• 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 will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

What an asinine comment. LOL. So small businesses don't exist?

Quite the entrepreneurial spirit, you are.

Maybe I should have been clearer. What I meant was that there is no legal definition for a 'small business' so when someone, a politician or whoever else, refers to 'small business' there's no way to tell exactly what they are talking about because there's no universal definition. So when Mr. V says Obama hates small business and if someone else says he doesn't, they may actually looking at the very same facts and information, but still disagree because they have different personal definitions of the phrase small business.

The IRS for example has different tax brackets for businesses of varying sizes, with all sorts of different considerations regarding the type of business, the number of employees, how many establishments this business might own, how many and what states they operate in, where their suppliers/customers are, what type of people they hire, etc etc etc

But many of these factors would also be how many of us would define small business, specifically I think its reasonable to say that if we asked people to define 'small business.' They'd look at three things:
1) How many employees does that business have?
2) How much money does that business earn in profit?
3) Are the majority of suppliers and consumers in the local area?

But there's no universal meaning, so when a politician says he's helping small business can't actually help a legally defined term of 'small business' what he does is change part of the tax code that say affects the amount of money a business is taxed, or not taxed, based on how many and what type of employees they have. Now if he makes that change in the area for all businesses with less than 50 people then it helps those businesses and owners who hire less than 50 people. But if I was a business owner who owned a business which employed 75, 100, or 200 people I may be still considered "small business" in the minds of many other people depending on my profits and customers, but nothing was done for me even though he said he was helping small business.

Thats why 'small business" means nothing, what politicians and people who actually what to claim to understand the system, need to talk about and know about is how affecting taxes, credits, benefits, etc to businesses which fall into a certain set of parameters changes things. But just saying "I'm helping small business" could mean a million different things, and thats assuming the politician is actually talking about businesses which most normal rational people would consider 'small business.'
 
And you don't think the middle class do these things?

the middle class don't typically creat jobs, which is the key factor. without jobs the middle class wouldn't exist
 
but it is the government that is coming and taking it, is it not?



perhaps because they already pay more $$ in taxes than anyone else?

But they control most of the nations wealth and have much more to protect than everyone else, thus their stake in a fully functioning government is much higher.
 
And you don't think the middle class do these things?

If they have jobs they do, but are they going to double down on their spending to make up for the wealthy?
The trouble with your thinking is that making the wealthy less wealthy will benefit anyone.
The government needs to pretend to be a private business for a while and stop spending and cut government jobs. They need to get out of the way and let people keep more of the money they earned. Forget bail outs, tax credits, etc. Just let the fee market work.
 
the middle class don't typically creat jobs, which is the key factor. without jobs the middle class wouldn't exist

If there are 10,000 middle class people and 1,000 "rich" people and the 10,000 middle class people purchase one gallon of milk per week and 1,000 "rich" people purchase 2 gallons of milk per week which class of people have created more jobs?
 
the middle class don't typically creat jobs, which is the key factor. without jobs the middle class wouldn't exist

The upper class is what caused the last ring of job loss! And if the middle class dissappears in this country, you can rest assured anarchy will follow.
 
I really do not understand why people use populist as a negative, especially in a DEMOCRACY where the representatives serve the "population."

Also, the article never says $140,000, it says:

If he is pandering to the lowest common denominator for the sople purpose of garnering votes, thats a populist appeal...and not what you would call a healthy, or correct position. Thats like a country's president acting like he is running for the head of the senior class, not the leader of a nation. Whats next...root beer in everyones drinking fountains? Pizza at the cafeteria? no homework? good lord...
 
If he is pandering to the lowest common denominator for the sople purpose of garnering votes, thats a populist appeal...and not what you would call a healthy, or correct position. Thats like a country's president acting like he is running for the head of the senior class, not the leader of a nation. Whats next...root beer in everyones drinking fountains? Pizza at the cafeteria? no homework? good lord...

You are claiming that 98% of the population is pandering to the lowest common denominator?
 
More job killing from the Obama administration. {{sigh}}

Taxing the rich is taxing capital. That hurts more than the rich, it hurts the middle-class. The wealthy create jobs, spend money on cars, vacations, restaurants, travel,etc. that benefits everyone.

Why do liberals hate the middle class?
Conservatives want everyone to prosper and that means leaving more money in the hands of everyone, including the wealthy.

What jobs???? You are 8 years into the Bush "wealthy tax cuts," and unemployment is at it's highest in many years.

As far as the rest of your examples, the middle class buy a lot more cars then the paltry sum of the rich who are benefitting from the cuts.
 
What jobs???? You are 8 years into the Bush "wealthy tax cuts," and unemployment is at it's highest in many years.

As far as the rest of your examples, the middle class buy a lot more cars then the paltry sum of the rich who are benefitting from the cuts.

You don't create jobs just with demand if you don't have the capital with which to furnish those jobs. Demand is well and good, but without capital (provided from the rich with their saving and investing) you have nothing.

If you want to know why unemployment is high, look to an uncertain business environment created by talk of new taxes and regulations.
 
The upper class is what caused the last ring of job loss! And if the middle class dissappears in this country, you can rest assured anarchy will follow.

Bull****. The upper class didnt 'cause' anything. If anything it was the middle class that borught about the housing crisis. Across the country people bought houses they couldnt afford with idiotic loans. they sought the quick bang...the turn...the flip...promises of riches...and the housing market swelled. And the mortgage came due and suddenly they couldnt pay it and no one was buying houses.

The housing market is the single best indicator of our economy and the middle class in the country treated the housing market like poor people play the lottery. And you know the one thing in common with both examples? Rich people dont play the lottery or get involved in get rich schemes (typically). They invest in secure long term markets with high yeild. Its why the rich stayed rich and the middle income set got their ass kicked.
 
I think Obama is doing the right thing. It has been repeatedly reported that the upper levels of wealth are flush with cash and not spending even under the Bush tax cuts. So the only way one can see moving the economy forward is to give the truly small businesses tax incentives and the Middle Class to retain their tax cuts of which every bit counts in this economy.

Except that even when the wealthy are not "spending" it helps the economy. Wealthy people do not put their money under a mattress, they invest it which frees up more money to lend to small businesses. So now you want to take the money away from them and invest it in the worst possible place: The Federal Government.
Most of that money will get eaten up in bureaucracy and corruption and what little is left spent on programs that perpetuate poverty, illiteracy and social and economic stagnation.
 
Bull****. The upper class didnt 'cause' anything. If anything it was the middle class that borught about the housing crisis. Across the country people bought houses they couldnt afford with idiotic loans. they sought the quick bang...the turn...the flip...promises of riches...and the housing market swelled. And the mortgage came due and suddenly they couldnt pay it and no one was buying houses.

The housing market is the single best indicator of our economy and the middle class in the country treated the housing market like poor people play the lottery. And you know the one thing in common with both examples? Rich people dont play the lottery or get involved in get rich schemes (typically). They invest in secure long term markets with high yeild. Its why the rich stayed rich and the middle income set got their ass kicked.

So you really believe it was not the investment banks and derivatives brokers that caused the crisis?
 
You are claiming that 98% of the population is pandering to the lowest common denominator?

I am stating that pandering to people...telling them what they want to hear is ABSOLUTELY pandering to the lowest common denominator. If tax cuts for the rich are a bad thing then why are tax cuts for the middle income a 'good thing'? Its not unlike Obamas last stimulus plan. Everyone that made money got it...did you know that? What did everyone hear? hey...we are giving you a tax break...a 'stimulous' (and the masses cheered wildly...LOOK how much they care...LOOK what they are doing for us). And you know what it amounted to? 12 dollars every two weeks. How did that 'stimulus' thing work out for you?

Like I said...its something...but it aint leadership.
 
Except that even when the wealthy are not "spending" it helps the economy. Wealthy people do not put their money under a mattress, they invest it which frees up more money to lend to small businesses. So now you want to take the money away from them and invest it in the worst possible place: The Federal Government.
Most of that money will get eaten up in bureaucracy and corruption and what little is left spent on programs that perpetuate poverty, illiteracy and social and economic stagnation.

Except the wealthy are not investing nor creating jobs, so no they are not helping the economy in anyway.
 
I am stating that pandering to people...telling them what they want to hear is ABSOLUTELY pandering to the lowest common denominator. If tax cuts for the rich are a bad thing then why are tax cuts for the middle income a 'good thing'? Its not unlike Obamas last stimulus plan. Everyone that made money got it...did you know that? What did everyone hear? hey...we are giving you a tax break...a 'stimulous' (and the masses cheered wildly...LOOK how much they care...LOOK what they are doing for us). And you know what it amounted to? 12 dollars every two weeks. How did that 'stimulus' thing work out for you?

Like I said...its something...but it aint leadership.

Taxes for the Middle Class are always good because the Middle Class is the consumer body and machine of the economy.
 
Except the wealthy are not investing nor creating jobs, so no they are not helping the economy in anyway.

Saved money plays no role in the economy? They are not investing in the stock market?
 
Taxes for the Middle Class are always good because the Middle Class is the consumer body and machine of the economy.

The middle class does not provide capital. They do not save enough money nor invest enough to do that. You can't have jobs with no capital.
 
So you really believe it was not the investment banks and derivatives brokers that caused the crisis?

It absoplutely was not. The investment bankers didnt drive housing markets higher and higher. The investment bankers didnt force people to get loans. That was the idiot that made 55k a year and decided if he rolled his truck, car, and television payments into his home loan and consolidated then he could afford a 600k home with a mortgage of 3k a month...provided they never went out to lunch, never had any car problems, convinced the kids to fast 1 day a week and only eat 1 meal a day. And of course once the variable interest rate kicked in they could refinance because the home value would have appreciated significantly...

Everyone plays a part...but its that 98% that you mention...they are the ones that drove the housing market into the toilet.
 
Taxes for the Middle Class are always good because the Middle Class is the consumer body and machine of the economy.

The middle income group is the majority consumer market. The upper income drives the investment and job creation market. You cant have one without the other. And your positions are 'populist'.
 
Have you been paying attention to the market lately?
I had two questions: are the rich not investing in the stock market? Are the rich not saving money?
 
Except the wealthy are not investing nor creating jobs, so no they are not helping the economy in anyway.

Id recommend you try reading a little about who actually is responsible for creating jobs.
 
Back
Top Bottom