• 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!

John Boehner speaks of tax compromise

No. Eugenics was a Progressive ideal, and the most vociferous baby-killers draw their ideological heritage from the early eugenicists who viewed abortion as a means of reducing the Negro Race.

true-my late liberal mother was a big fan of planned parenthood and she admitted that Margaret Sanger had racist proclivities that white supremacists adopted.
 
that is so speculative given the rich are far more mobile than the middle class

but the fact remains the rich get no de jure advantages from the government in return for the de jure requirement that they pay for almost half of the services funded by the income tax and all of what is funded by the death confiscation tax.

and the rich will not get any benefit from the tax cut being eliminated for them next year

It is a logical deduction based on social strife in many countries with extreme levels of economic inequality. From Europe to much of Latin America, and asia, high levels of social inequaility have led to true socialistic or communistic rebel groups
 
It is a logical deduction based on social strife in many countries with extreme levels of economic inequality. From Europe to much of Latin America, and asia, high levels of social inequaility have led to true socialistic or communistic rebel groups

and right wing death squads that tend to win in many instances but even if there was a flat tax which would prevent people like obama from pandering to class envy (we will jack up their taxes not yours) the rich would still pay for more than they use and I doubt the proletarians would be revolting in the streets. to claim we should pay even more to keep the revolution from happening is silly

the revolution is most likely to happen when the rich cannot or will not pay yet another tax increase designed to buy the votes of the many for the dems. then all those people who have voted for more and more government are going to be -as I noted in another post--like birds who have become dependent on a bird feeder one day finding the feeder empty in the coldest day of the year.
 
what the libs I have been debating, or brushing off my pant legs fail to note, that the current system is doomed to fail sooner or later

That's what the elitist socialit leadership wants. They can't seize more power until they've wrecked the current system. Hence their undying support for the deliberate sabotage their Messiah is wreaking on the United States.

1) they will get more and more government services

2) they won't have to pay additional (assuming they pay income taxes in the first place) taxes for additional handouts

3) and only the evil rich will be soaked

they will continue to vote for the people who give them stuff and have ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE to demand their masters to stop the insane spending.

one day the money will run out and these dependents will be like birds who depend on a feeder all year long finding that the owners forgot to put the birdfeed out in the coldest days of winter.

its gonna be ugly and these parasite enablers continue to act as if this is not a possibility

Yes, that's what the dupes at the lowest levels believe. The slightly higher level of dupe, those that post here, are convinced that they should feel guilty for not being poor and that the only way to assuage that guilt is to steal money from wealthier people. They reject the notion that their guilty feelings could be treated by giving away their own money. Then you have the highest level, the puppeteers, the Al Gores and Michael Moores with the propaganda films, the media whores of the left, the manipulators and the power seekers and the race baiters, all seeking to move the system to the edge simply to line their own pockets, and the deluded saps at that level who hold the reins of power in the belief that destroying the US will be good for us.

Real Americans who oppose this are harder to find.
 
In direct services you are correct, but in the law and order that the government provides the rich do you to maintain and grow their wealth in the stability that is created.

Ie no socialistic or communistic revolutions

Yeah. Well, guess what?

The poor people manage to keep jobs only because the nation's social and economic structure has it's "stability" maintained by the government.

The middle class can buy it's homes, it's cars, it's retirement funds, because the government maintains social and economic stability.

Guess what the function of government is?


It's to establish domestic tranquility. Read the Constitution, damn it.

Edit:
That stabiity, and the government's ability to maintain it, become threatened when the government is allowed assume powers not granted it by the Constitution, and when the financial excess reaches the point of economic collapse. The Messiah's deficit is what, 10% of GDP? That's unsustainable and no amount of taxation can cover that. The necessary remedy is to increase federal revenues by cutting taxes, and cutting spending to what the Constitution authorizes.


The Constitution doesn't authorize half of what's being spent today, from public education to welfare to social security to TARP and stimuli.

Federal taxes on capital gains should be completely erased, as should federal estate taxes, to name just two of the many egregious taxes that shouldn't ever have been passed in the frist place.
 
Last edited:
and right wing death squads that tend to win in many instances but even if there was a flat tax which would prevent people like obama from pandering to class envy (we will jack up their taxes not yours) the rich would still pay for more than they use and I doubt the proletarians would be revolting in the streets. to claim we should pay even more to keep the revolution from happening is silly

the revolution is most likely to happen when the rich cannot or will not pay yet another tax increase designed to buy the votes of the many for the dems. then all those people who have voted for more and more government are going to be -as I noted in another post--like birds who have become dependent on a bird feeder one day finding the feeder empty in the coldest day of the year.

Those death squads are an expense, along with the missed economic activities during the social strife that tend to lower the economic potential of the individuals funding the death squads and the country itself. A reasonable level of social programs keeps the poor from joining such revolutionary groups, while keeping the economy moving forward as well. A reasonable trade off, I would think. Stupid welfare programs of course are another story entirely
 
Yeah. Well, guess what?

The poor people manage to keep jobs only because the nation's social and economic structure has it's "stability" maintained by the government.

The middle class can buy it's homes, it's cars, it's retirement funds, because the government maintains social and economic stability.

Guess what the function of government is?


It's to establish domestic tranquility. Read the Constitution, damn it.

Domestic tranquility is exactly what I am talking about. The rich and the middle class are the primary benifits of it. The goal is to ensure enough people stay in the rich and middle class so that a change in the domestic order becomes a thing most people look foward to
 
I think what motivates most of these tax hikers is either the mistaken belief that they will somehow be given some of the wealth taken from the rich or they are just envious of those who make more than them

many libs on chat boards tend to be somewhat well educated but aren't the leaders of their party. they often think they are very intelligent but they cannot understand why the "corrupt market" or "evil corporations" don't value their obvious brilliance with hefty paychecks. so their reaction to this lack of success is to rage against those better off then they are.



They miss the point that if it does not help the employment or recession then it will hurt us.
 
Domestic tranquility is exactly what I am talking about. The rich and the middle class are the primary benifits of it. The goal is to ensure enough people stay in the rich and middle class so that a change in the domestic order becomes a thing most people look foward to

No.

You're talking about stealing, which is the word we mere plebians use to describe taking money from people simply because you have the machine guns.

Since you're mystified about that Constituiton thingy, here, let me help you:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The "More perfect union" refers to the fact that the Articles of Confederation were failing.

The reference to establishing "justice" does not say "social justice". Social justice is a propaganda code-phrase used to rationalize the robbing of the wealthy by the mob. "Justice" alone refers to treating each man equally before the law, a concept that was embodied in the Declaration of Independence and needed re-iteration in the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Domestic tranquility" is that stability thingy I've been discussing that the poor find so advantageous to their lives.

"Provide for the common defence" means the Army and Navy. This is, after all, a document for a national government, not a lower level.

"Promote the general welfare" naturally means the government can't PROVIDE the welfare. Since the government doesn't have any money, it can't provide anything without taking it from someone else, first, and it's perfectly clear that the Constitution does not allow entitlements and redistribution of stolen monies.

"Secure the blessings of liberty" means that the people will not be yoked to the socialist scheme of mass slavery and equalized poverty.

"to ourselves and our posterity" means we are obligated to our children to protect the nation against the infestation of socialists we now have.

The United States is not a socialist nation, by the highest law in the land. You want socialism you need to move to Cuba.
 
They miss the point that if it does not help the employment or recession then it will hurt us.

They don't care about that. They're the roots jealous of the leaves, and they're trying to pull the tree down.
 
No. Eugenics was a Progressive ideal, and the most vociferous baby-killers draw their ideological heritage from the early eugenicists who viewed abortion as a means of reducing the Negro Race.

My point
-----------------


Your head
-------------
 
Translation: Boehner is just another spineless conservative that cant stick to an issue. What a shock

This attitude is the reason the GOP will end up destroying itself. They've painted the Democrats as the devil to the right wing. Now the right wing will not forgive any compromise with The Devil.
 
Last edited:
i saw this earlier, and while i am happy at his stance......he's said he thinks it's bad policy, and it won't do any good to let the tax increases expire for the wealthy. so, isn't this a typical politician's play for votes?


Boy, it sure would be nice of the ones who currently hold ALL the power in DC felt it magnanimous enough to actually be the ones to concede a point or two wouldn't it? I mean didn't Obama campaign on bringing both sides together, being a uniter? Uh huh....Typical.


j-mac
 
Boy, it sure would be nice of the ones who currently hold ALL the power in DC felt it magnanimous enough to actually be the ones to concede a point or two wouldn't it? I mean didn't Obama campaign on bringing both sides together, being a uniter? Uh huh....Typical.


j-mac

Yeah, those Republicans sure have been making every effort to compromise.
 
This attitude is the reason the GOP will end up destroying itself. They've painted the Democrats as the devil to the right wing. Now the right wing will not forgive any compromise with The Devil.

Why should the GOP compromise at all...Demo's have made it clear that it is their way, or no way. The only reason that demo's want GOP bipartisan support for anything is to blame it on them when it fails.

j-mac
 
Boy, it sure would be nice of the ones who currently hold ALL the power in DC felt it magnanimous enough to actually be the ones to concede a point or two wouldn't it? I mean didn't Obama campaign on bringing both sides together, being a uniter? Uh huh....Typical.


j-mac

i think you misunderstood.
 
i think you misunderstood.

Possibly, but my question also can stand on its own, right? What has the party with singular control of government today done in the way of compromise to entice bipartisanship? Not much if anything from what I see.


j-mac
 
Why should the GOP compromise at all...Demo's have made it clear that it is their way, or no way. The only reason that demo's want GOP bipartisan support for anything is to blame it on them when it fails.

oh, boy...

So, lemme get this straight... The Dems want bi-partisan support so if/when a policy fails they can say, "It's the GOPs fault for supporting this and not being obstructionist."??

Interesting take on Dem strategy.

I guess those who voted against stimulus and then applied for funds for their districts (like my congressman)-- those GOPs avoided this devious Dem trap and got the $$ for their folks.:roll:
 
oh, boy...

So, lemme get this straight... The Dems want bi-partisan support so if/when a policy fails they can say, "It's the GOPs fault for supporting this and not being obstructionist."??

Interesting take on Dem strategy.

I guess those who voted against stimulus and then applied for funds for their districts (like my congressman)-- those GOPs avoided this devious Dem trap and got the $$ for their folks.:roll:


Way to not even be close to what I was saying hazelnut....Look, I believe the strategy for Obama's far left governance has always been that even one Repub on board gives him cover to defray claims of democrat heavy handedness, and claim bipartisanship as disingenuous as that is.

Now it you want to talk about what money they take home and act like it is only repubs that feed at the pork trough then I would invite you to not be disingenuous yourself.

j-mac
 
I know you probably haven't read all my posts and you certainly do not know what I say in other forums but I have damned W for years for not cutting spending.

You aren't going to hear me praise Bush on that grounds but I find it interesting that so many people who complain about Bush's spending somehow seem so happy with Obama's far more reckless spending

But you see, that's just it! I don't see Obama's spending as reckless. It would be one thing if he came into office and initiated the stimulus bill on his own or sought unemployment benefits just because or gave GM & Chrystler bailout funds of his own accord, but he hasn't. This country's economy was very close to being in the toilet in a very bad way. His actions prevented that from happening. You can argue that the spending hasn't done everything as promised which is a philisophical or political idealogical difference, but you can't deny that his measures have kept this country's economy afloat. Furthermore, by all accounts things appear to be slowly turning around. So, you can be upset about the massive spending all you want, but you can't deny that without it this country would be far worse off nor can you say he would have done any of it (other than perhaps credit card reform and health care reform) if the economy hadn't been in that shape it was in when he took office. IMO, these are the key things many people don't stop long enough to take into account.

I honestly don't believe President Obama wanted to do most of what he has done where efforts to stimulate this nation's economy is concerned. However, I do believe he is doing what he needs to do in order to get the country out of this mess and get people back to work, as well as, move the nation in areas where we can become leaders in the global marketplace again.
 
But you see, that's just it! I don't see Obama's spending as reckless. It would be one thing if he came into office and initiated the stimulus bill on his own or sought unemployment benefits just because or gave GM & Chrystler bailout funds of his own accord, but he hasn't. This country's economy was very close to being in the toilet in a very bad way. His actions prevented that from happening. You can argue that the spending hasn't done everything as promised which is a philisophical or political idealogical difference, but you can't deny that his measures have kept this country's economy afloat. Furthermore, by all accounts things appear to be slowly turning around. So, you can be upset about the massive spending all you want, but you can't deny that without it this country would be far worse off nor can you say he would have done any of it (other than perhaps credit card reform and health care reform) if the economy hadn't been in that shape it was in when he took office. IMO, these are the key things many people don't stop long enough to take into account.

I honestly don't believe President Obama wanted to do most of what he has done where efforts to stimulate this nation's economy is concerned. However, I do believe he is doing what he needs to do in order to get the country out of this mess and get people back to work, as well as, move the nation in areas where we can become leaders in the global marketplace again.

I guess big pay packages are bad only if the government is not involved.

New GM CEO's pay package worth $9 million - Yahoo! News

New General Motors Co. CEO Daniel Akerson will get the same $9 million pay package as the man he replaced, Ed Whitacre.
Akerson, a former telecommunications industry and private equity executive, will receive $1.7 million in annual salary, $5.3 million in short-term stock payable over the next three years, and another $2 million in stock that's part of the company's long-term executive compensation plan.
The automaker, which is 60.8 percent owned by the U.S. government, disclosed the pay package in a filing on Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is identical to what the company disclosed for Whitacre in February.
 
So you have nothing on how increasing taxes will create jobs. Here is a hint, If companies pay more taxes there is less for expansion and hiring new employees. Many will not hire because of the fear of the cost of the new Obama care bill

I think the problem many working-class families have with this notion is:

1) Not many new jobs were created under Reagan, GH Bush or GW Bush despite their tax cuts to the upper crust; and,

2) All the CEOs of big corporations that received bailout money still got their big bonuses or severance pay when they left their positions.

The average Joe can care less about the fat cats getting fatter while the company they work for gets downsized, they get pick slips while learning that their big boss received millions while at the same time jobs are being cut. In other words, saying that the economy is doing bad, jobs are hard to find/create and that it's all the government's fault doesn't make sense when you see your boss still got paid but you just lost your job. And then you hear that some in Congress (Republicans) still want to give the riches of the rich more tax cuts!?!

I guess big pay packages are bad only if the government is not involved.

New GM CEO's pay package worth $9 million - Yahoo! News

New General Motors Co. CEO Daniel Akerson will get the same $9 million pay package as the man he replaced, Ed Whitacre.
Akerson, a former telecommunications industry and private equity executive, will receive $1.7 million in annual salary, $5.3 million in short-term stock payable over the next three years, and another $2 million in stock that's part of the company's long-term executive compensation plan.
The automaker, which is 60.8 percent owned by the U.S. government, disclosed the pay package in a filing on Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is identical to what the company disclosed for Whitacre in February.

I'd say it's bad if you're a CEO and your company is laying off workers while you're still receiving a massive paycheck. Yes! I'd say that's neither in the best interest of the company nor the nation's economy overall. I do, however, see the significance of making stock options part of a CEO's compensation plan. If he/she does the job well, the reward is higher profits on the stock. But therein lay the problem: I don't know of many CEO's who left their company when their stock went south. In fact, most will either leave beforehand or sell the stock prior to leaving.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom