• 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!

Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

apdst said:
The only thing they have to do to ensure that Obama fails with the budget and the economy is to let him have his way on everything.
Click to expand...

Then why not just do that? Why not let him do whatever he likes? Then when his intiatives do fail, your side can come along and say in one big loud unified voice, "See! We told you so!!"
 
cpwill said:
well, it's not like Democrats have been exactly low-key on the fact that they consider a government shut-down to be politically advantageous to them.



According to the government’s own surveys, the typical “poor” American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrig*erator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer. He is able to obtain medical care when needed. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not affluent, it is far from the images of dire poverty conveyed by liberal activists and politicians.

Various government reports contain the following facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau:

Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actu*ally own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over*crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.

Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.

The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from that of children in the upper middle class. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age were in the late 1950s. They are a full inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II....​



now, we do have some actual poor in this country. but by any historical or world standard?

I've been "poor" (in that my family qualified for government aid etc). When I was "poor" I had an apartment, two vehicles, was able to feed my family, and even had a few dollars left over at the end of the (most months) month to sock into savings. I've been overseas (heck, I am overseas) - my lifestyle as a "poor" person in America was way above average for this ole world.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, poor people don't deserve basic cooking devices or any sort of entertainment. They should boostrap themselves if they want modern communications technology like a cell phone.
 
j-mac said:
Yes, the WH lie about this....Let's start with the first paragraph from CBP that you posted...It make the claim that payroll tax is people paying taxes, however, if you add up the payroll tax for a year, and lets say you paid $3,000.00, and then at the end of the year you did your taxes and got a rebate net of $4,500.00 back. Did you pay any tax? No! you were a recipient. plain and simple.

j-mac
Click to expand...

J, no one in what I posted disputes that. Read it clearly.
 
Deuce said:
Yeah, you're right, poor people don't deserve basic cooking devices or any sort of entertainment. They should boostrap themselves if they want modern communications technology like a cell phone.
Click to expand...

Not what he said....but hey, If you are living off the taxpayer, I don't think I should have to pay for your damned cell phone.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I do comprehend just fine Joe, and I think that it isn't so much my comprehension as it is your pretzel logic.

j-mac
Click to expand...

There is nothing pretzel about it. Is this code for you don't understand? I'm not trying to degrade you in any way, but when you respond as if you don't understand, I have to question.
 
donc said:
This statement by Cornyn was kinda odd, imo.



(One of the senators, John Cornyn of Texas, said he would consider eliminating some tax breaks and corporate subsidies in the context of changes in the tax code, provided there was not an overall increase in taxes.)


WTF…why do anything with it, if it doesn’t raise a dime?:shock:
Click to expand...

It's political double-talk for, "Change the tax code...just make sure that when you do you don't raise taxes on corporations."
 
Boo Radley said:
There is nothing pretzel about it. Is this code for you don't understand? I'm not trying to degrade you in any way, but when you respond as if you don't understand, I have to question.
Click to expand...


No, I understand just fine...What part of recipient class individuals don't you understand?

j-mac
 
Thunder said:
Obama is offering to cut more than he would probably like, over a shorter period of time.

What other compromises would you suggest he make?
Click to expand...

Does everyone here understand the difference between "compromise" and "surrender".

The Republicans are demanding surrender, not compromise.
 
Boo Radley said:
First off, the number is more typically 35-40%.
Click to expand...
Nope. For the past 16 consecutive years the bottom 40% have paid nothing. In fact, they "earn" money by filing a tax return.

Boo Radley said:
Secondly, as they do pay other federal taxes, what that number means is less important, less siginficant than made out to be. I think this is made clear in what I have presented. :coffeepap
Click to expand...
Great so you agree there was nothing "factually inaccurate".

And, since we have the actual numbers, I think people can decide for themselves how "signficant" they are:
  • The bottom 40% bear no federal income tax burden, and about 5% of the total federal tax burden.
  • The top 40% bear 99% of the federal income tax burden, and about 86% of the total federal tax burden.

The bottom 80% of income earners have shouldered less and less of the total federal tax burden over the past 30 years, with the top 20% making up the difference.
 
Taylor said:
Nope. For the past 16 consecutive years the bottom 40% have paid nothing. In fact, they "earn" money by filing a tax return.
Click to expand...

35-40%, only federal income taxes, not all federal taxes.

Great so you agree there was nothing "factually inaccurate".

And, since we have the actual numbers, I think people can decide for themselves how "signficant" they are:
  • The bottom 40% bear no federal income tax burden, and about 5% of the total federal tax burden.
  • The top 40% bear 99% of the federal income tax burden, and about 86% of the total federal tax burden.

The bottom 80% of income earners have shouldered less and less of the total federal tax burden over the past 30 years, with the top 20% making up the difference.
Click to expand...

No, the conclusion is factually inaccurate as it uses too limited a criteria. Peopel can decide better with more information,. and not with something limited and skewed as to hide and misrepresent the situation. :coffeepap
 
j-mac said:
No, I understand just fine...What part of recipient class individuals don't you understand?

j-mac
Click to expand...

What about that term is siginficant?
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL that is really funny. So you are saying the GOP has no excessive spending or government programs that it uses to buy votes. John Boehner thanks you.
Click to expand...

"I" am saying that monied interests use sophisticated propaganda to "buy" votes. So I say we don't stop until they stop, otherwise they'll win and everyone who's not already rich gets to be peasants, like in all those countries where our rich folks are competing with other rich folks.

Global expansionist capitalism turned parasitic when the world filled up. No new unoccupied resource sources, no new exploitable workforces or customers that don't already have some rich persons lips wrapped around them.
 
ptif219 said:
They are. Wealth redistribution which is what democrats do is theft. We should not be 14 trillion in debt. If we raise the debt ceiling the democrats will just keep spending and wanting more of our hard earned money.
Click to expand...

I've grown tired of this argument. Think about it, people...

"Redistribution of wealth" means more than just taking earnings from those at the top and then giving it to those at the bottom. I means reducing the earnings potential of the wealth-class and taking those earnings and giving them to those at the bottom thereby increasing their earning's potential thereby moving them - the poor, whether genuinely poor, working poor, average wage earners or above average wage earners - into higher income brackets which, by default would automatically move them into higher tax brackets provided that the tax code isn't changed to negate such from happening. As such:

Can someone point to evidence that the poor have earned more even when given "tax credits"? Even when they pay no federal income tax?

Can someone point to evidence that middle-class incomes from the working poor to the above average wage earn have increased marginally or significantly as the incomes of the wealthy have decreased?

If anybody can point to these things occuring as fact, then I'll be very willing to fully support your claim of wealth redistribution by Liberal politicians.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
who exactly, is "we"?
Click to expand...

Americas new fledgeling aristocracy. Where the vote is reserved to the monied classes, and everyone else is just another commodity/tool.

"They can't afford bread? Well let them eat cake!"
 
TurtleDude said:
stop the fibs

its far more than 3%


a 3% rate raise on a tax rate of 36% is more like a ten percent increase in the tax bill

people who have saved and invested and retired from work are looking at a 100% increase in taxes or more if they have mainly dividend income. My uncle worked his butt off in the advertising business. He was one of the first people in television and did well. In 1979 he sold his business to take care of my aunt who was dying of smoking related cancer. he invested all of that -save for what he spent on experimental (and unsuccessful) cancer treatments. So at age 55 he was living off of dividend income.
Some of that income was taxed twice-first at the corporate profit level then when it came to him. Obama and many of his followers want to raise taxes on dividends for someone like my late uncle from 15% to 39.6%

do the math
Click to expand...

Totally aside from oir usual exchanges, do you believe its possible to address the lefts concerns with predatory, parasitic economic activities and the type of excesses you mention in your example? Some way to counter the rate of concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands without screwing people who have worked hard for their money?

Couldn't even your hated estate tax be reworked to prevent the formation of permanent dynasties (the super-rich), without destroying the inheritances of those rich-but-not-ridiculously-so? (I have been paying attention to what you say and understand your points, can you think of any ways to address these problems without the current my way or the highway approach?)
 
TurtleDude said:
I write off as ignorant anyone who claims that a group that makes 22% of the income and does not own all of the property yet pays 40% of the federal income tax and almost all the death tax is not paying its fair share. That just defies any sort of intellectual honesty

if fairness is based on a group's share of the income the top one ,two and five percent pay far more than their fair share

if fairness is based on how much government services the top one two or five percent use, that group pays far more than their fair share

if fairness is based on the value of services received from the government, that group pays far more than the value it gets

those who pay no income tax pay far less than their fair share based on any of those three objective standards

and since only about 2% of the voters face a death tax, 98% of the voters don't pay their fair share and those 2% pay far far more than their fair share

If you want to whine that since the rich have more money and less votes it makes political sense to soak them, that at least is intellectually honest

to claim that the rich don't pay their fair share relegates you not being taken seriously with me
Click to expand...

When you left out how much of the available wealth/property that 22% own you left out a key element of the equation. Ownership of available wealth.
 
Gargantuan said:
Yes he has paid more tax dollars than I have. Dollars is not the issue here. The issue is a fair burden. I have said this before in many other threads. A family is in the 15% bracket and earns 30k a year jointly. They pay what? 4 grand about? That is fair. Someone who earns 275 million a year pays 15% of their salary and pays like 40 mil in taxes. That is a tiny little piece of that income compared with taking 4 grand from a family earnign 30k a year.
Click to expand...

That's the thing NOBODY on the "other" side is EVER going to acknowledge.
 
ptif219 said:
Wrong the GOP wants to cut spending
Click to expand...

Well they say they do, with the election coming up and the self-inflicted Tea Party problem to deal with.

Their behavior prior to this doesn't indicate anything of the sort.
 
What if...? said:
Well they say they do, with the election coming up and the self-inflicted Tea Party problem to deal with.

Their behavior prior to this doesn't indicate anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

True. What politicans say means less than what they do, and we do have history to show us what they have done.
 
ptif219 said:
Not true they show they are concerned about the out of control spending of Obama. To keep raising the ceiling and not cut spending is hurting our economy
Click to expand...
hmmm...then why were they not overly concerned about bush's spending?? so bs, they are suddenly concerned now because there is an election coming up...
 
Boo Radley said:
What about that term is siginficant?
Click to expand...

Aren't you some sort of teacher? Are you having problems with the structure of the sentence? R-E-C-I-P-I-E-N-T! Meaning ofcourse that they are getting money that I pay in, and they don't.

j-mac
 
randel said:
hmmm...then why were they not overly concerned about bush's spending?? so bs, they are suddenly concerned now because there is an election coming up...
Click to expand...

No, we are concerned now because Obama is about to destroy this country with his spending.

j-mac
 
Thunder said:
his spending wouldn't be as much of a problem if it weren't for GOP tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Obama has increased the deficit more than every other President combined! Now, if you too 100% of earnings in this country you may not be able to cure it. So your post is just talking point silliness.

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom