• 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.
When you can not honestly disprove information you return to your pathetic idiotic attack dog mode or ignore or change the subject. If you are representative of conservatism today the conservative party is in trouble. Let me help you again I do not need a bigger piece of the pie, my life is not ruled by what you have or what I have, what I want is to see the opportunities I had passed on to the next generation

Actually I can see the liberal party in trouble and on attack. You see, results matter not rhetoric and it will be the Obama results on the ballot in 2012 and those results will lead to his defeat and rightly so.

I don't need a bigger piece of the pie either but I also know that someone else getting a bigger piece has no affect on me or my family. Good for them. I am quite comfortable in what I have and a family to enjoy it with.
 
So I have been told. No matter how many times I refute it, doesn't matter. You are going to believe what you want to believe but I assure you no Human resource manager ever made as much money as I did in my career. So believe what you want, doesn't matter to me.

U da man da uber man :lamo
 
Actually I can see the liberal party in trouble and on attack. You see, results matter not rhetoric and it will be the Obama results on the ballot in 2012 and those results will lead to his defeat and rightly so.

I don't need a bigger piece of the pie either but I also know that someone else getting a bigger piece has no affect on me or my family. Good for them. I am quite comfortable in what I have and a family to enjoy it with.

Your entitled to your opinion, mine differs from your opinion. 2012 will tell the story your insistence on vilifying anyone who does not agree with you will not gain your party one vote it will only shut down your opportunity to have people consider your position
 
Your entitled to your opinion, mine differs from your opinion. 2012 will tell the story your insistence on vilifying anyone who does not agree with you will not gain your party one vote it will only shut down your opportunity to have people consider your position

Then there are all the polls?

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

No President in modern history has won re-election with the unemployment rate above 8% and the very poor economic growth we have today. Barack Obama is in over his head as his resume showed and now the results indicate. Keep drinking the kool-aid but the results don't give you a lot of credibility.
 
You must live a very shallow life without any faith at all.

Why so judgemental? Belief in the supernatural is not a precondition for a fulfilling and meaningful life. It would be equally justified to posit that belief in the supernatural indicates a very shallow intelect. Believe what you want, but keep your judgements to yourself, please.
 
Why so judgemental? Belief in the supernatural is not a precondition for a fulfilling and meaningful life. It would be equally justified to posit that belief in the supernatural indicates a very shallow intelect. Believe what you want, but keep your judgements to yourself, please.

This is an internet forum where judgements are given on every post. I gave mine, you choose not to accept it, fine, but I will continue to give them.
 

The difference is the direction of the country at the end of his first term and the economic policy that was implemented. Obama has none and Reagan's tax cuts were being finalized. Reagan had a net job gain at the end of his third year and the unemployment continued to drop. Obama's continue to be over 9%

Oh, by the way, discouraged workers were part of the Reagan unemployment numbers but not the Obama's. That policy changed in 1994 under Clinton. Discouraged workers weren't counted as unemployed after 1994.
 
Last edited:
The difference is the direction of the country at the end of his first term and the economic policy that was implemented. Obama has none and Reagan's tax cuts were being finalized. Reagan had a net job gain at the end of his third year and the unemployment continued to drop. Obama's continue to be over 9%

But you said a President had never been re-elected with a higher than 8% UE in their first term....Reagan had a higher UE than Obama.
 

38% looks pretty good if you compare it to the approval rating of congress which is 11%, I have bolded the parts for you that will determine the 2012 elections

Congress' Approval Rating Sinks to 11%; Majority Support Millionaires Tax - International Business Times


The news regarding the American public's attitude toward Congress just gets worse: A record-high number of citizens are greatly dissatisfied by the job Congress is doing.

Just 11 percent of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress -- a record low -- according to the latest CBS News Poll. That's also down from the 12 percent approval rating in September.

The news is not good for incumbents in Congress, regarding public opinion. Only 11 percent of Americans approve of Congress' performance; 80 percent disapprove, according to a CBS News Poll.

What's more, an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans disapprove of Congress' performance. In other words, 4 out of 5 Americans don't like the goings-on inside the beltway on Capitol Hill.

All Party Identifiers Dissaprove of Congress' Performance

Further, when considering party affiliation, the disapproval factor doesn't change much -- and that suggests widespread dissatisfaction across the electorarte with the nation's legislative branch. In the survey, 78 percent of Republicans disapproved of Congress' performance; 77 percent of Independents held a negative stance, and 86 percent of Democrats, did as well.

In contrast, in October 2008, when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, 12 percent approved of Congress' performance and 74 percent disapproved.

In other words, despite the Republican Party's return to majority party status under Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in the U.S House of Representatives, a higher percentage of Americans disapprove of Congress' performance than when Democrats were in charge of the house under former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Most Americans Also Want Tax on Millionaires Increased

Further, an overwhelming majority of Americans -- but not a majority of Republicans -- believe that taxes should be raised on adults with adjusted gross incomes over $1 million per year.

In all, 64 percent of Americans support the so-called "Buffett Rule" that would return the income tax rate structure to levels prior to the 2011 Bush income tax cut; 30 percent are against the tax increase.

However, Republicans were not supportive of the millionaires tax proposal: only 40 percent of Republicans favored the high tax, while 54 percent opposed it.

Among Independents, 65 percent favored the millionaires tax proposal, 28 percent opposed it. Among Democrats, a whopping 83 percent favored the tax, and only 13 percent opposed it.

The CBS News Poll that surveyed 1,012 adults was conducted Sept. 28 thru Oct. 2, 2011 and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Political/Public Policy Analysis: The disapproval rating for Congress is decidedly bad news for incumbents, if history is any indicator.

Political science research shows that if the approval rating remains this low a year from now, voters will remove many incumbents from both chambers, in a classic "throw the rascals out" scenario.

However, in 2012, due to divided government, the end result of that could be a status-quo distribution of power. The reason? Republicans control the House, Democrats the Senate, hence if American voters are true to form, both House Republicans and Senate Democrats would lose a disproportionate number of seats. Whether each party will lose enough seats to lose control of their respective chambers remains an open question.

Further, as the above suggests, Democrats should hardly dance for joy. It's entirely possible for voters to blame Democrats disproportionately, and assess less blame to Republicans -- a scenario that would result in Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.

Finally, one heads-up regarding public opinion: it captures current sentiment -- the 2012 election is a 13 months from now, and as the Washington axiom goes, "A year is a long time in politics, longer than a year is an eternity." In other words, the electorate's sentiment could change, i.e. improve. But as of now, the operative phrase is "incumbents beware

Republican candidates referring to the OWS demonstrators as mobs, republicans referring to OWS demonstrators as idiots and worst will be on the minds of the demonstrators when they enter the voting booth in 2012

The American jobs bill has the support of the majority of Americans they will remember who heard them when they enter the voting booth in 2012
 
Last edited:
But you said a President had never been re-elected with a higher than 8% UE in their first term....Reagan had a higher UE than Obama.

Better get your eyes checked, Reagan didn't have an unemployment rate over 8% at the time of the election in 1984

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
 
Better get your eyes checked, Reagan didn't have an unemployment rate over 8% at the time of the election in 1984

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3

Pretty broad brush you wanna paint with there spin Dr.
 
Pretty broad brush you wanna paint with there spin Dr.

what broad brush, was Reagan's unemployment rate higher than 8% in the election year 1984? You think the Obama unemployment rate will be below 8% in 2012? Economists say not a chance. Why do you believe that it will dip below 8%?
 
what broad brush, was Reagan's unemployment rate higher than 8% in the election year 1984? You think the Obama unemployment rate will be below 8% in 2012? Economists say not a chance. Why do you believe that it will dip below 8%?

We shall see where it goes:shrug:

I'm not going to rely on a crystal ball and hope like you are right now as far as getting re-elected or not.

BTW FDR had a 14% in 1937 UE and got re-elected.
 
We shall see where it goes:shrug:

I'm not going to rely on a crystal ball and hope like you are right now as far as getting re-elected or not.

BTW FDR had a 14% in 1937 UE and got re-elected.

The real Obama rate is 16.5% and the real FDR rate was 14% although the Obama rate with Discouraged workers is closer to 10% in September. don't forget the discouraged workers were eliminated from the reported rate in 1994.

In addition Obama has a very low approval rating at 38% today according to Gallup
 
Last edited:
The real Obama rate is 16.5% and the real FDR rate was 14%. don't forget the discouraged workers were eliminated from the reported rate in 1994.

Are we jumping btwn U6 and U3 again?

Like when you indiscriminately compare real and nominal numbers.
 
Are we jumping btwn U6 and U3 again?

Like when you indiscriminately compare real and nominal numbers.

Because I know how fair you want to be to compare "apples to apples," right? What was the U-3 and U-6 rate for FDR?
 
Because I know how fair you want to be to compare "apples to apples," right? What was the U-3 and U-6 rate for FDR?

I think it was 9% for the equivalent of what was used back then as a metric.
 
what broad brush, was Reagan's unemployment rate higher than 8% in the election year 1984? You think the Obama unemployment rate will be below 8% in 2012? Economists say not a chance. Why do you believe that it will dip below 8%?

The question should be how can the unemployment rate be below 8%. President Reagan stradegy worked well, he lowered the high tax rates and started to gear up to fight a war, that created jobs the problem was that he left the tax cuts in place to long.

President Obama can't cut the tax rates by 50%, the wars he has in progress are a drain on our economy. Efforts to deal with the Chinese undervalued currency are being opposed by members of both parties. If we want our jobs back we need to realize that the war we are engaged in is an economic war and we are not winning it

We can all keep pointing our fingers at the other side but the truth is both sides share in the lost of American jobs. The trade deficit is the driver of lost jobs in America, the only way to see the lost jobs return is for us to demand that trade agreements are adhered to, if we don’t nothing is going to bring those jobs back. Any politician who opposes the enforcement of trade agreements should be voted out of office.

U.S. Trade Deficits Worth 26 Million Jobs

Unemployment Today and the Counterfactual Labor Shortage

The total number of people employed today according to the latest BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data is 139.3 million. If just half of the exported jobs were retained in the U.S., there would be about 153 million employed. The current civilian labor force is only 153 million so there would be no slack in the labor force at all. However, the labor participation rate has fallen from 67% in 2000-01 to 64.2% today. If the participation rate returned to 67% the civilian labor force would be 160 million. With 153 million employed the unemployment rate would be 4.4% and we would be complaining of labor shortages.

The Sweet Spot
If only some, even less than half, of the manufacturing that has been outsourced had been retained in the U.S., it is likely that there would still be an emerging market boom, but there would not be the severe structural unemployment problem that exists today in the U.S. It seems, looking at these numbers, that where we are is not the result of doing a fundamentally bad thing. It could be argued that it is actually the result of taking a good thing too far. It seems we missed the sweet spot and simply botched a beautiful shot.

Free Trade is a very good thing, but free trade taken too far is destructive. Hard data shows why
 
You are absolutely correct, I have no interest in reading it. I made mine through hard work, risk taking, initiative. Young kids like you don't have a clue and yet waste more time blaming someone else for your own failures. you will grow up someday, hope I am around to see it.

By the way, yes, I am a Christian but don't discuss religion on any thread. I am not going to ever try and convince you but someday you will have to explain your beliefs to someone. I am confortable with my views and yes I believe in free will. I have seen first hand the power of God. You must live a very shallow life without any faith at all.

You know a lot of my family and friends I have are very religious. Because of this and my personal lack of faith I've been invited to a lot of different churches, all christian but I've seen a wide variety of denominations, I am curious however which denomination you belong to. It's always been my understanding the judgment of others was for god and god alone. That you should help those who are misguided and unfortunate along the path to spiritual enlightenment. Those are the Christians I'm used to.
 
Last edited:
You want badly to blame Bush for the job losses when it was Democrats in Congress that controlled the legislative process and the purse strings.
Allow me to point out that to this day, you have yet to cite a single bill they passed in 2007 which led to Bush's Great Recession. Obviously, you're full of ****, you simply just can't admit that Republicans and Bush were the ones mostly to blame.


"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech
 
I will gladly give Bush blame for anything that happened from 2001-2008...
You're lying again ... easy to prove too ...

Who do you blame for the 2001 recession which began in March, 2001 ... Clinton or Bush? Oh, that would be Clinton ...
"Aw, so now you want to buy Bush rhetoric, there were projected surpluses before the Clinton recession and before 9/11." ~ Conservative

Who do you blame for failing to protect us from a terrorist attack in September, 2001 ... Clinton or Bush? Oh, that would be Clinton ... "Oh, Bush did that, huh? What would you have said or done had Bush shut down the airports. Why didn't your hero do something about it" ~ Conservative

Who do you blame for Bush's Great Recession which began in December, 2007 ... Clinton or Bush? Oh, that too would be Clinton ... "You really are outraged over the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Law, where is your outrage for all the Democrats that voted for the final bill which obviously you want to ignore. On November 4th, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999"
~ Conservative

So don't sit there and lie through your keyboard, claiming how you hold Bush accountable for what happened on his watch. You don't. You never have and you never will.
 
Do you have no idea what math is? So what tax rate do you propose on those under 20k per year (Which is probably most of those "65 million plus" workers)?
Just so ya know, he doesn't even know who controlled the Senate when the 2001 recession hit ... he actually thinks Democrats were in charge at the time ...


"He did, March 2001 according to NBER so unless you can tell me what Bush implemented on January 21, 2001 with a Democrat Controlled Senate that created a recession that started in March it was an inherited recession?" ~ Conservative


That demonstrates his <sarcasm>acumen</sarcasm> on politics ... don't even broach mathematics with him ... it's above his payscale.

:lamo
 
The difference is the direction of the country at the end of his first term and the economic policy that was implemented. Obama has none and Reagan's tax cuts were being finalized. Reagan had a net job gain at the end of his third year and the unemployment continued to drop. Obama's continue to be over 9%
The other differences you choose to ignore ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy which lost 1.1 million jobs in the month he started ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy with 21 million people underemployed ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy in recession ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy with -8.9% GDP ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy with a crushed housing market ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy with an unemployment rate of 14%.

You also choose to ignore that polls continue to reveal that most people still blame Bush for the current economic conditions by a margin of roughly 3 to 2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom