• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me take the other side on this one. Perhaps the word scandal which infers wrongdoing should not be used here. Then we have the other discussion about whether we want government to try and figure out which companies to invest in. That is a role of government question which seems appropriate and perhaps points to the problem when the government gets involved versus wrongdoing.

I agree, whether or not it is a scandal is questionable but really not relative at this point. The fact is and I firmly believe it isn't the Federal Government's role to pick and choose businesses to invest in.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease with the personal attacks. A backhanded personal attack is still a personal attack. Stick to the topic or else.
 
Right, only in the liberal world is there a surplus with a rising deficit? Further if you were totally honest you would understand that Congress appropriates the money and Congress during the Clinton years was Republican except for the first two years.

You want so badly to believe the liberal rhetoric and is making you look and sound foolish. Barack Obama has added 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years and this program he has proposed does nothing to change that.
"Fair Share" has never been defined nor has the amount the Treasury will get from the raising taxes on the rich. All this rhetoric and you continue to believe it. The question is why? Why is there such loyalty to liberalism in the face of all the facts to the contrary?

What I'm doing is simply using the correct terminology. Even if you look at gross debt Clinton's shortfalls were minimal and far better than those of any recent president. While there was a republican majority, the majority of republicans did NOT support the tax increase and military spending cuts that were instrumental in eliminating the budget deficit.

And again, you continue to attribute over $1 trillion of Bush spending to Obama. You are severely truth challenged.
 
What I'm doing is simply using the correct terminology. Even if you look at gross debt Clinton's shortfalls were minimal and far better than those of any recent president. While there was a republican majority, the majority of republicans did NOT support the tax increase and military spending cuts that were instrumental in eliminating the budget deficit.

And again, you continue to attribute over $1 trillion of Bush spending to Obama. You are severely truth challenged.

What you are missing again is that Congress appropriates the money not Clinton. Did Clinton sign budgets more or less than he proposed? My question is why do you support a tax increase with 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans and the fact that there has never been a cut in spending over the past 40 years? You continue to buy the Obama rhetoric and the question is why?
 
What you are missing again is that Congress appropriates the money not Clinton. Did Clinton sign budgets more or less than he proposed? My question is why do you support a tax increase with 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans and the fact that there has never been a cut in spending over the past 40 years? You continue to buy the Obama rhetoric and the question is why?

Because of the debt and deficits. Either you believe the national debt is bad or not. My guess is you would prefer we start an immediate and large cut in government spending? Why do you support spending cuts with 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans?
 
What I'm doing is simply using the correct terminology. Even if you look at gross debt Clinton's shortfalls were minimal and far better than those of any recent president. While there was a republican majority, the majority of republicans did NOT support the tax increase and military spending cuts that were instrumental in eliminating the budget deficit.

And again, you continue to attribute over $1 trillion of Bush spending to Obama. You are severely truth challenged.

As economy sputters, Obama's approval rating continues to sink - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com

Bush didn't spend the 2009 budget, Obama did. Democrats controlled the Congress and passed the Bush budget. Obama put department heads in place on January 21 to spend the Bush budget. It was Democrats including Obama that approved the Bush budget, not Republicans. the 2009 deficit is Obama'a, he voted for it, he spent the money, he added the stimulus to it, it is his deficit.
 
Because of the debt and deficits. Either you believe the national debt is bad or not. My guess is you would prefer we start an immediate and large cut in government spending? Why do you support spending cuts with 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans?

Because it isn't the role of govt. to create jobs. Govt. only spends money and creates debt not jobs.
 
There is an old saying that rings true: "Statistics never lie but liars use statistics"

there is another one : "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts." Simply put, the wealthy do not pay a lower tax rate than the middle class in this country.
 
there is another one : "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts." Simply put, the wealthy do not pay a lower tax rate than the middle class in this country.

It's too bad that is not the claim going around. The claim is that people who draw most or all their income from capital gains pay a lower effective tax rate than some in the middle class. Neither you nor any one in this thread has refuted this claim. You all just create these straw men to tilt at.
 
It's too bad that is not the claim going around. The claim is that people who draw most or all their income from capital gains pay a lower effective tax rate than some in the middle class. Neither you nor any one in this thread has refuted this claim. You all just create these straw men to tilt at.

So far I've seen no one address that at all. Not the president, not Congress, no one.
 
I don't know what is fair as % of tax for the rich and poor, but at least it has to be something we can all agree upon. a simplified flat tax code will reduce the cost of collection and close loopholes. I think whatever the final % will be for each group, it should be simple and easy to calculate. This in itself will be a big step forward compare to current code.
 
there is another one : "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts." Simply put, the wealthy do not pay a lower tax rate than the middle class in this country.
Well Obama never said they all do, but the facts are that some do and some don't. You have to look to them as individuals and not a group. How do you like them apples? :cool:
 
So far I've seen no one address that at all. Not the president, not Congress, no one.

That is the claim of the president actually, which he clearly states. Buffett was the one who brought up the claim, and instead of actually addressing it, he is called a socialist and irrelevant stats are thrown around.
 
What I'm doing is simply using the correct terminology. Even if you look at gross debt Clinton's shortfalls were minimal and far better than those of any recent president. While there was a republican majority, the majority of republicans did NOT support the tax increase and military spending cuts that were instrumental in eliminating the budget deficit.

And again, you continue to attribute over $1 trillion of Bush spending to Obama. You are severely truth challenged.

Seems like the American people are waking up. Not looking good for "your" President



Poll: 49% Of Voters Say They're Not For Obama | New York Daily News
 
Seems like the American people are waking up. Not looking good for "your" President



Poll: 49% Of Voters Say They're Not For Obama | New York Daily News

LOL Con....and he still beats every one of the weak Republican clowns by almost double digits. Oops. Maybe the GOP should try to find a decent candidate and then perhaps you might have a point. LOL.......From your own posted article:

Although the numbers don’t look good for the President, they don’t look great for any Republican candidate either.
“On the one hand, President Obama’s re-election numbers are very low. On the other hand, no GOP potential opponent has stepped up to the plate and demonstrated sufficient electoral power to beat him,” says Dr. Lee Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.


Do you read before you post???
 
Last edited:
More from Con's article.....LOL


If Rick Perry ran against the President today, he could expect 41% of the vote to the President’s 50%. And Michelle Bachman would get 40%, the President would get 53%, and seven percent would be undecided.


Not looking so good for your GWBII either....eh....Con?


I love it when people read the headline and post an article without actually reading the content....ROTFLMFAO!
 
LOL Con....and he still beats every one of the weak Republican clowns by almost double digits. Oops. Maybe the GOP should try to find a decent candidate and then perhaps you might have a point. LOL.......From your own posted article:

Although the numbers don’t look good for the President, they don’t look great for any Republican candidate either.
“On the one hand, President Obama’s re-election numbers are very low. On the other hand, no GOP potential opponent has stepped up to the plate and demonstrated sufficient electoral power to beat him,” says Dr. Lee Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.


Do you read before you post???

Anyone that puts much faith in polls for Obama vs. Republican candidates doesn't have any credibility. Why would anyone vote for Obama with the economic numbers we have today? Without a single GOP Candidate there is no way of knowing how he will fare against that candidate. FACT, 49% say they won't vote for Obama, that is a disaster for you and "your" President
 
More from Con's article.....LOL


If Rick Perry ran against the President today, he could expect 41% of the vote to the President’s 50%. And Michelle Bachman would get 40%, the President would get 53%, and seven percent would be undecided.


Not looking so good for your GWBII either....eh....Con?


I love it when people read the headline and post an article without actually reading the content....ROTFLMFAO!

Did I miss where Perry won the GOP nomination? Please cite the nomination of Rick Perry?
 
Anyone that puts much faith in polls for Obama vs. Republican candidates doesn't have any credibility. Why would anyone vote for Obama with the economic numbers we have today? Without a single GOP Candidate there is no way of knowing how he will fare against that candidate. FACT, 49% say they won't vote for Obama, that is a disaster for you and "your" President

Too Funny Con....YOU are the one who posted the article without actually reading it.....

Just admit your mistake and move on....
 
Anyone that puts much faith in polls for Obama vs. Republican candidates doesn't have any credibility.

That's funny because it seems you are putting a lot of faith in polls:lamo
 
Anyone that puts much faith in polls for Obama vs. Republican candidates doesn't have any credibility. Why would anyone vote for Obama with the economic numbers we have today?...

because unlike his possible Republican opponents, Obama is not an extremist psychopath.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom