• 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!

State of the Union Address

I let you in on a secret too. We will never forget what Bush did to this country. It is going to be alot of years before ANY Republican Pres. sets foot in the Whitehouse again. We don't want to be attacked again or spend trillions on personal vendettas like the iraq invasion either.

LOL ...... just like you kept those GOP "jackboots" out of the House in 2010 ............ ;)
 
MSNBC is clearly liberal. I don't think they suggest that they aren't. That's the difference. CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN are somewhere in the middle.
All of them are revenue producers, and that is their bias. They serve the corporate bottom line. There was a time when the news was news, now the best description is infotainment. And make sure you buy Viagra or Cialis.
 
I just have to ask, if we accept what you agree is true and what you say isn't true, isn't it still a problem? Something few will see as fair?

Boo, the President made two claims re Buffett and his secretary.

Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes?

The second statement was blatantly false. It wasn't a mis-speak. It was in his text. It was intentional. And it was a pants-on-fire lie. To use "class warfare" in the same statement is ironic, because that's what this lie was reinforcing.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, so I'll just say this: I think our tax code is a whore's nightmare of injustice. Profitable corporations work the system and pay no corporate income tax. People like Warren Buffett get to take paultry salaries in order to avoid higher payroll taxes. (Buffett's salary as the CEO of the third largest company in the world? $100,000) Hedge fund managers' compensation is allowed to be taxed at capital gains rates instead of salary. People owning two $5 million homes are allowed to deduct mortgage interest from their gross income. And even more homes if they can show that they used the mortgage money in their business. (Since money is fungible, that's not hard to show.) The IRS settles tax delinquencies at 10-cents on the dollar encouraging people not to pay their taxes and wait for a settlement. Our own Timothy Geitner, for heaven's sake. Tom Daschel. Staffers in both the House and Senate in Washington own millions in back taxes. Federal employees owe almost $1 billion in back taxes. Small (meaning mom-and-pop) to medium corporations set up in the Subchapter S mode and take minimal salaries -- like $25,000 -- and then take the rest as dividends to avoid payroll taxes. Heck, a lot of realtors do this so they can take their social security benefits unfettered.

We are a mess.
 
What's a "moderate conservative"? Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
Unlike extreme and liberal, no they aren't. A moderate is a Romney or McCain type. A REAL conservative is a Marco Rubio.
 
Boo, the President made two claims re Buffett and his secretary.





The second statement was blatantly false. It wasn't a mis-speak. It was in his text. It was intentional. And it was a pants-on-fire lie. To use "class warfare" in the same statement is ironic, because that's what this lie was reinforcing.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, so I'll just say this: I think our tax code is a whore's nightmare of injustice. Profitable corporations work the system and pay no corporate income tax. People like Warren Buffett get to take paultry salaries in order to avoid higher payroll taxes. (Buffett's salary as the CEO of the third largest company in the world? $100,000) Hedge fund managers' compensation is allowed to be taxed at capital gains rates instead of salary. People owning two $5 million homes are allowed to deduct mortgage interest from their gross income. And even more homes if they can show that they used the mortgage money in their business. (Since money is fungible, that's not hard to show.) The IRS settles tax delinquencies at 10-cents on the dollar encouraging people not to pay their taxes and wait for a settlement. Our own Timothy Geitner, for heaven's sake. Tom Daschel. Staffers in both the House and Senate in Washington own millions in back taxes. Federal employees owe almost $1 billion in back taxes. Small (meaning mom-and-pop) to medium corporations set up in the Subchapter S mode and take minimal salaries -- like $25,000 -- and then take the rest as dividends to avoid payroll taxes. Heck, a lot of realtors do this so they can take their social security benefits unfettered.

We are a mess.

I think we know that we're talking about paying a higher rate and not that she pays more in actual dollars. The fact that she pays a lower rate is a problem, and largely unfair. As this is true (isn't it), shouldn't we focus on that?
 
I think we know that we're talking about paying a higher rate and not that she pays more in actual dollars. The fact that she pays a lower rate is a problem, and largely unfair. As this is true (isn't it), shouldn't we focus on that?

She isn't paying a higher rate on any investment income she has as well as like Buffet if she is invested then she has paid taxes on that income once already. You don't seem to understand where investment capital comes from.
 
I think we know that we're talking about paying a higher rate and not that she pays more in actual dollars. The fact that she pays a lower rate is a problem, and largely unfair. As this is true (isn't it), shouldn't we focus on that?

They pay the same rate on the same income. As income goes up, Buffet pays at the progressively higher rates, as would she, if she had higher income.

They pay the same rates on capital gains. That he has more than she is class envy.

What the President proposed last night was to raise capital gains tax rates. Every time we've done it, we lower the net revenues derived from capital gains, as unlike income, investment can more easily go elsewhere, as it always has. When Charley Gibson pointed out to Obama in the 2008 debates with Hillary that raising taxes on capital gains has always produced a lower net revenue, Obama agreed, but then said it was more a question of "fairness".



Like it or not, if we start treating investment gains as regular income, we will get less. It is the ultimate "cut off your nose to spite your face" act, and yet liberals embrace it. The only "fairness" will be that we end up "fairly" more stupid.
 
They pay the same rate on the same income. As income goes up, Buffet pays at the progressively higher rates, as would she, if she had higher income.

And as Paul Harvey says.... . now here is the rest of the story. Unfortunately, the tax law disciriminates on the SOURCE of that income giving a preferential and much lower rate to capital gains than salary or wages which causes the wealthy to reap a benefit that the average worker does not see of its effect is miniscule upon them.
 
Obama says great stuff. He did four years ago and I voted for him. He's great at talk but can't walk the walk. Can anybody gues why I'm independent? Because I RESENT always having to vote for the least objectionable candidate. This November is going to be exceedingly tough. They all are terribly objectionable!
 
They pay the same rate on the same income. As income goes up, Buffet pays at the progressively higher rates, as would she, if she had higher income.

They pay the same rates on capital gains. That he has more than she is class envy.

What the President proposed last night was to raise capital gains tax rates. Every time we've done it, we lower the net revenues derived from capital gains, as unlike income, investment can more easily go elsewhere, as it always has. When Charley Gibson pointed out to Obama in the 2008 debates with Hillary that raising taxes on capital gains has always produced a lower net revenue, Obama agreed, but then said it was more a question of "fairness".

Like it or not, if we start treating investment gains as regular income, we will get less. It is the ultimate "cut off your nose to spite your face" act, and yet liberals embrace it. The only "fairness" will be that we end up "fairly" more stupid.


I am surprised that this old lie is still around. Buffet was less than disingenuous when he first raised it a year ago and it seems to have grown like a cancer.


What struck me about the "State of the Election" speech was two things: He seemed to have been fed some crystal meth; his voice was gravely and pitched and he was machine-gunning his words. What's with that?

And all of the things he's proposed could have and should have been done in the first half of his administration when he had complete control of the house and senate. Did they just realize this or did they just realize where the polls are.

Populists are dangerous. They have no long term plan, make no unpopular decisions and usually destroy the country. Jimmy Cater was a populist.
 
And as Paul Harvey says.... . now here is the rest of the story. Unfortunately, the tax law disciriminates on the SOURCE of that income giving a preferential and much lower rate to capital gains than salary or wages which causes the wealthy to reap a benefit that the average worker does not see of its effect is miniscule upon them.

So what ? Again, if you tax capital gains more, you will get less investment, and more importantly LESS REVENUES ........... DUH !!!

We have proposed a "fair tax" that taxes consumption, with a break for all on essential purchases, and the liberals are dead against it. It would be "fair" beyond belief by every measure Democrats claim is "fair", except Dems don't give a crap about "fair". What all this shows is that it is about class envy. About transfer of wealth. About "free stuff".
 
And as Paul Harvey says.... . now here is the rest of the story. Unfortunately, the tax law disciriminates on the SOURCE of that income giving a preferential and much lower rate to capital gains than salary or wages which causes the wealthy to reap a benefit that the average worker does not see of its effect is miniscule upon them.

Where does investment income come from? Seems that liberals want to ignore the reality that people get investment income from their earned income which is taxed at a higher rate than the ROI on investment revenue but that has to be ignored for the liberal agenda to be promoted. Personal income is taxed then investment income is taxed again, Anyone really believe that Buffet's secretary is paying a higher tax rate than all the Buffet revenue was taxed?
 
Where does investment income come from?

That would depend on the person involved.

Do you have a specific individual in mind?

Personal income is taxed then investment income is taxed again,

It is not taxed AGAIN since it is new revenue that was not yet taxed for the first time.
 
Last edited:
So what ? Again, if you tax capital gains more, you will get less investment, and more importantly LESS REVENUES ........... DUH !!!

We have proposed a "fair tax" that taxes consumption, with a break for all on essential purchases, and the liberals are dead against it. It would be "fair" beyond belief by every measure Democrats claim is "fair", except Dems don't give a crap about "fair". What all this shows is that it is about class envy. About transfer of wealth. About "free stuff".


That is absolutely correct. Consumption taxes are the most fair. The reason liberals/socialists do not like them and claim they are a tax on the poor is because they like to manipulate the income and pay roll taxes for social engineering. Give a wage earner a break on his taxes for buying solar panels from Solyndra and he will.
 
That would depend on the person involved.

Do you have a specific individual in mind?



It is not taxed AGAIN since it is new revenue that was not yet taxed for the first time.

Where did Romney's investment capital come from? Where does yours come from?

You think your personal income isn't taxed? The revenue from investments is taxed again but the money used to create that return has already been taxed.
 
Where did Romney's investment capital come from? Where does yours come from?

You think your personal income isn't taxed? The revenue from investments is taxed again but the money used to create that return has already been taxed.

It cannot be taxed AGAIN until it is taxed the first time. It has not been. You use of the word AGAIN is both factually wrong and dishonest.
 
Shut up Sheik. View attachment 67121600
Top 1% get 16% of the income and pay 38% of the taxes.
Top 5% get 35% of the income and pay 59% of the taxes.
Top 10% get 46% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes.

We cant even get enough money if the top 1% paid ALL of their income. We are spending too much money and this chucklehead wants us to just spend more and more. Hes the most dangerous kind of crazy, the kind with a lot of power and no idea of the consequences down the road.

It took 30 years of both spending too much and taxing the rich too little to get us into this mess. It will take the opposite to fix the mess. There are no magic shortcuts.

It should be obvious that the only time in the last 30 years that we substantially reduced the budget deficit was in the 90s when both sides came together to both cut spending and increase taxes on the rich.
 
"It doesn't matter who the people voted for, they always vote for us." Joseph Stalin

I'm not saying our politicians are communist. Just elitists!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...aires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/
“About 47 percent of Congress, or 249 current members are millionaires. … In 2010, the estimated median net worth of a current U.S. senator stood at an average of $2.56 million,” according to the Center’s research.

So who runs the parties, puts up and backs the cadidates, and frequently are the candidates?

Of course they are altruistic and have common concerns with the rest of us. They want the load evenly shared and equal opportunity for all!
 
It cannot be taxed AGAIN until it is taxed the first time. It has not been. You use of the word AGAIN is both factually wrong and dishonest.

The income was taxed once and that net income was used as investment capital. If that income wasn't earned where does the investment capital come from?
 
Damn. Another James Bond movie in the works with a new arch nemesis for 007.

The Man With the Golden Tongue. :mrgreen:

Oh come on. that was one of the worst SOU speeches I've listened to in years.

Golden tongue,:2funny: more like the man with s#!t for brains.
 
He's promised taxpayer money. He himself has provided nothing. He's worried about clean energy that will skyrocket energy costs for all of us, when we have alot of folks who can't even afford their light bill as it is.

How many presidents have personally financed the government in the past???? Get real!

We have experience with the failure of short-term thinking under Bush that brought us the Great Recession. Thanks, but no thanks!
 
It took 30 years of both spending too much and taxing the rich too little to get us into this mess. It will take the opposite to fix the mess. There are no magic shortcuts.

It should be obvious that the only time in the last 30 years that we substantially reduced the budget deficit was in the 90s when both sides came together to both cut spending and increase taxes on the rich.


What happened in 90s was a balanced budget!
 
The income was taxed once and that net income was used as investment capital. If that income wasn't earned where does the investment capital come from?

It could be given to a person.
It could be inherited.
It could be profits from other investments.
It could be the result of an award from a lawsuit.
It could be found money.

The possibilities are as wide and varied as the number of people are.

And so what if the money invested was earned as wages and taxed as such? That investment is not taxed "again". It is called CAPITAL GAINS for a reason - the idea being that you pay on the GAINS part of it.

For something to be taxed AGAIN, that same money has first to be taxed once. And that is not the case here.

You are using the term AGAIN in error.
 
Oh come on. that was one of the worst SOU speeches I've listened to in years.

Golden tongue,:2funny: more like the man with s#!t for brains.

Shocking that you would feel that way given your lean and personal ideology.
 
You just cannot stand being wrong, can you?

I'll let you know if you ever prove me wrong.

This year those earning over $1 million will pay, on average, 29.1 percent on federal taxes. Those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent.

What part of Romney's admission of only paying 13.9% of his income in taxes did you not understand?

My claim (which has now been proven correct) was that those who's income is primarily from investments, pay a lower tax rate than those who make $50,000.

You've just admitted above that those that earn $50,000 pay 15%. Is that greater than or smaller than the 13.9% tax rate that Romney paid?

That is exactly the same case with Buffett (because his income is primarily from investments) pays a lower tax rate than this secretary, which was proven true by the fact checkers.

And yet you still deny it? How can you deny that, and that Romney's own tax records that showed he paid only 13.9%???
 
Back
Top Bottom