• 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!

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Do you realize that when Reagan took office the GDP was 2.8 trillion dollars and using percentage ignores the base. When Reagan left office it was 5.6 trillion dollars or double. The higher the base the lower the percentage is going to be except with liberalism as there never is enough spending on the part of the Federal Govt.

By this very comment, you just called Reagan a liberal and Obama the opposite.

LMFGDAO. WOW.
 
Yeah, a liberal utopia, tripling the 10.6 trillion debt that Obama inherited vs. the 900 billion that Reagan inherited. You betcha, 1.7 trillion in debt in 8 years vs. 7.6 trillion in 6, obviously the 1.7 is much worse and created much more debt service than the 7.6 trillion, right?


why do you not understand the concept of inflation? the concept of servicing existing debt? the concept of aging populations of retirees? etc?
 
Yes, I could live with taxes funding what they were supposed to fund thus a strong military, funding for the VA, funding for the agency to collect the federal tax dollars, Funding for a reduced role of Congress and that would take the budget down to about 1.2 trillion dollars.

So the VA was part of the original constitution?
 
So, you dont care to back your claim.

This is my lack of surprise

You apparently cannot figure out the obvious point

to claim the rich should pay more income taxes you have to establish they use more of the services paid for by their income tax share of 40% and the bottom 50% who pay less then 2% of the income tax use less than 2% of the services

You know damn well that the bottom 50% are consuming more than 2% of the services and further inquiry is not needed
 
You apparently cannot figure out the obvious point

to claim the rich should pay more income taxes you have to establish they use more of the services paid for by their income tax share of 40% and the bottom 50% who pay less then 2% of the income tax use less than 2% of the services

You know damn well that the bottom 50% are consuming more than 2% of the services and further inquiry is not needed



And YOU KNOW DAMN WELL

1) income taxes are not the only thing that funds federal spending


2)- more importantly, I am not talking about blocs of people. YOU said YOU don't get what you pay for.
I asked for your estimate of the services you use and their $ value. WHY won't YOU answer?
 
And YOU KNOW DAMN WELL

1) income taxes are not the only thing that funds federal spending


2)- more importantly, I am not talking about blocs of people. YOU said YOU don't get what you pay for.
I asked for your estimate of the services you use and their $ value. WHY won't YOU answer?

so is it your learned opinion that the bottom 50% pay more than 50% of all the federal taxes that provide for federal services?
 
And YOU KNOW DAMN WELL

1) income taxes are not the only thing that funds federal spending


2)- more importantly, I am not talking about blocs of people. YOU said YOU don't get what you pay for.
I asked for your estimate of the services you use and their $ value. WHY won't YOU answer?


Uh I sure don't get 400K worth of federal service
 
A tax increase on the "wealthy" does not benefit the middle class. For one thing, what is the criteria for classifying one as wealthy? There are many people classed as middle class, who dabble in the stock market. Take for instance, mutual funds. Mutual funds are always dynamic. The brokers managing these funds are always selling and buying new stocks and bonds within these mutual funds. At tax time, owners of these mutual funds will be faced with capital gains distributions that they didn't even realize, especially if they re-invest their earnings. So if the long term capital gains taxes go up from 15% to even higher, that hurts these same middle class earners. Obama's plan is flawed, but he is aiming this plan against those of us, who actually work for a living and enjoy owning stocks, bonds, equities, municipal bonds, reits, you name it, we rank and file people are getting the shaft both ways, not only from owning the stocks and as consumers of a product. Taxing the business owners only makes the businesses pass down higher taxes to us the consumers.
 
Yea, but to guys like you, people like Jeb Bush are on the extreme left.:lamo

That's what I love about guys like you. You figure just sayin' stuff is all that's necessary to make it so.
 
Says the Constitution, Read it

Where does the government get that money Mr. More Patriotic Than Thou? Oh, that's right, they pay it from the stash at Fort Knox.
 
...
2)- more importantly, I am not talking about blocs of people. YOU said YOU don't get what you pay for.
I asked for your estimate of the services you use and their $ value. WHY won't YOU answer?

That's really an unfair question.

You shouldn't expect him to know how much it would cost to fund his on private military just off the top of his head. Have you shopped for aircraft carriers recently?
 
easy to say. apparently difficult to prove

some things are so ludicrous that there is no need for further proof

there is no rational argument that the top 1% use more of the federal services than they pay for. Indeed, the top 1% pay many hundreds of dollars for what they get compared to the bottom 50% who generally are getting federal services for free

so when Pimps like Obama and his fluffers say that the rich don't pay their fair share-they are objectively lying
 
some things are so ludicrous that there is no need for further proof

there is no rational argument that the top 1% use more of the federal services than they pay for. Indeed, the top 1% pay many hundreds of dollars for what they get compared to the bottom 50% who generally are getting federal services for free

so when Pimps like Obama and his fluffers say that the rich don't pay their fair share-they are objectively lying

I accept your "point" as conceded.
Posting a white flag image would have been faster and more efficient use of your time though.
 
I accept your "point" as conceded.
Posting a white flag image would have been faster and more efficient use of your time though.

i accept that your argument is dishonest. YOu really haven't been around long enough to engage in such silliness.

so tell me, why should the group that pays 40% of the income tax pay even more?
 
some things are so ludicrous that there is no need for further proof

there is no rational argument that the top 1% use more of the federal services than they pay for. Indeed, the top 1% pay many hundreds of dollars for what they get compared to the bottom 50% who generally are getting federal services for free

so when Pimps like Obama and his fluffers say that the rich don't pay their fair share-they are objectively lying

I bet that top 1% benefit more tangibly from intellectual property protections than the bottom 99% and since they get that via the government, a 60% tax rate would still be 39% to their advantage.
 
i accept that your argument is dishonest. YOu really haven't been around long enough to engage in such silliness.

so tell me, why should the group that pays 40% of the income tax pay even more?

Because it is both in the economic best interest of the nation at the moment, and because philosophically they have exponentially more "to lose" if the government and the services it affords them cease to function or exist.
 
I bet that top 1% benefit more tangibly from intellectual property protections than the bottom 99% and since they get that via the government, a 60% tax rate would still be 39% to their advantage.

you are just making stuff up and people already pay massive taxes on the income they derive from intellectual property.
 
Because it is both in the economic best interest of the nation at the moment, and because philosophically they have exponentially more "to lose".

no we don't and that is a BS argument. the poor are far less mobile than the rich. it doesn't cost the government any more to "protect" a rich estate vs a tenement.
 
you are just making stuff up and people already pay massive taxes on the income they derive from intellectual property.

What have I made up? DO you think a lot of welfare recipients hold patents and trademarks that keep other people from being able to sell crack or weed now do you?
 
no we don't and that is a BS argument. the poor are far less mobile than the rich. it doesn't cost the government any more to "protect" a rich estate vs a tenement.


Except that you do and it does.

See the IP argument made above as simply one example of how you have (never) given this appropriate level of thought.
 
What have I made up? DO you think a lot of welfare recipients hold patents and trademarks that keep other people from being able to sell crack or weed now do you?

Do you think welfare recipients are incapable of inventing something that would require a patent or trademark?
 
Back
Top Bottom