• 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 huge GOP budget cuts

Catawba said:
As usual, you completely ignore history. Taxes for the wealthy are the lowest they have been in over half a century. Our debt problems began when the taxes for the wealthy were slashed and will only begin to be addressed when the wealth begin paying their fair share again.
Click to expand...

you ignore reality and you dishonestly use tax rates as a facade to ignore the fact that the rich are paying MORE OF THE TOtAL federal taxes than at ANY TIME in THE Period you cited

and its childish to claim that rich aren't paying their fair share when the top 5% pay more income taxes than the rest of the country

and making the rich pay more won't deter the rest of the country from demanding more spending as they have ever since progressive income taxes have allowed politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising them others will pay the taxes needed to fund those handouts
 
haymarket said:
I do not expect you to recognize facts and historical research. I know it must be like reading Mandarin to you.

It shows that a majority of BOTH parties voted to start the jewel of the New Deal programs that you rail against.

Do you also need the annual budget votes in which the revenues from your hated Progressive Income Tax were continued and spent year after year and in budget after budget?
Click to expand...


The dude believes our forefathers were communists.
 
obvious Child said:
That is pretty much spot on as to how Turtle thinks.



Not so sure about that. Even with a trillion dollars in revenue reduction from the tax cuts, the projected decline in debt even after Clinton's accounting fraud would have left us on a pretty solid financial footing. What really screwed us over was Iraq. Not to mention Bush's runaway socialist medicare drug bill. The one his adminstration blackmailed the FDA into lying to the public about the costs of .
Click to expand...

What I think is that those who claim the top one to five percent don't pay their fair share are dishonest and the numbers prove me right

when the top one percent makes 22 percent of the income yet pays 40 percent of the income tax its blatant dishonesty to claim that one percent isn't paying its fair share
 
haymarket said:
Come and go as you please??????

What does that have to do with your inability to comprehend historical research and see that BOTH parties passed both Social Security and the Progressive Income tax?

That is the issue here. Your resume - my resume - your education - my education - your degrees - my degrees have nothing to do with the facts presented in support of the issue.
Click to expand...


What does any of that have to do with the fact that today the unconstitutional programs both parties passed a lifetime ago are leading the nation into economic disaster, and that only one party is even making an attempt, as lame as it is, to rectify the error made so long ago?

Why aren't you focusing on the essential realities, namely:

1) The programs were unconstitutional when passed.
2) The programs are still unconstituitonal.
3) The programs are killing America.
4) The death of America is going to hit those poor you pretend to care about the worst of anyone?
5) The Democrats are doing everything they can to increase the damage done, they're not simply attempting to maintain the status quo, they're actively seeking to expand the damage.

Those are the salient issues.

You're addressing not one of them.
 
Catawba said:
The dude believes our forefathers were communists.
Click to expand...

stop lying. our forefathers would have judged you to be a traitor

you limit your understanding of history to the New Deal and sooner because that is when 130 years of law was discarded by FDR
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
What does any of that have to do with the fact that today the unconstitutional programs both parties passed a lifetime ago are leading the nation into economic disaster, and that only one party is even making an attempt, as lame as it is, to rectify the error made so long ago?

Why aren't you focusing on the essential realities, namely:

1) The programs were unconstitutional when passed.
2) The programs are still unconstituitonal.
3) The programs are killing America.
4) The death of America is going to hit those poor you pretend to care about the worst of anyone?
5) The Democrats are doing everything they can to increase the damage done, they're not simply attempting to maintain the status quo, they're actively seeking to expand the damage.

Those are the salient issues.

You're addressing not one of them.
Click to expand...

if it gets dems elected Haymarket and his fellow travelers believe that alone makes it constitutional
 
TurtleDude said:
so you think spending like drunken sailors and buying votes with money we don't have is caring about fellow americans?
Click to expand...

That's an insult to drunken sailors everywhere.

The Mayor took his turn at being a drunken sailor, and the Mayor will assure you, that drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of money.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
That's an insult to drunken sailors everywhere.

The Mayor took his turn at being a drunken sailor, and the Mayor will assure you, that drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of money.
Click to expand...

My most humble apologies

and the sailors tend to have honestly earned that which they spend
 
TurtleDude said:
What I think is that those who claim the top one to five percent don't pay their fair share are dishonest and the numbers prove me right
Click to expand...

What you think is honestly irrelevant. You don't bother to use basic facts anyone can look up and you redefine words as you so please. What is "fair" do you? Have you ever defined that term? Do you stick to it when faced with the usage of your own defintion in an argument you don't like? Not a chance.

when the top one percent makes 22 percent of the income yet pays 40 percent of the income tax its blatant dishonesty to claim that one percent isn't paying its fair share
Click to expand...

Define fair. And I see how you are picking and choosing what you want to present. Why do you constantly shift what top %?
 
obvious Child said:
What you think is honestly irrelevant. You don't bother to use basic facts anyone can look up and you redefine words as you so please. What is "fair" do you? Have you ever defined that term? Do you stick to it when faced with the usage of your own defintion in an argument you don't like? Not a chance.



Define fair. And I see how you are picking and choosing what you want to present. Why do you constantly shift what top %?
Click to expand...

this is coming from the guy who just spewed the claim that Bachman is wrong on everything she says?

fair can be many things

1) paying for what you use--the poor and middle class don't meet that standard-they don't pay much income tax at all

2) if a group makes 22% of the income paying 22% of the income tax has a strong argument of fairness even though those who make a lot pay more than they probably use and those who make little use more than what they contribute

when you start whining that a group that pays far more of the income tax than their share of the income is not fair (and we know you don't mean they are paying too much) we are dealing with subjective envy on your part
 
Catawba said:
As usual, you completely ignore history. Taxes for the wealthy are the lowest they have been in over half a century. Our debt problems began when the taxes for the wealthy were slashed and will only begin to be addressed when the wealthy begin paying their fair share again.
Click to expand...

The nation's debt problems began with the New Deal, accelerated with the Great Society, compounded under Carter, got even worse when Tip O'Neill reneged on his bargain to cut federal spending commensurate with the Reagan tax cuts, suffered and imaginative period of complete "Lets close our eyes, we have a Democrat rapist in the White House", grew when the nation had to respond to that animals attacking on September 11, 2001, and suffered a sprint of cosmological proportioned inflation when the current half-wit puppet was put in office.

The question isn't one of who did what yesterday or last millenium, the question is What the Hell Does the Nation do Now?

Taxes on the rich inevitably do one thing: they end capital investment, which leads to unemployment, which leads to lower tax revenues, which leads to increased government spending with less revenue.

Raising taxes when the nation is one the wrong side of the Laffer Curve is the mark of ignorance and incompetence.

It's not surprising the Democats can think of nothing else.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
That's an insult to drunken sailors everywhere.

The Mayor took his turn at being a drunken sailor, and the Mayor will assure you, that drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of money.
Click to expand...

Do sailors for some reason lack access to credit?
 
obvious Child said:
That is pretty much spot on as to how Turtle thinks.



Not so sure about that. Even with a trillion dollars in revenue reduction from the tax cuts, the projected decline in debt even after Clinton's accounting fraud would have left us on a pretty solid financial footing. What really screwed us over was Iraq. Not to mention Bush's runaway socialist medicare drug bill. The one his adminstration blackmailed the FDA into lying to the public about the costs of .
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that when Bush acted like the leftist he is, the budgetary problems, ie, the deficit, got worse.

But you lack the courage to put it as baldly as the Mayor.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Do sailors for some reason lack access to credit?
Click to expand...

They do when they're in the Phillipines. Those girls in the Tom-Tom club didn't have ATM machines strapped their tushes, and besides, cash keeps the wife uninformed.

Nobody used credit when getting drunk overseas.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
So, you're saying that when Bush acted like the leftist he is, the budgetary problems, ie, the deficit, got worse.

But you lack the courage to put it as baldly as the Mayor.
Click to expand...

In this post. I'll give you some slack because you basically just joined.
 
obvious Child said:
In this post. I'll give you some slack because you basically just joined.
Click to expand...

I am sure he was quaking in his boots before getting such assurances:mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
you ignore reality and you dishonestly use tax rates as a facade to ignore the fact that the rich are paying MORE OF THE TOtAL federal taxes than at ANY TIME in THE Period you cited

and its childish to claim that rich aren't paying their fair share when the top 5% pay more income taxes than the rest of the country

and making the rich pay more won't deter the rest of the country from demanding more spending as they have ever since progressive income taxes have allowed politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising them others will pay the taxes needed to fund those handouts
Click to expand...

At least you are consistant in your ignorance of history.

http://greghollingsworth.org/storage/post-images/Tax_Rates_v._National_Debt.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1250006430814
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
The nation's debt problems began with the New Deal, accelerated with the Great Society, compounded under Carter, got even worse when Tip O'Neill reneged on his bargain to cut federal spending commensurate with the Reagan tax cuts, suffered and imaginative period of complete "Lets close our eyes, we have a Democrat rapist in the White House", grew when the nation had to respond to that animals attacking on September 11, 2001, and suffered a sprint of cosmological proportioned inflation when the current half-wit puppet was put in office.
Click to expand...

Come again?

It appears debt under Carter and the preceding presidents was on the down turn.

National Debt Graph by President

Furthermore, you seem to ignore that Reagan held the power of the Veto. And only 9 of his 39 vetos were overriden. To absolve him of spending problems seems highly dishonest. Remember that Reagan championed some of the largest expansions in government size and spending in US history. Reagan was no fiscal conservative by any objective measure.

I do agree that 9/11 basically destroyed our chance at financial security. That said, Obama and Dubya did a decent job at preventing total collapse due to the 2007 recession.

Taxes on the rich inevitably do one thing: they end capital investment, which leads to unemployment, which leads to lower tax revenues, which leads to increased government spending with less revenue.
Click to expand...

Clinton's era suggests that's not inherently true. He raised taxes on them yet capital investment exploded to the point where several asset bubbles were created. Furthermore, as long as there is some tax advantaged investment, the rich will pour money into in. So an increase in taxes yet keeping some tax advantage options over should eliminate the possibility of your argument coming true.

Raising taxes when the nation is one the wrong side of the Laffer Curve is the mark of ignorance and incompetence.
Click to expand...

Except that the Laffer Curve is nothing more than conjecture. Using it as an actual policy tool is a sign of a serious lack of understanding of basic statistics much less economics. Laffer himself never intended it to be anything more than a starting point for tax discussions. The level of worship that Republicans place on it is amazing considering what it actually is.
 
obvious Child said:
What you think is honestly irrelevant. You don't bother to use basic facts anyone can look up and you redefine words as you so please. What is "fair" do you? Have you ever defined that term? Do you stick to it when faced with the usage of your own defintion in an argument you don't like? Not a chance.



Define fair. And I see how you are picking and choosing what you want to present. Why do you constantly shift what top %?
Click to expand...

Well, first off, any definition of fair will have to show compliance with existing law.

Taxation in excess of the spending authorized by the Constititon is blatantly illegal, and hence unfair to everyone, even more so for those paying the greatest proportion of the taxes.

The rich, of course, pay the greatest portion of the taxes.

So, clearly, taxes are already too high. The issue of the budget deficit isn't one of insufficient taxes, it's one of excess and unconstitutional spending.

Given that almost 50% of the nation isn't paying federal taxes, and it can't be fair that 2% of the people are carrying 50% of the tax burden. No rational definition of fair is going to allow this.

Given that raising taxes on the wealthy when the tax system is on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve decreases revenue, what definition of "fair" can raise taxes on anyone, since the tax increase will decrease revenue? It can only be "fair" when the goal is not revenue generation but wealth redistribution, ie, theivery.

Thievery is never fair by any honest appraisal.

Fairness means spreading the tax burden out to more and more people, so they can understand the issues involved. Making it plain to people demanding presents from the federal government that their take home pay decreases would mean fewer people would elect politicians wanting to "give" them things.

Making people pay for what they get, that's fair.

Ending the unconstitutional spending, that's fair. after all, it is illegal spending.

Robbing people because they have money, that's never fair, not at all.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
The nation's debt problems began with the New Deal, accelerated with the Great Society, compounded under Carter, got even worse when Tip O'Neill reneged on his bargain to cut federal spending commensurate with the Reagan tax cuts, suffered and imaginative period of complete "Lets close our eyes, we have a Democrat rapist in the White House", grew when the nation had to respond to that animals attacking on September 11, 2001, and suffered a sprint of cosmological proportioned inflation when the current half-wit puppet was put in office.

The question isn't one of who did what yesterday or last millenium, the question is What the Hell Does the Nation do Now?

Taxes on the rich inevitably do one thing: they end capital investment, which leads to unemployment, which leads to lower tax revenues, which leads to increased government spending with less revenue.

Raising taxes when the nation is one the wrong side of the Laffer Curve is the mark of ignorance and incompetence.

It's not surprising the Democats can think of nothing else.
Click to expand...

The US debt problems originated during the reagan admin, US federal government debt to GDP rose by 20% during that time frame while generally remaining flat for the most part during the previous admins after the mid 50's. The current half wit is just following the policy of the previous half wit and the no wit Reagan. You want to change the situation significant changes will have to be made. Changes none but the upper income and wealthy will want to see. The military will be gutted, SS willl be gutted, health care will be gutted. Just take a look at the UK and what it has done to the military to get an idea of what the US will have to do. Anyone with the idea that SS and medicare could be gutted without the military seeing rather significant cuts lives on a "Fantasy Island"

As for the Laffer curve it is too widely used with too little thought applied. It has to include analysis regarding overall economic activity ( ie bubbles like the housing bubble) relative tax rates compared to surrounding jurisdictions ( ie US vs Mexico). In most cases it is used in to far a simplistic basis by far too simple people. Tax revenues may rise or fall after a tax increase or decrease. To state that the tax increase or decrease is the cause without an indepth analysis of the economy is impossible
 
Catawba said:
At least you are consistant in your ignorance of history.

http://greghollingsworth.org/storage/post-images/Tax_Rates_v._National_Debt.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1250006430814
Click to expand...

LOL-your failure to address the issues is hilarious. you can call me ignorant all you want if that helps you with your real issues

but the fact remains-you have no credibility once you claim that top tax payers aren't paying their fair share

and you cannot prove that taxing the rich more will help anything

and its completely understandable why you don't want to deal with the fact that the current tax system has caused such a mess

many people have no reason to keep spending down because they aren't paying for the spending
 
MrVicchio said:
Slaves to the wealthy?

Have you ever considered the reality that the more "gov't helps" the more people seem to "need it"?

Why do you think Tax Cuts are giving the Wealthy anything? It's not the Gov'ts money first, it's the creators of the wealths money and the Gov't takes it.
Click to expand...

Why do you people think that doing business in the US should be free? You guys act as if everything should be handed to you and you shouldn't have to pay anything back to the country that allowed you to make the profits in the first place. I'm so tired of this selfish...me me me...attitude that comes from those that think that they owe nothing to this great country.
 
disneydude said:
Why do you people think that doing business in the US should be free? You guys act as if everything should be handed to you and you shouldn't have to pay anything back to the country that allowed you to make the profits in the first place. I'm so tired of this selfish...me me me...attitude that comes from those that think that they owe nothing to this great country.
Click to expand...

wrong-its you dems who whine about the rich not paying enough in order to buy the votes of the people who pay nothing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom