• 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!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do realize credit was tighter than the skin on a drum when Obama took office, I've told you this before, did you forget? Put that one on you desktop so you don't forget next time.

Did you forget why you voted for Obama? Are these the results you expected? Credit doesn't seem to be a problem for Obama to forgive student loan debt or allow people under water to refinance at lower rates. Did you forget that Obama was in the Congress that bailed out the banks and Wall Street? Did you forget that Obama had a filibuster proof Senate part of his first two years? Did you forget he had overwhelming numbers in that Congress yet generated the results I posted. Refute those results which I know you cannot do.
 
Nice diatribe Boo but I’m a little confused. First you say “It's BS, too silly for any thinking person to accept.” Then you say “Few things are either all one way or another”. Is this the way you look at things?

I don’t agree with your opinion that his ‘lynch pin revolves around individuality and lack of using government to solve problems.’ I read it as the lack of individuality is his assertion. Obviously no one can individually provide national defense hence the ‘common purpose’ phrase. You again assert the same position in your post.

His examples are limited in this as his daily talking points are typically 1-2 minutes long which don’t allow for lengthy explanations.

You stated “Government...asked them to sacrifice. Now, this has nothing to do with individuality.” Was the sacrifice they asked NOT individual as well as collectively?

More than two-thirds of voters say the United States is declining, and a clear majority think the next generation will be worse off than this one, according to the results of a new poll commissioned by The Hill. (» Poll: 69% of Voters Say America Is in Decline - Big Government) This poll supports the ‘America in decline’ that you look for. But of course these are just American opinions and not CONCRETE proof, as if some such HARD evidence exists for a subjective concept.

It is not that I miss his point or am too tunnel minded to understand the underlying theme for I have witnessed this first hand for many years.

Without a full explination, they are largely worthless.

The sacrifice was collective, for the collective good. It wasn't the individual on his or her own deciding to do something. they were called upon by government, to colelctively act.

BTW, public opinion can be wrong. Such opinions tell us next to nothing factually. Putting too mcuh stock in such things can be misleading, just as what we THINK we witness. You hold a world view that such is true. O'Reilly tells you it is true. So, instead of questioning it, you accept it. This is not unusual, but it is lazy. And it doesn't change a thing I argued.
 
Without a full explination, they are largely worthless.


In a 'larger' context I agree but I believe these daily talking points are meant to initiate individual thought. True some will take them as gospel just as there will be those who take the statements of the several you listed previously as ‘fact’ and by comparison equally worthless.

The sacrifice was collective, for the collective good. It wasn't the individual on his or her own deciding to do something. They were called upon by government, to collectively act.

Yes, there was collective sacrafice but at the same time individual as well. No two people sacrificed equally…as an old friend stated recently 'Few things are either all one way or another'.

BTW, public opinion can be wrong. Such opinions tell us next to nothing factually. Putting too mcuh stock in such things can be misleading, just as what we THINK we witness. You hold a world view that such is true. O'Reilly tells you it is true. So, instead of questioning it, you accept it. This is not unusual, but it is lazy. And it doesn't change a thing I argued.

As I stated ‘But of course these are just American opinions and not CONCRETE proof, as if some such HARD evidence exists for a subjective concept.’ So I guess you are agreeing???
 
Per the WH website “To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target.” So, no the Joint Committee has NOT FOUND A WAY TO PAY FOR IT YET! Jobs created by moving money around are not sustainable but merely kicking the can.

The bill as it went to the Senate floor was paid for by a millionaires' surtax

Your graph compares the ‘riches 400 people’ out of 315million against the middle class. Do you think this is represents a legitimate comparison? Wouldn’t comparing an extreme element to a median element usually reveal some great disparity? Essentially the comparison groups are extreme compared to each other.

My claim was that the super wealthy pay a lesser percentage of their total income than do the middle class. That is what my documentation backs up.


Your graph to support the ‘trickle down’ argument is the ‘increase in national debt’. I miss the correlation.

I see you did. The website I linked explains it in more detail.



Did you miss my original post about the ‘apples/oranges’ comparison of wage income vs. capital gains? I guess not. What you miss is that the inheritance and capital gains taxes are ‘double taxes’. One cannot have income from capital gains until he first has income to invest and thus profit to incur capital gains taxes. This initial income is taxed at the income rate. The same is true on inheritance. I know you read the Politifact article which revealed this principal.

I don't buy it, and neither does the majority of the country. How is income from capital gains not income? How is income from inheritance not income?
 
How is income from capital gains not income? How is income from inheritance not income?

Don't be so obtuse, they are both income. Capital gain is income from the investment of personal wealth. This personal wealth when earned was taxed at the income rate rate determined by the progressive tax tables.

Inheritance is wealth transfered to a designated party. Again when this wealth was earned initially it was taxed at the income tax rate determined by the progressive tax table.

Neither of these incomes come from labor wages. Further, it is the investments (that generate capital gains) that Washington espouces will turn the economy around.
 
In a 'larger' context I agree but I believe these daily talking points are meant to initiate individual thought. True some will take them as gospel just as there will be those who take the statements of the several you listed previously as ‘fact’ and by comparison equally worthless.

I doubt that (to stimulate thought), as they show so little thought.

As for anything I've said, I'm here to asked, to expound upon, to even provide support should such be needed.

Yes, there was collective sacrafice but at the same time individual as well. No two people sacrificed equally…as an old friend stated recently 'Few things are either all one way or another'.

Then there is no collective anything. That's what you're left with if we accept what you just said. Socialism after all has individuals doing things on their own, so it too is individialistic. Right?

The point it is it was called on by the government, and shared among the populace. It was not an individalist effort.

As I stated ‘But of course these are just American opinions and not CONCRETE proof, as if some such HARD evidence exists for a subjective concept.’ So I guess you are agreeing???

It's not all that subjective. Anything that has no objective evidence is almost as worthless as O'Reilly's talking points. We can measure people holding jobs, seeking to prosper, putting forth effort. You don't do this by asking for a public opinion, but examining what people are doing is some scientific manner. As I stated, a majority can be dead wrong.
 
I doubt that (to stimulate thought), as they show so little thought. As for anything I've said, I'm here to asked, to expound upon, to even provide support should such be needed.

Ultimately, the talking points by Bill O’ and the comments made by others you mentioned (Beck, O'Reilly, Maddow or Oberman) are for ‘selling soap’, nothing more. As far as you expounding and providing support as to their POV, why? As you stated “If' you're listening to any of them, taking any of them seriously, you are the problem.”

Then there is no collective anything. That's what you're left with if we accept what you just said. Socialism after all has individuals doing things on their own, so it too is individialistic. Right?
Technically no, Socialism by nature is an economic and political philosophy that promotes social equality and collective decision-making. My statement about ‘No two people sacrificed equally’ does not support the ‘social equality’ philosophy typical of socialism.

The point it is it was called on by the government, and shared among the populace. It was not an individalist effort.

Yes, it was shared among the populace but not EQUALLY shared either voluntarily or mandated.

It's not all that subjective. Anything that has no objective evidence is almost as worthless as O'Reilly's talking points. We can measure people holding jobs, seeking to prosper, putting forth effort. You don't do this by asking for a public opinion, but examining what people are doing is some scientific manner. As I stated, a majority can be dead wrong.

This is ambiguous. Opinions by their very nature are subjective as they are not facts BUT can be based on facts. By your above statements they are ‘worthless’ thus why should anyone care what yours is? Yes, the public/majority opinion can be wrong. Further this particular portion of discussion was initiated by the request for ‘evidence of America in decline’. A graph was furnished by pb that indicated such.
 
Ultimately, the talking points by Bill O’ and the comments made by others you mentioned (Beck, O'Reilly, Maddow or Oberman) are for ‘selling soap’, nothing more. As far as you expounding and providing support as to their POV, why? As you stated “If' you're listening to any of them, taking any of them seriously, you are the problem.”

You amy remember I started out with such wasn't necessary to respond to for those reasons. You wanted more, so i responded to you, not them.


Technically no, Socialism by nature is an economic and political philosophy that promotes social equality and collective decision-making. My statement about ‘No two people sacrificed equally’ does not support the ‘social equality’ philosophy typical of socialism.

Doesn't it? Don't you remember some people are more eual than others?

Yes, it was shared among the populace but not EQUALLY shared either voluntarily or mandated.

It's not equally shared in socialism either. In fact, there is no system where it is really equally shared.

This is ambiguous. Opinions by their very nature are subjective as they are not facts BUT can be based on facts. By your above statements they are ‘worthless’ thus why should anyone care what yours is? Yes, the public/majority opinion can be wrong. Further this particular portion of discussion was initiated by the request for ‘evidence of America in decline’. A graph was furnished by pb that indicated such.

An opinion poll shows us no facts with which to measure the worthiness of their opinion, thus different than one making a case. And I gave two criteria, one to show it was in decline, which must be done first, and to show work ethic or loss of individualism was the cause. I doubt the first one less than I doubt the second one, but you can't do the second one until you prove the first.
 
The one term liberal president Carter created the Iranian crisis.

Are you serious? Do you have any understanding of the history of Iran pre-Shah and during the Shah period?

Who was President when the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh? I doubt you even know who that is.

The one term Marxist president Obama hates to let a good crisis go to waste.

Once again, Marxist is not defined as anything you don't like. Please stop throwing around a term that you use in a fashion that renders it completely meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Don't be so obtuse, they are both income. Capital gain is income from the investment of personal wealth. This personal wealth when earned was taxed at the income rate rate determined by the progressive tax tables.

I was about to say the same thing. When that personal wealth, through investment, earns additional wealth, that has not been taxed.

Inheritance is wealth transfered to a designated party. Again when this wealth was earned initially it was taxed at the income tax rate determined by the progressive tax table.

The second party that is receiving the inheritance did not earn the money, it is untaxed income to him. You are aware that we have taxed both capital gains and Estates for about a century now? This is not some socialist plot of Obama's you know.

Neither of these incomes come from labor wages.

Exactly what has a bee under the bonnet of the middle class, that the middle class has to pay full taxes on all its income, yet the rich get a break taxes on their income.
Further, it is the investments (that generate capital gains) that Washington espouces will turn the economy around.

That was indeed the claim of the failed trickle down economics. Early in 2010, the GOP threatened to withhold unemployment checks unless Obama renewed the tax cuts they said were necessary to create jobs. Where are the US jobs from the tax breaks given to the wealthy????

Sorry Charlie, the majority of the country no longer buys the trickle down theory. See the couple dozen polls this year that show the great majority favor eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.
 
Sorry Charlie, the majority of the country no longer buys the trickle down theory. See the couple dozen polls this year that show the great majority favor eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.

Well those polls are REAL compelling...lets see the...'rich' is defined loosely as 1%. How hard is it to think that one would not be able to get a comfortable majority in a poll of the other 99%? Especially when you ask 'tax them' or 'tax you'? This has got to be the shallowest argument in this whole issue, not directed at you but ALL those who use it.
 
Well those polls are REAL compelling...lets see the...'rich' is defined loosely as 1%. How hard is it to think that one would not be able to get a comfortable majority in a poll of the other 99%? Especially when you ask 'tax them' or 'tax you'? This has got to be the shallowest argument in this whole issue, not directed at you but ALL those who use it.

Yeah, why shouldn't the 99% continue to subsidize the 1% and be happy about it, just as they have done for the last 30 years? Shocking, just shocking I tell you!
 
Yeah, why shouldn't the 99% continue to subsidize the 1% and be happy about it, just as they have done for the last 30 years? Shocking, just shocking I tell you!

Show us some statistics that back this bull**** up. 99% subsidizing the 1%.... Havn't we covered this **** already, like months ago? the 1% paid 37% of the taxes, that means that they basically subsidized the 99%.
 
Show us some statistics that back this bull**** up. 99% subsidizing the 1%.... Havn't we covered this **** already, like months ago? the 1% paid 37% of the taxes, that means that they basically subsidized the 99%.

Your post lacks logic. The 99%, or at least some of the 99%, have to pay taxes so the rich can get tax breaks.
 
Your post lacks logic. The 99%, or at least some of the 99%, have to pay taxes so the rich can get tax breaks.

Trying not to laugh. The top 1% earn 18% of the income, but pay 38% of the federal income tax. The bottom 47%, with all the OWS morons being in that group, pay no federal income taxes. Many are net tax recipients.
 
Your post lacks logic. The 99%, or at least some of the 99%, have to pay taxes so the rich can get tax breaks.

Maybe you don't understand what a tax break is, but it is not the same thing as them receiving tax money. My post does not lack logic, it is 100% fact. This has been presented with sources several times over this very 100+ page thread. What you liberals need to start doing is learning and accepting the facts, your feelings don't matter. 47% of Americans accounted for -3% of federal income tax. This has also been posted several times, with sources, in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you don't understand what a tax break is, but it is not the same thing as them receiving tax money. My post does not lack logic, it is 100% fact. This has been presented with sources several times over this very 100+ page thread. What you liberals need to start doing is learning and accepting the facts, your feelings don't matter. 47% of Americans accounted for -3% of federal income tax. This has also been posted several times, with sources, in this thread.

What liberals also seem to have a problem understanding is that a tax break means people keeping more of the money that they have earned. Seems you may be on to something in stating that liberals don't seem to understand tax breaks. They call tax cuts an expense, some seem to believe it is a check sent back to the people from some other taxpayer, others believe that the govt. needs the money more than the taxpayer so you are seeing what is so frustrating here.
 
Show us some statistics that back this bull**** up. 99% subsidizing the 1%.... Havn't we covered this **** already, like months ago? the 1% paid 37% of the taxes, that means that they basically subsidized the 99%.


Your tax figures do not reflect FICA taxes paid by wage earners, or gas taxes. The top 1% owns 42.7% of the wealth, and pays considerably less than that percentage of the taxes.

[url]http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
[/URL]
 
What liberals also seem to have a problem understanding is that a tax break means people keeping more of the money that they have earned. Seems you may be on to something in stating that liberals don't seem to understand tax breaks. They call tax cuts an expense, some seem to believe it is a check sent back to the people from some other taxpayer, others believe that the govt. needs the money more than the taxpayer so you are seeing what is so frustrating here.

When in the history has any country ever gotten out of a time of crisis we are in right now with jobs and a deficit by cutting taxes? Name one time in history, in country in the world...
*(no one has ever answered this question)*
 
Maybe you don't understand what a tax break is, but it is not the same thing as them receiving tax money. My post does not lack logic, it is 100% fact. This has been presented with sources several times over this very 100+ page thread. What you liberals need to start doing is learning and accepting the facts, your feelings don't matter. 47% of Americans accounted for -3% of federal income tax. This has also been posted several times, with sources, in this thread.

For most of your post, you should check out my cig... For the other part, read part 2:

Do you not know how to follow logic? If taxes are lower on the rich, someone else much pick up the slack, aka the middle class...
 
When in the history has any country ever gotten out of a time of crisis we are in right now with jobs and a deficit by cutting taxes? Name one time in history, in country in the world...
*(no one has ever answered this question)*

It doesn't matter what has happened in the past. No 2 crisis are the same. In this case we have a stalled economy because people are not spending. This causes businesses to make less money and therefore they cannot support their number of employees, level of manufacturing, etc... The only way to fix this economy is to stop the government from spending like a bunch of drunken old people at a casino and raising our taxes. Put more money back into the private sector (through less government spending, which will eventually equate to less taxes all around) and you will see the economy go the other direction AND an increase in tax income even though the individual tax burden is less.

Businesses growing = more people working = more money in the private sector = more money speny by the private sector = more tax income. Pretty simple.
 
Your tax figures do not reflect FICA taxes paid by wage earners, or gas taxes. The top 1% owns 42.7% of the wealth, and pays considerably less than that percentage of the taxes.

[url]http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
[/URL]

FICA is SS and Medicare
Gas taxes aren't paid by people who don't drive cars.

You are unbelievable and I have to believe this is an act.

Why do you care what someone else makes? Do you have any idea what those top income earners give to charities? Why such disdain for what someone else makes?
 
For most of your post, you should check out my cig... For the other part, read part 2:

Do you not know how to follow logic? If taxes are lower on the rich, someone else much pick up the slack, aka the middle class...

Pick up what slack? Do you believe that you fund someone else's tax cut? How does that happen since tax cuts come off personal income?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom