• 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!

Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

top marginal rates are worthless as well

the top 5-2-1% pay more of the tax burden NOW than any time in history

and marginal rates are not accurate reflections of EFFECTIVE rates

so WTF did your "facts" prove?

the top 5% pay more FIT than the bottom 95%

and of course ALL of the federal death tax

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
 
Mach said:
#1 They NEVER maintain their budget!
#2 Many citizens do NOT want them to maintain their budget, they want to CUT SPENDING.
#3 You are forcing a minority to pay for this, its bad to begin with. Get that power out of government hands.
Click to expand...

We had no serious debt problem until Reagan and Bush slashed the top tax rates.
I agree with cutting spending. There is much spending of which I am not in favor. However, we need to cut spending first and then set tax rates to cover our bills. To do it in reverse order, will just add to the debt as did under Reagan and Bush.


Shouldn't be a problem in the first place. Cut entitlements and a broad swath of government services, phase them out to the market, and reduce taxes at the same time. No reason it can't logistically be done. Politically it's hard to do sensible things though...no doubt. That's why you should use government as a last resort, not as the primary means to enact an unrealistic fantasy of enabling people to get something for nothing.
Click to expand...

That is one of the core differences between liberals and conservatives. We believe the health and welfare of our own people comes before unfunded and unnecessary wars, and tax cuts for the rich. We have no crisis in SS and Medicaid, all that is required is to once again make the richest pay their fair share. Simply cut any waste and fraud in the systems, raise the $106,000 cap for rich, and put the SS and Medicaid funds in a locked account that cannot be used to offset other government expenditures. Crisis solved

Seriously, why is government seen as they instrument of social change?
Click to expand...

Because of the Constitutional mandate to protect the health and welfare of the people.
 
Catawba said:
We had no serious debt problem until Reagan and Bush slashed the top tax rates.
I agree with cutting spending. There is much spending of which I am not in favor. However, we need to cut spending first and then set tax rates to cover our bills. To do it in reverse order, will just add to the debt as did under Reagan and Bush.



That is one of the core differences between liberals and conservatives. We believe the health and welfare of our own people comes before unfunded and unnecessary wars, and tax cuts for the rich. We have no crisis in SS and Medicaid, all that is required is to once again make the richest pay their fair share. Simply cut any waste and fraud in the systems, raise the $106,000 cap for rich, and put the SS and Medicaid funds in a locked account that cannot be used to offset other government expenditures. Crisis solved



Because of the Constitutional mandate to protect the health and welfare of the people.
Click to expand...

there is no such proper mandate

"the general welfare" is not delegation of the power you claim
 
Catawba said:
And the class war continues.
Click to expand...

the rich always get richer unless the entire system collapses

if you make more than you spend you can invest the remainder
 
Mach said:
For someone that supports individual liberty over using government to force peopel to pay for things...yeah, they may support that even though they don't benefit. Oh my god, peopel with a concscionce should be condemned? You mean you think people should only support legislation if it pumps money from someone else and gives it to them? That's sick Catawba. Justice is supposed to be blind, ethics are supposed to apply to everyone.
Click to expand...

We all have to fund things that don't benefit us. I did not vote to have trillions of dollars of debt for years of unfunded tax cuts to the wealthiest, or the trillions of dollars for our unfunded and unnecessary wars. Yet myself and future generations of tax payers are forced to pay for them. Personally, I feel much better about programs to promote the health and wefare of our own people than I do killing others in an attempt to force them to our way of government.
 
Catawba said:
We had no serious debt problem until Reagan and Bush slashed the top tax rates.
I agree with cutting spending. There is much spending of which I am not in favor. However, we need to cut spending first and then set tax rates to cover our bills. To do it in reverse order, will just add to the debt as did under Reagan and Bush.




That is one of the core differences between liberals and conservatives. We believe the health and welfare of our own people comes before unfunded and unnecessary wars, and tax cuts for the rich. We have no crisis in SS and Medicaid, all that is required is to once again make the richest pay their fair share. Simply cut any waste and fraud in the systems, raise the $106,000 cap for rich, and put the SS and Medicaid funds in a locked account that cannot be used to offset other government expenditures. Crisis solved



Because of the Constitutional mandate to protect the health and welfare of the people.
Click to expand...

The word “health” does not appear in the Constitution.
 
Gapeach said:
The word “health” does not appear in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Promoting the general welfare by ignoring the health of the people would not make very much sense.
 
Catawba said:
Proof...................?
Click to expand...

having taught constitutional law I know what is a proper delegation of power

how about you? find some support for your claim that general welfare means payments to some by others and then square that with the tenth amendment
 
Catawba said:
Promoting the general welfare by ignoring the health of the people would not make very much sense.
Click to expand...

you can use that nonsense to justify feeding people and giving them homes

in fact you can claim anything that congress determines is for the general welfare thus must be constitutional

that claim didn't work in Lopez
 
TurtleDude said:
having taught constitutional law I know what is a proper delegation of power
Click to expand...

Than surely your can find some facts to post to back up your position.

how about you? find some support for your claim that general welfare means payments to some by others and then square that with the tenth amendment
Click to expand...

I have the evidence of the rule of law. Social security and Medicaid/Medicare have been upheld without successful challenge for approx. 80 years.
 
TurtleDude said:
you can claim anything that congress determines is for the general welfare thus must be constitutional
Click to expand...

No, you can't. It has to be upheld by the Supreme court if challenged.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Than surely your can find some facts to post to back up your position.



I have the evidence of the rule of law. Social security and Medicaid/Medicare have been upheld without successful challenge for approx. 80 years.
Click to expand...

I have admitted in dozens of posts that the FDR administrations judges completely ignored over 100 years of precedent (culminating with Schechter Poultry) and completely ignored the tenth amendment

you are correct in noting that the court has failed to uphold the constitution

now find one legal scholar who will support what the court has done as being a correct interpretation
 
Catawba said:
No, you can't. It has to be upheld by the Supreme court if challenged.
Click to expand...

so it is your learned position that Lopez never happened and the USSC will uphold Obama care

OK

bb in two days
 
TurtleDude said:
I have admitted in dozens of posts that the FDR administrations judges completely ignored over 100 years of precedent (culminating with Schechter Poultry) and completely ignored the tenth amendment

you are correct in noting that the court has failed to uphold the constitution

now find one legal scholar who will support what the court has done as being a correct interpretation
Click to expand...


Thanks for your opinion councilor. Having not been able to successfully challenge the social safety net programs for 80 years, the so called scholars you speak of have not met the test of the rule of law.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
so it is your learned position that Lopez never happened and the USSC will uphold Obama care

OK

bb in two days
Click to expand...

I have not made any claims about Lopez. I provided the proof you requested that our social safety net programs have been upheld by the rule of law for approx 80 years.
Now, having been unable to prove your claim, you wish to change the subject. I don't blame you for that.
 
Catawba said:
So naturally you defend tax cuts for those that make 800,000 times what you do, at your expense. Sure, that makes perfect sense Ptif. :shock:
Click to expand...

You must defend it since your hero Obama kept them. I think a fair amount should be paid. Tell me what percent of income should all people pay?
 
Catawba said:
We had no serious debt problem until Reagan and Bush slashed the top tax rates.
I agree with cutting spending. There is much spending of which I am not in favor. However, we need to cut spending first and then set tax rates to cover our bills. To do it in reverse order, will just add to the debt as did under Reagan and Bush.




That is one of the core differences between liberals and conservatives. We believe the health and welfare of our own people comes before unfunded and unnecessary wars, and tax cuts for the rich. We have no crisis in SS and Medicaid, all that is required is to once again make the richest pay their fair share. Simply cut any waste and fraud in the systems, raise the $106,000 cap for rich, and put the SS and Medicaid funds in a locked account that cannot be used to offset other government expenditures. Crisis solved



Because of the Constitutional mandate to protect the health and welfare of the people.
Click to expand...

You have proof. What do you mean by serious?
 
ptif219 said:
Yes we know the democrats will use race and class warfare every election
Click to expand...

The class war began when Reagan/Bush shifted the funding of America more to the middle class and our National debt.
 
ptif219 said:
They get it back at the end of the year

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes.
Click to expand...

You didn't acually read more than the headline of your article did you? It goes on to say:

"Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number."

"The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47."
 
ptif219 said:
You have proof. What do you mean by serious?
Click to expand...

"The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources."

"debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency."

"If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84"

United Stated National Debt
 
Catawba said:
"The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources."

"debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency."

"If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84"

United Stated National Debt
Click to expand...

(CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom