• 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!

Centrist Dems begin arguing against far-left agenda as 2020 play

MSgt said:
First of all, there is no debate after post #180, to which you replied with a "nu-uh" attitude and insisted that we all consider the notion of an alternate universe so that what you present means something.

Second of all, your posts routinely regurgitate the latest FOX News propaganda snippet that caters to your shallow world view of reality denial. All of you follow the same pattern. And it's the same disjointed topic skewing that my parents report, who are avid Fox News watchers. The "play book" is really just an observation that people throughout the spectrum have noticed. For example, Trump Tweets exactly what he sees on FOX News and you people take it as Gospel and regurgitate:

- On January 26, Trump Tweeted "Ungrateful TRAITOR Chelsea Manning, who should never have been released from prison, is now calling President Obama a weak leader. Terrible!" Never mind that the evidence shows that Manning never called or even used the phrase "weak leader." But speaking of "weak leader," just 15 minutes prior to Trump Tweeting this, FOX News ran a snippet that declared "Ungrateful Traitor Chelsea Manning Slams Fmr Pres Obama." That's where the President of the United States got his inspiration for his unprofessional outburst. That's our nation's leader.

- Another example, Gregg Phillips reported in 2016 that "we have verified more than 3 million votes cast by non-citizens." Infowars, a site dedicated to conspiracy theories, picked it up and reported, "Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens" and emphasized California. Right-wing sites all over the Internet and FOX News immediately clung to the fantasy and presented it as truth. Um...because it was "verified?" Despite being quickly debunked, with Gregg Phillips offering absolutely no evidence whatsoever to this day, Trump began to Tweet about millions of illegal votes and voter fraud. And when asked by major news outlets (even FOX) what proof Trump alone has apparently seen, the reply from him and his spokespeople was always simply, "he believes it." You people have been running with this crap ever since, much like you all clung to FOX News-instigated birth certificate nonsense, tomato paste absurdity, accusations of Global Warming hoaxes, and Benghazi dreams.

So, what you see as a "liberal play book," is really just a simple observation on how easily manipulated Trump and his FOX News-watching fan base is. In the mean time, and despite multiple studies showing that FOX News viewers are the least informed, FOX runs a routine campaign that insists that everybody else is "fake news." And you get your economic nonsense about Trump versus Obama from FOX News. Why do you think I routinely tell you people to turn your FOX News off? I mean, you people are just a FOX News report away from believing that Trump walks on water. And in typical fashion, when the masses run with the idea, Trump won't correct it. He needs his support base to continue being easily manipulated and deluded so that he can keep getting away with bad policy decisions and even worse behavior.
Click to expand...

So you been stalking me and know what channels I watch on TV? Better get new glasses as I don't watch Fox and haven't watched the news outlets since my wife died 6 years ago. Not sure you even have a clue as to what you are talking about but your point does come out of what I have seen over and over again from the radical left. When are having your ass handed to you, divert to Fox News vs. actually addressing the points made

I have seen no data in context and just opinions based upon your ideology and apparent hatred for Trump. You have no understanding of the U.S. Economy and no understanding of even how to research the data so keep posting opinions and I will keep refuting them with data. Tell me exactly what Trump RESULTS have hurt you, your family, or the country?? Learned a long time ago words need to be verified by actions except in that liberal world of yours
 
Conservative said:
That is a lie, you have been indoctrinated well. Tax cuts with strings aren't tax cuts and a rebate isn't a tax cut it is a refund of taxes and a one time deal.
Click to expand...

Strings as in tax cuts that expire?
 
MTAtech said:
You asked that many times and got answers. It is a better way to fund the government. End of story. When the rich pay more others pay less.
Click to expand...

no, that hasn't been answered as you refuse to even discuss the size and scope of the federal govt. always believing those evil rich people can fund your spending appetite. When the rich pay more, they also spend less. When the rich pay more, states and local governments get less.
 
rocket88 said:
Strings as in tax cuts that expire?
Click to expand...

So when do they expire and what is preventing Congress from extending them? Do you have any idea why they had an expiration date? Suggest you find out
 
MTAtech said:
You asked that many times and got answers. It is a better way to fund the government. End of story. When the rich pay more others pay less.
Click to expand...

Tell us exactly where does the state and local governments get their money when you raise federal taxes on the citizens of the state?
 
Conservative said:
no, that hasn't been answered as you refuse to even discuss the size and scope of the federal govt. always believing those evil rich people can fund your spending appetite. When the rich pay more, they also spend less. When the rich pay more, states and local governments get less.
Click to expand...
Somehow, I don't feel sympathetic or believe that having higher taxes on the rich will take food from their mouths. As for their spending, the wealthy have a far lower marginal propensity to consume than those at the bottom of the income scale, who would either face program cuts or tax-hikes -- really taking food from their mouths.

Regarding my "spending appetite," your federal government can be viewed, in terms of spending, as a large insurance company with an army. The vast amount of spending occurs in five areas: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt. In order for rich people to enjoy their privileged tax-rates requires that we either cut money to seniors on Medicare and Social Security or, cut medical benefits to poor people or reduce our defense expenditures. Personally, I think it is immoral to cut money to seniors or the poor so that rich people can have low taxes.
 
MTAtech said:
Somehow, I don't feel sympathetic or believe that having higher taxes on the rich will take food from their mouths. As for their spending, the wealthy have a far lower marginal propensity to consume than those at the bottom of the income scale, who would either face program cuts or tax-hikes -- really taking food from their mouths.

Regarding my "spending appetite," your federal government can be viewed, in terms of spending, as a large insurance company with an army. The vast amount of spending occurs in five areas: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt. In order for rich people to enjoy their privileged tax-rates requires that we either cut money to seniors on Medicare and Social Security or, cut medical benefits to poor people or reduce our defense expenditures. Personally, I think it is immoral to cut money to seniors or the poor so that rich people can have low taxes.
Click to expand...

So still no answer to the question as to where the states and local governments get their money when federal taxes are increased? you of course believe what bureaucrats tell you and how much money they need never holding them responsible for any spending at all. wealthy people hire services and employ people just like businesses so or course that reality is ignored by you

You hate the rich but cannot explain how the rich keeping more of what they earn hurts you, your family, the country or prevents you from joining them. what money is being cut from seniors because of tax cuts for those evil rich people? when was the last time federal spending was cut because of tax cuts? You really buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance.

Now one more time, what percentage of ones income should go to federal, state, and local taxes?? 50%, 60%, 70% or better yet how about all income going to the federal bureaucrats and let them then send back to the people what they deem the people need?
 
Responding to post#257, I don't hate the rich. I just think they should be paying more in taxes.
 
iliveonramen said:
Of course they do. They hang out with hedge fund billionaires and silicon valley billionaires.

Trump won a lot of middle class districts with a very leftwing message. He didnt run on a corporate tax cut. He ran on protecting entitlements, protecting middle class jobs, and doing things like lowering drug prices. He came across as more populist than Clinton.

A true left wing populist message scares the hell out of establishment Dems and Republicans because it’s a winning message.
Click to expand...

That's a good point....I also think that message is a winner because that is where most people are....We often in here, and in life fight around the fringes of things while choosing not to see the vast agreement we share.
 
rocket88 said:
It was better when you could look with respect at the other side. That's not what this is about.

The GOP has its own extremist problem. Where is your concern there?
Click to expand...

Oh, I have my concerns with that, and I have expressed as much in here....If you are saying that in a partisan sense that we all need be mindful of our own words, and how they affect others, or come across, then I can only agree with you....So, I guess we have one of those rare moments lately, where we agree....;)
 
MTAtech said:
Responding to post#257, I don't hate the rich. I just think they should be paying more in taxes.
Click to expand...

Why? How much of one's personal income should be paid in federal, state, and local taxes?? Answer the question.

When was the last time federal spending was cut because of tax cuts?? When was the last time federal revenue was reduced because of tax cuts? so many questions and so few answers, none to be exact
 
Conservative said:
Why? How much of one's personal income should be paid in federal, state, and local taxes?? Answer the question.

When was the last time federal spending was cut because of tax cuts?? When was the last time federal revenue was reduced because of tax cuts? so many questions and so few answers, none to be exact
Click to expand...
First, I'm not your research assistant. If you want answers to factual questions, Goggle and Yahoo are your friends. Let your fingers do the walking.
Second, as to: "How much of one's personal income should be paid in federal, state, and local taxes?" That depends who "one" is. If they are rich, I will steal a line from Samuel Gompers, when asked 'what does the union demand from management?' He replied, "More." I don't need to determine the exact percentage here and now. I do know that the rich pay too little and they should pay more. Your question is not serious but is framed to muddy the water.
 
MTAtech said:
First, If they are rich, I will steal a line from Samuel Gompers, when asked 'what does the union demand from management?' He replied, "More." I.
Click to expand...

Folks, this pretty much sums up the left, doesn't it?
If you rephrased the question " How much should we spend on ( anything but national defense)"
The answer would be the same.
More.
It's never enough.
 
MTAtech said:
First, I'm not your research assistant. If you want answers to factual questions, Goggle and Yahoo are your friends. Let your fingers do the walking.
Second, as to: "How much of one's personal income should be paid in federal, state, and local taxes?" That depends who "one" is. If they are rich, I will steal a line from Samuel Gompers, when asked 'what does the union demand from management?' He replied, "More." I don't need to determine the exact percentage here and now. I do know that the rich pay too little and they should pay more. Your question is not serious but is framed to muddy the water.
Click to expand...

Google and Yahoo don't tell us what percentage of ones income should go to Federal, state and local taxes but since you seem to want more federal dollars you obviously must have the answer.

More means what? All?? Bet you love seeing union bosses getting 6 digit salaries while producing nothing. you have no idea what percentage of the federal income tax burden now is paid for by the rich not even what federal income taxes fund but it isn't enough for you. Suggest learning before speaking as it would help your credibility which is nil now.
 
MTAtech said:
Under flat tax plans, the super-rich pay less. That's why it's supported by billionaires.
Click to expand...

No, they pay proportionately the same as people with less income. (Technically still more, because every proposal has a minimum amount that isn't taxed).

You advocated proportionate taxes -- currently those with higher income pay a disproportionate amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom