• 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!

House Passes Middle-Class Tax Cut as Dems, GOP Try to Reach Compromise

how do the rich screw the middle class? do you think Rafa Nadal screws the weaker players on the tour?

You do have a problem comprehending what is posted, don't you. Where in my post did I say the rich screw the middle class?

If you were as alert as you claim to be you would have been able to deduce from my post that the Republicans screw the middle class in favoring the rich. It isn't the wealthy who are to blame, of course they will accept tax cuts, even though there are some that are Patriotic and even wrote a letter to Obama begging him to let the tax cuts expire. That many Republicans happen to be wealthy and thus benefit from their own coddling is besides the point, but still, it is the party that screws the middle class.
 
I am interested to hear what a reactionary populist calls "extreme right"

what part of the GOP platform is currently "more extreme" than the platform under Reagan

You assume that Reagan WASN'T extreme.
 
sadly Turtle, because we have lived through it, and because we are informed, and because we are perceptive far too many of us are indeed expert in comparing a bucket of reeking pig manure - Ronald Reagan and his policies - to a reeking bucket of cow manure - the current GOP platform, ideology and its extremist proponents.
 
That is your opinion but the results speak for themselves. Doesn't matter what the Republicans do at this point but it will come January 2011 and that is when we will see if there is any real difference.
with 16 million illegals here working i say it is more than just my opinion. no difference if repubs are in imo sosdd.
 
We all know why we got into the mess, but the problem is Obama hasn't done what was necessary to get us out quicker. Instead he is prolonging the nightmare with his big govt. community agitator programs. Promoting job growth doesn't mean bailing out the unions.

Too bad more Conservatives didn't complain about it when Bush was doing it.
 
all branches have a role to play.

Those roles at one time were more clearly defined but the Federal Government, at the behest of lobbyists and those politicians seeking to impress the locals and gain votes, soon began to get large amounts of money from Washington for questionable projects, and it's become a huge political game.

Every Senator and Congressman is now expected to bring home more pork from Washington or they are failures. Consequently the Federal debt becomes higher and unmanageable, pork is everywhere, and the people have become dependent on it.

Now they are crying out to "tax the rich" in order that they might have more pork for themselves, and care not for the future of their country.
 
sadly Turtle, because we have lived through it, and because we are informed, and because we are perceptive far too many of us are indeed expert in comparing a bucket of reeking pig manure - Ronald Reagan and his policies - to a reeking bucket of cow manure - the current GOP platform, ideology and its extremist proponents.

So I see results don't matter nor how those results were generated. Get the facts before spouting your opinion then tell us all what that bucket of pig manure is with Reagan.

BLS link, create own chart
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
 
Too bad more Conservatives didn't complain about it when Bush was doing it.

Conservatives were complaining about it.

That's why his popularity went down, why the Tea party was formed and why the same complaints are happening. There are people out there who want fiscal responsibility.
 
Last edited:
So I see results don't matter nor how those results were generated. Get the facts before spouting your opinion then tell us all what that bucket of pig manure is with Reagan.

BLS link, create own chart
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

You want results from Reagan and his reeking bucket: from Wikipedia in the entry on Reaganomics

Criticism


Critics often point to a decrease in tax revenue as an effect of supply-side economics.[37]
Reagan's tax policies pushed both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. National debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure. Advocates of the Laffer curve problematically contend that the tax cuts did lead to a near doubling of tax receipts ($517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990),[38] so that the deficits were actually caused by an increase in government spending. However, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that "history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts." Specifically, the analysis calculated that the average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a much higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.[39] In 1982, during Reagan's second year in office, the U.S. economy fell into a recession. An accurate accounting indicates that receipts increased from $599 billion in 1981 to $1.032 trillion in 1990, an increase of 72%. In 2005 dollars, the receipts decreased from $1.25 trillion in 1981 to $1.13 trillion in 1983 and did not return to $1.25 trillion until 1985. The receipts in 1990 were $1.5 trillion in 2005 dollars, an increase of only 20%.[40] In contrast, from 1991 to 2000, receipts increased by 90% in current dollars, or 60% in 2005 dollars.


Critics also point to declining real wages as a result of Reaganomics.[41]
The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year, with unemployment averaging 7.5%. Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983–1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980 shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77 under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. However, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), while the average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%), and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%). Furthermore, real wages declined sharply during the Reagan Presidency.[42]
Another recent critique of Reagan's policies stem from Tax Reform Act of 1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The tax reform would ostensibly reduce or eliminate tax deductions. This legislation expanded the AMT from a law for untaxed rich investors to one refocused on middle class Americans who had children, owned a home, or lived in high tax states.[43] This parallel tax system hit middle class Americans the hardest by reducing their deductions and effectively raising their taxes. Meanwhile, the highest income earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) were proportionately less affected, thereby shifting the tax burden away from the richest 0.5% to poorer Americans.[44] In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code.[45] As of 2007, the AMT brought in more tax revenue than the regular tax which has made it difficult for Congress to reform.[44]
[edit]
 
You do have a problem comprehending what is posted, don't you. Where in my post did I say the rich screw the middle class?

If you were as alert as you claim to be you would have been able to deduce from my post that the Republicans screw the middle class in favoring the rich. It isn't the wealthy who are to blame, of course they will accept tax cuts, even though there are some that are Patriotic and even wrote a letter to Obama begging him to let the tax cuts expire. That many Republicans happen to be wealthy and thus benefit from their own coddling is besides the point, but still, it is the party that screws the middle class.

The Middle Class is being screwed by being overtaxed. "Even if "the rich" are more heavily taxed this will still not be enough money to pay for the amount of government many Americans seem to want.

The fiscally and politically naive want to send more of someone else's money to Washington with no clear idea how that money is even going to be spent. They just want to send it and hope for the best.

This childlike response to politicians, from a once responsible nation, says more than I really want to know about the lack of understanding of basic economics from too many American people. The question is 'can the American return their country to fiscal responsibility or will they move in the direction of Europe'. There's a lot at stake here..
 
I disagree with the "the Middle class is being overtaxed"

I think they need to redefine the classes - yet again. The LOWER middle class is struggling but the UPPER middle class is not.

Since we're in a progressive tax-system you'd think there'd be a more smooth climb *up* in taxes depending on your income - since they feel that income and property based taxes are the best way to do it (which I disagree with)
 
That foreign policy of Reagan led to a peace dividend and respect around the world from our true allies. Not sure what you want me to take out of that article.

Tax cuts have shown to TEMPORARILY, yea verily even BRIEFLY, enhance tax revenues, but to also increase deficits and debt....why do "conservatives" insist on making their future grandchildren pay the freight on today's high standard of living?
 
You want results from Reagan and his reeking bucket: from Wikipedia in the entry on Reaganomics

I see that you haven't done any research to verify what you have been told. If you go to BEA.gov, pull up the data for revenue and expenses for the Reagan years you will see that revenue to the govt. doubled after the Reagan 10-10-5% tax cut. Explain why that shows govt. revenue doubling?

The debt did go from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion, up 1.7 trillion. Obama has added 3 trillion in two years so why you have to go back to the 80's is quite telling.
 
Tax cuts have shown to TEMPORARILY, yea verily even BRIEFLY, enhance tax revenues, but to also increase deficits and debt....why do "conservatives" insist on making their future grandchildren pay the freight on today's high standard of living?

The fact that a cut in taxes increasing revenue at all says it all about liberal predictions and comments. With Reagan revenue doubled after the 3 year tax cut. How do you explain it. With Bush that increase lasted 4 years, how do you explain it?

What is quite telling is that you and others want to blame an increase in revenue as the reason for the deficits and debt. That is illogical. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem and always have mostly because liberal social engineering.
 
I disagree with the "the Middle class is being overtaxed"

I think they need to redefine the classes - yet again. The LOWER middle class is struggling but the UPPER middle class is not.

Since we're in a progressive tax-system you'd think there'd be a more smooth climb *up* in taxes depending on your income - since they feel that income and property based taxes are the best way to do it (which I disagree with)

According to the IRS 47% of income earners did not pay any Federal Income taxes last year and everyone of those were at income of 50,000 or less. That means that 53% of the people had the total tax burden. Sound fair to anyone?
 
The fact that a cut in taxes increasing revenue at all says it all about liberal predictions and comments. With Reagan revenue doubled after the 3 year tax cut. How do you explain it. With Bush that increase lasted 4 years, how do you explain it?

What is quite telling is that you and others want to blame an increase in revenue as the reason for the deficits and debt. That is illogical. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem and always have mostly because liberal social engineering.

News flash for you sir - there are only two sides to a budget. You insist on only looking at one.
 
The fact that a cut in taxes increasing revenue at all says it all about liberal predictions and comments. With Reagan revenue doubled after the 3 year tax cut. How do you explain it. With Bush that increase lasted 4 years, how do you explain it?

What is quite telling is that you and others want to blame an increase in revenue as the reason for the deficits and debt. That is illogical. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem and always have mostly because liberal social engineering.

To my knowledge, nobody here has ever said that govt spends too little, so that is ONE DEAD HORSE you can stop beating....
 
According to the IRS 47% of income earners did not pay any Federal Income taxes last year and everyone of those were at income of 50,000 or less. That means that 53% of the people had the total tax burden. Sound fair to anyone?

Only if they have a D after their names... :ninja:
 
To my knowledge, nobody here has ever said that govt spends too little, so that is ONE DEAD HORSE you can stop beating....

Then why is the focus always on revenue? Why don't you ask yourself why liberals are so focused on tax revenue and have such a passion for taxing a certain class more?
 
you need to read more

nyt, saturday:



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/us/politics/05states.html?pagewanted=all

actually you might want to avoid the very long times story, like tolstoy's ivan illyich it might tell more than anyone would want to know

but it's all about accounting and pensions and credit ratings and stimulus running out and how post recessions hit states...

there's a theme thru walsh's and cooper's piece---subprime accounting techniques

stay up
Most states DO require a balanced budget, even tho several seem to find creative ways to avoid following their own rules....

Balanced Budget Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
no kidding

still, SEVEN TRILLION dollars of debt takes quite awhile to accumulate

ie, it's been going on for quite a while

ie, where ya been

want some more links, there are dozens
 
what this enlightenting little episode of presidential caving elucidates

1. the gop essentially controls not just lower house but, with able assists from the likes of manchin, webb, nelson, lieberman, we are in effective control of upper parliament as well

cuz if dems won't back their president on TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, where will they go?

2. this issue becomes front and center for TWENTY TWELVE, my side will campaign on extending tax cuts to all, obama will advocate for taxing the rich

who will believe him?

congrats, obama/mcconnell/boehner

it's your move, nancy

don't forget, maam---the president proclaims IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!
 
Back
Top Bottom