• 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

Just because someone makes a rebuttal doesn't mean they are right.

If 51% of people polled believed that the media supported Obama vs 9% McCain that makes a pretty strong statement for liberal bias.
 
Just because someone makes a rebuttal doesn't mean they are right.

If 51% of people polled believed that the media supported Obama vs 9% McCain that makes a pretty strong statement for liberal bias.

How does who you voted for equal bias? That is a mighty big jump across a river without any bridge that you failed to build.
 
Present the evidence of how the Bush tax cuts for the rich over the last ten years have benefited the middle class?

It is your premise that is incorrect. The BTC's cut taxes on all classes. Note:

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion…The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax. The rest — $81.5 billion — is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

In other words, 85% of the tax cuts went to the middle class


Bush tax cut deal and surprise stimulus - what they cost - Dec. 7, 2010

Maybe I'm confused. Were the BTCs on the wealthy suppose to benefit the middle class? Since Bush cut taxes on all classes why do you now want to promote division and attack only one income class?
 
Risk takers? We tax tight rope walkers? We tax fire eaters? We tax people who drive too fast for road conditions?

Spoken like a true liberal, risk takers investing their own capital in hopes of generating a return so they are no longer in need of that so called liberal help and that is compared to driving a car too fast on the highways? LOL no wonder liberalism is a joke
 
It is your premise that is incorrect. The BTC's cut taxes on all classes. Note:

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion…The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax. The rest — $81.5 billion — is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

In other words, 85% of the tax cuts went to the middle class


Bush tax cut deal and surprise stimulus - what they cost - Dec. 7, 2010

Maybe I'm confused. Were the BTCs on the wealthy suppose to benefit the middle class? Since Bush cut taxes on all classes why do you now want to promote division and attack only one income class?

Good luck getting an answer on that one. Catawba is the biggest supporter of class warfare and envy in this forum and that says a lot.
 
Are they not rewarded for the risk when they succeed? And are not their taxes lower if not non-existent if they fail? And don't we tax workers, who risk losing a job if that business fails?

So, stop the class warfare stuff.

Yes, do you have a problem with that? Why should the Govt. take any part of that money instead of allowing the individual that took the risk to spend it as they see fit?
 
Are they not rewarded for the risk when they succeed? And are not their taxes lower if not non-existent if they fail? And don't we tax workers, who risk losing a job if that business fails?

Again, false premise. Workers losing a job is a loss of revenue source but his ability to generate revenue from another employer is not reduced. There are laws that require employers to PAY employees for labor worked, receiving revenue. There are no laws to protect investors revenue. If an investment is lost its lost WITHOUT the ability to generate revenue somewhere else, ESPECIALLY if a business fails.
 
Thank you for the effort. Now to reiterate, do these not sound like the antithesis of ‘while Conservatives motivate with fear’?

Despite the Administration's rhetoric, airline cargo still goes uninspected, shipping containers go unscreened, and our railroads and power plants are not secure. Police officers and firefighters across America have pleaded for the tools they need to prevent or respond to an attack, but the Administration still hasn't delivered for our first responders.

The greatest threats to our homeland security are the tons of biological, chemical, and even nuclear materials that are unaccounted for or unguarded. The President says the right words about the threat, but he has failed to take action commensurate with it.

We can and we must keep the world's most gruesome weapons out of the world's most dangerous hands. Nothing is more important to our homeland security, and indeed to the safety of the world.

For three years, the President has failed to put together a comprehensive plan to protect America from terrorism, and we did not hear one tonight.


These are not examples of motivation by fear?

First, I never said Democrats never did the same (never is a long time). But, what Democrats do, even in the quoted about, is give examples of what can be done to change things. Pointing out flaws doesn't equal created fear.

Here's some of the Republican response.
NBC Politics - Mitch Daniels' Republican response to State of the Union speech

"On these evenings, Presidents naturally seek to find the sunny side of our national condition. But when President Obama claims that the state of our union is anything but grave, he must know in his heart that this is not true.

"The President did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight. But he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse: the percentage of Americans with a job is at the lowest in decades. One in five men of prime working age, and nearly half of all persons under 30, did not go to work today.

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead. The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends. No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours.

"The President's grand experiment in trickle-down government has held back rather than sped economic recovery. He seems to sincerely believe we can build a middle class out of government jobs paid for with borrowed dollars. In fact, it works the other way: a government as big and bossy as this one is maintained on the backs of the middle class, and those who hope to join it.

"Those punished most by the wrong turns of the last three years are those unemployed or underemployed tonight, and those so discouraged that they have abandoned the search for work altogether. And no one has been more tragically harmed than the young people of this country, the first generation in memory to face a future less promising than their parents did.

"As Republicans our first concern is for those waiting tonight to begin or resume the climb up life's ladder. We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves.

"In our economic stagnation and indebtedness, we are only a short distance behind Greece, Spain, and other European countries now facing economic catastrophe. But ours is a fortunate land. Because the world uses our dollar for trade, we have a short grace period to deal with our dangers. But time is running out, if we are to avoid the fate of Europe, and those once-great nations of history that fell from the position of world leadership.

Is that not apocalyptic?

So much of this is nonsense, I'm amazed no one has addressed it (he admits Obama didn't create the mess, but thing does right ahead and puts it all on him to resolve). But, this is the fearmongering the right uses to motivate it's loyal sheep.
 
Last edited:
Just because someone makes a rebuttal doesn't mean they are right.

If 51% of people polled believed that the media supported Obama vs 9% McCain that makes a pretty strong statement for liberal bias.

Watched SOTU on PBS.com. The GOP response video had no audio. Sent PBS an email suggesting a name change to PBS Ltd.
 
Spoken like a true liberal, risk takers investing their own capital in hopes of generating a return so they are no longer in need of that so called liberal help and that is compared to driving a car too fast on the highways? LOL no wonder liberalism is a joke

Clue for you: the JOKE is your silly RISK TAKER routine. Gimme a freakin break already.

Miners take a bigger risk going down that hole everyday. Do we give them a 60% break on taxation? Cops and fireman take a big risk everyday they go out on the street in uniform. Do we give them a break on taxation with 60% the normal tax rate?
 
Good luck getting an answer on that one. Catawba is the biggest supporter of class warfare and envy in this forum and that says a lot.
So the liberal says to the conservative:
"I don't think CEO's need to be billionaires to live a decent life."
Then the conservative says:
"HEY! SIMMER DOWN WITH THE CLASS WARFARE! YOU DON'T NEED TO BE SUCH A D*** ABOUT IT!"
Heck, If I blew my nose you'd start accusing me of inciting class warfare. It's a shame that this is flu season.
 
It's unseemly for a leader to blame the followers. Reagan said the buck stops here. Obama whines, "THEY won't let me do my good stuff!" That's not a leader. That's a petulant child not having his way!
 
Again, false premise. Workers losing a job is a loss of revenue source but his ability to generate revenue from another employer is not reduced. There are laws that require employers to PAY employees for labor worked, receiving revenue. There are no laws to protect investors revenue. If an investment is lost its lost WITHOUT the ability to generate revenue somewhere else, ESPECIALLY if a business fails.

while the investment is lost, the ability to generate revenue somewhere else is still there. It's called get a job, same that you would ask someone else to do if they lost their job. Why should someone who loses an investment be treated any different?
 
Last edited:
First, I never said Democrats never did the same (never is a long time). But, what Democrats do, even in the quoted about, is give examples of what can be done to change things. Pointing out flaws doesn't equal created fear.


So much of this is nonsense, I'm amazed no one has addressed it (he admits Obama didn't create the mess, but thing does right ahead and puts it all on him to resolve). But, this is the fearmongering the right uses to motivate it's loyal sheep.

I concede that you and I see things through glasses with lenses of different shades. Not worth continuing the argument..carry on.
 
it's idiotic to believe that people will stop buying stocks simply becasue they pay a little more tax. when the tax rates for investments were higher, people still invested.

Revenues from capital gains go down as the tax rates on those gains goes up. It is fact. See the video of Gibson and Obama.
 
It is your premise that is incorrect. The BTC's cut taxes on all classes. Note:

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion…The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax. The rest — $81.5 billion — is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

In other words, 85% of the tax cuts went to the middle class

No, my premise is correct:

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study."

"Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners."

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times



Maybe I'm confused. Were the BTCs on the wealthy suppose to benefit the middle class?

Why should the middle class vote to continue the tax cuts for the rich if there is no benefit???
 
Clue for you: the JOKE is your silly RISK TAKER routine. Gimme a freakin break already.

Miners take a bigger risk going down that hole everyday. Do we give them a 60% break on taxation? Cops and fireman take a big risk everyday they go out on the street in uniform. Do we give them a break on taxation with 60% the normal tax rate?

Miners knew the risk before taking the job, there is no guarantee that when you invest money you are going to get the desired outcome. Miners are paid for services rendered regardless if they produce a dime. For someone who claims to have been in the private sector you sure don't know a thing about investment and a job.
 
No, my premise is correct:

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study."

"Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners."

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times





Why should the middle class vote to continue the tax cuts for the rich if there is no benefit???

Did you even read the article you posted? How do you give a bigger tax cut to people who don't pay any FIT?

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.
 
while the investment is lost, the ability to generate revenue somewhere else is still there. It's called get a job, same that you would ask someone else to do if they lost their job. Why should someone who loses an investment be treated any different?

But the ability to generate revenue on the ORIGINAL INVESTEMENT IS LOST...What if the investor is in their 'golden years'. Would they be able to just 'get a job'? Ultimately they shouldn't be treated differently. The employee should be able to take a portion of his disposable income and invest it then IF SUCCESSFUL realize a capital gain and take advantage of the 15% rate (if he of course is in a income bracket above 15%).
 
OH, pardon me.



Yes.


Then you are also aware the Capital Gains tax rate is at a historic low. Only in the 1920's prior to the Great Depression were they ever this low!
 
It's unseemly for a leader to blame the followers. Reagan said the buck stops here. Obama whines, "THEY won't let me do my good stuff!" That's not a leader. That's a petulant child not having his way!
We aren't ruled by a single person, you know. Yes, Obama is a leader, but so is congress, and the supreme court. Actually, Congress has slightly more power than the president. It's not the leader blaming the followers. it's the leader blaming other leaders.
 
But the ability to generate revenue on the ORIGINAL INVESTEMENT IS LOST

Much like the ability to generate revenue on the same job is lost if someone loses their job. Yet, you just tell those people to get another job. The same thing with investors. If they lose their revenue, get another job.
 
Did you even read the article you posted?

Yes, can you answer this question that other conservatives are unable to answer???

Why should the middle class vote to continue the tax cuts for the rich if there is no benefit to them???
 
No, my premise is correct:

Maybe you missed this part:

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.

And I REALLY don't want to go down that marginal, effective, all-inclusive effective road again. If that is YOUR desire I retract to the previous position that you have avoided in the 'Romney...15% thread'.


Why should the middle class vote to continue the tax cuts for the rich if there is no benefit???

Because there is no benefit to them either way thus doing so would be perceived as 'class warfare'.
 
Back
Top Bottom