• 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!

Biden strikes populist tone in blistering rebuke of Trump, Wall Street

OlNate said:
So, y'all don't have tax brackets down there?
Click to expand...

nothing to do with what i said.

It is unconstitutional to tax people differently because of skin color.
tax brackets have 0 to do with this.
 
ludin said:
nothing to do with what i said.

It is unconstitutional to tax people differently because of skin color.
tax brackets have 0 to do with this.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it though? What is the purpose of tax brackets?

I looked up the equal protection clause. Here's what I found:

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection. Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with this definition?
 
OlNate said:
Doesn't it though? What is the purpose of tax brackets?
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with skin color.

I looked up the equal protection clause. Here's what I found:
Do you agree with this definition?
Click to expand...

Yep and you just stated it it forces a state to govern impartially and not draw distinctions between individuals.

which means that well you can't take 1 person this way for being white and another way for being black.
violation of equal protection, due process and it is discriminatory.

all of which is handled by the constitution.
 
ludin said:
Nothing to do with skin color.



Yep and you just stated it it forces a state to govern impartially and not draw distinctions between individuals.

which means that well you can't take 1 person this way for being white and another way for being black.
violation of equal protection, due process and it is discriminatory.

all of which is handled by the constitution.
Click to expand...

Don't be a chicken, what's the purpose of tax brackets?

We'll get to the rest when you answer the question. ;)
 
ludin said:
It is still unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause.
you are not allowed to tax people differently.

Also the government already offers grants, loans, and other financial vehicles to promote these types of things.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the 16th amendment is unconstitutional?
 
Luce said:
So what you're saying is that the 16th amendment is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

is that what you are saying? do you have evidence to support your argument?
 
ludin said:
is that what you are saying? do you have evidence to support your argument?
Click to expand...

It is not what I am saying.

Please try to keep up.
 
Luce said:
It is not what I am saying.

Please try to keep up.
Click to expand...

then we both agree it is constitutional. next time do keep up with what people are saying it will help you form a reasoned logical reply.
 
ludin said:
then we both agree it is constitutional. next time do keep up with what people are saying it will help you form a reasoned logical reply.
Click to expand...

So it is in fact okay to tax people proportionally.

See? You CAN be taught.
 
Luce said:
So it is in fact okay to tax people proportionally.

See? You CAN be taught.
Click to expand...

show me where race is involved in that? you see this is called a strawman argument.
you are making an argument on something that i never argued.

I have tried to teach leftist the problem is that they are not teachable.
So i am glad that you now know that the 16th amendment is not unconstitutional like you said.

also you have now been educated that it is unconstitutional to tax people by the color of their skin.
i hope you have learned something today that is usually taught in high school.
 
ludin said:
thanks for agreeing with me your concession is noted.
Click to expand...

You have some very strange notions concerning reality, Ludin.
 
Luce said:
You have some very strange notions concerning reality, Ludin.
Click to expand...

not at all you didn't have an argument so therefore you concede whatever point you were trying to make
that is how debates work.

if you had an argument then you would have presented it. instead you didn't.
so you concede the point.

Next time try staying on topic and actually posting a reply that is reasoned and logical.
 
ludin said:
not at all you didn't have an argument so therefore you concede whatever point you were trying to make
that is how debates work.

if you had an argument then you would have presented it. instead you didn't.
so you concede the point.

Next time try staying on topic and actually posting a reply that is reasoned and logical.
Click to expand...

Look, if you patently ignore what the other person is saying, and keep responding with the same tired line over and over again, then you haven't "won" anything.

It is embarrassing to me as a human that this has to be explained to another human.
 
Luce said:
Look, if you patently ignore what the other person is saying, and keep responding with the same tired line over and over again, then you haven't "won" anything.

It is embarrassing to me as a human that this has to be explained to another human.
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore anything we both agree that the amendment is constitutional. for a second there you seemed to imply it wasn't but you corrected yourself.
We both agree that tax systems and be progressive (i disagree with them but they can be)
We both agree that you can't tax people differently because of their skin color.

you then went off on some other rabbit trail that had nothing to do with what we were discussing.

So what exactly is your argument again?
 
Biden's not doing a "Buy American" shtick. He's doing a stale 30 year old "Look for the union label" redux.
 
Tahuyaman said:
What gets us in trouble is increasing spending beyond the level of the revenue increase.
Click to expand...

Spending will always increase because of population growth and inflation so that is not the "trouble". We are collecting a near record low % of GDP due to the tax cuts.

Since President Trump took office, revenues have declined rapidly as a share of the economy, while spending has remained steady. In 2019, actual revenues were $3.5 trillion or 16.3 percent of GDP, significantly below 17.6 percent in 2016, while actual spending was $4.4 trillion or 20.9 percent of GDP, about the same as 20.8 percent a few years earlier. This is especially troubling, because our nation is in the longest economic expansion in history. Over the past 50 years, revenues averaged much higher at 18.3 percent of GDP during comparable years when the unemployment rate fell below 5 percent[1]. This disconcerting decline in revenue was made far worse by the 2017 GOP tax law.
Click to expand...

Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Results Highlight the Urgent Need for Smart Fiscal Policies that Help All Americans, Not Just the Rich | House Budget Committee Democrats
 
Tahuyaman said:
At least you're starting to admit that spending increases cause debt.
Click to expand...

When your revenue collection is only 16% of GDP and spending is steady at 20% of GDP you will have deficits. Math is not your strong suit.
 
iguanaman said:
When your revenue collection is only 16% of GDP and spending is steady at 20% of GDP you will have deficits. Math is not your strong suit.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are trying to support your position by insulting me.


This place is an absolute troll farm.
 
Tahuyaman said:
I'm not sure why you are trying to support your position by insulting me.


This place is an absolute troll farm.
Click to expand...

It is not my fault that you took an unsupportable position. When our revenue is only 16% of GDP we will have huge deficits. It is just math.
 
iguanaman said:
It is not my fault that you took an unsupportable position. When our revenue is only 16% of GDP we will have huge deficits. It is just math.
Click to expand...

Whatever. I'll keep relying on facts and an accurate representation of history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom