• 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!

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

rocket88 said:
Both are true of FDR.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see you blame FDR as much as Bush gets blamed. FICA, payrolls taxes, etc.....all FDR's inventions.
 
American said:
It would be interesting to see you blame FDR as much as Bush gets blamed. FICA, payrolls taxes, etc.....all FDR's inventions.
Click to expand...

I'm simply amazed that anyone, anywhere would attempt to defend the Lone Star Moron. The man is a shining star of incompetence and nepotism.
 
celticwar17 said:
No, It is adjusted with inflation and total GDP... the reason is because of the economic growth.
Click to expand...

Bull**** they don't have more income than they did 20 years ago. Denying statistics doesn't make them go away you know.


WHAT? this demonstrates that taxes DO have an effect with the growth of the GDP. After the tax cuts the GDP grew by a lot... this happend in the Reagan years as well.
Click to expand...

As it did under the Clinton tax increace, what's your point???


It was enough to trigger a response by the president to do an economic plan, similar to obama's stimulus, but only comprising of cutting taxes.
Click to expand...

Correction, It was an excuse to cut taxes.

"beyond the norm" is your key words... it wasn't meant to increase growth above the average amount but to continue the same amount of growth, because the fear of a minor recession.
Click to expand...

No need to worry about the National Debt eh?


The $5 trillion in debt was to fund the wars that was greatly supported by most of the american people and all of the presidents intel and our allies intel, and your current president is still continuing the war in Afghanistan and helped out with a brand new one.
Click to expand...

Over half of the money for the wars went to our optional war in Iraq, which the MAJORITY of Congressional Democrats voted against. Another thing we have to thank the GOP for.

But that debt was not the reason for the recession... not at all... probably didn't help but you should research more on that.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was, it only contributed to it, and also of course the effect it had on undercutting the SS trust funds which we are now having to deal with.

Those jobs made no impact on the unemployment rate... the government can't create jobs with any efficiency but only create the atmosphere for the people to create jobs.
Click to expand...

It kept our unemployment rate from being much higher, we avoided another depression. **** a bunch of trickle down economics where lower taxes are supposed to create jobs, we have now had 10 years of tax breaks for the wealthy and it obviously ain't working for the middle class, where are the jobs it was supposed to create? You can try to tell the working class they are doing just fine as more and more slide into poverty if you want to. But I can tell you for a fact, they are not buying it!
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
I'm simply amazed that anyone, anywhere would attempt to defend the Lone Star Moron. The man is a shining star of incompetence and nepotism.
Click to expand...

No he isn't, you're clueless.
 
AdamT said:
The fact is that we have the second lowest effective corporate tax rate (that means taking loopholes into consideration) in the industrialized world. Only Iceland is lower.
Click to expand...

But just look at all the jobs those tax breaks we gave away have brought us, just look at all the jobs out there...........................oh wait, never mind.
 
Henrin said:
Its better to invest your money than to rely on others to pay your bills.
Click to expand...


SS is not an investment program, it is an insurance program that all income earners contribute to that currently has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus.
 
mpg said:
Future generations are getting f%$#ed up the a&& by SS and Medicare.
Click to expand...


SS is not in crisis, it has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus. Our out of control spending on optional wars and twice the military spending as needed for defense, and the worlds most expensive health care system is what is threatening future generations.
 
mpg said:
Dubya wasn't a fiscal conservative. Nixon wasn't any kind of conservative.
Click to expand...

The GOP has never been fiscally conservative, with the possible exception of Bush I, since before Reagan. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk!
 
Catawba said:
The GOP has never been fiscally conservative, with the possible exception of Bush I, since before Reagan. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk!
Click to expand...
There's a lot of truth in that, but it's all relative. For the most part, Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Democrats. Even when Republicans increase spending, the Democrats usually want more.
 
Catawba said:
SS is not an investment program, it is an insurance program that all income earners contribute to that currently has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus.
Click to expand...
$2.6T surplus? As accumulated in the SS trust fund?
It doesn't exist. The SSTF is full of IOUs that will be repaid thru borrowing - thus running up the deficits and adding to the debt.
 
American said:
It would be interesting to see you blame FDR as much as Bush gets blamed. FICA, payrolls taxes, etc.....all FDR's inventions.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that in one post you'll see a Con saying "When does it become Obama's fault?" then a little later, "It's all FDR's fault!"

How about this: it's now Obama's fault that things haven't improved. He has not done his job. Now let's see if you can admit that the economy was a mess when he took over.
 
apdst said:
The jobs left when the Libbos took over the government. Remember the 5% unemployment rate, back when we had a government that understood that it couldn't create jobs?
Click to expand...

:eek: Please tell me you didn't post that? Please tell me your memory isn't that short? (Re: Unemployment rate from October 2008 per NYTimes.com)

The American economy lost another 240,000 jobs in October, the government reported Friday, as cash-strapped consumers pulled back and businesses hunkered down, intensifying the distress gripping much of the country.

The unemployment rate spiked to 6.5 percent from 6.1 percent, the highest level since 1994. Many analysts now expect unemployment will reach 8 percent* by the middle of next year.

Coupled with revisions to September’s data — which now show a loss of 284,000 jobs, down from an initial estimate of 159,000 — the economy has shed 1.2 million jobs since the beginning of the year. More than half the job losses have been in the last three months.

“The economy is slipping deeper into a recessionary sinkhole that is getting broader,” said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. “The layoffs are getting larger, and coming faster. We’re likely to see at least another six months of more jobs reports like this.”
Click to expand...

(Sidenote: It was reporting like the above with generally optimistic tones coming from leading economists that led many including the White House to believe the recession wouldn't be as bad as it turned out to be. So, when I hear folks talking about how the President claimed that "unemployment wouldn't go above 8%", I point to articles like this one to show this is where such optimism came from and it's unfair because nobody, not even the "smartest guys in the room," i.e., [some of] the rich, fat cats among the Wall Street elite, didn't know just how bad things were.)

Sometimes, we gotta take off our partisan :cool: and see reality.

If we didn't have a government that was hell bent on wealth redistribution, they wouldn't move that money out of the country.
Click to expand...

I'd buy your argument IF American corporations had just started using off-shore tax shelters to hide their money just when Obama came into office. But since it's been happening for decades...

I mean, really, apdst. Partisan :cool: ... take them off, son. Or atleast pull them down along the bridge of your nose so you can see alittle reality.
 
Last edited:
mpg said:
There's a lot of truth in that, but it's all relative. For the most part, Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Democrats. Even when Republicans increase spending, the Democrats usually want more.
Click to expand...

Nope, fiscal conservatism is about more than just spending. It includes the other side of the ledger, revenues. And since Carter, the dems have been more fiscally conservative than the repubs have been

And the repubs since reagan have increased spending faster than the dems have
 
digsbe said:
Personal income taxes in the US are typically lower by average in America. However, the corporate tax rate is extremely high compared to other countries.
CorporateIncomeTaxRates.gif
Click to expand...

when they pay taxes. do you have a chart showing the multi billion dollar corporations that actually pay this?
 
Tigger said:
All of which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Unfortunately, since 1860 we have not had a Constitutional government here in the United States. We've had a rogue government in Washington DC since the Lincoln administration.
Click to expand...

Wow. Please show me where in the Constitution it is stated that there be in SSI, etc.? The concepts were great when they crafted them, but remember they had plows, could walk out the back door and claim all the land they wanted, had slaves, and created almost everything they needed.

No comparison to today. Don't get me wrong, it would be fun living off the land chasing elk and bison, but it ain't happening.
 
lpast said:
You cant be serious...you cant differentiate between personal tax cuts and corporate....personal tax cuts go to lawyers and doctors and CEOs and accountants and any one else thats in a top tier bracket
Click to expand...

What about the earned income credit? Doctors, lawyers and CEO's don't qualify for that. The people that do qualify for the ETC, get a nice fat refund check every year from the government.

A small business operator can't qualify for any of those tax credits. Looks like someone thinks we can differentiate between personal and corporate taxes.


and they create NOTHING that goes right in their pocket....its a BS story
Click to expand...

They don't pay property taxes and sales taxes?


...if you want to create jobs cutting taxs...then you cut tax for Companies only if they actually create jobs...then they get a tax cut...
Click to expand...

Out here in the real world, a company isn't going to spend $30,000+ just to save a few thousand on their 1040. That would be stupid.


bush tax cuts personal tax cuts to the richest americans and corporations and it didnt create a job....it lined pockets
Click to expand...

1) All tax brackets saw a tax cut

2) Bush's unemployment rate was half what Obama's is.

3) Raising taxes isn't going to create a damn thing.
 
sangha said:
Nope, fiscal conservatism is about more than just spending. It includes the other side of the ledger, revenues. And since Carter, the dems have been more fiscally conservative than the repubs have been

And the repubs since reagan have increased spending faster than the dems have
Click to expand...

I love this. thanks for enlightening the "TP Patriots". Does the GOP really beleive that they are fiscally responsible? Remember Iraq, the current cash cow?
 
One of the big disconnects I see is conservatives arguing about high corporate and personal tax rates, while liberals point to low effective tax rates, especially for the wealthy and corporations. Here's an idea: why don't we stop using the tax code as a way to incentivize or reward certain behaviors and start using it as a tool to equitably collect revenue for appropriate government functions? Yes, we'll all fight about what's "appropriate," but let's agree that we need a tax code overhaul that simplifies everything. I hate having to play games with FSAs, IRAs, and whatever other alphabet soup I can to avoid taxes. Let's just let people spend their money how they want, without massive tax implications.
 
Catawba said:
So we shouldn't have expectations for jobs from the tax breaks we give??? That is your argument for throwing seniors under the bus to protect tax breaks for the rich?
Click to expand...

Who is throwing old folks under the bus?
 
sangha said:
Nope, fiscal conservatism is about more than just spending. It includes the other side of the ledger, revenues. And since Carter, the dems have been more fiscally conservative than the repubs have been

And the repubs since reagan have increased spending faster than the dems have
Click to expand...
fiscally conservative = low taxes + low spending

fiscally liberal = high taxes + high spending

There are many exceptions, but for the most part, the Republicans are usually more fiscally conservative than Democrats.
 
Last edited:
American said:
It would be interesting to see you blame FDR as much as Bush gets blamed. FICA, payrolls taxes, etc.....all FDR's inventions.
Click to expand...

And items that were and are needed. The GOP had the white house prior to FDR and they didn't do squat, I wish they'd have been in office after that to see how far they'd of gone before they got their heads out of their butts. Bush needs to be blamed for getting us involved in Iraq, that wonderful cash cow Obama inherited. In retrospect, it may have been cheaper to pay for better intelligence instead taking over a worthless piece of crap dictator.
 
nijato said:
One of the big disconnects I see is conservatives arguing about high corporate and personal tax rates, while liberals point to low effective tax rates, especially for the wealthy and corporations. Here's an idea: why don't we stop using the tax code as a way to incentivize or reward certain behaviors and start using it as a tool to equitably collect revenue for appropriate government functions? Yes, we'll all fight about what's "appropriate," but let's agree that we need a tax code overhaul that simplifies everything. I hate having to play games with FSAs, IRAs, and whatever other alphabet soup I can to avoid taxes. Let's just let people spend their money how they want, without massive tax implications.
Click to expand...

That would be too much like actual liberty and the Libbos just can't have that. The quickest way to control any given citizenry is through their pocket book. You can tyrranyze a civilization that is totally independent of the government for it's day-to-day neccessities.
 
TBone said:
nope it means responsible spending and responsible taxes.
Click to expand...

responsible spending and responsible taxes = low taxes + low spending
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom