• 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!

Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

pbrauer said:
Conservative/libertarians think low wages make a thriving economy - it does just the opposite.
Click to expand...
Here is yet another example of why you consistently fail.
Conservatives want market-driven wages. It is free market capitalism that has generated the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. It is not the government. It is not liberalism/socialism.
 
haymarket said:
Well said. The use of both terms is despicable and very revealing of the beliefs of that sort of far right wing mindset.
Click to expand...

why don't you explain this in more detail.
 
TheNextEra said:
First of all, he didn't call him boy wonder he called him boy blunder.

Secondly he said the two comments (that he was Kenyon and a boy blunder) were despicable. He didn't say they were racist.
Click to expand...

feigned indignation is a common tactic of the far left
 
Grant said:
It's a very quiet revolution talking place. Companies are leaving, as we all know, but so are people. More would probably leave if they could sell their homes, the main asset of most people. I spend a lot of time in Central America and the Europeans have been fleeing there for the past few years but now its Americans who are trying to escape and start a new life elsewhere.

"You've got a Republic...if you can keep it", and apparently this generation is willing to put it all at risk.
Click to expand...
I left California when it was obvious that it had failed as a state.

I have considered emigrating to other countries. But for now the fight is here.
 
teamosil said:
Sure. It is more fair for obvious reasons. An investor that doesn't work that makes $50 million a year paying a lower tax rate than a person who is trying to support a family on $50k a year just strikes me as patently unfair. The investor making that $50 million a year is drawing a hell of a lot of benefit out of our society, I see no reason they shouldn't be paying their share to keep the society strong.

As far as the economics, there are two main reasons that higher capital gains taxes are a big step forward. First and most importantly debt is bad. We have too much debt and making the investors pull their weight would help dramatically on that front. Secondly, there are tradeoffs. We need to decrease the deficit by an absolute minimum of say $900 billion a year. That money is going to come from somewhere. One way or another, it will have to come from either the pockets of the rich or the pockets of the middle class. The middle class having money is what drives consumer spending. The rich having money is what drives investment. So, economically, you want to adjust the amount of tax burden carried by each class to keep consumer spending and investment in balance. Both need to grow together or whatever growth occurs isn't sustainable. Right now we're at the end of a 30 year run of tweaking things to direct more and more money into the pockets of the rich. Reaganonmics. Up to a point it worked. We stimulated investment and that was good for the economy. But we went too far. Under Bush the median income for the entire nation actually fell while the average income for the top 1% quadrupiled. We were destroying consumer spending to create more investment capital,but that doesn't work in the end. Somewhere around Clinton's second round of tax cuts for the rich we crossed the line and while investment was strong, consumer spending started to fall apart. We got a bunch of companies with inflated stock prices and weak revenues- a bubble. So, now we need to tip the balance back a bit. Let our consumer spending build back up. We'll have a bit less investment dollars, but the consumer spending we gain will outweigh that
Click to expand...

then stop spending so much even if it means your dem politicians cannot buy as many voters
 
teamosil said:
The reality is that it pretty much does.
Click to expand...
Power was seized. Power always is. If we cannot reverse course there are a few options remaining before the ultimate option. We can amend the Constitution. If that fails...a sovereign people retains the right to cast off an oppressive government and to form a new one better suited to their needs and circumstance.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Power was seized. Power always is. If we cannot reverse course there are a few options remaining before the ultimate option. We can amend the Constitution. If that fails...a sovereign people retains the right to cast off an oppressive government and to for a new one better suited to their needs and circumstance.
Click to expand...

Oh wow.

Jesus I almost thought you were talking for all 300 million Americans there...
 
Jetboogieman said:
Oh wow.

Jesus I almost thought you were talking for all 300 million Americans there...
Click to expand...
One need not call me Jesus.

Successful revolutions require between 3-5% of the population actively engages with another roughly 1/6th to 1/4th of the populating passively supporting it. Do you believe all of King George's subjects were for the first American revolution?
 
TurtleDude said:
feigned indignation is a common tactic of the far left
Click to expand...

It's pretty common on both sides. Spend some time in the bias forum, where when the media refers to a member of the GOP as a "Republican" it's bias.
 
rocket88 said:
How does that relate to his level of maturity?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. His maturity is less than what we should have for a president. same with his competence and experience level
 
rocket88 said:
It's pretty common on both sides. Spend some time in the bias forum, where when the media refers to a member of the GOP as a "Republican" it's bias.
Click to expand...

that might be true but it doesn't come near the hysterical hand wringing several lefties engage in especially on "racism"
 
Thunder said:
what does Obama's heritage have to do with fiscal policy?
Click to expand...

Nothing, it was the libs who started rending their garments over me calling him boy blunder etc
 
Thunder said:
you called him "boy blunder the Kenyan", which has nothing to do with fiscal policy. Its an ad hom attack and a red herring.
Click to expand...

he is boy blunder. his policies are a joke

and it upset the emotionally fragile liberals--
 
j-mac said:
Then explain how revenue increased after the Bush era tax cuts.

J-mac
Click to expand...

Revenue increased because payroll tax revenue increased. This masked the falling income tax revenues, as they declined, as you would expect, after the bush tax cuts. Yes, Social Security was used in a Ponzi scheme, to pay off the Treasury so that citizens did not see the income tax revenue slippage.
 

Attachments

  • Tax revenue_Page_1.jpg
    Tax revenue_Page_1.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 47
Gill said:
How many jobs do poor people create ??
Click to expand...

A lot more than you think. I, for one, will pay no income taxes in 2010, 2011 and probably 2012. From an income tax perspective, I am poor as I have no taxable income. I am among the 47% that pays no federal income tax.

I started a business two years ago and have since created 35 jobs. I expect to add 35-50 jobs over the next year.

Why do I get to pay ZERO in federal income taxes? My business is in start-up mode. It is losing money as it builds (I lost money on 2009, 2010 and the first half of this year. It is just starting to show a profit). Under the current tax code, I get to fully recover my losses before I pay a dime in taxes. Changing the income tax rate is completely irrelevant to me. I am doing the business because I see a demand, not because of some tax policy. In fact, the only tax policy that is really helpful to me is cuts in payroll taxes (again, not a motivator of investment, but it helps my business).

This notion that people in the highest tax brackets are the job creators is absurdly misguided. Jobs are created by people that make the investment... and the initial consequence of the investment is to first lose money before the profit is made. Those that make the investment are not worried about the tax consequence of the investment, they are worried about the business consequence.

People that start businesses from scratch do not pay taxes until those businesses not only make money, but recover all of the losses incurred during the start-up years. These people are "poor" from a income perspective. They are at the low end of the taxpayer spectrum. We are the 47% that pay no federal income taxes. Those that look at us as deadbeats, well some of us are actually laying out the cash to do more than our part to drive this economy forward. Some of us are doing more for job creation and GDP growth than those in the highest brackets..

Yes, raise the taxes on the highest brackets. They can are the one's most able to contribute at the least pain.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
A lot more than you think. I, for one, will pay no income taxes in 2010, 2011 and probably 2012. From an income tax perspective, I am poor as I have no taxable income. I am among the 47% that pays no federal income tax.

I started a business two years ago and have since created 35 jobs. I expect to add 35-50 jobs over the next year.

. . .

Yes, raise the taxes on the highest brackets. They can are the one's most able to contribute at the least pain.
Click to expand...
And you started with no money? Awesome. I would like to hear more.
'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom