curve has two sides. Which side does the evidence tell us we are on?
 
Diogenes said:
That's because those who create the wealth tend to rise to the top. Those who rely on handouts tend to remain at the bottom.
Click to expand...

I did not remain at the bottom. I used the assistance I got very effectively. I'm not nor ever will be at the top, but you're second sentence is a total lie!
 
Joe51 said:
I did not remain at the bottom. I used the assistance I got very effectively. I'm not nor ever will be at the top, but you're second sentence is a total lie!
Click to expand...

Granted, however notice he said "tend" that's not all. And good for you.
 
Joe51 said:
I did not remain at the bottom. I used the assistance I got very effectively. I'm not nor ever will be at the top, but you're second sentence is a total lie!
Click to expand...

Congratulations on using your assistance effectively and becoming self-sufficient. That's what assistance should accomplish. But don't try to deny that there are those who value their free time more than their self-respect, and are happy to hold protests for more handouts.
 
Diogenes said:
Congratulations on using your assistance effectively and becoming self-sufficient. That's what assistance should accomplish. But don't try to deny that there are those who value their free time more than their self-respect, and are happy to hold protests for more handouts.
Click to expand...

I'll grant that there are those. However, I cannot be convinced that is the majority in this country. Reform of aid should be an ongoing endeavor. Detax and defund is not reform, and it does not lend itself to the goal of rebuilding our middle class.
 
iguanaman said:
Education is a large part of supportng the middle class. We have been supporting the top for too long and now they have amassed a $40 Trillion nest egg that they using for speculating instead of investment.
It's time to fix our prorities.
Click to expand...

We have public schools, but the unions destroyed our education system from K-12. Put in place a voucher system so all families have choices. In public schools K-12 no teacher tenure, fire anyone on the spot, and provide merit pay to the best teachers. Last kill the DOE. Take these steps and you have the support your seeking for the middle class.
 
Diogenes said:
No. The foundation of any successful economy is the creation of wealth, not the redistribution of it.
Click to expand...
And what drives said creation of wealth? What incentives might there be for production and investment (which would also qualify as redistribution) outside of consumer activity and active interest in the goods or services being offered?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom