• 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.
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yet you still don't know the difference between BLS's payroll data from their household survey data or why it's dishonest of you to selectively pick between the two.




Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?
Click to expand...

Because the total is the important number not the selected data that you use. Just like liberals using the public debt data for the deficit and ignoring intergovt holdings. You ignore the Establishment data because you think it makes you look good. Fact remains that the total of 16.5% is being over looked just like the total of over 25 million unemployed and under employed. When did Bush ever have that high of a number? Doesn't it bother you that the 25 million plus number is in September 2011 over 2 1/2 years into the Obama term? That is why Obama has a very low approval rating, one that you continue to ignore.
 
Conservative said:
Research only tells you so much unless you get actual data, what were the economic conditions that Reagan inherited? ever hear of the misery index? Any idea what the GDP was? How about employment and unemployment? Does it really matter to you or do you simply want attention to divert from the Obama failures?
Click to expand...
GDP??? Tell me you didn't just go there??

GDP during 4th quarter, 1980, was 7.6% growth!

Try comparing that to what Obama inherited ...

GDP during 4th quarter, 2008, was an 8.9% decline.

Is it always your goal to undermine your own position like that? :lamo



:waiting:

Conservative said:
Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Click to expand...
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?


:waiting:
 
upsideguy said:
Ok, to be more direct, you are not correct that raising taxes means a business raises prices and the consumer pays those taxes. Income taxes are not an operating costs, rather they are costs unique to the form of the organization of a business. A business operator can not simply pass his income taxes to his customer because he wants to make more money.
Click to expand...


Not true. A tax is no different than a fee. It is an expense that NEEDS to be paid in order to stay in business, ergo, it is an operating cost. I have witness the increase in taxes and fees increase the cost of goods, personally, so I know it happens. You can argue with me till you're blue in the face, but it's not going to make me suddenly think that what I have seen with my own two eyes didn't happen.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
GDP??? Tell me you didn't just go there??

GDP during 4th quarter, 1980, was 7.6% growth!

Try comparing that to what Obama inherited ...

GDP during 4th quarter, 2008, was an 8.9% decline.

Is it always your goal to undermine your own position like that? :lamo



:waiting:


Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?


:waiting:
Click to expand...

Let's see if I can get through to you, Reagan isn't in office, GWH Bush isn't in office, Bill Clinton isn't in office, GW Bush isn't in office. Obama is in office and responsible for the economy which today has 9.1% officially unemployed, 16.5% unemployed and under employed and that means over 25 million Americans aren't working at all or working full time. Still waiting for you to give me the month that GW Bush had 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans?
 
Conservative said:
Before Reagan there was a strong Soviet Union and a Cold War
Click to expand...
... and the Twin Towers.




:waiting:

Conservative said:
Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Click to expand...
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?


:waiting:
 
Conservative said:
Let's see if I can get through to you, Reagan isn't in office, GWH Bush isn't in office, Bill Clinton isn't in office, GW Bush isn't in office. Obama is in office and responsible for the economy which today has 9.1% officially unemployed, 16.5% unemployed and under employed and that means over 25 million Americans aren't working at all or working full time. Still waiting for you to give me the month that GW Bush had 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans?
Click to expand...

Herbert Hoover had a 25% unemployment while he was in office which comes out to be 40 million unemployed. Looks like your claims are lacking factual evidence.
 
Conservative said:
Because the total is the important number not the selected data that you use. Just like liberals using the public debt data for the deficit and ignoring intergovt holdings. You ignore the Establishment data because you think it makes you look good. Fact remains that the total of 16.5% is being over looked just like the total of over 25 million unemployed and under employed. When did Bush ever have that high of a number? Doesn't it bother you that the 25 million plus number is in September 2011 over 2 1/2 years into the Obama term? That is why Obama has a very low approval rating, one that you continue to ignore.
Click to expand...
Since when do you post payroll survey data, Con? Why are you selectively switching between the two and settling on the one with the smaller employment growth numbers?


:waiting:
Conservative said:
Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Click to expand...
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
 
Jryan said:
Herbert Hoover had a 25% unemployment while he was in office which comes out to be 40 million unemployed. Looks like your claims are lacking factual evidence.
Click to expand...

That isn't modern history and you werent around then either.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Since when do you post payroll survey data, Con? Why are you selectively switching between the two and settling on the one with the smaller employment growth numbers?


:waiting:

Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
Click to expand...

Show me the BLS offical press release that says there were 400K net jobs created? If there were 400k jobs created why didn't the unemployment percentage drop? You don't think 400 net job growth would cause a percentage reduction?
 
Conservative said:
Let's see if I can get through to you, Reagan isn't in office, GWH Bush isn't in office, Bill Clinton isn't in office, GW Bush isn't in office. Obama is in office and responsible for the economy which today has 9.1% officially unemployed, 16.5% unemployed and under employed and that means over 25 million Americans aren't working at all or working full time. Still waiting for you to give me the month that GW Bush had 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans?
Click to expand...
Why do you complain when I respond to your posts?

And why won't you resspond to this -->


:waiting:
Conservative said:
Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Click to expand...
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
 
Jryan said:
He was a Republican though :).
Click to expand...

So what? BLS didn't exist during the Hoover years. How do you know how many unemployed there were during the Hoover years and why does that even matter now?
 
Conservative said:
Show me the BLS offical press release that says there were 400K net jobs created? If there were 400k jobs created why didn't the unemployment percentage drop? You don't think 400 net job growth would cause a percentage reduction?
Click to expand...

We have already gone over this, 400 thousand (Jobs created) divided by 25 million (Unemployed) Gives .016. Seeing as how the unemployment is only measured in tenths...
 
alexxouellette said:
The only employed people who don't pay at least 1,000 dollars a year are those who make under twelve thousand year. They don't pay taxes because it's almost impossible to survive on 12 thousand a year anyway. Don't try to say that your number is just inaccurate. What you have proposed is a flat tax. A flat tax is without a doubt predatory to the poor. To say that everyone should be taxed the same percentage of their income is one thing but to assert that everyone should pay the exact same amount of money is ludicrous. Say everyone pays 5000 dollars which still probably wouldn't be enough. Then the man who makes 10,000 dollars a year is taxed at 50% of his income. The woman who makes 20,000 dollars a year is taxed at 25%. The college grad who comes out into the workplace at 45,000 a year with massive debts pays 11.1% a year. Finally the wall street executive making 450,000 dollars a year is taxed at 1.11% of his income. The more you make the less you pay in. The less you make the more you pay in. Even then a flat tax raises a lot less revenue than a progressive tax, if the top 20 percent possess 93% of the wealth and your taxing them at 10% or less, even if you tax 100% of the income of the bottom 80 percent you stand to raise no where near the same amount of money. It's just common sense. I've also noted that you don't understand why the wealthy should pay more. Other than for the reason I just mentioned it becomes necessary to point out that in 1945 the income tax rate for the top bracket was 91 percent. 1981-86 (your boy reagan) the effective income tax rate for the wealthiest of Americans was 50%. Point being the top tax bracket needs to stop whining.
Click to expand...

why should people who already are useful to society have a duty to pay so much more than those who are not. Your idiotic reference to historical rates ignores the fact that the income tax was supposed to be temporary and did not exist for more than half of our history

Nature is hard on those who don't provide for themselves and to suggest that isn't the natural order is silly
 
Conservative said:
Show me the BLS offical press release that says there were 400K net jobs created? If there were 400k jobs created why didn't the unemployment percentage drop? You don't think 400 net job growth would cause a percentage reduction?
Click to expand...
WTF?? I gave you the link to their chart which shows it ...

And again, the unemployment rate remained flat because along with 398,000 jobs gained there were 423,000 jobs added to the labor force.

I sure wish you'd take notes in class. I'm getting tired of have to re-educate you.

Now answer the question, Con ......



:waiting:

Conservative said:
Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Click to expand...
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
 
Last edited:
Jryan said:
We have already gone over this, 400 thousand (Jobs created) divided by 25 million (Unemployed) Gives .016. Seeing as how the unemployment is only measured in tenths...
Click to expand...

If 400 net jobs were created and the labor force remained the same then the unemployment rate would have dropped and it didn't. the fact is the labor force increased as did the number of discouraged workers. In addition 45000 Verizon workers counted as unemployed in August went back to work. The numbers are terrible as there are still 15 million officially unemployed and another 10-11 million under employed. In addition business owners and contract workers who are out of work aren't counted. The Obama economy is a disaster and until you wake up it will get worse.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
WTF?? I gave you the link to their chart which shows it ...

And again, the unemployment rate remained flat because along with 398,000 jobs gained there were 423,000 jobs added to the labor force.

I sure wish you'd take notes in class. I'm getting tired of have to re-educate you.

Now answer the question, Con ......



:waiting:


Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
Click to expand...

Employment Situation Summary
 
Catawba said:
Look, income taxes have been the rule of law in this country for almost a hundred years, under both political parties, and held to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court. However, if you feel your personal interpretation trumps that of the Supreme Court, simply don't pay your income taxes and instead send the IRS a letter explaining that your interpretation of the Constitution trumps that of the Supreme Court.

Best of luck!
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about income tax, I'm talking about progressive tax. Don't try to change the subject YOU started debating with me, lol. Income tax is a sad fact of life when you live in a society larger than, say, 5 people strong.
 
Conservative said:
Employment Situation Summary
Click to expand...
Again, Con .... since when do you post payroll data? When I pointed out to you that payroll data showed 23 million jobs created under Clinton you attacked that figure, claiming that household survey data is the data you use and that household data showed a net gain of only19 million jobs were gained during Clinton's terms.

Now you like payroll data better because the number of jobs gained is lower than the data you always post??

Holy ****!

MSN-Emoticon-laughing-127.gif


Now answer my question, Con ......



:waiting:

Conservative said:
Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Click to expand...
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
[/COLOR]
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Again, Con .... since when do you post payroll data? When I pointed out to you that payroll data showed 23 million jobs created under Clinton you attacked that figure, claiming that household survey data is the data you use and that household data showed a net gain of only19 million jobs were gained during Clinton's terms.

Now you like payroll data better because the number of jobs gained is lower than the data you always post??

Holy ****!

MSN-Emoticon-laughing-127.gif


Now answer my question, Con ......



:waiting:


Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Take your problem up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics who released the official data. Notice on that official data release that 16.5% wasn't discussed. That is the issue and that is the Obama record. Live it, it is what it is
 
Conservative said:
If 400 net jobs were created and the labor force remained the same then the unemployment rate would have dropped and it didn't. the fact is the labor force increased as did the number of discouraged workers. In addition 45000 Verizon workers counted as unemployed in August went back to work. The numbers are terrible as there are still 15 million officially unemployed and another 10-11 million under employed. In addition business owners and contract workers who are out of work aren't counted. The Obama economy is a disaster and until you wake up it will get worse.
Click to expand...
Too funny. you point out how 45,000 people got a job with Verizon and you actually try to make that sound negative.

:naughty:

Like I said, good news for America is bad news for you and your ideology.

Now why are you flat out refusing to defend what you post? Is it really that big of a lie that you don't even want to touch it now??


:waiting:

Conservative said:
Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Click to expand...
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
[/COLOR]
 
Conservative said:
Take your problem up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics who released the official data. Notice on that official data release that 16.5% wasn't discussed. That is the issue and that is the Obama record. Live it, it is what it is
Click to expand...

This is how retarded this is ... you say there were only 100K jobs added and question why, if it were a net gain of 400,000 jobs the unemployment rate didn't drop (even though that was explained to you numerous times) ...

Except the 100K gain you're pointing to comes from payroll data ...

... but the unemployment rate comes from household survey data!!

:lamo :lamo :lamo

You're so busy trying to cherry pick the worst data you can possibly find that you don't even realize how you're twisting yourself into a pretzel with the numbers you are posting.

Now then, about that book ... and don't think I'm the only one here who is laughing their ass off watching you run away from answering this as fast as your walker will allow.



:waiting:

Conservative said:
Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Click to expand...
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
[/COLOR]
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:


Now then, about that book ... and don't think I'm the only one here who is laughing their ass off watching you run away from answering this as fast as your walker will allow.



:waiting:


Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?

:waiting:
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

:2bump:




...............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom