• 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

Conservative said:
SS should have been kept solvent without the use of IOU's that will have be be funded with printed money or by borrowing all of which hurt the value of the dollar
Click to expand...

WOW you really don't have a clue.
 
winston53660 said:
An article from '04 during the bush adminstration?:lamo
Click to expand...

Heritage Foudation -- home of the health care mandate. :2rofll:

Which is not to say they're wrong. The question is -- so what?
 
Conservative said:
OWS reminds me of the war protesters in the 60's. Those people were out of touch with reality and the OWS crowd is no different today only worse. These are the entitlement mentality group who don't want to work but want someone else's wealth. That is totally and completely wrong. These worthless individuals are committing suicide as the poll numbers are now showing and they are doing it with their attitudes and their actions.
Click to expand...

Vietnam was one of the STUPIDEST wars we could have fought, we wasted thousands upon thousands of American lives to help out the damn French. There was NO reason to go to war in Vietnam. So to equate a movement against that war, and Occupy is not a great way to attack them. Granted, the whole extreme "hippy" thing annoys me, down to how they dress and stuff, but those protests helped end that war, with a massive American unhappiness with the war and how it was going.
 
@Conservative

But you could use a little of that "peace and love" nonsense I think. "Worthless individuals". Now, granted, even I will admit there are worthless individuals in the group, but even from your point of view, surly you realize that at least some are just there because they have a strong political opinion about many issues, there are a decent amount of Military vets in those protests as well, along with a lot of the working class in there to, people who actually have jobs. So while I COULD MAYBE see that word "worthless" being ascribed to some, I think its just factual incorrect to use such a broad brush.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Tax rates are the lowest but not tax collections which were up both after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. just because you cut rates doesn't mean you cut revenue. The rich are paying a greater share now than they paid prior to the tax cuts so what you are being told is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Tax revenue was at its highest before the Bush tax cuts at 10%, 2001 and 2002 is down as a percentage of GDP.
The increase in the 1980s is obviously not related to the tax cuts as those numbers were on their way up even before 1980.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
 
And now we are on Social Security? As I understand it, those people are assured of getting their money for many many years to come. So why are we arguing about it? I mean the only reason the Social Security fund is going bad at all, is because that money was used to pay for tax cuts and wars.
 
FFDP666 said:
Tax revenue was at its highest before the Bush tax cuts at 10%, 2001 and 2002 is down as a percentage of GDP.
The increase in the 1980s is obviously not related to the tax cuts as those numbers were on their way up even before 1980.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the fiscal year of the U.S. which runs from October-September. The Bush tax cuts or first installation weren't completed until the end if fiscal year 2001 and we were in a recession. Did you forget what happened in September 2001 which impacted the economy by about a trillion dollars according to the GAO which was quite a hit.. Jobs were lost in 2001-2002 thus taxpayers. The final addition of the Bush tax cut was implemented July 2003 and the results from 2003-2008 are quite telling but ignored. here is what the Treasury shows for FIt revenue

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

Like fare too many progressives you use basic math while ignoring growth as an issue.
 
FFDP666 said:
And now we are on Social Security? As I understand it, those people are assured of getting their money for many many years to come. So why are we arguing about it? I mean the only reason the Social Security fund is going bad at all, is because that money was used to pay for tax cuts and wars.
Click to expand...

How do you explain tax revenue growing AFTER the Bush tax cuts?
 
Conservative said:
Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the fiscal year of the U.S. which runs from October-September. The Bush tax cuts or first installation weren't completed until the end if fiscal year 2001 and we were in a recession. Did you forget what happened in September 2001 which impacted the economy by about a trillion dollars according to the GAO which was quite a hit.. Jobs were lost in 2001-2002 thus taxpayers. The final addition of the Bush tax cut was implemented July 2003 and the results from 2003-2008 are quite telling but ignored. here is what the Treasury shows for FIt revenue

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

Like fare too many progressives you use basic math while ignoring growth as an issue.
Click to expand...

Revenue did go up, but it had nothing to do with the tax cuts, the economy was growing because of the housing boom, just like in the 1980s Reagan tax cuts, were not the source of economic growth, a myriad of other sources were, namely, a huge drop in oil prices.
 
To this day, no supply side supporter can directly show a link between their tax cuts and the economy growing, NOT when so many other economic factors come into play.
 
FFDP666 said:
Revenue did go up, but it had nothing to do with the tax cuts, the economy was growing because of the housing boom, just like in the 1980s Reagan tax cuts, were not the source of economic growth, a myriad of other sources were, namely, a huge drop in oil prices.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, why do you have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn? What is it about liberalism or being a Progressive that creates this kind of loyalty? Obama loves having people like you who seems to believe that the govt. needs the money more than the taxpayers.

Fact, people with more spendable income means more economic activity and that boosts govt revenue
 
and as a percentage of GDP tax receipts were at their highest in 2000 before those tax cuts were in effect and when the Clinton tax rates were.
 
FFDP666 said:
To this day, no supply side supporter can directly show a link between their tax cuts and the economy growing, NOT when so many other economic factors come into play.
Click to expand...

Right, all supply siders can do is post actual results showing govt. revenue and economic growth rising AFTER the tax cuts where they were declining before
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion, why do you have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn? What is it about liberalism or being a Progressive that creates this kind of loyalty? Obama loves having people like you who seems to believe that the govt. needs the money more than the taxpayers.

Fact, people with more spendable income means more economic activity and that boosts govt revenue
Click to expand...

Ok fine, its my opinion, but can you admit that I at least have SOMETHING to back up what I am saying? just try and play devils advocate for a sec. So in my opinion, since that revenue was already there from the booming economoy, the Bush tax cuts, costed us a great deal of revenue, WHILE we were (still are) in TWO wars.
 
FFDP666 said:
and as a percentage of GDP tax receipts were at their highest in 2000 before those tax cuts were in effect and when the Clinton tax rates were.
Click to expand...

you tell only part of the story, ignoring that the Clinton tax cuts that went into effect in January 1993 cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994 and then you ignore the GOP tax reductions of 1997 that Clinton signed. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that you continue to buy rhetoric and ignore reality?
 
I have a rule, that no Conservative can go without bringing up Obama, in any debate about anything.
 
FFDP666 said:
Ok fine, its my opinion, but can you admit that I at least have SOMETHING to back up what I am saying? just try and play devils advocate for a sec. So in my opinion, since that revenue was already there from the booming economoy, the Bush tax cuts, costed us a great deal of revenue, WHILE we were (still are) in TWO wars.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the increase in spendable income created more economic activity and created demand for jobs. The employment after those tax cuts boomed just like during the Reagan years. Employed people pay more in FIT than unemployed workers. What do you have against people keeping more of their own money and do you believe you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?
 
Conservative said:
We have 15.1 trillion in national debt and that doesn't count the SS IOU's which are called assets
Click to expand...

Yes it does...the total national debt includes debt held by public and intragovernmental debt. This intragovernment debt includes social security, gov't pensions and such.
 
FFDP666 said:
I have a rule, that no Conservative can go without bringing up Obama, in any debate about anything.
Click to expand...

Obama is President TODAY and that basic rule of liberalism is to blame someone else for their own failures and continue to brainwash the young that govt. spending is good and necessary to help people by appealing to the heart instead of focusing on actual data
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom