• 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!

Among Developed Nations American Tax Bills are Below Average

ARealConservative said:
wow. I'm done wasting my time with you on this. it's like trying to explain 1+1 to someone that just can't comprehend 1+1

post 71 is still up for you to try to understand
Click to expand...

Too bad you aren't able to understand why you are so terribly wrong.

You simply do not understand how pricing works.
 
Your clown shoes are on too tight.

Pricing works in countless ways. Is the industry new. Is their much competition. Do you have I/P protection?

You wanted so badly to sound like an expert, but you can’t even understand basic concepts.

I allowed this straw man to go on long enough. Regardless of how the tax is collected individuals suffer. Be it via labor costs, less earnings dividends, higher prices, or smaller portions. It is individuals that pays the price.
 
ARealConservative said:
we need to start respecting property for everyone regardless of economic standing. Time for the free loaders to contribute
Click to expand...

mmmmm, "free loaders", mmmmm. where have I heard that before? Oh yea, "free loaders" were why republicans came up with the idea of health care mandates. They didn't like the idea that people would wait until they got sick to get insurance. Its good to be flexible. It'll come in handy in a few months when you praise higher deficits.
 
Vern said:
mmmmm, "free loaders", mmmmm. where have I heard that before? Oh yea, "free loaders" were why republicans came up with the idea of health care mandates. They didn't like the idea that people would wait until they got sick to get insurance. Its good to be flexible. It'll come in handy in a few months when you praise higher deficits.
Click to expand...

and here comes the hyper partisans.

I have never praised deficit spending hackey
 
ARealConservative said:
and here comes the hyper partisans.

I have never praised deficit spending hackey
Click to expand...

a couple of points ARC, I never said you praised anything. I said "in a few months" so I was talking about the future. Let me make my point even more clear.

In a few months your "flexibility" will come in handy when you will be (will be, future tense) praising deficits.

and I see you're already getting in the weasel words for your obedient flip flop on deficits. I didn't say "deficit spending". I said "deficits".
 
Vern said:
a couple of points ARC, I never said you praised anything. I said "in a few months" so I was talking about the future. Let me make my point even more clear.

In a few months your "flexibility" will come in handy when you will be (will be, future tense) praising deficits.

and I see you're already getting in the weasel words for your obedient flip flop on deficits. I didn't say "deficit spending". I said "deficits".
Click to expand...
sure thing hackey,

in a few months I'm going to do something I have never done. and you know this because....wait for it... you are a hyper-partisan
 
Vern said:
a couple of points ARC, I never said you praised anything. I said "in a few months" so I was talking about the future. Let me make my point even more clear.

In a few months your "flexibility" will come in handy when you will be (will be, future tense) praising deficits.

and I see you're already getting in the weasel words for your obedient flip flop on deficits. I didn't say "deficit spending". I said "deficits".
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...ned-would-bush-good-president.html#post579914

do you have enough integrity to apologize for being so far off the mark?
 
ARealConservative said:
sure thing hackey,

in a few months I'm going to do something I have never done. and you know this because....wait for it... you are a hyper-partisan
Click to expand...

Am I not allowed to make a prediction? and are no longer discussing "free loaders"? anyhoo

ARealConservative said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...ned-would-bush-good-president.html#post579914

do you have enough integrity to apologize for being so far off the mark?
Click to expand...

Let me apologize. you are clearly not a typical conservative who only started ranting about deficits on 1/20/2009. But like a typical conservative, you don't really understand what drives the deficits. And that was kinda my point. I posted about "deficits'. You tried to massage it to "deficit spending". But you pointed me to a post complaining about Bush's spending but not his tax cuts. His tax cuts added more to the deficit than his spending increases. Just like "how business profits are taxed", you have a lot to learn about budgets and spending. As demonstrated in your discussions with jaeger, you're not really open to understanding things. Lets test that theory:

so you must be quite happy that President Obama just like President Clinton was able to reduce the deficit prudently by limiting spending increases.
 
Vern said:
Am I not allowed to make a prediction? and are no longer discussing "free loaders"? anyhoo



Let me apologize. you are clearly not a typical conservative who only started ranting about deficits on 1/20/2009. But like a typical conservative, you don't really understand what drives the deficits. And that was kinda my point. I posted about "deficits'. You tried to massage it to "deficit spending". But you pointed me to a post complaining about Bush's spending but not his tax cuts. His tax cuts added more to the deficit than his spending increases. Just like "how business profits are taxed", you have a lot to learn about budgets and spending. As demonstrated in your discussions with jaeger, you're not really open to understanding things. Lets test that theory:

so you must be quite happy that President Obama just like President Clinton was able to reduce the deficit prudently by limiting spending increases.
Click to expand...

do all hyper partisans think we elect kings that get credit for the separation of powers achieving results?

we nearly ran a budget surplus durign Clinton's time, but I am not going to pretend he didn't try to spend a ton of money that congress didn't allow.
 
ARealConservative said:
do all hyper partisans think we elect kings that get credit for the separation of powers achieving results?
Click to expand...
can you rephrase that question into a coherent point. Besides being a “question” it is not clear. I’m getting the impression you’re trying throw shade on the fact that democrats reduce the deficits they inherited from republicans. I also get the feeling that you will consistently complain about “deficit spending” as a way to ignore the massive deficits republicans run up rather than hold them accountable.

we nearly ran a budget surplus durign Clinton's time, but I am not going to pretend he didn't try to spend a ton of money that congress didn't allow.
Click to expand...

So that proves my theory that you’re only looking for a convenient and simplistic narrative to continue to vote republican while maintaining the illusion you care about “deficits”. You’re not happy with a surplus (yes Clinton left Bush a surplus), you’re still flailing about spending. Clinton left a surplus (yes Clinton left Bush a surplus) because he raised taxes on the top bracket and limited spending increases. And of course you have a convenient narrative to rationalize President Clinton reducing the deficit: "republican congress bravely prevented Clinton from spending a ton of money". what proves that false is the republican congress bravely cheered Bush's spending "a ton of money" and tax cuts. Oh that's right, you only blame "spending" for deficits.

Long story short. deficits go up under republicans. they go down under democrats.
 
ARealConservative said:
you mean can I dumb it down enough for you to digest?

probably not
Click to expand...

ARC, your babble about "kings" and "separation of powers" was not clear. You posted incoherent babble in response to the facts I posted. I simply asked you to clarify it. basically you are subconsciously avoiding an honest and intelligent discussion. when you avoid it consciously it becomes a cowardly dodge. I once again point out, when it comes time for conservatives to choose narrative or integrity, they always choose narrative.
 
Vern said:
ARC, your babble about "kings" and "separation of powers" was not clear. You posted incoherent babble in response to the facts I posted. I simply asked you to clarify it. basically you are subconsciously avoiding an honest and intelligent discussion. when you avoid it consciously it becomes a cowardly dodge. I once again point out, when it comes time for conservatives to choose narrative or integrity, they always choose narrative.
Click to expand...

you gave credit to one branch for the accomplisments of all. you act like we elect kings. get a clue
 
ARealConservative said:
we nearly ran a budget surplus durign Clinton's time, but I am not going to pretend he didn't try to spend a ton of money that congress didn't allow.
Click to expand...

Clinton vetoed a tax cut in 1999 that would have erased the surplus. That tax cut was eventually passed in 2001 and became known as the Bush Tax Cuts. So it wasn't that the GOP Congress was holding Clinton in check, it was Clinton holding the reckless GOP Congress in check. The scenario is actually the reverse of what you are trying to say.
 
Incisor said:
Clinton vetoed a tax cut in 1999 that would have erased the surplus. That tax cut was eventually passed in 2001 and became known as the Bush Tax Cuts. So it wasn't that the GOP Congress was holding Clinton in check, it was Clinton holding the reckless GOP Congress in check. The scenario is actually the reverse of what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

as a real conservative, he's simply not going to acknowledge reality that conflicts with his narratives.
 
Incisor said:
Clinton vetoed a tax cut in 1999 that would have erased the surplus. That tax cut was eventually passed in 2001 and became known as the Bush Tax Cuts. So it wasn't that the GOP Congress was holding Clinton in check, it was Clinton holding the reckless GOP Congress in check. The scenario is actually the reverse of what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

there was no surplus. you fell for fake news.

our overall debt went up every year he was president.
 
ARealConservative said:
there was no surplus. you fell for fake news.
our overall debt went up every year he was president.
Click to expand...

A surplus doesn't necessarily get paid toward the debt automatically. You do know that, right? Federal debt and household debt are not the same thing at all.
 
Incisor said:
A surplus doesn't necessarily get paid toward the debt automatically. You do know that, right? Federal debt and household debt are not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

a budget surplus will always reduce the overall debt. We obfuscate this axiom to the general public at our own risk, just as you are doing now. Bush took advantage of the press allowing that Clinton lie by implementing tax cuts on a phony surplus.

using surplus social security money to claim a surplus in regular government operations is taking advantage of low information voters.
 
The Federal government is delegated no power, by the ratified 1789 Constitution, to tax U.S. citizens. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, ...
 
AllanHampton said:
The Federal government is delegated no power, by the ratified 1789 Constitution, to tax U.S. citizens. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, ...
Click to expand...

yes that was because they wanted a very limited conservative govt with no control of the people like an income tax would give them. Instead they had an excise tax which could be avoided by not buying the taxed items. Democrats do not believe in our Founders' basic principles.
 
Neither do Republican's, honor the 1789 Constitution's Oath of Office.

Article VI, Clause 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (NOTE the word "this", which can be only the 1789 Constitution)
 
AllanHampton said:
Neither do Republican's, honor the 1789 Constitution's Oath of Office.
Click to expand...

but they certainly would if there was enough support for it. Do you understand?
 
James972 said:
yes that was because they wanted a very limited conservative govt with no control of the people like an income tax would give them.
Click to expand...

You don't know that, and there was much debate among the Founding Fathers as to the extent of government's powers. Obviously, the view on the responsibility of government has evolved over the course of 240 years and 27 amendments. But to apply 18th-century thinking to 21st-century problems is ridiculous. You don't treat wounds with leeches, and you don't drive horse-and-buggies...unless you're Amish, I guess.
 
Incisor said:
You don't know that, and there was much debate among the Founding Fathers as to the extent of government's powers. .
Click to expand...

yes debate was between very limited and super limited which is why the govt they established was 1% the size of todays on inflation adjusted per capita basis
 
Incisor said:
Obviously, the view on the responsibility of government has evolved
Click to expand...
yes evolved toward communism as predicted. Don't forget our liberals spied for Stalin gave him the bomb elected Sanders and Obama who voted to left of Sanders in Senate

Jefferson:
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom