• 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

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?

You mean Clinton tax hike 1993. I don't ever use political winnings to determine who is right and who is wrong on substance. the tax reductions weren't targeted at income which is what this whole debate is about, it was capital gains, small business's, education, and items that would help lower income people. Those tax breaks were targeted at certain areas of the economy, but a simple broad tax break on rich income, does not create a large amount of economic activity.

"Individuals will get a variety of new tax breaks. The law provides a tax credit for children under 17, creates college tuition tax credits and education IRAs, and allows penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts for qualified education expenses and first home purchases. Capital gains taxes are cut, and the rules for taxing home sales are completely revised. Fewer estates will be subject to taxes, and special estate tax breaks are provided for qualifying small businesses and family farms."
 
And if i have not stated this before, I'm for raising everyones taxes, not just the rich, you cannot fix our fiscal issues by simply taxing the rich, or even by simply raising taxes, we need to massively cut military spending, and even a good deal of domestic spending, if we want to really cut into the debt.
 
You mean Clinton tax hike 1993. I don't ever use political winnings to determine who is right and who is wrong on substance. the tax reductions weren't targeted at income which is what this whole debate is about, it was capital gains, small business's, education, and items that would help lower income people. Those tax breaks were targeted at certain areas of the economy, but a simple broad tax break on rich income, does not create a large amount of economic activity.

"Individuals will get a variety of new tax breaks. The law provides a tax credit for children under 17, creates college tuition tax credits and education IRAs, and allows penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts for qualified education expenses and first home purchases. Capital gains taxes are cut, and the rules for taxing home sales are completely revised. Fewer estates will be subject to taxes, and special estate tax breaks are provided for qualifying small businesses and family farms."

Yes, you are right, I meant Clinton tax increases that were retroactive to January 1, 1993. What you seem to have a problem with though is understanding that tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer/taxpayer and that benefits the economy. By nature, you keeping more of what you earn isn't an expense to the govt. especially because of the multiplier affect more spendable income has o the economy. Govt. trying to dictate human behavior has created most of the problems we have today which is massive growth in the size of the govt, thus the Government gone Wild

Special Interests...EXPOSED!!! - YouTube
 
And if i have not stated this before, I'm for raising everyones taxes, not just the rich, you cannot fix our fiscal issues by simply taxing the rich, or even by simply raising taxes, we need to massively cut military spending, and even a good deal of domestic spending, if we want to really cut into the debt.

Let's see the cuts in spending first, then we can talk about tax increases. Today we have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and that it outrageous. it is up 600 billion dollars from the last Bush budget excluding TARP and the Stimulus Plan although TARP was a LOAN and has mostly been repaid.
 
Yes, you are right, I meant Clinton tax increases that were retroactive to January 1, 1993. What you seem to have a problem with though is understanding that tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer/taxpayer and that benefits the economy. By nature, you keeping more of what you earn isn't an expense to the govt. especially because of the multiplier affect more spendable income has o the economy. Govt. trying to dictate human behavior has created most of the problems we have today which is massive growth in the size of the govt, thus the Government gone Wild

Special Interests...EXPOSED!!! - YouTube

Ok, I'm not going to say that more money in the hands of consumers does not help the economy, it can, but its not an exact science where it always goes that way, like currently for example, when people get more money, a lot of it goes into saving, or paying off credit card debt. So I agree with you on that, at least half way. But how far can we lower taxes to accomplish that goal? That is the important question isn't it. Like i said, it is in no way an exact thing where you really know whats going to happen when you cut taxes, its not always going to do what you want.
 
Plus, the government needs more revenue, it just does, theres not way around that, and right now that revenue cannot be achieved by simply cutting taxes would be my argument. For example, I'm sure you've heard of the Warren Buffet thing, and while that dosn't account for all rich people, it accounts for a great deal of the richest peoples wealth, comes from investment banking and such, and when they pay a lower rate for their income than you or I, that is wrong, and stupid.
 
Ok, I'm not going to say that more money in the hands of consumers does not help the economy, it can, but its not an exact science where it always goes that way, like currently for example, when people get more money, a lot of it goes into saving, or paying off credit card debt. So I agree with you on that, at least half way. But how far can we lower taxes to accomplish that goal? That is the important question isn't it. Like i said, it is in no way an exact thing where you really know whats going to happen when you cut taxes, its not always going to do what you want.

And you have a problem with people putting more money into savings thus needing less of that so called govt. "help?" Looks like we have a difference of opinion as to the role of the Federal Govt. Mine is a limited central govt. with the power at the state and local level and a Federal Govt. that does its main duty, defend the country. What you are missing is that in that 3.7 trillion dollar budget 800 billion is for defense, less than 25% going to the main function defined in the Constitution as the role of the govt.
 
Ok, I'm not going to say that more money in the hands of consumers does not help the economy, it can, but its not an exact science where it always goes that way, like currently for example, when people get more money, a lot of it goes into saving, or paying off credit card debt. So I agree with you on that, at least half way. But how far can we lower taxes to accomplish that goal? That is the important question isn't it. Like i said, it is in no way an exact thing where you really know whats going to happen when you cut taxes, its not always going to do what you want.

A biilionaire getting a million dollar tax break will not have the same effect as the person making 50k a year will.
 
Let's see the cuts in spending first, then we can talk about tax increases. Today we have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and that it outrageous. it is up 600 billion dollars from the last Bush budget excluding TARP and the Stimulus Plan although TARP was a LOAN and has mostly been repaid.

And this is where my Ron Paul side comes out the most, if we start with cuts, we should start with the part that is the least beneficial to America. Our military budget is way overblown, the expense of maintaining an empire is costly.
 
Plus, the government needs more revenue, it just does, theres not way around that, and right now that revenue cannot be achieved by simply cutting taxes would be my argument. For example, I'm sure you've heard of the Warren Buffet thing, and while that dosn't account for all rich people, it accounts for a great deal of the richest peoples wealth, comes from investment banking and such, and when they pay a lower rate for their income than you or I, that is wrong, and stupid.

You have bought the liberal bs that the govt. needs the money more than the American taxpayers, why? I don't care what Buffet or anyone else pays in taxes, why do you? If anyone believes the govt. isn't getting enough revenue, send in more to the govt. as a donation.

Stop buying what you are told, every American has access to the same deductions thus no American is getting a better deal. you continue to buy the liberal rhetoric that it is unfair for the rich to keep more of their income forgetting that it is THEIR INCOME NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S.
 
but i already included domestic spending in that, we will need to cut, but lets prioritize first, start cutting the stuff that will be the least hurtful to the average joe, and go from there until you have a balanced budget.
 
A biilionaire getting a million dollar tax break will not have the same effect as the person making 50k a year will.

Most people making 50,000 a year don't pay any FIT based upon tax policy and deductions available.
 
You have bought the liberal bs that the govt. needs the money more than the American taxpayers, why? I don't care what Buffet or anyone else pays in taxes, why do you? If anyone believes the govt. isn't getting enough revenue, send in more to the govt. as a donation.

Stop buying what you are told, every American has access to the same deductions thus no American is getting a better deal. you continue to buy the liberal rhetoric that it is unfair for the rich to keep more of their income forgetting that it is THEIR INCOME NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S.

One of the big problems with our system, is that the rich hide their money, and go to great lengths to make sure it does not get taxed, then they lobby DC to have laws passed that allow them to hide more and more money in offshore accounts. You and I do not have the same access to the system that they do, the tax loop holes for the rich do exist, and there are many of them. and why should i care what Buffet pays? Because if its all about getting more revenue to help pay off our debt, why the hell would we ignore a huge source of revenue from people who pay less in taxes than the middle class?
 
but i already included domestic spending in that, we will need to cut, but lets prioritize first, start cutting the stuff that will be the least hurtful to the average joe, and go from there until you have a balanced budget.

What is the role of the Federal, State, and local governments? We have a 3.7 trillion dollar budget, the first thing you do is pull SS and Medicare out of that budget eliminating the unified budget process. Put it where it belongs and then make sure that FICA goes only to fund those programs along with govt. pensions. Then you pull out any other expense that is duplicated at the state including EPA, Education, Commerce, Energy, unemployment, healthcare, etc and see how much you are left over with.
 
Also, congress has the clear authority to tax peoples money, raising that a bit, its not the end of the free world as we know it.
 
One of the big problems with our system, is that the rich hide their money, and go to great lengths to make sure it does not get taxed, then they lobby DC to have laws passed that allow them to hide more and more money in offshore accounts. You and I do not have the same access to the system that they do, the tax loop holes for the rich do exist, and there are many of them. and why should i care what Buffet pays? Because if its all about getting more revenue to help pay off our debt, why the hell would we ignore a huge source of revenue from people who pay less in taxes than the middle class?

politicians on both sides have found that they can buy votes with spending money. They have zero interest in cutting spending for the reason that they keep their jobs by giving their constituents other taxpayer's money.
 
Also, congress has the clear authority to tax peoples money, raising that a bit, its not the end of the free world as we know it.

You totally ignore that those taxdollars buy and that is the problem
 
What is the role of the Federal, State, and local governments? We have a 3.7 trillion dollar budget, the first thing you do is pull SS and Medicare out of that budget eliminating the unified budget process. Put it where it belongs and then make sure that FICA goes only to fund those programs along with govt. pensions. Then you pull out any other expense that is duplicated at the state including EPA, Education, Commerce, Energy, unemployment, healthcare, etc and see how much you are left over with.

If you want to put it on the State Level, thats not ganna fix the problem, the States are having a lot of fiscal troubles as well, and have less power to actually do anything about it.

I guess it could be argued it would cut costs, but in the end your just passing the expense to someone else.
 
If you want to put it on the State Level, thats not ganna fix the problem, the States are having a lot of fiscal troubles as well, and have less power to actually do anything about it.

I guess it could be argued it would cut costs, but in the end your just passing the expense to someone else.

States have a responsibility to their citizens, if they over spend it is up to the people of that state to correct the problem, not get help from taxpayers in other states. That is called accepting personal responsibility. It is not your responsibility to pay for expenses in my state.
 
Well how low should taxes be then Conservative? how much is enough? they are already lower than ever, but thats not good enough is it? we need less and less, so those darn poor people can't get any of your money!
 
States have a responsibility to their citizens, if they over spend it is up to the people of that state to correct the problem, not get help from taxpayers in other states. That is called accepting personal responsibility. It is not your responsibility to pay for expenses in my state.

We are all Americans.
 
Our military budget is way overblown, the expense of maintaining an empire is costly.

That would be true if military spending was justifiable by national defense. I am of the opinion that national defense is a secondary benefit of the spending. Its primary benefit is that it allows the ‘regime’, of whatever country/era, to manipulate the economy. Consider that it is the largest portion of the economy that produces ‘waste’, outcome that has no other tangible use (munitions). In the 1990’s we had a booming economy, based on the emerging computer/it/.com activities, thus needed less MIC (mil-ind complex) to stabilize the economy. In the early 2000’s the .com bubble collapsed thus weakening the economy. During the same period our economic growth was more dependent on housing, public and private debt which is unsustainable in the long term. This growth basis promoted the increase in MIC spending during the same time and COULD be the underlying purpose in expanding the ‘spending’ in Iraq. Until we, nationally and globally, find a ‘mechanism’ to utilize to stabilize the economy MIC/war spending will provide the best source of ‘production for waste’.
 
Well how low should taxes be then Conservative? how much is enough? they are already lower than ever, but thats not good enough is it? we need less and less, so those darn poor people can't get any of your money!

What we need is a growing economy from which the govt. gets revenue. the focus solely on Income tax revenue is nearsighted. First thing has to be to define the role of the govt. and put a realistic budget in place, then match that budget with revenue requirements. Right now 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans aren't paying much in FIT and 47% of current income earning households aren't paying a dime in FIT. Most liberals ignore that problem if you indeed believe we have a revenue problem. I don't, I believe we have a spending problem along with a GDP growth problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom