• 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!

Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

It's not my job to prove Obama is not a Marxist, it's your job to prove he is if that is what you are claiming. That would be like me asking you to prove you aren't a child molester. It's called proving a negative.

LOL ..... its called having an opinion about Obama. We have no job to prove anything, and fortunately, neither do you.

However, the issue here is your tantrum and going after the posters with these petty insults. Got to get up early in the morning to keep up with such, eh :roll:
 
Um.....but that is the point, the top quintile would not.

How many times am I going to ask you how they wouldnt before you actually answer?

What you would do is to shift the tax burden to the lowest income groups. As Adam already showed you, you would take nearly all disposable income from the two lowest quintiles.

They would have to pay part of their disposable income. It is not right to put the full burden on some. Every American needs to step up here.

PS...anytime you want to, you can overpay to your hearts content....I would expect you to, since apparently you think it is your duty to do so. Let us know about that, OK?

PS...you proved my point once again, a flat tax will create a greater wealth inequality.

You are not even listening or attempting to. Until you can stop making things up I am once again not going to bother with you.
 
LOL ..... its called having an opinion about Obama. We have no job to prove anything, and fortunately, neither do you.

However, the issue here is your tantrum and going after the posters with these petty insults. Got to get up early in the morning to keep up with such, eh :roll:


Yes, calling you out on your idiotic comments is a personal attack and giving you the options on how to deal with it is a tanturm :roll: If that is the case, you better get used to it. Cause it isn't going to end.

Have fun with your little non-factual "opinion" rant on Obama. It's clear Cons are really desperate this election.
 
Yes, calling you out on your idiotic comments is a personal attack and giving you the options on how to deal with it is a tanturm :roll: If that is the case, you better get used to it. Cause it isn't going to end.

Have fun with your little non-factual "opinion" rant on Obama. It's clear Cons are really desperate this election.

I suspect that the Mods here will enlighten you in due time. There is a difference between disagreeing with any opinion, even agressively so, and then choosing to go silly and just berate the poster with your petty nonsense..

Trust that I can tongue-lash with the best of them. But that would be to choose stupidity.

Obama is a Marxist. And an incompetent. And as of today, The Five Trillion Dollar Man !
The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56 | CNSNews.com
 
I suspect that the Mods here will enlighten you in due time. There is a difference between disagreeing with any opinion, even agressively so, and then choosing to go silly and just berate the poster with your petty nonsense..

Trust that I can tongue-lash with the best of them. But that would be to choose stupidity.

Obama is a Marxist. And an incompetent. And as of today, The Five Trillion Dollar Man !
The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56 | CNSNews.com

No the only thing I've done is called you out on your idiotic comments and a debt does not equal Marxist. You're failing quite a lot today and your desperation is hilarious. I can understand your desperation though, your "great hope" is Romney LOL
 
Last edited:
........ I can understand your desperation though, your "great hope" is Romney LOL

And your great dope is Obama :) The Marxist incomeptent community organizer.

You do realize that he proposed the Buffet Rule with the intent to be sure that it did not pass Congress ?

Or maybe you don't :roll:
 
And your great dope is Obama :) The Marxist incomeptent community organizer.

You do realize that he proposed the Buffet Rule with the intent to be sure that it did not pass Congress ?

Or maybe you don't :roll:

Wrong again, I'm not voting for Obama. And of course the Buffet rule was for show I said that earlier. Both sides do it and both are wrong for it.

But please continue on your worthless generalization and foot in the mouth, I quite enjoy you proving yourself wrong :lamo
 
How many times am I going to ask you how they wouldnt before you actually answer?
I already showed you (twice) that currently the top quintile already pays 29.6%, a flat tax would not increase their burden:
According to administration data, the median effective tax rate for the middle 20 percent of U.S. taxpayers is 13.3 percent, including income, payroll and corporate taxes. For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, the rate is 29.6 percent, according to the 2012 Economic Report of the President.http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-advance-buffett-rule-23.html#post1060406047

You keep forgetting what I already showed you, you don't read the links and you keep asking the same questions over and over again. Further, you keep denying that a flat tax doesn't increase the burden for all, you keep switching back and forth between "everyone needs to pay more" and "the lower earners need to pay more". If you want everyone to pay more, a flat tax won't do it. If you want to increase wealth inequality, a flat tax will do that.....because (for the upteenth time) it would double the rate for mid and triple it for the bottom quintiles.



They would have to pay part of their disposable income. It is not right to put the full burden on some. Every American needs to step up here.
You are arguing for the tripling of the burden for low quintile earners, the total swallowing of their disposable income while their state tax burden remains the same. You are pushing them into poverty while not changing the tax burden for the top. Again, you increase wealth inequality.



You are not even listening or attempting to. Until you can stop making things up I am once again not going to bother with you.
Again, you said you wanted to pay more, so go ahead and do it...no one is stopping you. If you can afford it...do it.
 
O'really, like having regulated markets where they "earn" their wealth, safe regulated banks where they keep their wealth, a vast state and federal court system that legally protects their wealth, the various military branches that physically protects that wealth, a state and federal govt that they bought to create laws which allows them to keep more of their wealth since the '80s. All of these things the wealthy use to a much greater extent than the average citizen does.
It should be like an insurance policy, the more you have to protect, the more it should cost you.

Beyond that, as I said from the start here, the greater the wealth inequality, the greater the number of ills a modern society suffers. But then, some people never learn.


Everyone gets that. Even the poor gets all the benefits you just mentioned.
Sure, the vast majority of lobbyists are working for low income workers, they have huge influences on Congressional law/members....low income workers are benefiting from capital gains.....please.

But please, keep arguing that the rich need to pay more for excessive federal spending.
Freedom isn't free, the wealthy do not volunteer for the armed services anywhere near the rate that the poor do, the wealthy have earned their wealth off the labor of the poor.

Since SS and Medicare are self funded trusts, what you have left over is military spending and regulatory. Clearly, the wealthy depend on that portion of spending far more than the poor.
 
I suspect that the Mods here will enlighten you in due time. There is a difference between disagreeing with any opinion, even agressively so, and then choosing to go silly and just berate the poster with your petty nonsense..

Trust that I can tongue-lash with the best of them. But that would be to choose stupidity.

Obama is a Marxist. And an incompetent. And as of today, The Five Trillion Dollar Man !
The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56 | CNSNews.com

That debt is just another of the legacys of G.W. Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies. It counts the 2009 deficit as Obama's but he had nothing to do with it.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent—despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

pie_chart_deficit.bmp
 
Maybe you can just put "Blame Bush " in your signature line. So it'll always be there :roll:
 
Maybe you can just put "Blame Bush " in your signature line. So it'll always be there :roll:

Maybe you should put, "the world was created on January 20, 2009" in your signature so everyone will know that you think the universe did not exist before Obama took office.
 
I already showed you (twice) that currently the top quintile already pays 29.6%, a flat tax would not increase their burden:
According to administration data, the median effective tax rate for the middle 20 percent of U.S. taxpayers is 13.3 percent, including income, payroll and corporate taxes. For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, the rate is 29.6 percent, according to the 2012 Economic Report of the President.http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-advance-buffett-rule-23.html#post1060406047

You keep forgetting what I already showed you, you don't read the links and you keep asking the same questions over and over again. Further, you keep denying that a flat tax doesn't increase the burden for all, you keep switching back and forth between "everyone needs to pay more" and "the lower earners need to pay more". If you want everyone to pay more, a flat tax won't do it. If you want to increase wealth inequality, a flat tax will do that.....because (for the upteenth time) it would double the rate for mid and triple it for the bottom quintiles.



You are arguing for the tripling of the burden for low quintile earners, the total swallowing of their disposable income while their state tax burden remains the same. You are pushing them into poverty while not changing the tax burden for the top. Again, you increase wealth inequality.



Again, you said you wanted to pay more, so go ahead and do it...no one is stopping you. If you can afford it...do it.

its dishonest to include non-progressive taxes in an equation when you are trying to argue that progressive taxes are not progressive enough
 
That debt is just another of the legacys of G.W. Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies. It counts the 2009 deficit as Obama's but he had nothing to do with it.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent—despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

pie_chart_deficit.bmp

the start and the foundation of the "irresponsibility" was the New Deal and that was accentuated by the Great Society. If FDR's nonsense had not become law, we wouldn't have the massive government spending we have today
 
the start and the foundation of the "irresponsibility" was the New Deal and that was accentuated by the Great Society. If FDR's nonsense had not become law, we wouldn't have the massive government spending we have today
Social Security is "nonsense". Wow, you really told 'em.
Except that it is self funded through payroll....oops!

Is FDR responsible for the 54% of fed spending on the military?
 
its dishonest to include non-progressive taxes in an equation when you are trying to argue that progressive taxes are not progressive enough
You don't understand the argument, the argument is about progressive vs flat.

Try again.
 
the start and the foundation of the "irresponsibility" was the New Deal and that was accentuated by the Great Society. If FDR's nonsense had not become law, we wouldn't have the massive government spending we have today

Right, the policies that led to the Great Depression were soooo much better.
 
You don't understand the argument, the argument is about progressive vs flat.

Try again.

you certainly have no ability to understand what I understand. Its dishonest to include non-progressive taxes in a "total tax" rate that was never intended to be progressive. YOU worship the concept that all taxes should be progressive. that is a major fail and major dishonesty on your part. It is obvoius I understand the concept far better than you do
 
Right, the policies that led to the Great Depression were soooo much better.

That's like saying the "cure" from doctors who bled George Washington to death was better than the fever they were trying to treat
 
Social Security is "nonsense". Wow, you really told 'em.
Except that it is self funded through payroll....oops!

Is FDR responsible for the 54% of fed spending on the military?

You apparently don't understand the costs that were exponentially expanded due to the "commerce clause" allowing stuff like social security to remain
 
Social Security is "nonsense". Wow, you really told 'em.
Except that it is self funded through payroll....oops!

Is FDR responsible for the 54% of fed spending on the military?

Do you know what a tax is? You didn't know that SS is funded through taxes? And btw, defense made up about 76% of the budget at the end of WWII, WHERE IT SHOULD BE. Now it's about 25%. Entitlements make up about 40-50%. Entitlements = wealth redistribution
 
That's like saying the "cure" from doctors who bled George Washington to death was better than the fever they were trying to treat

No, it's like saying that the medicine we have today, though not perfect, is a hell of a lot better than the medicine that led to James Garfield's unnecessary death by infection.
 
Do you know what a tax is? You didn't know that SS is funded through taxes? And btw, defense made up about 76% of the budget at the end of WWII, WHERE IT SHOULD BE. Now it's about 25%. Entitlements make up about 40-50%. Entitlements = wealth redistribution
SS is funded through a PAYROLL tax, not from INCOME TAXES. It is a self-funded insurance plan, it is totally separate from federal fund. You get that money back, you don't get back military costs....well...you get some back if you are a vet....with injuries.

If you really believe in the Constitution, you would not hold to the idea that 3/4 of discretionary spending should be for a standing army. We are not in any way in a "war" situation as we had in WWII, there is no comparison. We are spending on average 54% on military costs now.
 
you certainly have no ability to understand what I understand. Its dishonest to include non-progressive taxes in a "total tax" rate that was never intended to be progressive. YOU worship the concept that all taxes should be progressive. that is a major fail and major dishonesty on your part. It is obvoius I understand the concept far better than you do
You are totally lost, the argument here, between myself and "muci", is between a flat tax and progressive taxes at the federal level. I wasn't including state or county or city rates to get to a "total tax" rate.

Of course I am in favor of progressive taxation, it has been used in this country from nearly the start, and I have yet to see you grasp any part of the discussion between muci and I.
 
Back
Top Bottom