• 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!

Obama Announces Massive, Crushing Tax Hikes

Read the intro and vote accordingly


  • Total voters
    9
Will people have to pay more or not? Fail

The people will have to pay an amount closer to what they should have been paying all along.
Also " the people" are the rich people, so they will have to cut back on their lattes and French restaurants..
 
Nope real world example of any metropolitian area paying cops, firemen, teachers what they are worth... Pay attention...

Uhh well you flat-out rejected the idea that the market determines what they are worth. So who DO you think determines what they are worth? You?

I still don't know what you're asking. If a certain city is having trouble finding cops or firemen or teachers, they can pay them higher wages and they will find more. :confused:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
How do you expect the .gov to pay these higher wages? face it when the government is involved we all lose. :lol:

The government can pay their wages by raising taxes.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
yeah.... you fail and its not even funny anymore. :lol:

If you don't want to learn some ****ing 10th grade economics, then why the hell are you wasting my time demanding that *I* find this **** for you? Find it your goddamned self from now on.
 
Are we even talking about the same thing anymore?


Let me make it REAAAAL simple for you...

I pay no taxes, I get a tax check of 600 bucks... Is that or is that no welfare.


Do try to keep up. Thanks.

.
Doesn't answer anything I said but ummm sure. Hey if 3% would have screwed you over you either weren't making enough or were living beyond your means.


Apparently due to your belovede dear leader many of us are..... NINJA loans. look it up....




What percentage of a fireman's pay is taxed out as it is? The same as everybody elses? If yes. Why should they get life cheaper then the rest of us? What are they? Stereotypical Jews or something?


Yes they are taxed the same. And yes they should be exempt because of the service they provide and because they are underpaid..... Again, that is the populist in me. Don't let me out liberal you....


BTW Should I say something about "lazy dope smoking niggers" now? Please lets not degrade this discussion into race baiting....


Not my fault or for that matter that of anybody who doesn't live in a major city if there are extra costs associated with living in a city. How about a little 'personal responsibility' for your actions? I keep hearing Libertarians and Conservatives using it. I don't have a sky scrapper outside my window but I wouldn't trade what I currently have for living in a city. Why? 1. The costs wouldn't justify it. 2. The costs wouldn't justify it. 3. The costs wouldn't justify it.


Wow.... so you are liberal, until someone dares critisize your dear leader. How sad.....


The reason these people are underpaid is because of the government. Perhaps you don't get that..... Trustifarians tend to be like this..... are you one?

I gotta ask .
 
Uhh well you flat-out rejected the idea that the market determines what they are worth. So who DO you think determines what they are worth? You?

I still don't know what you're asking. If a certain city is having trouble finding cops or firemen or teachers, they can pay them higher wages and they will find more. :confused:


Cool. Privatize it... I'd make a fortune and they would make good money. but thats another discussion.





The government can pay their wages by raising taxes.


So that his nurse wife can make less money? FAIL....


Perhaps they can cut the STD education and tattoo removal for crack whores first....


Oh I know. Stop funding abortions with my tax dollars.... YEah start there then get back to me.....




If you don't want to learn some ****ing 10th grade economics, then why the hell are you wasting my time demanding that *I* find this **** for you? Find it your goddamned self from now on.



Sorry man, I think you dropped this



hba_midol_extend_p.jpg
 
Let me make it REAAAAL simple for you...

I pay no taxes, I get a tax check of 600 bucks... Is that or is that no welfare.

Do try to keep up. Thanks.

Ummm sure. It is? So what?

Apparently due to your belovede dear leader many of us are..... NINJA loans. look it up....

Ninja loans. :rofl - You mean making a bank apply the same standards to all low income applicants regardless of race? I've already debunked this claim when it was made by aquapub but here :

snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings on behalf of a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race. The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay). Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories." The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages.

Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case:
Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

Please stop this lie?

Yes they are taxed the same. And yes they should be exempt because of the service they provide and because they are underpaid..... Again, that is the populist in me. Don't let me out liberal you....

They should. They could. But they're not. What exactly is your point here? That people shouldn't be taxed based on your opinion? That people should be paid what you think they should be paid and not what their employers think they should get paid?

BTW Should I say something about "lazy dope smoking niggers" now? Please lets not degrade this discussion into race baiting....

Did you even get what I wrote? Talk about being unable to catch anything other then what you want to see. Alright no ability to use abstract humor. Check.

Wow.... so you are liberal, until someone dares critisize your dear leader. How sad.....

Criticize Obama how? Where did I even bring up Obama? I thought were discussing tax hikes. Which I have no problem with. Specially 3%. Which isn't going to hurt me in the least bit and it's not going to hurt the overwhelming majority of whom don't pay taxes to begin with.

The reason these people are underpaid is because of the government. Perhaps you don't get that..... Trustifarians tend to be like this..... are you one?[

I gotta ask .

:rofl. Trustafarians. Cute. But ummm the simple answer is No. The long answer is Noooooooooooope. You seem not to get it. I don't care if people live in cities have to pay more for their **** then I do. I don't care if people in the middle of Conservative Nowheresville, Alabama have to pay more for a pack of smokes then I do. It was their choice to live where they do. I've grown to accept the fact that people must accept responsibility for where they choose to live and unless they strive to leave the places they keep complaining about then I have no reason to expect the government to help them anymore then it already does. I don't care if you live in the ghetto, rural community or space colony.
 
Your huffing and puffing might be a little more believable if I didn't think you'd do exactly the same thing no matter HOW large or small Obama's tax hike was. Let's have some perspective here. Raising the tax rate from 35% to 38% on people making more than ~$350K is not going to cause the armageddon. We had higher tax rates in the 80s and 90s, and we were fine.

The article specified that it was people making over $250K a year, but still, three percent more of $250K is such a trifling sum. We all know that anyone who makes more than $250K a year doesn't need that money as much as the government does. It's not like they have families or homes or businesses to take care of, nor is the state of the economy of any importance to these evil rich people.

Tell me, my liberal do-gooder, how many people are under your employ? How much tax revenue do you contribute to our frugal government? I guess your compassion only extends to people with a sob story; success stories, it seems, are a great way to earn the resentment and dismissal of leftists.

You mean you actually want to keep the money you earned!? You’ve got some nerve! There are poor people out there who don’t feel like crawling out the bottle today! They need healthcare and welfare! Who are YOU to deny them access to your wallet?

Typical crusading leftist who is just so generous...with other people's money.
 
Moderator's Warning:
:naughty Knock it off, Reverend. You're teetering.
 
Ummm sure. It is? So what?



Ninja loans. :rofl - You mean making a bank apply the same standards to all low income applicants regardless of race? I've already debunked this claim when it was made by aquapub but here :

snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People


\ so nobody who did not deserve a loan got one? Gee recession avoided. Thanks Hautey.....



Please stop this lie?

I am trying but you keep telling em....



They should. They could. But they're not. What exactly is your point here? That people shouldn't be taxed based on your opinion? That people should be paid what you think they should be paid and not what their employers think they should get paid?


:lol: I think employers should pay what they can pay. market and all... The fedgov and statgov are not fair markets. sorry....



Did you even get what I wrote? Talk about being unable to catch anything other then what you want to see. Alright no ability to use abstract humor. Check.



throwing out idiotic race baiting nonsense.... CHECK.



Criticize Obama how? Where did I even bring up Obama? I thought were discussing tax hikes. Which I have no problem with. Specially 3%. Which isn't going to hurt me in the least bit and it's not going to hurt the overwhelming majority of whom don't pay taxes to begin with.


Proof that it wont hurt the majority of people.


Links and quotes please.



:rofl. Trustafarians. Cute. But ummm the simple answer is No. The long answer is Noooooooooooope. You seem not to get it. I don't care if people live in cities have to pay more for their **** then I do. I don't care if people in the middle of Conservative Nowheresville, Alabama have to pay more for a pack of smokes then I do. It was their choice to live where they do. I've grown to accept the fact that people must accept responsibility for where they choose to live and unless they strive to leave the places they keep complaining about then I have no reason to expect the government to help them anymore then it already does. I don't care if you live in the ghetto, rural community or space colony.



So ignorant.... Where do I start..... :roll:


Wait I know. Libs are about getting the money in government. Screw the poor. they chose to live in the 9nth ward..... :lol:
 
He haw. Right now it is poor who are caring the burden of taxes. The right wing deserve their turn. We want to cut the national debt and we can't do that by borrowing over seas money.

Do you work for the Chinese?
 
\ so nobody who did not deserve a loan got one? Gee recession avoided. Thanks Hautey.....

Obama forced NO bank to make Ninja Loans. Not even once. The case had absolutely NOTHING to do with making lenders make any kind of loans they did not want to. It had to do with banks discriminating against people in certain neighborhoods regardless of whether or not they were able to pay the loans.

:lol: I think employers should pay what they can pay. market and all... The fedgov and statgov are not fair markets. sorry....

The way I've seen it work is that workers in unions can DEMAND raises through their unions. Their employers(in this case the government) weigh whether or not to give them such a raise at a negotiating table. Nobody, absolutely nobody gets a raise simply because they want one.

throwing out idiotic race baiting nonsense.... CHECK.

Well if you didn't really understand it then it might seem like nonsense. Think evangelicals discussing microbiology.

Proof that it wont hurt the majority of people.

:rofl

Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States.[8] The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels.

300 million citizens - 138 million tax payers = AT LEAST162 million who won't see a tax increase of any kind because well they don't pay taxes.

So ignorant.... Where do I start..... :roll:

Wait I know. Libs are about getting the money in government. Screw the poor. they chose to live in the 9nth ward..... :lol:

Ummm. Alright? :confused:
 
Cool. Privatize it... I'd make a fortune and they would make good money. but thats another discussion.

I have no problem with governments contracting with private fire departments and teachers, as long as the services remain available to everyone. Police should not be privatized though.

Regardless, it has nothing to do with cost of living adjustments. I see no need for the government to subsidize someone's choice to live in an expensive city.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So that his nurse wife can make less money? FAIL....

So you want the government, you just don't want to pay for it.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Perhaps they can cut the STD education and tattoo removal for crack whores first....

If anyone needs STD education, crack whores are probably at the top of the list. And I'm unaware of any government funding for tattoo removal.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Oh I know. Stop funding abortions with my tax dollars.... YEah start there then get back to me.....

Where did you get the impression that you shouldn't have to pay for anything the government does that you disapprove of? And that opposing certain types of spending is somehow a justification to oppose ALL types of spending?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Sorry man, I think you dropped this

hba_midol_extend_p.jpg

Well if you don't give a **** about it anyway, then don't waste my time by requesting the information in the first place.
 
The article specified that it was people making over $250K a year, but still, three percent more of $250K is such a trifling sum.

Correct. Even if we look at the bare minimum case (exactly $250K) and assume that they were paying the full 3% more (which they wouldn't be), that's still only $7,500. And the money means less and less as the income increases from there.

Ethereal said:
We all know that anyone who makes more than $250K a year doesn't need that money as much as the government does.

Correct. The government needs it for education, health care, a sane energy policy, and infrastructure improvements.

Ethereal said:
It's not like they have families or homes or businesses to take care of, nor is the state of the economy of any importance to these evil rich people.

It has nothing to do with "evil rich people." It has to do with the government needing money...and it's better to get it from people who actually HAVE money, just as it's better to try to get milk from a cow than from a bull.

Ethereal said:
Tell me, my liberal do-gooder, how many people are under your employ?

That's none of your business. But more than zero.

Ethereal said:
How much tax revenue do you contribute to our frugal government?

That is also none of your business.

Ethereal said:
I guess your compassion only extends to people with a sob story; success stories, it seems, are a great way to earn the resentment and dismissal of leftists.

See above re: getting money from people who actually HAVE money.

Ethereal said:
You mean you actually want to keep the money you earned!? You’ve got some nerve! There are poor people out there who don’t feel like crawling out the bottle today! They need healthcare and welfare! Who are YOU to deny them access to your wallet?

Typical crusading leftist who is just so generous...with other people's money.

If you actually have some sort of economic point to make, instead of hysterical arguments against what you imagine I believe, be sure to let me know. ;)
 
Hopefully people making more than a few 100K a year will have to pay more. Otherwise, why did we elect a Democrat? :lol:

In the nyc metro area that is a firefighter and a nurse. Those rich assholes need to pay more! :lol:

So is there a uhaul in the stimulous? And is there a job available for them in liberalville?



What of the areas needs for firefighters and nurses? How naive a position my friend

I'm going to need a link for firefighters and nurses making more than a few hundred thousand a year.

Flunk.
 
Its about time that Americans actually payed for the costs of a war. As much as I am a libertarian, to me, war is the ultimate state action. I don't understand how some conservatives think that they can simultaneously fight wars and reduce the size of government expenditures. It is just not possible.

Wars chew up huge amounts of capital. Period. At least Obama is realistic about the cost of the war, and if Americans are actually being taxed to pay for the war, as opposed to palming it off to future generations; then maybe some Americans will be more reflective about foreign policy.

Am I saying that the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is wrong?

No I am not. In fact I saw the news report the other day that the Pakistan Army is willing to drop it offensive against the Taliban in return for peace, on the basis that sharia law is installed. I am enraged about this decision. What good is peace if 50% of the population is enslaved and is denied education? I say the Pakistan Army should keep up the offensive and string the Taliban from street lights.... If Pakistan is not willing to fight for womens rights, or some sort of moderate society that is not a theological nightmare, then what is the point of fighting? The object of war is not to start and then give up half way. If you can't take the casualties and the horrors then don't get bogged down in the dogs of war.....

Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue......

Anyway here is my point, I am a libertarian and a realist, and I do think at times that high taxation is needed if you want to fight wars.

The argument that it stifles the economy is correct, but that is the logical consequence of reallocating resources and capital towards war production. Thus if you place a greater priority on the economy and limited government, then logically and philosophically you really need to support isolationism or even private armies as advocated by some anarcho-capitalists. If on the other hand you support the war against terrorism, then that means that you will have to give up some of your income so that the government actually has money and resources for the bullets and bombs and spies to kill terrorists.


Freedom isn't free in terms of human life or material cost......
 
Last edited:
Hopefully people making more than a few 100K a year will have to pay more. Otherwise, why did we elect a Democrat? :lol:
In the nyc metro area that is a firefighter and a nurse. Those rich assholes need to pay more! :lol:

The "flunk" is you claiming I said they made a "few hundered thousand a year"....


Oh wait. The semantics game... Yeah! :doh

FAIL :mrgreen:

You quoted him and gave that response. You said that NYC metro area firefighters and nurses fit that description!

It's not a semantics game when you don't comprehend the posts you quote and respond to. There is a word for it though.
 
I just got back from work after thinking about that almost the entire time.

Do firefighters and nurses in NYC seriously make more than $250k a year (i.e. The minimum amount needed to see a tax rise)? And I mean your average firefighter, not the chief or anyone special.
 
Its about time that Americans actually payed for the costs of a war. As much as I am a libertarian, to me, war is the ultimate state action. I don't understand how some conservatives think that they can simultaneously fight wars and reduce the size of government expenditures. It is just not possible.

Wars chew up huge amounts of capital. Period. At least Obama is realistic about the cost of the war, and if Americans are actually being taxed to pay for the war, as opposed to palming it off to future generations; then maybe some Americans will be more reflective about foreign policy.

Am I saying that the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is wrong?

No I am not. In fact I saw the news report the other day that the Pakistan Army is willing to drop it offensive against the Taliban in return for peace, on the basis that sharia law is installed. I am enraged about this decision. What good is peace if 50% of the population is enslaved and is denied education? I say the Pakistan Army should keep up the offensive and string the Taliban from street lights.... If Pakistan is not willing to fight for womens rights, or some sort of moderate society that is not a theological nightmare, then what is the point of fighting? The object of war is not to start and then give up half way. If you can't take the casualties and the horrors then don't get bogged down in the dogs of war.....

Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue......

Anyway here is my point, I am a libertarian and a realist, and I do think at times that high taxation is needed if you want to fight wars.

The argument that it stifles the economy is correct, but that is the logical consequence of reallocating resources and capital towards war production. Thus if you place a greater priority on the economy and limited government, then logically and philosophically you really need to support isolationism or even private armies as advocated by some anarcho-capitalists. If on the other hand you support the war against terrorism, then that means that you will have to give up some of your income so that the government actually has money and resources for the bullets and bombs and spies to kill terrorists.


Freedom isn't free in terms of human life or material cost......

Quoted for Truth. The American Right is still supporting a costly war they never intended to pay for with their own money.
 
Last edited:
Correct. Even if we look at the bare minimum case (exactly $250K) and assume that they were paying the full 3% more (which they wouldn't be), that's still only $7,500. And the money means less and less as the income increases from there.

What do you mean that's "only $7,500"? $7,500 dollars is not a paltry sum; especially for a small business owner with a family and a mortgage.

Correct. The government needs it for education, health care, a sane energy policy, and infrastructure improvements.

I'm not contesting the fact that the mental midgets in Washington need money to pay for the vast array of government programs they've enacted. I'm disputing the notion that they somehow need it more than people like my dad, i.e. small business owners with a family and a mortgage, or that it actually matters what the fat-cats in Washington want or need.

It has nothing to do with "evil rich people." It has to do with the government needing money...and it's better to get it from people who actually HAVE money, just as it's better to try to get milk from a cow than from a bull.

While you're milking the cow you'll manage to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Our economy is in a very bad spot right now and Americans from all walks of life are going to need every red cent to stay afloat. That money could go a long way for a small business owner in keeping people under his employ and keeping his family under a roof.

The inability of Washington fat-cats to spend within their means is not a valid justification for raising taxes.

That's none of your business. But more than zero.

Yet you've invited yourself to manage the contents of other people's wallets...how ironic indeed.

See above re: getting money from people who actually HAVE money.

I'm not sure why simply having money is justification for taking it and allocating it towards programs from which the taxed individual will derive no conceivable benefit.

If you actually have some sort of economic point to make, instead of hysterical arguments against what you imagine I believe, be sure to let me know.

If you have some valid moral principle from which you are trying to argue be sure to let me know.
 
While you're milking the cow you'll manage to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Our economy is in a very bad spot right now and Americans from all walks of life are going to need every red cent to stay afloat. That money could go a long way for a small business owner in keeping people under his employ and keeping his family under a roof.

It sounds like you describe rich people with no understanding of the real world works. That a person with a low income or regular middle class background useally know it can come rainy days. If you then have worked you way up and earn 250 K a year, you understand that it could be good to save some of those money and also that you have the ability to do that. Instead you seem like describing people feed up with a golden spoon that think money can be spend recklesly without any though about the future.
 
I have a question. Is there ANY tax hike in history that you don't consider an apocalyptic event that will result in a total economic collapse and zombies taking over the world?

Objecting to crippling tax hikes in the middle of "the worst crisis since the Great Depression" is casting gloom and doom on every tax hike?

Weak smear. Try actually debating sometime. :coffeepap

Your huffing and puffing might be a little more believable if I didn't think you'd do exactly the same thing no matter HOW large or small Obama's tax hike was.

Any tax hike during "the worst crisis since the Great Depression" would be a mistake-the larger the tax hike, the larger the mistake. Objecting to that is a sign of intelligence, not hysteria.

Let's have some perspective here. Raising the tax rate from 35% to 38% on people making more than ~$350K is not going to cause the armageddon. We had higher tax rates in the 80s and 90s, and we were fine.

We weren't in the worst crisis since the Great Depression during the 80s and 90s. Sorry I keep going back to that slogan of Obama's...I'm trying to "choose hope over fear."

Clinton taxed a boom into a recession. Reagan cut the crap out of Carter's disastrous mid-recession tax hikes and doubled federal revenues, while creating sweeping economic growth.

Not rocket science. :roll:
 
Last edited:
The tax cuts were never permanent to begin with. That's why they have an expiration built in. Get it now? Good. :2wave:

Obnoxiously stupid comeback, as always. He wasn't claiming they were permanent, just pointing out that the pathological liar of a president we have is misrepresenting things when he tries to justify further decimating the economy by falsely claiming that the only people affected are "the rich."

"They tell you they're not going to tax YOUR family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So, unless you BUY something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline or unless you get a PAYCHECK from a business...don't worry, it's not going to affect YOU. They say they're not going to take any water out of YOUR side of the bucket, just the OTHER side of the bucket."

-Fred Thompson
 
Last edited:
If your small business is making 250k a year, why wouldn't you incorporate? From what I understand, it would give you a tax break rather than paying personal income tax.

Does anyone know how many small businesses make over 250k and aren't incorporated? 2 or 3%?
 
You quoted him and gave that response. You said that NYC metro area firefighters and nurses fit that description!

It's not a semantics game when you don't comprehend the posts you quote and respond to. There is a word for it though.




either the few was added or it was missed. but dont let that stop you from playing games..


bush tax cuts expire, that is a net raise for everyone.
 
either the few was added or it was missed. but dont let that stop you from playing games..


bush tax cuts expire, that is a net raise for everyone.

If it was added, it was still before you quoted it. It's highly doubtful though. That is because of the fact that only people making over 250k are affected. That's obviously what he was referring to.

What game am I playing?
 
Back
Top Bottom