• 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!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

I always find it interesting that those who want the rich to be taxed more so as to "decentralize wealth" in private hands are the same ones who want more and more centralized government

So let me get this straight you are saying you want a Capitalistic government but you don't want to give people jobs to pay taxes to a Capitalistic government but you don't want to the rich corporations or rich to pay more taxes to a Capitalistic government.

Question; where does this Capitalistic government get the taxes they need to preform?:peace
 
So let me get this straight you are saying you want a Capitalistic government but you don't want to give people jobs to pay taxes to a Capitalistic government but you don't want to the rich corporations or rich to pay more taxes to a Capitalistic government.

Question; where does this Capitalistic government get the taxes they need to preform?:peace

Where does this concept of "giving" jobs come from

jobs are nothing more than businesses or other entities needing a commodity known as labor. If they need more labor they create more jobs.

a proper capitalistic government would be one fifth the size of the one we have today
 
that is confused and rambling--normally you are more lucid

care for a 'do over'?

Nah, that is unless you can say for certainty that workers had little knowledge of the labor movement or labor law.

Care to make that statement?:peace
 
true, I don't know anything about broadway musicals, HVAC repair, tap dancing, or servicing hard drives.

Labor law and labor history, have a masters in that

So if you were on the streets with no address and no money or nobody to rescue you.

You could make it, from what you post, don't think so.

So be very thankful and hold on real tight to your status, cause out here in the real world you would not live past a day.

Check the suicides after 1929 a lot of was rich, now broke was diving from buildings and using other forms.
 
Nah, that is unless you can say for certainty that workers had little knowledge of the labor movement or labor law.

Care to make that statement?:peace

you think your average postal worker or UAW can discuss Gompers or Reuters or the conflict between mainline labor and communist labor or the Taft-hartley act vs Norris Laguardia?
 
So if you were on the streets with no address and no money or nobody to rescue you.

You could make it, from what you post, don't think so.

So be very thankful and hold on real tight to your status, cause out here in the real world you would not live past a day.

Check the suicides after 1929 a lot of was rich, now broke was diving from buildings and using other forms.

I am really good with a gun almost as much with a knife so if its apocalypse now its gonna get ugly

I suspect I'd do pretty well against most of the people on this board.

Its like one guy noted on another thread. He was saying he was stockpiling food and his "nutty" neigbor was stockpiling ammo. Then he realized that if the SHTF, the other guy would be doing the eating.
 
Where does this concept of "giving" jobs come from

jobs are nothing more than businesses or other entities needing a commodity known as labor. If they need more labor they create more jobs.

a proper capitalistic government would be one fifth the size of the one we have today
With jobs comes tax revenue , product sales .
Without jobs no tax revenue no product sales.

Products are nothing that more than a consumer wanting to spend money to buy a product or any other product from any country.
If they need more products they buy from who they choose but only if they need more products living beyond your means is not the right thing to do in a capitalist society.

A proper Capitalist government would look out for itself not corporations or people that is capitalism, NOT BAILING OUT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS EVERYTIME THEY GET A TUMMY ACHE.

AKA, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE.:peace
 
With jobs comes tax revenue , product sales .
Without jobs no tax revenue no product sales.

Products are nothing that more than a consumer wanting to spend money to buy a product or any other product from any country.
If they need more products they buy from who they choose but only if they need more products living beyond your means is not the right thing to do in a capitalist society.

A proper Capitalist government would look out for itself not corporations or people that is capitalism, NOT BAILING OUT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS EVERYTIME THEY GET A TUMMY ACHE.

AKA, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE.:peace

do you get the impression I am a big fan of bailouts

Libs often whine about bailouts thinking they give government money to corporations and investors to the detriment of "workers" (many of whom aren't paying much of anything in federal taxes) but ignore the fact that bailouts help the workers as much or more than investors-especially rich investors who can eat a bad stock investment far easier than a UAW guy can afford losing 30 years of tenure at GM

They also whine about bailouts for companies that have failed while demanding more and more entitlements for individuals who also have "failed" economically
 
How is it a false choice?
Yes or no?

this thread is about tax cuts for the group that pays a huge amount of the taxes. You are making the faulty assumption that tax cuts will result in oligarchy
 
you think your average postal worker or UAW can discuss Gompers or Reuters or the conflict between mainline labor and communist labor or the Taft-hartley act vs Norris Laguardia?

Ah don't tell me it was you who helped change the child labor laws or it was you who brought in sexual harassment. so workers could work in peace, or the employeee's rights law.

Perhaps you held Johnson's hand when he signed the right to work law.

Your law books don't mean a damn thing when corporations outsource and 400, 000 people are **** out of luck.
That's just one example, there are many more.

However I suppose you are going to say that's the law.
What I don't understand is the very government that passed these laws "that you support" ,you want to make smaller.
What if by some quirk of fate you had a smaller government and they were all Democrats???:peace
 
Ah don't tell me it was you who helped change the child labor laws or it was you who brought in sexual harassment. so workers could work in peace, or the employeee's rights law.

Perhaps you held Johnson's hand when he signed the right to work law.

Your law books don't mean a damn thing when corporations outsource and 400, 000 people are **** out of luck.
That's just one example, there are many more.

However I suppose you are going to say that's the law.
What I don't understand is the very government that passed these laws "that you support" ,you want to make smaller.
What if by some quirk of fate you had a smaller government and they were all Democrats???:peace

that is a most interesting and idiotic response to this discussion. I doubt the average union member has any clue about labor history, labor law (other than what they are spoon fed by the leadership-ie how to file a grievance) etc.
 
I am really good with a gun almost as much with a knife so if its apocalypse now its gonna get ugly

I suspect I'd do pretty well against most of the people on this board.

Its like one guy noted on another thread. He was saying he was stockpiling food and his "nutty" neigbor was stockpiling ammo. Then he realized that if the SHTF, the other guy would be doing the eating.

Like I said you wouldn't make it a day.
 
do you get the impression I am a big fan of bailouts

Libs often whine about bailouts thinking they give government money to corporations and investors to the detriment of "workers" (many of whom aren't paying much of anything in federal taxes) but ignore the fact that bailouts help the workers as much or more than investors-especially rich investors who can eat a bad stock investment far easier than a UAW guy can afford losing 30 years of tenure at GM

They also whine about bailouts for companies that have failed while demanding more and more entitlements for individuals who also have "failed" economically

Man you gotme confused with a whole differant poster that's the best you got ?
Libs whine? Like Republicans don't.
How many workers were helped by the last bailout.
If rich investors can eat a bad stock investment easy they should have no trouble eating a chunk of tax rebate

The most things average people demand is jobs to make a living buy American products, and pay taxes.
You want less jobs, which means less product sales and higher taxes which youor any rich CEO does not want to pay also if product sales aren't met, profits will go down that means cutbacks and layoffs white collar layoffs.
 
Man you gotme confused with a whole differant poster that's the best you got ?
Libs whine? Like Republicans don't.
How many workers were helped by the last bailout.
If rich investors can eat a bad stock investment easy they should have no trouble eating a chunk of tax rebate

The most things average people demand is jobs to make a living buy American products, and pay taxes.
You want less jobs, which means less product sales and higher taxes which youor any rich CEO does not want to pay also if product sales aren't met, profits will go down that means cutbacks and layoffs white collar layoffs.

you keep attributing things to me that have no basis in fact.

I don't want less jobs, I want less government waste and less taxes. HOw does that decrease jobs?
 
Been there, done that, you haven't you would not survive.

whatever, you can update me on the gunfights you have been through and your training but its a waste of time.
 
you think your average postal worker or UAW can discuss Gompers or Reuters or the conflict between mainline labor and communist labor or the Taft-hartley act vs Norris Laguardia?

By all means, give us a primer on Gompers and T-H Act. I'm sure you'll be accurate and can source and link your claims to interpreting them correctly...
 
By all means, give us a primer on Gompers and T-H Act. I'm sure you'll be accurate and can source and link your claims to interpreting them correctly...

I knew the man who wrote the taft-hartley act, He died a few months ago. He was my family's business's attorney. Maybe you can read about it

and no I don't work for that firm

J. Mack Swigert Passes Away at 103 | Facebook
 
this thread is about tax cuts for the group that pays a huge amount of the taxes. You are making the faulty assumption that tax cuts will result in oligarchy

Is an oligarchy not on the rise turtle dude?
 
Is an oligarchy not on the rise turtle dude?

Oh I am sure people like Buffett and Soros want one and they think jacking up taxes to insulate their positions might work
 
I knew the man who wrote the taft-hartley act, He died a few months ago. He was my family's business's attorney. Maybe you can read about it

and no I don't work for that firm

J. Mack Swigert Passes Away at 103 | Facebook

Nice story... that can't be confirmed and does nothing to lend credibility to you being any sort of authority on the subject.

So... tell us what ya know, that would be credible. Then tell us how it relates to tax cuts to the wealthy...

Btw... one of J. Mack's hallmarks was integrity... I think you know where I'm going with that...
 
Nice story... that can't be confirmed and does nothing to lend credibility to you being any sort of authority on the subject.

So... tell us what ya know, that would be credible. Then tell us how it relates to tax cuts to the wealthy...

Btw... one of J. Mack's hallmarks was integrity... I think you know where I'm going with that...

you can take cheap shots at my credibility all you want. its common among a few of the extreme lefties on this forum. I couldn't care less

the fact is the claim on the table is that the average union member is more knowledgeable about labor laws and unions' place in american politics. I deny that.

I also find it interesting that those who demand the most information from other posters are least able or willing to honestly answer questions put to them
 
that is bs. you may well know how YOUR UNION works better than I do but you certainly cannot claim that being a member of the union (meaning you buy into the merits of the union) somehow makes you more knowledgeable on a union's impact on the economic environment or its place in the labor market.

In fact I would note that you are more likely to buy into the propaganda and less likely to be able to see objective reality

What is BS is that you pretend that you have some sort of sacred knowledge that union members do not have. That is the ultimate BS.
 
Back
Top Bottom