• 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!

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

Catawba said:
No, all we need to do is return to the progressive tax rates of the 90s, cut our military spending, increase the cap on SS, and upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done.
Click to expand...


why is the 90's rate so special to you given that the economic boom of that time had nothing to do with the tax rates
 
TurtleDude said:
I already pay more federal income taxes than millions and millions of people who demand more government. I want less government. when those who want more start paying their fair share maybe I can see your point
Click to expand...

That no longer cuts it.

It is time to pony up now - ALL OF US - or are grandkids will spit upon our graves with deserved contempt. I am a bit older than you are Turtle. I have three beautiful grandchildren and I do not want them paying for decades they do not even remember because they were not alive or were too young. That just is not fair.

I will pay more. Will you?
 
haymarket said:
That no longer cuts it.

It is time to pony up now - ALL OF US - or are grandkids will spit upon our graves with deserved contempt. I am a bit older than you are Turtle. I have three beautiful grandchildren and I do not want them paying for decades they do not even remember because they were not alive or were too young. That just is not fair.

I will pay more. Will you?
Click to expand...

when you pay as much as I do we will talk. until then its a hollow claim
 
TurtleDude said:
why is the 90's rate so special to you given that the economic boom of that time had nothing to do with the tax rates
Click to expand...

No, but it did help reduce the deficit without hurting the economy as the far right, such as yourself, had warned it would!
 
Catawba said:
No, but it did help reduce the deficit without hurting the economy as the far right, such as yourself, had warned it would!
Click to expand...

lots of speculation on your part

I wasn't on the board then so stop lying about what you claim I said. do you plan on having another big boom due to a dot com expansion
 
TurtleDude said:
lots of speculation on your part

I wasn't on the board then so stop lying about what you claim I said. do you plan on having another big boom due to a dot com expansion
Click to expand...

You would save yourself a lot of confusion if you read the post carefully before responding.

I didn't say you did in the 90's. I said, "No, but it did help reduce the deficit without hurting the economy as the far right, such as yourself, had warned it would!"

"they are simply recycling the same "cry wolf" claims they've used whenever anyone proposes to raise taxes. They did it in 1982 when Ronald Reagan decided to address the swelling deficit, and again in the 1993 battle over Clinton's budget. Their dire warnings weren't true then and they aren't true now.

Reagan's Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982 was the single largest peacetime tax hike in the nation's history. The act was meant to alleviate a deficit swollen by dramatic increases in defense spending and the massive tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which dramatically slashed taxes across the board. TEFRA was so unpopular with hardcore conservatives that Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY) ran an insurgent campaign against it, sparking speculation that he would challenge Reagan from the right in the GOP primaries in 1984. "There's no way we can get out of this recession by raising taxes," Kemp (R-NY) warned at the time, echoing the mantras of the Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal, and ultra-conservatives like Congressman Newt Gingrich. But contrary to the claims of Kemp's faction, the economy started to expand only after the passage of the TEFRA tax hikes, which negated around one-third of Reagan's 1981 cuts. Growth surged by almost nine points between the end of 1982 (when TEFRA kicked in) and the second quarter of 1983.

Likewise, Clinton faced ferocious opposition to his 1993 budget plan which raised the top marginal rates to 39.6 percent from 31 percent. At the time, Congressional Republicans predicted doom. "The deficit will be worse," Representative Dick Armey (R-TX) warned in a CNN interview. "The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer...there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates."

Former Congressman and former SEC chair, Christopher Cox, speaking to the House in May 1993 about impending doom, declared, "This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy. It will kill jobs, kill businesses, and yes, kill even the higher tax revenues that these suicidal tax increasers hope to gain."

The Heritage Foundation predicted that Clinton's 1993 tax proposal would lead to job loss and economic disaster."

Jake Blumgart: Will Higher Taxes on the Rich Kill Jobs?
 
Catawba said:
You would save yourself a lot of confusion if you read the post carefully before responding.

I didn't say you did in the 90's. I said, "No, but it did help reduce the deficit without hurting the economy as the far right, such as yourself, had warned it would!"

"they are simply recycling the same "cry wolf" claims they've used whenever anyone proposes to raise taxes. They did it in 1982 when Ronald Reagan decided to address the swelling deficit, and again in the 1993 battle over Clinton's budget. Their dire warnings weren't true then and they aren't true now.

Reagan's Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982 was the single largest peacetime tax hike in the nation's history. The act was meant to alleviate a deficit swollen by dramatic increases in defense spending and the massive tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which dramatically slashed taxes across the board. TEFRA was so unpopular with hardcore conservatives that Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY) ran an insurgent campaign against it, sparking speculation that he would challenge Reagan from the right in the GOP primaries in 1984. "There's no way we can get out of this recession by raising taxes," Kemp (R-NY) warned at the time, echoing the mantras of the Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal, and ultra-conservatives like Congressman Newt Gingrich. But contrary to the claims of Kemp's faction, the economy started to expand only after the passage of the TEFRA tax hikes, which negated around one-third of Reagan's 1981 cuts. Growth surged by almost nine points between the end of 1982 (when TEFRA kicked in) and the second quarter of 1983.

Likewise, Clinton faced ferocious opposition to his 1993 budget plan which raised the top marginal rates to 39.6 percent from 31 percent. At the time, Congressional Republicans predicted doom. "The deficit will be worse," Representative Dick Armey (R-TX) warned in a CNN interview. "The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer...there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates."

Former Congressman and former SEC chair, Christopher Cox, speaking to the House in May 1993 about impending doom, declared, "This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy. It will kill jobs, kill businesses, and yes, kill even the higher tax revenues that these suicidal tax increasers hope to gain."

The Heritage Foundation predicted that Clinton's 1993 tax proposal would lead to job loss and economic disaster."

Jake Blumgart: Will Higher Taxes on the Rich Kill Jobs?
Click to expand...

they obviously didn't expect clinton to luck out on the big boom that he had nothing to do with

but I don't base my opposition to taxing those who are taxed too much on these grounds

I base it on the fact that it convinces the masses that they don't have to pay for what they want and that leads to politicians pandering to them by spending that is not paid for
 
TurtleDude said:
they obviously didn't expect clinton to luck out on the big boom that he had nothing to do with

but I don't base my opposition to taxing those who are taxed too much on these grounds

I base it on the fact that it convinces the masses that they don't have to pay for what they want and that leads to politicians pandering to them by spending that is not paid for
Click to expand...


Back to the class war **** again eh? Have at it then Turtledude! Viva la election!
 
haymarket said:
That no longer cuts it.

It is time to pony up now - ALL OF US - or are grandkids will spit upon our graves with deserved contempt. I am a bit older than you are Turtle. I have three beautiful grandchildren and I do not want them paying for decades they do not even remember because they were not alive or were too young. That just is not fair.

I will pay more. Will you?
Click to expand...

I absolutely will. Just as soon as they cause EVERYONE to pay their fair share, mandate cuts, and have a specific and targeted plan to pay down the debt. Glad to see you have joined the cause. We SHOULD spend every dime wih our grandkids in mind. without those cuts you would have to be some kind of total moron to advocate for giving the fed MORE money to spend and not insisting on real debt cuts.
 
It's something that should be obvious and natural. The rich does have a reason why it's rich. It earned it- no sense in whining about it. Now, if one's complaining about how such a big of a gap might be harmful economically, I'm open to that, but anything that whines how the rich are getting more than anybody else and "the damn 1%ers! Run off Wall Street" or crap like that will only come as a long buzz to most people
 
Dickieboy said:
Sorry but your logic fails as the links provided reviewing the PTP submitted LAST YEAR!!! Try again.
Click to expand...

"The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has released a preliminary report on Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) 2012 budget proposal, and the conclusions of the report show why Ryan has not been using the CBO for his numbers. Ryan has claimed that his budget would save $6.2 trillion from the federal deficit over the first 10 years. Many have noted that Ryan does not use the CBO for his projections, but instead gets his projections from some other unknown source. The CBO states that in the first ten years Ryan's budget proposal would actually increase, not decrease, the federal budget deficit.

Continue reading on Examiner.com CBO states Paul Ryan's budget would actually increase deficit in first ten years - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com CBO states Paul Ryan's budget would actually increase deficit in first ten years - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com
 
Catawba said:
"The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has released a preliminary report on Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) 2012 budget proposal,
Click to expand...

What part of this is so hard to understand? The US fiscal year runs from October to September. The budget is prepared and released sometime in Feb-Mar-Apr. Hense the '2012 budget proposal' was submitted in Feb/Mar/Apr of LAST YEAR...The budget Ryan released recently was for 2013. Just look at the date of the article you linked, April 5, 2011...Really? Or are you suggesting that he has proposed the SAME one from last year with no modifications? Don't think so..try again.
 
Dickieboy said:
What part of this is so hard to understand? The US fiscal year runs from October to September. The budget is prepared and released sometime in Feb-Mar-Apr. Hense the '2012 budget proposal' was submitted in Feb/Mar/Apr of LAST YEAR...The budget Ryan released recently was for 2013. Just look at the date of the article you linked, April 5, 2011...Really? Or are you suggesting that he has proposed the SAME one from last year with no modifications? Don't think so..try again.
Click to expand...

I see you are correct about the report date. There is little difference however. Both throw seniors to the wolves to provide even bigger tax cuts to the rich.

Paul Ryan Budget Won't Solve Deficit Crisis
 
Catawba said:
I see you are correct about the report date. There is little difference however. Both throw seniors to the wolves to provide even bigger tax cuts to the rich.

Paul Ryan Budget Won't Solve Deficit Crisis
Click to expand...


Can I presume that your concession 'I see you are correct about the report date' indicates that you were WRONG in posting the link?

Can you point out where in the article it specifically supports the claims 'throw seniors to the wolves' and' provide even bigger tax cuts to the rich.'? Or is this another failed attempt to post a link that does not substantiate your opinions? Thanks
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
Can I presume that your concession 'I see you are correct about the report date' indicates that you were WRONG in posting the link?

Can you point out where in the article it specifically supports the claims 'throw seniors to the wolves' and' provide even bigger tax cuts to the rich.'? Or is this another failed attempt to post a link that does not substantiate your opinions? Thanks
Click to expand...

Ryan's plan slashes funding for the elderly and the poor, increasing costs for seniors and states, and increases the tax cuts for the wealthy. That is "specifically" what's wrong with it.

Its just more of the same redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top that the GOP has been doing since 1981.


Its like a slap in the face to those that got hurt the most from the Bush Recession. I think it is a foolhardy campaign strategy for those that champion for the 1% at a time of the greatest wealth inequality since before the Great Depression. November will tell the tale.
 
Dickieboy said:
But so does ACA...
Click to expand...

Who cuts it the most and from what areas? Are you saying the presidents plan cuts the deficit more than the GOP plan???
 
Catawba said:
Who cuts it the most and from what areas?
Click to expand...

Apparantly you have done the research so tell me, who does?

Are you saying the presidents plan cuts the deficit more than the GOP plan???
Click to expand...

How did you make such a leap to the deficit? I have already posted the comparison on the effect both plans have on the deficit AND debt. Did you miss it?
 
Dickieboy said:
Apparantly you have done the research so tell me, who does?
Click to expand...

I've already stated that the GOP plan slashes funding for seniors and the poor to provide bigger tax cuts for the rich, while the president's plan does not.





How did you make such a leap to the deficit? I have already posted the comparison on the effect both plans have on the deficit AND debt. Did you miss it?
Click to expand...

That's why it was odd of you to imply the president cut as much from seniors and the poor as does the GOP plan. It was that contradiction I was pointing out.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
“In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”
Click to expand...

Is there anything preventing you from getting ahead in life, or enjoying your life?

This constant concern whether others might be having more than you will not make you any happier. Quite the opposite in fact.
 
Catawba said:
I've already stated that the GOP plan slashes funding for seniors and the poor to provide bigger tax cuts for the rich, while the president's plan does not.
Click to expand...

The President has a plan? He has Hope but thats about it.

Borrowing more money is not a plan.


That's why it was odd of you to imply the president cut as much from seniors and the poor as does the GOP plan. It was that contradiction I was pointing out.
Click to expand...

The government has run out of money and will soon run out of credit. Who will support the seniors and the poor then? What's the plan??
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
That's why it was odd of you to imply the president cut as much from seniors and the poor as does the GOP plan. It was that contradiction I was pointing out.
Dickieboy said:
How did you make such a leap to the deficit? I have already posted the comparison on the effect both plans have on the deficit AND debt. Did you miss it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I asked about the leap to the deficit then you backpedal to ‘seniors and the poor’. Why do you keep doing that? Here let me post again the comparison of the two plans with respect to debt/deficit:

Deficit in 2016
BHO plan - $529b
PTP - $241b

Debt accumulated in 2022
BHO plan - $6.4t
PTP - $3.1t

But you’re right about the BHO plan cutting from seniors. His cutting plan is included in the ACA which is about to get nullified which means that he will not be cutting Medicare or ‘increasing costs for seniors and states’ after all. So, again, let me state clearly YOU ARE RIGHT!
 
Catawba said:
Back to the class war **** again eh? Have at it then Turtledude! Viva la election!
Click to expand...

appealing to the masses of mediocrity. good idea. lets drag the country down to that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom