• 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!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Boo Radley said:
Did you read at all what I wrote? I said: "Fight wars, build roads, pay for health care." Medicare is covered under health care.

Did you miss the fighting wars? Do states fight wars? Or is that the federal government?

Now roads, if you need help finding links about federal dollars being used to help states build roads, let me know. I'll gladly give you a few links.

So, as I see it, you're the one misrepresenting what is being said. Do you think it is dishonest for you to do that?
Click to expand...

Guess you didn't understand what I posted either since Medicare isn't funded by Federal Income taxes

Fighting was is the responsibility of the Federal govt and is funded by FIT. The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan is 1.4 trillion over 10 years or 140 billion a year. Deduct that from the 15.0 trillion and you have a 13.4 trillion dollar debt.

There would be no need to use FIT funds to pay for roads and infrastructure had the money collected from excise taxes on gasoline and diesel not been put into the General Fund of the Federal govt.

Try to learn about what taxes fund before making dumb statements
 
Catawba said:
Bush doubled the National debt by providing tax cuts to the rich at the same time he started two unfunded wars and doubled spending on the military. We need to do the reverse to reduce our debt.
Click to expand...

Actually, he increased the national debt due to two unfunded wars and increased spending on things like the military and government expansion like medicare and TSA. Had the Bush Tax cuts not gone into effect it would've still likely increased our debt. Know what wouldn't have? Not spending more than what we take in.

Correct, and if we just cut spending and did not eliminate the tax cuts for the rich, we'd still have increased debt. It is going to take the opposite of what we have done over the last 30 years of trickle down economics.
Click to expand...

Actually, if we cut spending we could stop increasing debt by that alone. All it would take is to stop spending more than we spend. Even if we eliminate tax cuts for the rich, if we continue to spend more than we bring in...which we are likely to do as you admitted even if we eliminate the tax cuts on the rich...we are still going to run up the debt.

A budget has two components, revenue and expenses.
Click to expand...

Actually, a budget is one component that functions off of a second component. You have a set amount of revenue, and a GOOD budget bases the expenses around said revenue. Our government, under Bush AND Obama, seems incapable of doing that.

Increasing revenue in no way, shape, or form guarantees that you won't run a debt. Not spending more than you take in absolutely does assure you won't run a debt.

If you cut revenues, without a corresponding cut in spending you have debt, which is what we have had with every Republican Administration for the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're correct. If you cut revenues, without cutting spending, you have debt...because you didn't set up your budget in accordance to what your revenues are. This is the issue we've had with EVERY House (who passes the budget) and President (who signs the budget) combination for the past 4 decades save for once when we had a Republican House and a Democratic President.

The tax cuts that the Republicans held unemployment benefits hostage for, that a majority of Democrats voted against, is that the tax cut you mean?
Click to expand...

Yep, the one Obama signed off on, supported, and stated needed to be passed because you can't raise taxes during this kind of economy, despite the fact he had majority control in both houses. That one.
 
Catawba said:
No, after we recover from the recession, we need to do the reverse of what we've been doing for the last 30 years.
Click to expand...
But if spending was one of the causes of the recession, then why do you feel it is the answer?
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes. Which is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to you perhaps. Not so much to a third of the country who support the OWS.

The Tea Party at its similar peak was polling 4 times more favorably than what congress polls at as well. And even its current approval rating, 3+ years after its inception, it still is more than double congresses.
Click to expand...

And as I remember, it had quite an effect on the 2010 election.


Attempting to compare a political movement to a governmental entity as if they're analogs is an erroneous means of measurement. Not to mention, even if they poll better than congress, polling better than something that historically polls abysmally is damning with faint praise.
Click to expand...

I would argue the OWS has increased public debate about the economic injustice in this country. Look at all the OWS stories in the news, look at all the OWS threads on this forum, look at you discussing the OWS issues here with me!
 
Hare said:
But if spending was one of the causes of the recession, then why do you feel it is the answer?
Click to expand...

You misunderstood my meaning. Unfunded spending on the military and tax cuts to the rich over 30 years created most of our debt. We will need to do the opposite to address that debt.
 
Conservative said:
Guess you didn't understand what I posted either since Medicare isn't funded by Federal Income taxes

Fighting was is the responsibility of the Federal govt and is funded by FIT. The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan is 1.4 trillion over 10 years or 140 billion a year. Deduct that from the 15.0 trillion and you have a 13.4 trillion dollar debt.

There would be no need to use FIT funds to pay for roads and infrastructure had the money collected from excise taxes on gasoline and diesel not been put into the General Fund of the Federal govt.

Try to learn about what taxes fund before making dumb statements
Click to expand...

Again, you just admitted that roads are covered by federal taxes. you belief in need is your opinion, fact is that there are federal taxes used for it. And for the war as well.

Now perhaps you'll make the same concession concerning medicare:

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax ( /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States payroll (or employment) tax[1] imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare[2] —federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medicare Taxes Definition | Small Business Encyclopedia | Entrepreneur.com

Problems with the federal budget deficit are on track to be dealt with through Medicare cuts and some amount of tax increases, both of which are bad for the nation's older citizens.

Seniors: OK, Hike Taxes to Save Medicare - TheStreet

The New York Times recently published a graphic displaying each department's share of the federal budget showing the vast majority of federal spending is devoted to defense, Social Security and Medicare.



See full article from DailyFinance: Hocus + Pocus = The 2012 Federal Budget Plan - DailyFinance
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, you just admitted that roads are covered by federal taxes. you belief in need is your opinion, fact is that there are federal taxes used for it. And for the war as well.

Now perhaps you'll make the same concession concerning medicare:

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax ( /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States payroll (or employment) tax[1] imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare[2] —federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medicare Taxes Definition | Small Business Encyclopedia | Entrepreneur.com

Problems with the federal budget deficit are on track to be dealt with through Medicare cuts and some amount of tax increases, both of which are bad for the nation's older citizens.

Seniors: OK, Hike Taxes to Save Medicare - TheStreet

The New York Times recently published a graphic displaying each department's share of the federal budget showing the vast majority of federal spending is devoted to defense, Social Security and Medicare.



See full article from DailyFinance: Hocus + Pocus = The 2012 Federal Budget Plan - DailyFinance
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing that you don't have a clue as to the difference between Federal Income Taxes and FICA or Payroll taxes. Further you don't seem to understand that FET is Federal Excise taxes which you pay when you fill up. Thanks for playing
 
Catawba said:
You misunderstood my meaning. Unfunded spending on the military and tax cuts to the rich over 30 years created most of our debt. We will need to do the opposite to address that debt.
Click to expand...

You make that claim a lot, where is the data to back it up?
 
Conservative said:
Thanks for showing that you don't have a clue as to the difference between Federal Income Taxes and FICA or Payroll taxes. Further you don't seem to understand that FET is Federal Excise taxes which you pay when you fill up. Thanks for playing
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. I said federal taxes. You're trying to make a meaningless distinction. I'm backing up my claim, not your silliness. It is a federal tax. Do you dispute that?
 
Conservative said:
You make that claim a lot, where is the data to back it up?
Click to expand...

Spending without revnue to pay for it the cause. If we had the revenue, there wouldn't be a debt. His statement is pretty easily supported by logic.
 
Boo Radley said:
Doesn't matter. I said federal taxes. You're trying to make a meaningless distinction. I'm backing up my claim, not your silliness. It is a federal tax. Do you dispute that?
Click to expand...

The discussion was about Federal Income taxes and funding for the Federal Govt which comes out of that money. That is intellectual dishonesty all trying to make a point which is wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Spending without revnue to pay for it the cause. If we had the revenue, there wouldn't be a debt. His statement is pretty easily supported by logic.
Click to expand...

The claim was made that tax cuts for the rich and unfunded wars caused most of the debt over the past 30 years. Tax cuts don't cost a thing because they aren't an expense so the point is right, prove the claim? Logic says that tax cuts grew jobs but you won't buy that logic but now because another liberal says something that you support you buy it without facts?
 
Catawba said:
Irrelevant
Click to expand...

Irrelevant in that you're comparing a political movement to a body of government.

The NFL is almost twice as popular as OWS. That stat is about as relevant as what you're saying. Congress historically polls low in approval polls and isn't the same thing as a political movement.

And as I remember, it had quite an effect on the 2010 election.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party had a fair bit of effect on the 2010 election, in part because it got hottest right as the election was heating up. That said, even then attempting to compare Tea Party polling to congressional polling would be a bit pointless save to say something that should've been common sense...that the "hot" political movement at the moment is more popular than a body of government that has polled poorly for more than a decade now regardless of who controlls it.

I would argue the OWS has increased public debate about the economic injustice in this country. Look at all the OWS stories in the news, look at all the OWS threads on this forum, look at you discussing the OWS issues here with me!
Click to expand...

Yep, its definitely got people talking. So did the Sandusky molestation news. Does that mean you think the public must support molestation because they talked about it a whole lot? Yes, OWS is a news story and thus gets people talking...that has little to nothing to do with its favorable or unfavorable rating.
 
Boo Radley said:
Spending without revnue to pay for it the cause. If we had the revenue, there wouldn't be a debt. His statement is pretty easily supported by logic.
Click to expand...

Similarly, if we didn't spend more than we took in there wouldn't be a debt either.

And Catawba's already admitted that even if we taxed the rich we'd still spend so much that we'd run a debt.

Going back to my point, it doesn't matter how much you raise revenue...if you spend more than you are bringing in you're going to run a debt.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Hahah well your gonna need a lot of "real hope" with those republican candidates on stage... Real solid group you guys got... :lamo
Click to expand...
Cool. We wilkl just have to wait for an election. Then let's all laugh or cry (as appropriate).
 
Catawba said:
What were we then in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, if not America, when tax rates were much more progressive than anything proposed today???
Click to expand...

On our way down the destructive road of progressive incrementalism.


j-mac
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Ohhh this guy.... :lamo
This is pathetic...
If you support economic justice you support Marxist communism!
Click to expand...
You have to admit he has all the Marxist viewpoints. He is for the progressive income tax which Radical Karl called for and James Madison opposed. He is for economic justice which is also in the Marxist's tool bag. Yep. When it quacks like a duck...
 
Catawba said:
Yes, apparently the far right thinks our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were all Marxists for supporting tax rates far more progressive than anything proposed by the Democrats today.
Click to expand...
There have always been statists willing to use whatever tool is given them to expand the scope, size, reach and tyranny of government. We largely call them Democrats but there are a large number of Establishment Republicans among them.

Slavery of a different sort was acceptable to a very large number of our great grandparents as well. Would you argue for a return to slavery?
Some mistakes just have to be fixed.
 
Catawba said:
What were we then in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, if not America, when tax rates were much more progressive than anything proposed today???
Click to expand...
I suggest you concern yourself with the effective tax rates rather than the marginal rates.

Effective rates are the ones that count. Marginal rates are for those who want to dissemble, confuse and obfuscate.
 
And now we have even more evidence that those on the left are stoking this class warfare, and inciting violence....Cornell West tonight.

"I think the problem is that the poor children, keep in mind it's 42% of poor children who live at or near poverty, it's 25% in poverty. Our audience needs to keep that in mind." Cornel West said on MSNBC this afternoon.

"Poor children need more than just a $1,000 for their family, they need a war against poverty to make it a major priority in the way which we have a priority for Afghanistan, and a priority to bail out banks, and a priority to defend corporate interests when it comes to environmental issues," West said about more and new entitlements for the poor.

Professor West didn't just call for another war on poverty (the first war was fought by Lyndon B. Johnson), but went on to say that the push for more entitlements "is going to be fought in the streets." West showered the Occupy movement with praise for making people aware of the issue.

"It's a major question of priorities here. That's why the Occupy movement is so important because some of this is going to be fought in the streets. Civil disobedience does make a difference," he said.

"Corporate greed now is an issue everybody has got to talk about. Wealth inequality. Everybody must talk about it because of the Occupy movement," Mr. West concluded.

Cornel West: Ultimate Fight For Entitlements Will Be In "The Streets" | RealClearPolitics
Click to expand...

Keep it up people, I am ready.

j-mac
 
Thunder said:
how many years after Bush's tax-cuts did it take for revenue to finally grow again?

FACT: Clinton increased revenue by 75% over his 8 years. Bush increased revenue by 28% over his 8 years.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Clinton had the benefit of a fiscally responsible Congress controlled by Republicans under Speaker of the House Gingrich.
 
j-mac said:
And now we have even more evidence that those on the left are stoking this class warfare, and inciting violence....Cornell West tonight.



Keep it up people, I am ready.

j-mac
Click to expand...

You better be ready! Bloomberg recently reported that workers' compensation is now at the lowest level relative to gross domestic income that it's been since 1955. In contrast, corporate profit is at the highest level it's been since 1950.

U.S. Workers

Workers in this country are not going to take this sh*t forever.
 
AdamT said:
You better be ready! Bloomberg recently reported that workers' compensation is now at the lowest level relative to gross domestic income that it's been since 1955. In contrast, corporate profit is at the highest level it's been since 1950.

U.S. Workers

Workers in this country are not going to take this sh*t forever.
Click to expand...

And exactly what are the workers in this country going to do about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom