• 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!

Democrats get caught lying about GOP tax cut

Nap said:
And who put in those policies that is causing all of those federal funds to go to red states? Seems to me if people in blue states have an issue with it, then they should contact their representatives and complain about it.
Click to expand...

I think they have. But that doesn't negate the fact that the red states will likely feel the pain more than blue states if their federal funding is cut.
 
Moot said:
I think they have.
Click to expand...

Lol, I highly doubt they are complaining about increasing government spending.

Oddly enough I should be for more wealth redistribution since it will just mean more money transferred from states like CA and NY to states like mine :p
 
countryboy said:
I am shocked. SHOCKED I TELL YA! :rolleyes:

I thought Trump was the liar. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Trump can't be a liar, he takes every side of every issue and switches randomly. Senile maybe.
 
chuckiechan said:
In simpler terms, the standard deduction is being raised: $12,000 single, $24,000 married. That means all but the most wealthy are not going to pay more taxes. People whining about state tax deductions and interest deductions will not itemize, and probably will not need to go a tax preparer. TurboTax or do it yourself. To hit $24K you must have one hell of a house or pay one hell of a bunch of state tax.

If anything the middle class will pay less.

And to the EBS* here, pull your taxes from from last year and see just how far away from $ 12k or $ 24k you really are.

*Eternal Bitching Squad
Click to expand...

Funny, I itemize and will whine when I can’t deduct state taxes... don’t understand. History tells us that when the first cloud of dust settles and people examine the bill, it will give big breaks to those at the top and be good/bad for those in the middle, depending. That’s how the GOP rolls these days. Not a bad thing. Just representing their donors. Abolishing the alternative minimum tax — hellooo Donald! —should be a clue. Trump should have the decency to release his returns before he signs anything.
 
Nap said:
Lol, I highly doubt they are complaining about increasing government spending.

Oddly enough I should be for more wealth redistribution since it will just mean more money transferred from states like CA and NY to states like mine :p
Click to expand...

Yes, it is odd since your state feeds of the government teet more than most. Nearly 40% of your states revenue depends on federal funding. Ouchie wowchie.
 
Moot said:
Yes, it is odd since your state feeds of the government teet more than most. Nearly 40% of your states revenue depends on federal funding. Ouchie wowchie.
Click to expand...

Yep, send us more money :p
 
Nap said:
Considering most of the policies that drive up government spending typically come blue states, it seems rather fair they get hit the hardest.

Tell your representatives to quit creating programs the federal government needs to fund so they can cut more taxes :p
Click to expand...

So you would have us all become Mississippi instead?

List of U.S. states by GDP per capita

Take oil out of the equation, and red states are basically dead weight.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
So you would have us all become Mississippi instead?

List of U.S. states by GDP per capita

Take oil out of the equation, and red states are basically dead weight.
Click to expand...

No, would rather other states stop trying to oppress others. If you want these policies implement them at the state level and not federal. Allow the people in a state to decide for themselves how they want to live.

If you do insist on forcing your policies at the federal level, don't whine about the amount of money being funneled into poor states because it is policies you pushed on us not the other way around. It shouldn't be hard to understand that these wealth redistribution policies that Democrats are pushing for will eventually go to where the poor are concentrated. Democrats are effectively taking money out of their political strongholds and funneling it to Republican states. It really is pretty funny when you think about it.
 
Nap said:
No, would rather other states stop trying to oppress others. If you want these policies implement them at the state level and not federal. Allow the people in a state to decide for themselves how they want to live.

If you do insist on forcing your policies at the federal level, don't whine about the amount of money being funneled into poor states because it is policies you pushed on us not the other way around. It shouldn't be hard to understand that these wealth redistribution policies that Democrats are pushing for will eventually go to where the poor are concentrated. Democrats are effectively taking money out of their political strongholds and funneling it to Republican states. It really is pretty funny when you think about it.
Click to expand...

Democrats aren't doing any of this. They aren't in power, and this isn't their legislation.

The proceeds of this nonsense are going to the rich and the corporations; Republicans are buying the votes of the lower class - people who don't itemize - with the scraps. Middle- and upper-middle-class homeowners will pay the price, probably because they live primarily in blue states.

Anyway, the social safety nets weren't designed to oppress anybody, or favor one state over another, they were designed to keep Americans (no matter what state they are from) from living in poverty. The fact that they flow disproportionately to red states is really just a function of the relative economic weakness of those states.

What you should be picking up from those lists, though, is that blue states, with their higher taxes, are more economically successful because they spend more. When you invest in infrastructure, education, and technology, good things happen. Outside of that, you had better hope that your state is situated over oil and/or natural gas.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Democrats aren't doing any of this. They aren't in power, and this isn't their legislation.

The proceeds of this nonsense are going to the rich and the corporations; Republicans are buying the votes of the lower class - people who don't itemize - with the scraps. Middle- and upper-middle-class homeowners will pay the price, probably because they live primarily in blue states.

Anyway, the social safety nets weren't designed to oppress anybody, or favor one state over another, they were designed to keep Americans (no matter what state they are from) from living in poverty. The fact that they flow disproportionately to red states is really just a function of the relative economic weakness of those states.

What you should be picking up from those lists, though, is that blue states, with their higher taxes, are more economically successful because they spend more. When you invest in infrastructure, education, and technology, good things happen. Outside of that, you had better hope that your state is situated over oil and/or natural gas.
Click to expand...

Social safety nets are explicitly designed to oppress. The whole concept is take the property earned from one set of people to give to another by force. How can that be viewed as anything but oppressive?
 
chuckiechan said:
Then states should cut taxes rather than keep raising them and the laying off part of the burden on the rest of the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Okay. When Kansas, the Great Laffer Experiment proves successful. Except that it can't, because the state already gave up and Brownback left to destroy somewhere else.

KS is a mess.
 
Nap said:
Social safety nets are explicitly designed to oppress. The whole concept is take the property earned from one set of people to give to another by force. How can that be viewed as anything but oppressive?
Click to expand...

Then get rid of the oppressive police and fire departments, along with the military. You okay with that?
 
Nap said:
Social safety nets are explicitly designed to oppress. The whole concept is take the property earned from one set of people to give to another by force. How can that be viewed as anything but oppressive?
Click to expand...
rate the level of burden on a scale of 1:10
Not being able to afford cancer treatment as you are dying of cancer:
Having $34M in the bank, earning $2M/year regular/business income + 1.5M just in interest, and having government tax what, 10% more of that, which is $350K.

Who is burdened the most here?

What a joke.
 
Nap said:
Social safety nets are explicitly designed to oppress. The whole concept is take the property earned from one set of people to give to another by force. How can that be viewed as anything but oppressive?
Click to expand...

I dunno - maybe you could view it from the perspective of a sane person?

We're talking social safety nets here, not paying tribute to your king.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Then get rid of the oppressive police and fire departments, along with the military. You okay with that?
Click to expand...

False equivalency

Paying taxes to support services such as the military, police, etc are just

Increasing taxes in order to redistrute someone's property is morally reprehensible.
 
Mach said:
rate the level of burden on a scale of 1:10
Not being able to afford cancer treatment as you are dying of cancer:
Having $34M in the bank, earning $2M/year regular/business income + 1.5M just in interest, and having government tax what, 10% more of that, which is $350K.

Who is burdened the most here?

What a joke.
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of who is burdened more, it is a matter of human rights. Just because someone has a few million in the bank justifies taking his/her property to give to someone else?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I dunno - maybe you could view it from the perspective of a sane person?

We're talking social safety nets here, not paying tribute to your king.
Click to expand...

Is there a difference? Either case, the result is the same. More taxes without services rendered.
 
Nap said:
It isn't a matter of who is burdened more, it is a matter of human rights. Just because someone has a few million in the bank justifies taking his/her property to give to someone else?
Click to expand...

Letting someone die without easily treatable medical care, so that a multi-millionaire has a few hundred more thousand dollars, is about human rights?

What are you smoking?
 
Nap said:
False equivalency

Paying taxes to support services such as the military, police, etc are just

Increasing taxes in order to redistrute someone's property is morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...

Taxes = Redistribution. Period.

The clause in the constitution that describes defense also describes general welfare. Read the text. That's the root. Anything else is activism in support of ideology, right?
 
Mach said:
Letting someone die without easily treatable medical care, so that a multi-millionaire has a few hundred more thousand dollars, is about human rights?

What are you smoking?
Click to expand...

The millionaire has a Right to his property

The sick person does not have a right to someone else's property.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Taxes = Redistribution. Period.

The clause in the constitution that describes defense also describes general welfare. Read the text. That's the root. Anything else is activism in support of ideology, right?
Click to expand...

Doesn't the constitution say that all should be equal under the law as well? How does a progressive tax structure work under that aspect?
 
KLATTU said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...orking-class-families/?utm_term=.725a9e7bffd1

4 pinocchios. Yikes!
But notice the funny thing about this calculation: Only a small percentage (6.5 percent) of the nearly 122 million households in the bottom three quintiles will actually face a tax increase.

Meanwhile, more than 97 million (80 percent) will receive a tax cut. Doing the math the same way the JEC staff did, we come up with an average tax cut of about $450 for those 97 million households.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen a Democrat that didn't like a tax? And didn't hate a tax cut? Well, other than JFK I mean, as that's decades ago.

countryboy said:
I am shocked. SHOCKED I TELL YA! :rolleyes:

I thought Trump was the liar. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Keep looking. I think you'll find a couple of things.

I think you'll find that politicians call each other liars when they disagree about policy. Much the same with the 'news' media when they disagree with a politician's policy, even though that policy may be accurate and founded in truth, since it's not a truth they agree with, it must be a lie, or so the supposed logic goes.

Often, there are times when politicians aren't actually lying, but are stretching the truth, either to bombast or to make a point through exaggeration, or even just to exaggerate. Politicians are a bit like used car salesmen in that way.

There are times, rather rare as they may be, when politicians aren't doing either and is in fact telling the truth. Of course, those politicians who don't like that truth, or that policy, or that politician telling that truth, they'll be accusing that politician of lying as well.

At least from my observations anyway. YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom