• 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!

Study Finds Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Do Anything But Give Rich People Money

Conservative said:
I can see exactly why you aren't part of the rich and it has nothing to do with the Republican Party. You going to explain to us how you give a FIT cut to people WHO DON'T PAY FIT?

Keep promoting the 24/7 anti Trump rhetoric attacking his personality and history none of which have anything to do with the job he has done in office and keep losing national elections. There is a reason that Trump is in office, HILLARY!! There is a reason Trump will win Re-election, the economy!!
Click to expand...

What did I say that is not true?
 
Conservative said:
Interesting how this is a federal responsibility and yet a state issue and cost. Spending in the Name of Compassion is what the left promotes but the only real compassion goes to the bureaucrats administering the programs and creating dependence for those taking what those bureaucrats offer.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true it would be easy for the Republican Party to cut domestic spending programs. It is not, because domestic spending programs really do help people.
 
SmartCat said:
What did I say that is not true?
Click to expand...

Your belief that it the rich and prosperous that are preventing solutions to the problems ignoring that the rich and prosperous are the bureaucrats you want to support! The 4.7 TRILLION dollar gov't are the rich and prosperous
 
SmartCat said:
If what you say is true it would be easy for the Republican Party to cut domestic spending programs. It is not, because domestic spending programs really do help people.
Click to expand...

You really never took civics class did you? How do entitlement programs get cut and why would a bureaucrat on either side do that when that is their power base?
 
Conservative said:
You really never took civics class did you? How do entitlement programs get cut and why would a bureaucrat on either side do that when that is their power base?
Click to expand...

Your comment is irrelevant to my point that middle class entitlements are enormously popular with the voters. So are tax increases for the rich.

--------

Business Insider, Oct. 29, 2018, 9:38 AM


Americans hate Republicans' idea to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to bring down the soaring deficit. And they have another idea the GOP won't like.

Republicans have suggested that the US needs to cut entitlements — Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security — to get the deficit under control.
But most Americans would rather reverse the GOP tax law and raise revenue to deal with the deficit rather than make cuts, according to a new poll.
More Republicans, even, would rather reverse the tax cuts than make entitlement cuts.

According to the Marist/NPR/PBS poll, 60% of Americans would rather reverse the GOP tax law to deal with the growing deficit. Just 21% of Americans would rather make cuts to entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Poll on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security cuts vs. GOP tax law hike - Business Insider
 
Conservative said:
Your belief that it the rich and prosperous that are preventing solutions to the problems ignoring that the rich and prosperous are the bureaucrats you want to support! The 4.7 TRILLION dollar gov't are the rich and prosperous
Click to expand...
That's a complete mischaracterization of what your ideological opponents believe.

What we believe is that we have a better country when we have programs that provide for those who fall through the cracks and better when there is a social safety net. Since that must be paid somehow, the people best to be taxed are the wealthy.

Americans have been hearing your standard 'govt help breeds dependency' trope for over 100 years. Your 'theory' is that not helping people forces them to be self-reliant and more dependent.

Pre-New Deal, America had no social safety net nor programs that helped the poor or working laborers. Were there any fewer desperate poor people or fewer workers that lived hand-to-mouth? No. They weren't forced to be more self-reliant -- they just stayed dependent upon their means of existence.

Then, workers decided to organize to demand better pay and working conditions. It was first looked upon as un-American -- that only the bosses should set wages. The politicians in the pockets of the bosses sent the police out to stop organizing. So the workers, realizing they could vote, through out the anti-labor politicians. Labor finally was able to bargain with management and workers got higher pay.

Years later, seeing that senior citizens who worked all their lives, were destitute in the streets, created Social Security. Johnson, seeing that seniors and the poor couldn't buy health insurance, created Medicare and Medicaid, respectively. Johnson recognizing that black people were being discriminated against, wrote the Civil Rights Act and the constitutional amendment to ban poll taxes.

As we see from history, government programs that help people don't come out of the blue -- they are a reaction and response to social and market failures.
 
MTAtech said:
That's a complete mischaracterization of what your ideological opponents believe.

What we believe is that we have a better country when we have programs that provide for those who fall through the cracks and better when there is a social safety net. Since that must be paid somehow, the people best to be taxed are the wealthy.

Americans have been hearing your standard 'govt help breeds dependency' trope for over 100 years. Your 'theory' is that not helping people forces them to be self-reliant and more dependent.

Pre-New Deal, America had no social safety net nor programs that helped the poor or working laborers. Were there any fewer desperate poor people or fewer workers that lived hand-to-mouth? No. They weren't forced to be more self-reliant -- they just stayed dependent upon their means of existence.

Then, workers decided to organize to demand better pay and working conditions. It was first looked upon as un-American -- that only the bosses should set wages. The politicians in the pockets of the bosses sent the police out to stop organizing. So the workers, realizing they could vote, through out the anti-labor politicians. Labor finally was able to bargain with management and workers got higher pay.

Years later, seeing that senior citizens who worked all their lives, were destitute in the streets, created Social Security. Johnson, seeing that seniors and the poor couldn't buy health insurance, created Medicare and Medicaid, respectively. Johnson recognizing that black people were being discriminated against, wrote the Civil Rights Act and the constitutional amendment to ban poll taxes.

As we see from history, government programs that help people don't come out of the blue -- they are a reaction and response to social and market failures.
Click to expand...
Conservative keeps saying people should be able to keep MORE of what they earn yet he wants to tax the low income earners
what he should be saying is the top 50% of people who " earn " an income should be able to keep more of it and the lower income earners ( bottom 50% ) should be paying more in FIT and NOT be able to keep more of what they earn
Typical conservative take from the poor and give to the rich
Have a nice afternoon and good luck with him
 
MTAtech said:
That's a complete mischaracterization of what your ideological opponents believe.

What we believe is that we have a better country when we have programs that provide for those who fall through the cracks and better when there is a social safety net. Since that must be paid somehow, the people best to be taxed are the wealthy.

Americans have been hearing your standard 'govt help breeds dependency' trope for over 100 years. Your 'theory' is that not helping people forces them to be self-reliant and more dependent.

Pre-New Deal, America had no social safety net nor programs that helped the poor or working laborers. Were there any fewer desperate poor people or fewer workers that lived hand-to-mouth? No. They weren't forced to be more self-reliant -- they just stayed dependent upon their means of existence.

Then, workers decided to organize to demand better pay and working conditions. It was first looked upon as un-American -- that only the bosses should set wages. The politicians in the pockets of the bosses sent the police out to stop organizing. So the workers, realizing they could vote, through out the anti-labor politicians. Labor finally was able to bargain with management and workers got higher pay.

Years later, seeing that senior citizens who worked all their lives, were destitute in the streets, created Social Security. Johnson, seeing that seniors and the poor couldn't buy health insurance, created Medicare and Medicaid, respectively. Johnson recognizing that black people were being discriminated against, wrote the Civil Rights Act and the constitutional amendment to ban poll taxes.

As we see from history, government programs that help people don't come out of the blue -- they are a reaction and response to social and market failures.
Click to expand...

Having a better program to you means a massive central gov't run program not a state and local responsibility and therein lies your problem. All that spending in the name of compassion by a federal bureaucrat never solves a social problem but does create dependence. It is the state and local communities that pay the cost of social failure thus their responsibility to correct. 22 trillion dollars in debt mostly due to social engineering as evidenced by a budget where 3/4 is entitlement and social spending. That just goes to show how much the federal bureaucrats have usurped the responsibilities from the states

You continue to ignore the problem and feel better about yourself throwing money at the problem which just created more power for the bureaucrats and keeps them in power. Name for me a federal social program funded by federal taxes that did what it was supposed to do, cost what it was supposed to cost, solved the problem and then went away?

For some reason you trust the bureaucrats that created the 22 trillion dollar debt in solving social issues, that is a very naive and poorly based argument that has done nothing but fail.
 
Tbird19482 said:
Conservative keeps saying people should be able to keep MORE of what they earn yet he wants to tax the low income earners
what he should be saying is the top 50% of people who " earn " an income should be able to keep more of it and the lower income earners ( bottom 50% ) should be paying more in FIT and NOT be able to keep more of what they earn
Typical conservative take from the poor and give to the rich
Have a nice afternoon and good luck with him
Click to expand...

I suggest a reading comprehension course for you, NEVER DID I SAY THAT THE LOWER INCOME EARNERS should be paying FIT taxes nor do I care what anyone pays in taxes, what I do care about is your argument that the rich should fund more of the responsibility when 44% of income earners have NONE. The top 1% pays 40% of the FIT now, the bottom 44% pay ZERO FIT so before raising the taxes on the top 1% get something from the 44% that don't pay any FIT!
 
Conservative said:
I suggest a reading comprehension course for you, NEVER DID I SAY THAT THE LOWER INCOME EARNERS should be paying FIT taxes nor do I care what anyone pays in taxes, what I do care about is your argument that the rich should fund more of the responsibility when 44% of income earners have NONE. The top 1% pays 40% of the FIT now, the bottom 44% pay ZERO FIT so before raising the taxes on the top 1% get something from the 44% that don't pay any FIT!
Click to expand...

NOPE! The top 1 percenters can cough it up now, or they can cough it up later, but one way , or the other, they WILL cough it up. I suggest you study some anthropology and learn the basics of human nature, and what people will do to house, clothe, and feed their families.
 
Logician Man said:
NOPE! The top 1 percenters can cough it up now, or they can cough it up later, but one way , or the other, they WILL cough it up. I suggest you study some anthropology and learn the basics of human nature, and what people will do to house, clothe, and feed their families.
Click to expand...

So you believe class envy, jealousy and hatred for anyone that has more than you is a winning campaign issue? Of course they can cough up more but that isn't the point, why should they as they pay 40% of the FIT now? I suggest you take an English class and look up the definition of fair?
 
Conservative said:
So you believe class envy, jealousy and hatred for anyone that has more than you is a winning campaign issue? Of course they can cough up more but that isn't the point, why should they as they pay 40% of the FIT now? I suggest you take an English class and look up the definition of fair?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about campaigning, class envy, jealousy, or hatred. Try to focus as much on what others are posting as you are on your own posts and you 'may' learn something.
 
Logician Man said:
I'm not talking about campaigning, class envy, jealousy, or hatred. Try to focus as much on what others are posting as you are on your own posts and you 'may' learn something.
Click to expand...

You and your so called friends have turned this debate forum into a gossip forum never posting official or actual data to support your claims. I have and continue to post that official data which you aren't capable of refuting. Your belief that the rich CAN pay more is irrelevant as the RICH ARE NOW PAYING 40% of FIT. Why should they pay more when 44% of income earning Americans are paying ZERO FIT?
 
Logician Man said:
I'm not talking about campaigning, class envy, jealousy, or hatred. Try to focus as much on what others are posting as you are on your own posts and you 'may' learn something.
Click to expand...

I assure you that the only thing I have learned from you and others is how easily it is to indoctrinate people into believing the left wing spin and promotion of spending in the name of compassion plus the belief that all problems would be solved by raising taxes on the rich. the left is intellectually bankrupt never posting official data to support their claims but instead focusing on gossip, innuendo, speculation, ancient history while ignoring the official results of TODAY
 
Conservative said:
You and your so called friends have turned this debate forum into a gossip forum never posting official or actual data to support your claims. I have and continue to post that official data which you aren't capable of refuting. Your belief that the rich CAN pay more is irrelevant as the RICH ARE NOW PAYING 40% of FIT. Why should they pay more when 44% of income earning Americans are paying ZERO FIT?
Click to expand...

Nonsense. This forum isn't a 'gossip forum.' It's a forum to share opinions and ideologies, agreements, and disagreements. Not all posts require statistics. This is your misunderstanding. BTW, if you don't like the forum, no one is forcing you to participate, are they ?
 
Logician Man said:
Nonsense. This forum isn't a 'gossip forum.' It's a forum to share opinions and ideologies, agreements, and disagreements. Not all posts require statistics. This is your misunderstanding. BTW, if you don't like the forum, no one is forcing you to participate, are they ?
Click to expand...

It is called DEBATE POLITICS and what you do is nothing but spout opinions all refuted but that still doesn't resonate with you as results don't matter to you. I will continue to point out what a fool the left is making out of you and if you aren't smart enough to realize it, you deserve exactly what you are getting failure and relegation to third class party status
 
Conservative said:
It is called DEBATE POLITICS and what you do is nothing but spout opinions all refuted but that still doesn't resonate with you as results don't matter to you. I will continue to point out what a fool the left is making out of you and if you aren't smart enough to realize it, you deserve exactly what you are getting failure and relegation to third class party status
Click to expand...

Then I will point out to you that your like to post ratio is in the single digits. What do you make of that stat if your posts are so 'significant' ? That ratio is one of the lowest there is in this forum. Shouldn't you be getting more 'support' from your fellow conservatives? And how do you explain the lack of support from your fellow conservatives?
 
Last edited:
Logician Man said:
Then I will point out to you that your like to post ratio is in the single digits. What do you make of that stat if your posts are so 'significant' ? That ratio is one of the lowest there is in this forum. Shouldn't you be getting more 'support' from your fellow conservatives? And how do you explain the lack of support from your fellow conservatives?
Click to expand...

I don't post ratio, I post actual dollars and it is actual dollars that matters not ratios or percentage change
 
Logician Man said:
Results concerning what. specifically ?
Click to expand...

This thread topic is about tax cuts GIVING the Rich money so apparently you believe it is the gov'ts money in the first place thus allowing someone to keep more of what they earn is a gift from the gov't. That is liberal logic and yours which shows intellectual bankruptcy.
 
Conservative said:
This thread topic is about tax cuts GIVING the Rich money so apparently you believe it is the gov'ts money in the first place thus allowing someone to keep more of what they earn is a gift from the gov't. That is liberal logic and yours which shows intellectual bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

'Results' aside....'intellectual bankruptcy' ? Isn't that a bit harsh ? Why do you claim I am intellectually bankrupt ?
 
Conservative said:
This thread topic is about tax cuts GIVING the Rich money so apparently you believe it is the gov'ts money in the first place thus allowing someone to keep more of what they earn is a gift from the gov't. That is liberal logic and yours which shows intellectual bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

More of your falsehoods and issue avoidance.

Republicans, and Trump, sold the tax cuts as business incentives to open up more investment, efficiency of exchange, higher wages, economic growth stimulating to “offset lost government revenue.”

None of it happened.

What ended up happening was more cash on hand to initiate stock buybacks inflating the markets, increased distance between top executive pay and all other income quintiles, what little “investments” made have already flattened out, and ultimately the economy never improved enough to generate enough new tax revenues to make up the difference. (In fact every single time Republicans have claimed it would, it never did. Ever.)

Nice try to avoid the issue talking about liberal this or liberal that, all Trump’s / Republican’s tax cuts did was benefit the wealthy and reverse course on our deficit conditions making matters worse... again.
 
Logician Man said:
'Results' aside....'intellectual bankruptcy' ? Isn't that a bit harsh ? Why do you claim I am intellectually bankrupt ?
Click to expand...

Anyone that believes people keeping more of what they earn is a gift from the gov't is intellectually bankrupt and clueless. No money comes from the federal gov't to people who keep more of what they earn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom