• 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.
Catawba said:
I don't think any Republicans wish for people to die. There are many however that do not care if they die or not, if it comes between them and their tax cut.
Click to expand...

When it comes to life or death? Not caring is the samething.
 
Catawba said:
Under the temporary tax cuts, long term investment tax rates were cut to 15%. Therefore, anyone who's income is derived primarily from investment income pays a lower rate of total taxes than wage earners.
Click to expand...

wrong as usual

those who are in that category are normally paying an effective federal income tax rate of around 17%

do you know what level of earned income you have to have to pay an effective federal income tax rate higher than 17%?
 
TurtleDude said:
buying the votes of the many by increasing the taxes on the 5% who pay more income taxes than the rest of the country combined
Click to expand...

Not that there is anything wrong with making some pay more in taxes than others.
 
1Perry said:
Not that there is anything wrong with making some pay more in taxes than others.
Click to expand...

why? if they both get the same value why is it right? I reject that its proper-it might be necessary but not proper

you don't seem to understand the dangers of allowing the majority to put all the burden of paying for government on the shoulders of a minority
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong as usual

those who are in that category are normally paying an effective federal income tax rate of around 17%

do you know what level of earned income you have to have to pay an effective federal income tax rate higher than 17%?
Click to expand...


You are dishonestly excluding the federal income through FICA taxes, and gasoline taxes, of which wage earners pay a higher percentage of their income on than the rich that derive most of their income from investments.
 
1Perry said:
No, he hasn't tried. Buffett tried to help him out here and he's still not made any attempt.
Click to expand...

We've already noted the tax cut for 95% of working families, and have you forgotten way back when Obama proposed letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy lapse, and the GOP threatened to not renew unemployment payments to stop him? And have you forgotten when Obama more recently offered to cut spending by $4 for every $1 dollar increase in taxes on the wealthy? And the GOP walked away from it.
 
cpwill said:
well hey lookit that; Politifact isn't capable of understanding the difference between a tax rate cut and a tax credit. :)
Click to expand...

Obama did not claim a tax rate cut, but under the broader heading of tax cuts (which includes the subsets - tax rate cuts and tax credits).

As Politifact pointed out:

Obama: "We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families."

Politifact: "Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama's statement True."

Notice they say tax cut, and not tax rate cut?
 
TurtleDude said:
why? if they both get the same value why is it right? I reject that its proper-it might be necessary but not proper

you don't seem to understand the dangers of allowing the majority to put all the burden of paying for government on the shoulders of a minority
Click to expand...

Stupid is as stupid does.
 
Catawba said:
You are dishonestly excluding the federal income through FICA taxes, and gasoline taxes, of which wage earners pay a higher percentage of their income on than the rich that derive most of their income from investments.
Click to expand...

more nonsense. that is due to the dishonesty of the government using those fees for something that was not proper and the fact is the rich get no additional benefits and pay far far more taxes than the rest of the country. And its your boy Obumble who whines about the rich not paying their fair share of federal income taxes which is a blatant lie. He's dishonest POS who spews that crap to pander to people like you
 
TurtleDude said:
maybe you ought to explain that better. It appears to be a stupid comment
Click to expand...

Stupid is, argueing that some should not be paying a lower rate than others and then doing the very same thing elsewhere.
 
1Perry said:
Stupid is, argueing that some should not be paying a lower rate than others and then doing the very same thing elsewhere.
Click to expand...

you ignore different sources of income. if there is a flat rate on income from salary and a flat rate on income from investments everyone is being treated the same
 
TurtleDude said:
you ignore different sources of income. if there is a flat rate on income from salary and a flat rate on income from investments everyone is being treated the same
Click to expand...

Ignore? Hardly. I don't care. Income is income.
 
Catawba said:
Obama did not claim a tax rate cut, but under the broader heading of tax cuts (which includes the subsets - tax rate cuts and tax credits).

As Politifact pointed out:

Obama: "We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families."

Politifact: "Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama's statement True."

Notice they say tax cut, and not tax rate cut?
Click to expand...

there are times when a square is a square rather than just a rectangle. what Obama did was launch a series of tax - credits. economically, these function no different from any other kind of keynesian spending.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is due to the dishonesty of the government using those fees for something that was not proper
Click to expand...

That is the reality you ignored in your dishonest statement before that the federal income tax was the only source of revenue for the federal government.
 
cpwill said:
there are times when a square is a square rather than just a rectangle. what Obama did was launch a series of tax - credits. economically, these function no different from any other kind of keynesian spending.
Click to expand...

You mean because tax cuts to working families actually stimulate the economy as opposed to the tax cuts for the rich, that don't?
 
Objective Voice said:
You do know there are only 53 Democrats in the Senate, right? Well, actually, 50 Dems, 2 DINOs and 1 Independend (Joe Lieberman) whom I wish would just go away.
Click to expand...
Of course I know that, that is why I was laughing at BO's failure to get his entire party to support even having a vote on Porkulus II.
 
conservativeguy said:
LMFAO....only 50 lib senators voted for BO's Porkulus II
Click to expand...
You do know there are only 53 Democrats in the Senate, right? Well, actually, 50 Dems, 2 DINOs and 1 Independend (Joe Lieberman) whom I wish would just go away. Anyway...

Let me make a prediction going forward concering the President's Jobs plan. Here's what I believe will happen, keep in mind that the President has said to both parties in the House and the Senate..."if you have ideas you think will make my proposals better, I'm willing to listen..."

It started with Senator Reid when he essentially scrapped the "Buffle Rule" and suggested the "Millionaire Surtax (@ 5%)". Since the Buffet Rule would only apply to millionaire hedge fund managers, it made sense to shift the income level from $200K to $1M. Of course, we know how the Senate vote went. But still, I ask you, Republicans and DINOs alike, "if millionaire corporations aren't the backbone of our economy, if in fact, it is the small business owners who hire the most people, why would you vote against legislation that shifts that tax burden from small businessmen (income level from $200K-$1M) to those who make +$1M?"

The President's Jobs plan will now go to the House[/URL] where it will be sliced and diced and voted on in smaller pieces. Again, I remind you that the President has said he doesn't have a problem with this as long as such bills meet his approval. (You'll know if they don't should should legislation meet with the veto pen.) With each passage of the smaller piece of legislation that would still accomplish what the President wants, just presented in smaller segments, Republicans will first attempt to water down his proposals by placing things they know won't stand a chance of passing in their bills, i.e., repeal of the PPACA (ObamaCare) and Dodd-Frank. Then with each bill that passes, Republicans will then attempt to take credit for job creation.

Mark my words on this, ladies and gentlemen. Instead of simply doing what the country needs them to do which is to focus on job creation, watch as Republicans continue to play party politics placing party ahead of country even in the midst of a vast majority of the country in unified outcry for jobs!
 
conservativeguy said:
Of course I know that, that is why I was laughing at BO's failure to get his entire party to support even having a vote on Porkulus II.
Click to expand...

Senator's Nelson and Tester are DINOs. Look at their records, especially that of Nelson who has voted more times with Republicans than he has his own party. He especially may as well just change his party association.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom