• 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!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

Wow! And that from someone that probably values what Sarah Palin has to say. Matthew Iglesias is a Harvard graduate, with honors, I might say, Magna Cum Laude who was Editor in Chief of the Harvard Independent and other campus publications. He was a staff writer for American Prospect, and The Atlantic Monthly. He has written for the New York Times Magazine, made appearances on TV and radio as a political commentator and won the Hillman Prize in 2007 (a journalist award).

Can you say that about Glenn Beck? Sarah Palin? (doesn't she claim to have a journalist's degree?


His opinion may be left, but not drivel. That would be Glenn Beck with the drivel.



We have progressive tax rates. They make the most money - of course they pay the most money - DUH! But, their rates are a lot lower!

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

1) find a quote of mine that backs up your idiotic lie that I somehow am a disciple of Sarah Palin. I am amused that she causes the loony left such issues though

2) I was an equivalent graduate of Yale plus I have Masters and Law degrees. Thus what I say is more valuable than that guy using your criteria. he has an opinion, no more valuable than someone with the same or better education. He writes-BFD-what did he do that gives him expertise? Its like someone testifying in a malpractice case who has a medical degree and has never practiced medicine, only written about it. I will give you a clue-people like that rarely make it past the judge.

3) I oppose a progressive tax system mainly because it gives politicians too much power and allows those with no skin in the game to jack up the taxes of others. Just because something exists doesn't make it right.

4) people making a million a year pay far far more taxes than the vast majority of the voters. they get absolutely no additional benefits from the government over what you get. if you don't want the rich to get big tax cuts above what you get, then don't call for the rich to pay such idiotically high taxes
 
1) find a quote of mine that backs up your idiotic lie that I somehow am a disciple of Sarah Palin. I am amused that she causes the loony left such issues though

2) I was an equivalent graduate of Yale plus I have Masters and Law degrees. Thus what I say is more valuable than that guy using your criteria. he has an opinion, no more valuable than someone with the same or better education. He writes-BFD-what did he do that gives him expertise? Its like someone testifying in a malpractice case who has a medical degree and has never practiced medicine, only written about it. I will give you a clue-people like that rarely make it past the judge.

3) I oppose a progressive tax system mainly because it gives politicians too much power and allows those with no skin in the game to jack up the taxes of others. Just because something exists doesn't make it right.

4) people making a million a year pay far far more taxes than the vast majority of the voters. they get absolutely no additional benefits from the government over what you get. if you don't want the rich to get big tax cuts above what you get, then don't call for the rich to pay such idiotically high taxes

Hey Turtle,

1) I like Sarah Palin. Its like that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you eat rabbits.

2) Masters and Law!!!! whats your favorite lawyer joke.

3) Yes but its better than your consumption tax. wooooosssshhh <the sound of the economy going down the toilet>

4) People making millions a year represent the majority of ones making the law. If the ones making the laws never earned $20k a year you would be in REAL trouble. Wouldnt it be interesting if the poor had representation in congress.
 
Hey Turtle,

1) I like Sarah Palin. Its like that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you eat rabbits.

2) Masters and Law!!!! whats your favorite lawyer joke.

3) Yes but its better than your consumption tax. wooooosssshhh <the sound of the economy going down the toilet>

4) People making millions a year represent the majority of ones making the law. If the ones making the laws never earned $20k a year you would be in REAL trouble. Wouldnt it be interesting if the poor had representation in congress.

1) I think its moose you are thinking of

2) Clinton and Obama apparently are no longer lawyers

3) Consumption tax is a great idea-it rewards thrift and captures billions in income not reported-like drug dealers etc. gets rid of the IRS-more freedom, less bureaucracy

4) the poor have plenty of representation in congress. the poor have far more votes than the top 1% or even the top 5%
Obama campaigned to the poor. so did Poodle BOy (kerry)
 
1) I think its moose you are thinking of

2) Clinton and Obama apparently are no longer lawyers

3) Consumption tax is a great idea-it rewards thrift and captures billions in income not reported-like drug dealers etc. gets rid of the IRS-more freedom, less bureaucracy

4) the poor have plenty of representation in congress. the poor have far more votes than the top 1% or even the top 5%
Obama campaigned to the poor. so did Poodle BOy (kerry)

1) LOL

2) thats an awful joke. You can do better.

3) But it destroys the economy and is a regressive tax.

4) What member of congress would you say is poor. Citizens dont vote in congress.
 
1) LOL

2) thats an awful joke. You can do better.

3) But it destroys the economy and is a regressive tax.

4) What member of congress would you say is poor. Citizens dont vote in congress.

The poor can't vote?
 
1) LOL

2) thats an awful joke. You can do better.

3) But it destroys the economy and is a regressive tax.

4) What member of congress would you say is poor. Citizens dont vote in congress.

1) thanks

2) yes, its awful that two presidents who went to the two finest law schools in the country are no longer allowed to practice law

3) bs-complete Bs and more BS

4) your last comment makes no sense.lots of congress reps pander to the poor and claim to represent their interests.
 
Not in congress they cant. Because there are no poor people in congress.

people who get elected to congress tend to have some prominence, and success which rules about the poor who tend to be uneducated and unsuccessful But Al Gore sr got elected claiming to be a poor country school teacher. I don't think John Dingell, John COnyers, were rich when they were elected. same with Steve Chabot here in Ohio. but they weren't in the poorhouse either.

would you vote for some guy who can only merit minimum wage? I sure wouldn't
 
1) thanks

2) yes, its awful that two presidents who went to the two finest law schools in the country are no longer allowed to practice law

3) bs-complete Bs and more BS

4) your last comment makes no sense.lots of congress reps pander to the poor and claim to represent their interests.

1) well deserved

2) Boo.. how about this. How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

3) Part 2 of my statement if fact. Its a regresive tax. Part 1 is also a fact. When you put the tax burden on purchasing goods and services you slow down the economy.

4) Sure it does. Name one congress person who makes $20k or less. If you cant then 0% of those making legislation represent the poor.
 
would you vote for some guy who can only merit minimum wage? I sure wouldn't

Fair point. I do beleive there are plenty of people who are not RICH who would do very well in congress. Much better than what we have today.
 
Fair point. I do beleive there are plenty of people who are not RICH who would do very well in congress. Much better than what we have today.

That's not saying much.
 
1) well deserved

2) Boo.. how about this. How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

3) Part 2 of my statement if fact. Its a regresive tax. Part 1 is also a fact. When you put the tax burden on purchasing goods and services you slow down the economy.

4) Sure it does. Name one congress person who makes $20k or less. If you cant then 0% of those making legislation represent the poor.

2) actually most attorneys I have met tend to be truthful. why-because the penalty for lying is too high and its too easy for someone to prove a lie. now do some lawyers know that their clients lie under oath =absolutely, that I see a fair amount of time. which is essentially the same as lying themselves. but its hard to prove.

3) I don't have problems with some regressive taxes. I absolutely oppose a progressive tax. prices for goods or services are regressive. It makes people want to work harder and smarter so they have more money.

4) more complete crap. I have a congressman that is Catholic. I am agnostic. But he votes for lower taxes, more gun rights etc. Therefore he represents my interests. I voted for Bush, he represented my interests on taxes and gun rights. Libs scream that their legislation and polices are for the poor--while I disagree--I believe handouts actually hurt the poor and benefit the fat cats who addict them--your claim of representation is moronic.

4-Continued) are you saying that protestants have no one that represents their interests in the USSC? or that a woman cannot represent male votes

clue to you-its how they vote that represents us, not what they make or what they look like that counts
 
Fair point. I do beleive there are plenty of people who are not RICH who would do very well in congress. Much better than what we have today.

1) I am sure I could do a better job than most-I am certainly better educated than most and that propably goes for a few dozen on this board as well compared to say lamers like Maxine Waters or BOtox Pelosi. But I have no desire to run. I am not good at kissing ass at a knights of columbus festival or the local PTA. If some asswipe in the media asked me if I had ever smoked reefer in college or gotten some ***** while not married I'd tell the guy to go do something that is physically impossible

2) You have to have a special tolerance of BS to be a congressman. most people don't have it or would want to. You have to pretend you care about stuff that you do not.
 
2) actually most attorneys I have met tend to be truthful. why-because the penalty for lying is too high and its too easy for someone to prove a lie. now do some lawyers know that their clients lie under oath =absolutely, that I see a fair amount of time. which is essentially the same as lying themselves. but its hard to prove.

3) I don't have problems with some regressive taxes. I absolutely oppose a progressive tax. prices for goods or services are regressive. It makes people want to work harder and smarter so they have more money.

4) more complete crap. I have a congressman that is Catholic. I am agnostic. But he votes for lower taxes, more gun rights etc. Therefore he represents my interests. I voted for Bush, he represented my interests on taxes and gun rights. Libs scream that their legislation and polices are for the poor--while I disagree--I believe handouts actually hurt the poor and benefit the fat cats who addict them--your claim of representation is moronic.

4-Continued) are you saying that protestants have no one that represents their interests in the USSC? or that a woman cannot represent male votes

clue to you-its how they vote that represents us, not what they make or what they look like that counts

2) no. Their lips are moving. Your awful at jokes.

3) no. People dont spend. . . thats the point. Our economy depends upon people spending money. A regressive tax is really not a poor tax anyways. Its a tax on the middle class. The poor have no money. We can not afford another burden on the middle class.

4) I am simply saying that the poor do not have representation in congress. No less, no more.
 
2) no. Their lips are moving. Your awful at jokes.

3) no. People dont spend. . . thats the point. Our economy depends upon people spending money. A regressive tax is really not a poor tax anyways. Its a tax on the middle class. The poor have no money. We can not afford another burden on the middle class.

4) I am simply saying that the poor do not have representation in congress. No less, no more.

I want less governmental power--a consumption tax takes power away from the government and captures lots of untaxed income

you did claim to be a libertarian?
 
I want less governmental power--a consumption tax takes power away from the government and captures lots of untaxed income

you did claim to be a libertarian?


How do you suggest this consumption tax be collected?
 
1) I am sure I could do a better job than most-I am certainly better educated than most and that propably goes for a few dozen on this board as well compared to say lamers like Maxine Waters or BOtox Pelosi. But I have no desire to run. I am not good at kissing ass at a knights of columbus festival or the local PTA. If some asswipe in the media asked me if I had ever smoked reefer in college or gotten some ***** while not married I'd tell the guy to go do something that is physically impossible

2) You have to have a special tolerance of BS to be a congressman. most people don't have it or would want to. You have to pretend you care about stuff that you do not.

1) If being well educated is a major part of your presidential job requirements then both President Clinton and Presiden Obama should be very well qualified. A masters from harvard and a rhodes scholar. . oh my.

2) Wouldnt it be nice if someone in office actually DID care.
 
1) If being well educated is a major part of your presidential job requirements then both President Clinton and Presiden Obama should be very well qualified. A masters from harvard and a rhodes scholar. . oh my.

2) Wouldnt it be nice if someone in office actually DID care.

their credentials probably made them qualified to teach law school. neither one had done much in terms of the private sector which is rather troublesome.
 
So you want government to collect it...Where is the less government part of your proposal?

really-so using your confused logic, you think a cash register saying you owe 10 bucks in state sales tax and 15 in federal is more government intrusion than the IRS and having to spend hours figuring out your 1040 and perhaps getting audited by the IRS?>

geez that's really stupid
 
really-so using your confused logic, you think a cash register saying you owe 10 bucks in state sales tax and 15 in federal is more government intrusion than the IRS and having to spend hours figuring out your 1040 and perhaps getting audited by the IRS?>

geez that's really stupid


It certainly is more intrusion on the business
 
I want less governmental power--a consumption tax takes power away from the government and captures lots of untaxed income

you did claim to be a libertarian?

I am a libertarian. If I was king the government would be half the size it is and give me my constitutional righs back. What you confuse is the difference between how we pay the bills we have today and what the government looks like tomorrow. Today we have to find a way to pay the bills. In the future we need to dramaticly cut government spending.
 
Back
Top Bottom