• 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!

Economy limping back to strength

apdst said:
Government can't create an economy, it can't support the economy, it can't create wealth.
Click to expand...

And most redistribute wealth in an attempt to make everyone equally poor.
 
Erod said:
I hate the word "redistribute". More like "take".
Click to expand...

So would you call it "take" when Bush gave corporate welfare to the wealthiest Americans or is that called "Charity"?
 
disneydude said:
So would you call it "take" when Bush gave corporate welfare to the wealthiest Americans or is that called "Charity"?
Click to expand...

Post those events, please. Thanks in advance.
 
apdst said:
Noooooooo, he'll steal the curb feelers off the presidential limo...:rofl
Click to expand...

Oh right on bro...:rofl

Careful now, in all that jokey craziness you don't want to break a hip.
 
Lerxst said:
Oh right on bro...:rofl

Careful now, in all that jokey craziness you don't want to break a hip.
Click to expand...

I worry more about my knees...:rofl
 
American said:
You're misguided in think that the economy is better off without private industry. But it's not surprising given your Stalinist ideology. Maybe we should put all CEOs into gulags to teach them a lesson.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for private industry the Europeans would be working the fields under the watchful eyes of ComBloc revolutionaries and eating borscht.
 
apdst said:
Post those events, please. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You know full well what I am referring to.

In your mind, tax cuts for the poor and increasing the tax burden on the wealthy is stealing money from the rich.

Tax cuts for the rich and increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class is A-ok. Long live corporate welfare!
 
disneydude said:
You know full well what I am referring to.

In your mind, tax cuts for the poor and increasing the tax burden on the wealthy is stealing money from the rich.

Tax cuts for the rich and increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class is A-ok. Long live corporate welfare!
Click to expand...

Show us these evil policies that Bush inacted, please. Or, admit that you are pulling a global warming like scam on your fellow Americans. Thank you.
 
disneydude said:
You know full well what I am referring to.

In your mind, tax cuts for the poor and increasing the tax burden on the wealthy is stealing money from the rich.

Tax cuts for the rich and increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class is A-ok. Long live corporate welfare!
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't know. I thought Bush cut taxes on every level.
 
disneydude said:
You know full well what I am referring to.

In your mind, tax cuts for the poor and increasing the tax burden on the wealthy is stealing money from the rich.

Tax cuts for the rich and increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class is A-ok. Long live corporate welfare!
Click to expand...

Yes,come now disney....Provide links to these events.
 
Phoenix said:
Hmm, I don't know. I thought Bush cut taxes on every level.
Click to expand...

Not really. This is really a shell game. By cutting federal taxes he also cut state transfer payments to balance things. Except that states needed those transfer payments. So guess what states did? They raised taxes. So federally, yes taxes went down, but state taxes went up, leaving many people in the same position.
 
obvious Child said:
Not really. This is really a shell game. By cutting federal taxes he also cut state transfer payments to balance things. Except that states needed those transfer payments. So guess what states did? They raised taxes. So federally, yes taxes went down, but state taxes went up, leaving many people in the same position.
Click to expand...

States taxes are less than half what Federal taxes are. State taxes would damn near have to quadriple to match Federal taxes.
 
Erod said:
China and Russia have LOTS of government. The people live in cracker jack boxes and barely get by.
Click to expand...

Somalia has no government. The people live in cracker jack boxes and barely get by.
Equatorial Guiana has a medium level of government. The people live in cracker jack boxes and barely get by.

Besides you are ignoring the simple fact that poverty exists everywhere. What China and Russia have are extremely large spreads between the rich and the poor. And both have exceedingly large amounts of corruption.

The size of government by itself doesn't tell us much as big government, medium government and no government often result in the outcomes.
 
apdst said:
States taxes are less than half what Federal taxes are. State taxes would damn near have to quadriple to match Federal taxes.
Click to expand...

Depends on your state. Furthermore, depends on your types of income. But state taxes did go up. Look at California about 5 years ago.
 
apdst said:
I am against all that. Why? Because the government can't create wealth.
Click to expand...

Interesting you say that. I guess the many large land owners who contributed to Bush who took advantage of the 100% conservation easement tax credit didn't utilize government rules to create usable wealth. The whole notion of land as wealth is dependent on government to function. Without government to enforce deeds and the legal structure supporting the notion of land ownership, land's value is extremely questionable. Would you buy something that you weren't sure you couldn't own?

Stop pretending like you understand this subject.

Btw, care to discuss how Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed got to where they are now without government spending?
 
Last edited:
The only thing I can find about disney's claims about the Bush tax cuts are the following-

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

In the link you will find that the tax burden for the bottom 50% of earners decreased every year under Bush while the burden increased every year for the top 50%.
 
Strucky said:
In the link you will find that the tax burden for the bottom 50% of earners decreased every year under Bush while the burden increased every year for the top 50%.
Click to expand...

If you mean tax burden as a percent of total liabilities, sure they went down.
But in terms of actual taxes per person, that isn't a logical conclusion from the data set.

There are a lot of variables that can mess with that data. The number of people, the amount of total income tax. Furthermore, there are plenty more taxes on the federal level then just income. Generally the middle class and poor get hammered by FICA more than the rich.
 
obvious Child said:
Interesting you say that. I guess the many large land owners who contributed to Bush who took advantage of the 100% conservation easement tax credit didn't utilize government rules to create usable wealth. The whole notion of land as wealth is dependent on government to function. Without government to enforce deeds and the legal structure supporting the notion of land ownership, land's value is extremely questionable. Would you buy something that you weren't sure you couldn't own?

Stop pretending like you understand this subject.

Btw, care to discuss how Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed got to where they are now without government spending?
Click to expand...

You don't think the wealthy landowners could hire someone to protect their investment?
 
Phoenix said:
You don't think the wealthy landowners could hire someone to protect their investment?
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Your question does not make sense in the context of a conservation tax credit.

Democrat leader reaped $1.1 million from sale of land he didn't own
Click to expand...

Not relevant. Besides, that's just Reid pulling essentially tax fraud by trying to get capital gains on land rather then a higher partnership tax.
Again, not relevant as it does not address the basis upon which the legal aspect of land is derived from government.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
The whole notion of land as wealth is dependent on government to function. Without government to enforce deeds and the legal structure supporting the notion of land ownership, land's value is extremely questionable. Would you buy something that you weren't sure you couldn't own?
Click to expand...

obvious Child said:
What do you mean? Your question does not make sense in the context of a conservation tax credit.
Click to expand...

You don't think the wealthy landowners could hire someone to protect their investment?
Without government to support deeds and legal land ownership, people would hire others to protect and enforce their land boundaries themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom