• 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!

They did it on purpose

Did Democrats cause the super committee to fail on purpose?


  • Total voters
    40
The downtrodden rich should start their own civil rights movement. "Don't tax me, dude!" :neener

They have done just that for some time now. Their leader is Grover Norquist and his version of the "I Have A Dream" speech comes out as a nightmare for the rest of the nation. Their political arm is ALEC.
 
Last edited:
More brain dead supply side talking points :roll:

let me get this straight. you consider the idea that more tax payers will increase tax revenues to be "brain dead". ?


it just seems like you have said something abysmally stupid, and so I want to make sure that is what you meant before I proceed to laugh boisterously at your expense.
 
There are two sides to a budget. You learn that in week one of any basic accounting or bookkeeping course. Perhaps some attended a school where they could not afford to include all the information needed so the part about INCOME was cut out?

:) Strawmen may be fun to argue, but doing so isn't a terribly strong signal of competence. No one is arguing that we shouldn't increase revenue - we are arguing about how to go about it.

more specifically, you are advocating a method that has been demonstrated on multiple occasions not to actually - you know - work.

you won't get more revenue by jacking up nominal rates. you get more revenue by increasing growth and getting people back to work. and you will never get enough revenue to fund the federal government at it's current size.
 
theft is a bunch of people who don't pay taxes getting together and jacking up the taxes on a minority that already pays a huge share of the taxes

Yes. But by the same means, it's "class warfare" when high income people weasle out of their responsibility for their country on the cost of middle class and under class. Just that it's class warfare top-down.

Everybody has to contribute his share. And he who is stronger, naturally has to bear more, IMO.
 
You're preaching to the choir, pard. At no time did I suggest that we should abolish taxes. I don't even know where you're going with this.

My point is that it seems obvious to me that everybody has to take off his ideological blinders, if we're interested in a compromise. Just like Democrats have to realize that a success isn't possible without cutting spending (including the social systems), Republicans have to lay off the "taxes are theft!"-rhetoric, and take taxes for what they are: A necessity to increase revenues and reduce the deficit.

Of course I wasn't in the room when the talks failed, but based on what I read, I see the problem is on both sides. Each side had their "holy cows" they refused to touch. For Democrats, it was raising the retirement age or cutting healthcare subsidies, for Republicans, it was raising taxes. And now, both sides play the blame game, instead of getting their act together and actually do something for the country (and future generations).

It seems both Dems and Reps were more interested in abusing these talks for the 2012 campaign, than in actually finding a solution.
 
Last edited:
:) Strawmen may be fun to argue, but doing so isn't a terribly strong signal of competence. No one is arguing that we shouldn't increase revenue - we are arguing about how to go about it.

more specifically, you are advocating a method that has been demonstrated on multiple occasions not to actually - you know - work.

you won't get more revenue by jacking up nominal rates. you get more revenue by increasing growth and getting people back to work. and you will never get enough revenue to fund the federal government at it's current size.

three points here
1) your own link says this

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession.

So your own article which you offer in evidence gives its main reason as something other than the point you are trying to make.
2) people may be able to flee a state, but a national tax policy applies to all 50. Moving from Maryland to Virginia, or from Oregon or New York gains you nothing with a national tax.

3)The Clinton years tax rates worked wonderfully both in collections and by increasing revenues significantly. So there is precedent for a tax policy that works and is higher than rates we currently have.
 
:) Strawmen may be fun to argue, but doing so isn't a terribly strong signal of competence. No one is arguing that we shouldn't increase revenue - we are arguing about how to go about it.

more specifically, you are advocating a method that has been demonstrated on multiple occasions not to actually - you know - work.

you won't get more revenue by jacking up nominal rates. you get more revenue by increasing growth and getting people back to work. and you will never get enough revenue to fund the federal government at it's current size.
[emphasis added by bubba]

let's do the math

larger coefficient multiplied times the taxable income > smaller coefficient multiplied times the taxable income

plug in some numbers and see for yourself that your assertion is very wrong
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

let's do the math

larger coefficient multiplied times the taxable income > smaller coefficient multiplied times the taxable income

plug in some numbers and see for yourself that your assertion is very wrong

Taxable income is a variable, not a constant, and is directly influenced by the coefficient.
 
Taxable income is a variable, not a constant, and is directly influenced by the coefficient.

show me the formula which defines this relationship

i look forward to seeing it
 
show me the formula which defines this relationship

i look forward to seeing it

Are you denying the relationship or simply asking for a definition because you realize that it would take a team of doctorate mathematicians and economists a hundred years to write it all down and a thousand to solve it?

I guess I'm trying to determine if you really believe income levels aren't affected by tax levels. Your equation implied that a variable was a constant to make your point. Are you familiar with the fallacy of single cause?
 
No, nor does any one claim that. However, cutting spending also will have a negative effect on the economy, the deeper the cut, the more negative the effect. And of course getting both sides to agree what is wasteful is not going to happen easily. Let me give you an example: how much of our military spending is wasteful? Some of it certainly is. But how much?

A lot of it is, I've always supported dramatic cuts in military spending, but that would require us to stop playing the world's policeman, which is unlikely because both sides like to send out the troops at the drop of a hat. But we also need dramatic cuts in social spending, pork-barrel spending, etc. The Democrats refuse to cut any social programs. They just want to raise taxes and keep pandering to their base, just like the Republicans do.
 
Are you denying the relationship or simply asking for a definition because you realize that it would take a team of doctorate mathematicians and economists a hundred years to write it all down and a thousand to solve it?

I guess I'm trying to determine if you really believe income levels aren't affected by tax levels. Your equation implied that a variable was a constant to make your point. Are you familiar with the fallacy of single cause?

only asking for any proof available to defend the position that you staked out. this one:
Taxable income is a variable, not a constant, and is directly influenced by the coefficient.

what i see is your assertion that there is a DIRECT influence of taxable income
and i want to see what that direct influence consists of
it's apparent you haven't a clue what that might be, indicating you were posting about that which you do not understand

the point i made was to show that the other forum member was wrong in asserting that a higher nominal tax rate would not result in additional tax revenues
it will

here's an example:

$1 taxed at a rate of 10% results in $0.10 tax revenues
that same $1 taxed at 20% results in $0.20 tax revenues

notice how the higher tax rate yielded higher tax revenues


try it for yourself with other taxable incomes and a variety of tax rates. it will always hold true


your turn to (try to) prove me wrong
 
[...] The Democrats refuse to cut any social programs. [...]
sirine.gif
untrue right wing talking point alert
sirine.gif


By the way, Republicans offered $640 billion in spending cuts that Democrats and Republicans both liked as a start in negotiations and Democrats ignored it because it didn't include tax hikes. I challenge anyone to present me with evidence, aside from Harry Reid's seance over Kennedy's grave, that Democrats wanted anything but failure for this committee.
I challenge you to present evidence proving your claim in bold.

November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.

Republicans Won?t Compromise on Taxes: A Timeline

By the way, my challenge went unanswered.
 
My point is that it seems obvious to me that everybody has to take off his ideological blinders, if we're interested in a compromise. Just like Democrats have to realize that a success isn't possible without cutting spending (including the social systems), Republicans have to lay off the "taxes are theft!"-rhetoric, and take taxes for what they are: A necessity to increase revenues and reduce the deficit.

Of course I wasn't in the room when the talks failed, but based on what I read, I see the problem is on both sides. Each side had their "holy cows" they refused to touch. For Democrats, it was raising the retirement age or cutting healthcare subsidies, for Republicans, it was raising taxes. And now, both sides play the blame game, instead of getting their act together and actually do something for the country (and future generations).

It seems both Dems and Reps were more interested in abusing these talks for the 2012 campaign, than in actually finding a solution.

The only problem is, Republicans aren't saying that. All we are saying, is that let's stop stifling job creation and create more revenue that way, before we go off half-cocked and raise everyone's taxes, during a depression. Basically, instead of more taxes, we create more tax payers.
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

let's do the math

larger coefficient multiplied times the taxable income > smaller coefficient multiplied times the taxable income

plug in some numbers and see for yourself that your assertion is very wrong

I say we let the Libbos raise taxes. It'll be a total failure at creating more revenue and a grand success at harming the economy and will insure their defeat next year.
 
only asking for any proof available to defend the position that you staked out. this one:

what i see is your assertion that there is a DIRECT influence of taxable income
and i want to see what that direct influence consists of
it's apparent you haven't a clue what that might be, indicating you were posting about that which you do not understand

the point i made was to show that the other forum member was wrong in asserting that a higher nominal tax rate would not result in additional tax revenues
it will

here's an example:

$1 taxed at a rate of 10% results in $0.10 tax revenues
that same $1 taxed at 20% results in $0.20 tax revenues

notice how the higher tax rate yielded higher tax revenues


try it for yourself with other taxable incomes and a variety of tax rates. it will always hold true


your turn to (try to) prove me wrong

If you end up with fewer dollars to tax, you won't increase the revenue stream. What you will creat, is a scenario where the working class folks have fewer dollars in their pockets.
 
I say we let the Libbos raise taxes. It'll be a total failure at creating more revenue and a grand success at harming the economy and will insure their defeat next year.

You need a better understanding of the situation before the Congress. Nobody needs to do anything. Nobody will vote to raise taxes. That process has already been agreed upon unless affirmative action is taken to stop it. So nobody needs to "raise taxes" in order for the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire.
 
The only problem is, Republicans aren't saying that. All we are saying, is that let's stop stifling job creation and create more revenue that way, before we go off half-cocked and raise everyone's taxes, during a depression. Basically, instead of more taxes, we create more tax payers.

I don't know. When the debts have surpassed a certain level, you might have no choice but raising taxes anyway to get the necessary revenue, because the window of opportunity to do it by other means is long gone already. Also, taxes in the US are relatively low, you still have a lot of leeway upwards before it really strains the economy too much. Unlike over here in Europe, where taxes are already higher anyway.
 
Last edited:
I say we let the Libbos raise taxes. It'll be a total failure at creating more revenue....

except for the clear fact that Clinton's tax-increases on the wealthy in 1993 raised revenue during his administration by 75%.

how much extra revenue did Bush's tax-cuts raise? 28%.
 
apdst thinks that revenues and deficits are not related. Why are we wasting time on this argument with him again?
 
Yes start a trade war with your biggest creditor. Sounds like a plan.
They already started that by their cheating trade methods. This is just return fire. Or you can choose to continue being a Chinese suckup.
 
Last edited:
[emphasis added by bubba]

let's do the math

larger coefficient multiplied times the taxable income > smaller coefficient multiplied times the taxable income

plug in some numbers and see for yourself that your assertion is very wrong

:) static scoring is fun. :( unfortunately, people exist dynamically.
 
Back
Top Bottom