Thank You Democrats/Communist -US state wants to tax TVs, video games to fight fat

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by junehhan

Conservatives donate more time and money perhaps because it lowers their tax liabilities, but at least they are doing something with it. As for political causes, my understanding is that you cannot deduct for political contributions. Interesting thing is that 9 of the 10 richest people in congress are all democrats too.

Again, a Dodger style tidbit that doesn't change the fact that Republican policies only help the rich.

How is wealth being distributed from the poor to the rich? Tax cuts were made across the board with everyone getting a fair tax cut. In fact, the poorest segments faired better percentage wise simply because the threshhold for where you pay taxes was raised. As for corporations, they stimulate the job growth that creates jobs so that people can work them. However, one could argue that corporate taxes may have been too high to begin with.

Look, I just don't have time to school everyone here on the tax system. But in a nutshell, taxes on the top 1% have decreased exponentially since the Regan era, and that is when the measurable slide of our middle class began. Also, corporate tax cuts have been given away left and right, all to fuel their bottom line. I read recently that Wal-Mart in Wisconsin has pays almost no income tax because they are allowed to pay themselves rent and write it off. Its called corporate welfare. Tax money is being redistributed to the corporations.

There was a time when welfare used to be a hand-up, not a hand-out. People used to be embarrassed about being on the welfare and were only on it for as short of a period of time as possible until they were able to get off of it. If welfare is so desirable, then why do we have such a generational welfare problem in cities that were dominated by liberal politicians? I guess it didn't work, as this is exactly what I explained in a previous post. You teach people how to fish, but you don't just hand them a check every month and not give them the tools to better themselves. If they are unwilling to better themselves because politicians have given them no incentive to better themselves, then nothing motivates people more than a cold heatless apartment, or a hungry stomach. You will be surprised how efficiently a little bit of true poverty can motivate people. If an abled person is then still unwilling to better themself, then let them starve for all I care. As Jimmy said, nobody should be responsible for those who are able to, but unwilling to help themself. For those who are unable to help themselves, then that is different as we as a society should help them, which is something we do far better than in many other countries. But the problem I have with this entire deal is that most rich people worked to obtain their status in life and earned their keep. If you reduce someone's incentive to better themselves above others, then you lose what has made America such a great country. Only America has this level of social mobility in the world today where a pauper can live as a king, or a king can blow mommy's trust fund and live as a pauper.

Do you honestly believe that you can just not get a job and go apply for welfare? Do you have any idea what kinds of welfare programs there even are? I don't think you do. First of all, if you're a man, you can't get welfare. Most states, like Wisconsin, have programs that give you major tax credits if you are under a certain income level. But the government doesn't just write out checks to people who don't feel like working. I don't see how people think this?

What is truly better here? Do we continue to hand a bunch of able bodied people a check every month or should we use that money and invest it in programs that teach them to fish for themselves?

This doesn't happen and nobody is saying it should, so you can stop using this imaginary scenario as an argument

As i've stated, conservatives believe that governments should not be a freestore for handouts, but should function as a last resport worst case scenario assistance giver.

Well conservative economic policies have given handouts to the corporations and the filty rich for no reason! Did you know that thanks to tax breaks, Exxon Mobile made $40 billion in PROFITS last quarter, while we're paying $3.50/gallon at the pump? Is this really the system that you believe in???!?!!?!?!?

I am not a republican, and yet I am against any liberals(lots of them are republicans these days) simply because they want the government to function more as a freestore that the swine of society quickly learn to use as they subconsciously understand that they are better off that way.

Fact: You do not understand what you are supposedly against. You think you understand liberals, but you don't. If you understood them better, you'd probably not be so hostile. You have an imaginary view of what liberals stand for.

I am incredibly backed up and i'll just conclude by saying this. After experiencing the economic and social havoc that free welfare and liberal socialism can wreak, this is why European countries like France and Germany are starting to understand what most conservatives here in America have understood for years. They have seen what can happen with free and easy socialism and welfare programmes, and have now understood that they must head to a more conservative standpoint. If France and Germany are desperately trying to head the other direction now after seeing the damage that their liberal policies have caused, then why should we head the very direction that France and Germany are trying to get away from?

Unless you want to provide some kind of source, I'm not going to bother with this. This looks like total nonsense. Have you been under a rock the past year? the US is in SHAMBLES! Our economy is shit. Our world standing is ruined. Why in God's name would anybody want to follow the lead of these neo-conservative ass hats?

[Pistol Pete]

What a lively, interesting and entertaining conversation.

I hope more of you out there will take a moment to chime in with your thoughts. I would love to hear them.

Except of course you Jimmy.

I think you are getting the wrong message from me. I am a liberal, yes. And, I do not practice hate against anybody let alone people of faith.

As I said before, the great Republican party is being hijacked by the Christian right and there are many of us who are quite fearful of these consequences.

The great religion you speak of is practiced in this country for this reason alone and I do want to pay close attention.

The small band of Christians who were trying to spread their religion found an unlikely ally in the emperor Constantine.

Converting to Christianity, Constantine made a point to send scholars to the middle east and gather evidence about Christ.

They took all the books of the Hebrew Bible and the gospals of Jesus and his disciples and created the new testament. Many gospals and stories were omitted.

Christianity became the official religion of the empire and the 25th of December, once celebrated as the birthday of one of the Gods of the pagans was called the birthday of Jesus.

Since the Romans ruled most of know Western Europe, almost all Europeans became Christians eventually becoming Catholics with the Pope as the leader and then more branches coming out of the Church of England and other Protesters of Religion, the protestent denominations.

It is merely a matter of fate and luck than you are christian and not by any devine intervention.

Had you been born in a Muslin country you would be Muslim, in Asia a Budhist and in India a Hindu.

We and certainly you do not have a monopoly on God. I am probably more moral and honest than you.

I don't call people who have abortions murderers that's stupid and ridiculous.

What if there were no God?

There are many who believe it was Man who created God and not vice versa.

You and the Christian right do not have any more right to pin your morals and standards on the rest of us any more than the Taliban does.

Why you and others can't seem to get that I don't understand.

Practice your religion. Love your neighbors. Teach your children if they get pregnant they should not have abortion. Believe homosexuality is a sin if you must (I hope your child isn't born gay) but keep it out of the courtroom, school and from me. I am not interested.

And one more thing. Since you are religious.

Thank God for liberals.

When one group dominates corruption follows. The greatness of America is in it's diversity. We keep each other honest and in check.

Don't ever forget that.

[junehhan]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

What a lively, interesting and entertaining conversation.

I hope more of you out there will take a moment to chime in with your thoughts. I would love to hear them.

Except of course you Jimmy.

I think you are getting the wrong message from me. I am a liberal, yes. And, I do not practice hate against anybody let alone people of faith.

As I said before, the great Republican party is being hijacked by the Christian right and there are many of us who are quite fearful of these consequences.

The great religion you speak of is practiced in this country for this reason alone and I do want to pay close attention.

The small band of Christians who were trying to spread their religion found an unlikely ally in the emperor Constantine.

Converting to Christianity, Constantine made a point to send scholars to the middle east and gather evidence about Christ.

They took all the books of the Hebrew Bible and the gospals of Jesus and his disciples and created the new testament. Many gospals and stories were omitted.

Christianity became the official religion of the empire and the 25th of December, once celebrated as the birthday of one of the Gods of the pagans was called the birthday of Jesus.

Since the Romans ruled most of know Western Europe, almost all Europeans became Christians eventually becoming Catholics with the Pope as the leader and then more branches coming out of the Church of England and other Protesters of Religion, the protestent denominations.

It is merely a matter of fate and luck than you are christian and not by any devine intervention.

Had you been born in a Muslin country you would be Muslim, in Asia a Budhist and in India a Hindu.

We and certainly you do not have a monopoly on God. I am probably more moral and honest than you.

I don't call people who have abortions murderers that's stupid and ridiculous.

What if there were no God?

There are many who believe it was Man who created God and not vice versa.

You and the Christian right do not have any more right to pin your morals and standards on the rest of us any more than the Taliban does.

Why you and others can't seem to get that I don't understand.

Practice your religion. Love your neighbors. Teach your children if they get pregnant they should not have abortion. Believe homosexuality is a sin if you must (I hope your child isn't born gay) but keep it out of the courtroom, school and from me. I am not interested.

And one more thing. Since you are religious.

Thank God for liberals.

When one group dominates corruption follows. The greatness of America is in it's diversity. We keep each other honest and in check.

While we disagree on many things, that is one thing that I firmly believe in. No one single group of people should ever have too much power. Things have always gone horribly wrong in history when one group of people with one ideology have gained too much power. The system of checks and balances is one of the greatest achievements of moderne societies. Besides, life would be boring if everyone thought the same way. I just want people who can respect each other. They have have to approve of someone's ideas, so long as they respect that person's right. This of course holds true so long as they are not trying to infringe on my rights, or try to blow me up.

Don't ever forget that.

....

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

I am not getting paid to give you a history/politics/life lesson son. Maybe once you graduate high school, you can go to college, and they will tell you the ways of the world.

You are just so wrong on everything you said, I actually laughed out loud... Unfortunately, I don't have the time to educate you. I'm sorry.

Its not that you don't have the time to respond. Its that you don't have the brains. Liberalism is a mental disorder and you can't argue against logic with nonsense so its better to not try.

Also for your information I am in my third year of college

[junehhan]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Again, a Dodger style tidbit that doesn't change the fact that Republican policies only help the rich.

How so? Are we passing policies that benefit everyone, or benefit just one class? These are the people who actually have the money to create the jobs and make the investments needed to stimulate the economy. Of course, there was some misguided German guy who claimed that the people would own the means the production, except that someone had to have made the investments in the first place.


Look, I just don't have time to school everyone here on the tax system. But in a nutshell, taxes on the top 1% have decreased exponentially since the Regan era, and that is when the measurable slide of our middle class began. Also, corporate tax cuts have been given away left and right, all to fuel their bottom line. I read recently that Wal-Mart in Wisconsin has pays almost no income tax because they are allowed to pay themselves rent and write it off. Its called corporate welfare. Tax money is being redistributed to the corporations.

Taxes have decreased for the very upper end dramatically since the Reagan days because they were so out of whack in the first place. I believe the top end was being taxed at a progressive rate of close to 70% or so at the time. These are the people who create the jobs, make investments, and so on. However, one thing I will agree with you is that I believe their tax responsibilities may have dropped a little too far. Remember that I don't disagree with everything you say, I just have different beliefs. There is some research I was just reading on this issue 2 months ago. The theory was that reducing the amount of tax to this elite group of people would stimulate the economy further by giving them an incentive to work even more. Anytime you change someone's level of income, there is always a substitution effect which causes them to want to work more hours, and then a leisure effect that goes in the opposite direction with the net effect depending on which dominates a person's preferences. Some research I have read is that the hours worked by this top end of the population actually dropped after the 2001 tax cuts that gave everyone an equal tax cut. I'll look for the source when I have more time to post some more details from this research. Perhaps for some segments of the population, we are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve and taxes should be increased for some. This research certainly believed so.

As for Walmart, I don't really follow what they do, but post some articles on what you have said as I would like to read more about it. I do know that Walmart as a whole pays a LOT of tax to the federal government, although i'm not sure what their responsibilities are at the state level. Even if they don't pay benefits, they also do employ a heck of a lot of people, and are the biggest or one of the biggest employers of senior citizens who otherwise may not even be working.

Do you honestly believe that you can just not get a job and go apply for welfare? Do you have any idea what kinds of welfare programs there even are? I don't think you do. First of all, if you're a man, you can't get welfare. Most states, like Wisconsin, have programs that give you major tax credits if you are under a certain income level. But the government doesn't just write out checks to people who don't feel like working. I don't see how people think this?

There are two types of welfare in OH that I know of, and I believe states have a lot of flexibility to taylor their programmes. California and particularly areas like So Cal have very liberal welfare policies. In OH, there is one that is based on income below poverty, and another one for needy families with children. I forget the nomenclature. All I would like to do is invite you to come visit me if you are every coming this way on the first Tuesday of every month. I live 2 blocks from the ghetto, and you will see everyone on the first tuesday or Wednesday of every month out sitting in front of their porches or apartments waiting for the mailman to come. Nearly every one of them with the exception for a few elderly crippled folks look rather heathy and capable of working. One thing we do know from Hurricane Katrina is how bad the generational welfare problem is regionally in this country. How can you possibly in this day and age have nearly 1/4th of an entire major US city living on welfare? This is a city that has also been a liberal stronghold for a very long time as well. Getting on the welfare is as simple as going to the office, applying for it, signing some form that states you intend to look for a job, and that is it. My parents were on welfare when I was very young for a VERY short period of time when a bunch of manufacturing firms downsized heavily in the 80's. They were very embarrassed, and got off of it as soon as they could. Welfare was definately a problem, which is why welfare reform was enacted by Newt Gingrich and conservatives in the mid 90's. There are loopholes to get around some of these restrictions as well. My sister's coworker went and got pregnant with yet another child just to get higher welfare checks. This lady was working just under the threshhold at a restaurant so that she wouldn't lose her welfare checks. Most of the people I see 2 blocks from me are also men. Another interesting thing is that my sister worked for a restaurant and none of the waitresses wanted to work on the first Tuesday/Wednesday or every month because everyone who got and cashed their welfare checks would come in, eat, and then not tip a cent. If I had more time(which I don't right now), I believe there is further reforms that can be made without harming people who really need the assistance.



This doesn't happen and nobody is saying it should, so you can stop using this imaginary scenario as an argument

I see it the first Tuesday/Wednesday of every month just 2 blocks down the street from me. My sister lives in a very rough part of town about 10 miles south of me and she sees the same thing, as I do when I go to visit her.



Well conservative economic policies have given handouts to the corporations and the filty rich for no reason! Did you know that thanks to tax breaks, Exxon Mobile made $40 billion in PROFITS last quarter, while we're paying $3.50/gallon at the pump? Is this really the system that you believe in???!?!!?!?!?

Except that E/M is operating under extremely tight profit margins, which are the tightest margins of nearly any industry in the world. If they are making 9 cents per gallon on petrol that costs $3.19 a gallon, what would this yield if you took profit entirely out of the question? If profit was not to be made, the quantity supplied of petrol/diesel would be zilch. They make their profits because of the intense quantity of product they sell, not the margins that they sell it for. Much of the tax breaks that are given are to stimulate investment into technology, as well as exploration for new sources of oil. The purpose of many of these tax breaks are to find ways to increase the quantity supplied of a commodity. With petrol being so expensive right now at the pump, wouldn't you want these corporations to have an incentive to increase the quantity supplied? We now know of some significant crude oil reserves, but don't yet have the technology to retrive it as it is too far deep. I believe Chevron was the one that made this discovery. Tax breaks that stimulate investment into finding ways to increase the quantity of a scarce commodity is not always a bad thing if it brings in additional quantity, and thus allows the market clearing price of that quantity to lower. Even if they are making just 9 cents per gallon at the pump, just multiply that times the quantity they are selling it and you get incredible profits. People confuse this as being profits derived from high margins, when they are profits derived from sheer volume of the quantity sold.



Fact: You do not understand what you are supposedly against. You think you understand liberals, but you don't. If you understood them better, you'd probably not be so hostile. You have an imaginary view of what liberals stand for.

No, I have a different 1st hand perspective of liberalism, because I was one at a point in time. I was extremely liberal until I started working for myself, and reflected on all of what i've seen throughout my early years of life, and what I monitored of human behaviour. I am very complex of a person, which is why I claim to be a Libertarian, but Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats hate me.



Unless you want to provide some kind of source, I'm not going to bother with this. This looks like total nonsense. Have you been under a rock the past year? the US is in SHAMBLES! Our economy is shit. Our world standing is ruined. Why in God's name would anybody want to follow the lead of these neo-conservative ass hats?

If you have been following the news lately, that is my source of the political shifts that are going on in Europe. France and Germany are getting very serious about the problems that socialism has caused. Germany is trying to reform welfare, and recently even heavily lowered corporate taxes to stimulate economic investment. France started by reforming the work week, and are now trying to take it a step further by placing restrictions on work tenure. I don't know about the US being in shambles, but our annual GDP is at $13 trillion per year. We have an economy that has withstood some hefty shocks recently, and have pulled through pretty well till now. We had those crooked corporate failures, we had 9/11, and yet we are still chugging along pretty well. Our unemployment rate is at 5.1%, which is still pretty low from a historical standpoint. This is likely due to change soon as there has definately been a hefty shift in expectations to pessimism as we appear to be headed to a recession. I will reserve my judgement until I see more data, but the national debt is very worrisome to me. None of the new politicians seem to be interested in addressing it anymore. As for following the lead of neo-conservatives? I'm not sure what you are talking about. What most of us simply believe is that the government has their hands in way too much. I will have to save the rest of my arguments for another day as I really have to get back to something I am currently working on. Perhaps in a couple weeks or so, we can have a more specific debate in specific policies and so on in a different thread. I think we are more alike that you realize in our beliefs.

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Its not that you don't have the time to respond. Its that you don't have the brains. Liberalism is a mental disorder and you can't argue against logic with nonsense so its better to not try.

Also for your information I am in my third year of college

Please stay in school!

[junehhan]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

Please stay in school!

Once you guys get to know Jimmy, he is a pretty cool guy.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

You provide these so called facts that are intended to contradict something that is common knowledge.

It was also common knowledge at one time that the earth flat. Just because something is common knowledge doesn't make it so.

It doesn't matter that I showed you three separate independent studies contradicting this "common knowledge", plus several other facts contradicting all of your other prejudices and false assumptions, you will just keep ignoring it all, brushing it off with some stupid irrational and biased comment.

You say that Republicans donate more than Democrats (or cons vs libs) and therefor Cons are more for helping people than Libs? Its total bullshit. Your small scale facts don't change the big scale facts.

What are these "big scale facts"? If they are facts you should easily be able to support these "facts" or provide evidence to support you arguments on these "facts".

So far, you have not demonstrated to me that you understand conservative politics from any perspective other than your own. (or liberal politics for that matter) Your arguments are all in meaningless talking point format. "Well you say ____ but here's this little tidbit factoid that is I guess supposed to refute your entire point." (but it doesn't, its just retarded and meaningless)

ooookkkkk..... If you say so? A simple comparison of our post will reveal which one of us is actually knowledgeable about politics, history, and economics. I have not seen you demonstrate any knowledge of any thing, except for repeating the same leftists stereotypes disguised as "common knowledge"

Since you are so desperate to prove to me that you aren't just a fountain of worthless conservative talking points, why don't you try discuss something that has actual meaning, like issues and policies?

You just said I don't understand conservative politics but my own, now you are saying I am repeating conservative talking points? Do you even read what you write before you type?

Thats fine, I have already easily demonstrated that I can debate much better than you can, if you now what to change the discussion to something else, I have no problem with it.

Why did cons and bush block the SCHIP bill? Are you against funding health care for the children of lower income families? (I already know the BS right wing talking points on this issue, and they don't fly)

Of course they don't fly with you, which is why you are not a conservative. Since you already know, before I take time to actually present facts of which you will just ignore, calling it either linear, BS, or talking points, why don't you for the first time reveal to us what you really know by showing us that you do know what the talking points are.

Why do the bush tax cuts give tons of money to the top 1% and corporations while borrowing billions upon billions from foreign companies, if cons care about everyday people so much? Is there actual evidence that this money ever "trickled down" to the middle class? Or did it all just go overseas and into bank accounts in the Caymans?

First I already showed from IRS data that the top 1% pay more in taxes than the bottom 90%, but of course you will ignore this as well. Now you want me to explain simple math? OK.

Since everyone got the same cut percentage, those that pay more as it is, will also get more back. That is the way percentage works. If I decide to take 15% of all items of different prices, then those items that cost more will have more money taken off the total price.

15% off $10 = $1.50 15% off $50 = $7.50

IOW, those that pay more in taxes to begin with will get more back when they take a set percentage off.

Interestingly, which of course you will continue to ignore as well, after the tax cuts, the top 1% actually pay a higher percentage of all the taxes collected. Now they contribute even more of the tax receipts:

2001 they payed 33.89% of all taxes
2002 they payed 33.71% of all taxes (slight decrease)
2003 they payed 34.27% of all taxes
2004 they payed 36.89% of all taxes
2005 they payed 39.38% of all taxes

Why, if cons are so caring for the everyday man and woman, is our economy on its way down the toilet?

What does this have to do with anything?

Why, if conservative economic policies are REALLY in our best interest, has our national debt gone up almost FOUR TRILLION dollars in the past 7 years?

Because we have people in the government that spend too much, growing bureacracy beyond its constitutional responsibilities, going against true conservative principles. BTW, Bush is not conservative

Why has unemployment gone up almost two points in the past 7 years?

It has? Where did you get this information from? Wherever you got it from, it isn't accurate:

2000-01-01 4.0
2001-01-01 4.2
2002-01-01 5.7
2003-01-01 5.8
2004-01-01 5.7
2005-01-01 5.2
2006-01-01 4.7
2007-01-01 4.6
2008-01-01 4.9

Let's compare this to Clinton's terms:

1992-01-01 7.3
1993-01-01 7.3
1994-01-01 6.6
1995-01-01 5.6
1996-01-01 5.6
1997-01-01 5.3
1998-01-01 4.6
1999-01-01 4.3

I don't see any significant difference in unemployment between an 8 year Dem and an 8 year Rep during the most recent time.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Why has the housing market crashed, with millions and millions of people foreclosing all over the country? Why have our jobs been shipped overseas and to Mexico? Why has the median household income DROPPED????? MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME NEVER DROPS!!! Why is oil DOUBLE the price it was 7 years ago? Why is the stock market plummeting everyday? Why have wage increases not even come close to inflation rates?

This is what in the debating world is called a The Blitzkrieg. When your opponent is blasted with so many issues at once, there is no way they can respond. Do me a favor. Pick one, I will let you pick, and I will respond to it. Each one of these has different factors involved and most can be answered by understanding the simple business cycle.

Median household income NEVER DROPS? And you say you have facts on your side? Considering you have yet to provide a single fact, I find this rather funny.



Can you provide any evidence that the median income dropped in 2007? I can only find info up to 2006, of which it increased from the previous year.

Please, explain this to me. If conservative economic policies are so great, they why, oh why, do they always lead us to depression?

They do? You are realy starting to show everyone here that you know absolutely little about history, economics, politics, and debating

I only remember one Depression in our nations history

First, the Republican Great Depression. (Revived by Roosevelt New Deal policies) Now, the Regan/Bush recession, which could very easily turn into a depression with another Republican presidency. Face it, you do NOT have history, or facts on your side.

You just said they ALWAYS lead us to a depression. Funny, when Kennedy implemented the same tax cut policies, this this lead to a depression?



And I am the one that doesn't have history of facts on my side?

Man, this is too easy

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Again, a Dodger style tidbit that doesn't change the fact that Republican policies only help the rich.

Let's say that you are correct and they only want to help the rich, which is simply not true as I have pointed out over and over (such as with the tax cuts), what will the net effect be with such policies? Remember, it is the rich that employ people, contribute the most in taxes, and invest in the economy.

Look, I just don't have time to school everyone here on the tax system. But in a nutshell, taxes on the top 1% have decreased exponentially since the Regan era, and that is when the measurable slide of our middle class began.

You don't have time because you cannot prove anything you are saying. Do you even know what "exponentially" means? Growth occurs at a^x.

Concerning your other points, you are simply wrong. Here is the top 1% contribution since 1980:

1980 19.05%
1981 17.58%
1982 19.03%
1983 20.32%
1984 21.12%
1985 21.81%
1986 25.75%
1987 24.81%
1988 27.58%
1989 25.24%
1990 25.13%
1991 24.82%
1992 27.54%
1993 29.01%
1994 28.86%
1995 30.26%
1996 32.31%
1997 33.17%
1998 34.75%
1999 36.18%
2000 37.42%
2001 33.89%
2002 33.71%
2003 34.27%
2004 36.89%
2005 39.38%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf

The top 1% rate has been steady are around 28% and 39% since 1987. The highest during the last 20 years was during Reagan's first 4 years at around 50%.

Myth: Lower tax rates will mean that the rich pay less.

Reality: This outcome depends on how much tax rates are reduced. History indicates that the revenue-maximizing rate is less than 30 percent. In other words, when marginal rates are higher than 30 percent, the rich probably will pay more taxes if rates are lowered. The reason? There is less incentive to hide, shelter, or underreport income.

Consider what happened in the years following each of the three times Americans enjoyed significant tax rate reductions.

* The 1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, individuals earning $50,000 or more) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928.

* The 1960s: After President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise during the next three years by 57 percent and their share of the tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

* The 1980s: The top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988 during the Reagan years. What happened to the "rich"? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1415.cfm

I am beginning to wonder if you actually know anything or if you are intentionally being obtuse. I believe it is the latter. Not only are your assumptions wrong, but even the info you present as facts is also wrong. I am done wasting my time, until you can actually support anything you say with evidence. If you want me to believe anything you say, you are going to need evidence.

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Let's say that you are correct and they only want to help the rich, which is simply not true as I have pointed out over and over (such as with the tax cuts), what will the net effect be with such policies? Remember, it is the rich that employ people, contribute the most in taxes, and invest in the economy.

You don't have time because you cannot prove anything you are saying. Do you even know what "exponentially" means? Growth occurs at a^x.

Concerning your other points, you are simply wrong. Here is the top 1% contribution since 1980:

1980 19.05%
1981 17.58%
1982 19.03%
1983 20.32%
1984 21.12%
1985 21.81%
1986 25.75%
1987 24.81%
1988 27.58%
1989 25.24%
1990 25.13%
1991 24.82%
1992 27.54%
1993 29.01%
1994 28.86%
1995 30.26%
1996 32.31%
1997 33.17%
1998 34.75%
1999 36.18%
2000 37.42%
2001 33.89%
2002 33.71%
2003 34.27%
2004 36.89%
2005 39.38%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf

The top 1% rate has been steady are around 28% and 39% since 1987. The highest during the last 20 years was during Reagan's first 4 years at around 50%.

I am beginning to wonder if you actually know anything or if you are intentionally being obtuse. I believe it is the latter. Not only are your assumptions wrong, but even the info you present as facts is also wrong. I am done wasting my time, until you can actually support anything you say with evidence. If you want me to believe anything you say, you are going to need evidence.

I think most people like the idea of cutting taxes. However, the problem lies where do you cut spending.

If the cuts are towards social programs, we on the left take great offense.

If it is a cut for the military, those on the right take offense.

We always talk about deficits, spending and taxes and there is no question we spend too much for taxes.

However, I do not favor cutting Medicare, Social Secutity, education, etc. while we maintain a military all over the world and the benefits of the tax cuts go heavily to names like Donald Trump, and people like him.

This next decade is going to bring extremely difficult challenges with the aging boomers and Medicare and SSN.

Perhaps we should be thinking out of the box and looking at our excess spending needs such as our over seas military.

Do we really need a presence in Germany and North Korea?

Not to mention of course Iraq. That's another story that should bring lively debate.

If we brought our military home the savings would be astronimical and allow for tax breaks Americans could enjoy.

But cutting Medicare, etc? Nope.

[junehhan]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

I think most people like the idea of cutting taxes. However, the problem lies where do you cut spending.

If the cuts are towards social programs, we on the left take great offense.

If it is a cut for the military, those on the right take offense.

My personal belief is that great cuts in spending can be made in the military, and I believe is necessary if we are to do something about this incredible national debt. I honestly think it is time we stop providing national security to most of Europe and see how much of a welfare state Germany and France can maintain once they have to provide their own security. I'm not talking a complete withdrawel, but perhaps minimizing our presence there. I also believe that significant cuts can be made in Japan and Asia as I think it is critical to have these soldiers home, where we as a country need to secure OUR borders first.

We always talk about deficits, spending and taxes and there is no question we spend too much for taxes.

However, I do not favor cutting Medicare, Social Secutity, education, etc. while we maintain a military all over the world and the benefits of the tax cuts go heavily to names like Donald Trump, and people like him.

If we are to do something about our national debt, taxes are going to have to go up and government spending must come down. Nobody wants to talk about this, but a rising debt is going to become a severe problem as it crowds out our ability to spend in the future on programmes that need funding. I also believe that the Social Security problems for the future are critical, which is why we need to work on the debt before SS goes bankrupt, so that we as a society don't cry later when taxes have to get jacked up really high.

This next decade is going to bring extremely difficult challenges with the aging boomers and Medicare and SSN.

I agree as it isn't easy. this is exactly why I wish politicians would actually care about finding ways to address the national debt. None of them care right now because taxes would have to go up, and you can't do that or it will kill your election chances.

Perhaps we should be thinking out of the box and looking at our excess spending needs such as our over seas military.

Do we really need a presence in Germany and North Korea?

See Above, I told you that we arn't so different in our beliefs

Not to mention of course Iraq. That's another story that should bring lively debate.

Let's avoid Iraq because it is too emotional of a topic, and I frankly like you guys too much to argue about a charged topic like this. However, any future president better have a plan to get us out of there as quickly as possible, but no sooner than it is possible. We obviously can't let the Jihadists and radicals reclaim the government, but we also cannot continue with this level of government expenditure at a time when the economy is slowing down. Keynesians think more government spending is the answer in times like this, but they never had to face a national debt like the ones we are seeing now.

If we brought our military home the savings would be astronimical and allow for tax breaks Americans could enjoy.

I agree, I think conservatives and liberals want this to happen. I just think that where we disagree is when and how this should occur.

But cutting Medicare, etc? Nope.

No, but I feel changes in how it is run should be made. We are going to need some form of health care plan in the future to cover people, but the big disagreement is over how this should occur because the kind of expenses it would incurr would make Medicare Part D expenditures look like pocket change. This is why I feel that we need to address the national debt NOW, and not later because there are going to be tons of things that are going to need funding later, especially with SS crashes.

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

It was also common knowledge at one time that the earth flat. Just because something is common knowledge doesn't make it so.

Another meaningless tidbit that is intended to discredit a broader point.

You just said I don't understand conservative politics but my own, now you are saying I am repeating conservative talking points? Do you even read what you write before you type?

Repeating talking points don't count as understanding politics. If you say "democrats raise taxes, overspend, and want to socialize everything," those are talking points, not understanding of anything.

Thats fine, I have already easily demonstrated that I can debate much better than you can, if you now what to change the discussion to something else, I have no problem with it.

If pointing out studies about who donates more means you debate better... then ok...

Of course they don't fly with you, which is why you are not a conservative. Since you already know, before I take time to actually present facts of which you will just ignore, calling it either linear, BS, or talking points, why don't you for the first time reveal to us what you really know by showing us that you do know what the talking points are.

You didn't answer why the cons and bush blocked the SCHIP bill, which provided health care to children. I was expecting an answer that had something to do with one of the following Rep. talking points: 1) Families that make 80k shouldn't get free health care for their kids. <they don't - this was only in certain parts of New York city IIRC and 80k for a family =/= 80k for a family in most other parts of the country> 2) Families will stop buying health care for their kids since they can now get it for free. <this belief that people are inherently evil is a common theme. But maybe people below a certain income level shouldn't have to pay X % of their income for health care for their children. Isn't raising children a top priority of our country?>

First I already showed from IRS data that the top 1% pay more in taxes than the bottom 90%, but of course you will ignore this as well. Now you want me to explain simple math? OK.

Of course they pay more tax money than the bottom 90%. I will show that the bottom 90% had only 29% of wealth in 2001, and top 1% had 33%. If 33% of wealth doesn't pay more tax than 29% of wealth, then WOW that is horribly unequal. Then, when you factor in the burden that taxes have on certain income levels, the real inequality is revealed. Obviously a 35% tax rate on 40k a year is an exponentially larger burden than 35% on 200k a year.

This was 2001 net worth distribution (left) and 2001 financial distribution (right - includes stocks, equities, bonds, trust funds, etc)


Wealth distribution over time, top 1% vs bottom 99% (remember, the top 10% had over 70% of the wealth in 2001, so 2-10% make up about 35% of the bottom 99%)

80% of the financial wealth belonged to the top 10% of the population



bottom 99 - Top 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%

Blue = new deal economic policies. Red = Reganomics, supply side economics, tax cuts to wealthy. See the obvious shift in wealth inequality due to conservative economic policy? In three years, the wealth distribution of the top 1% went up 10%.

Mind you, this doesn't even show the past 7 years. I'm trying to find updated info, but I'm at work and don't have any of my books here, nor do I have unlimited time to write this while I'm supposed to be working.

Now, lets talk about trickle down economics. The theory is that cutting taxes on the rich and businesses will result in money trickling down to the rest of us. But when you look at who owns shares in companies turning these larger profits, you see its not trickling anywhere (as of 2001)

Wealth class Percent of all stock owned
Top 1% 33.5%
Next 19% 55.8%
Bottom 80% 10.7%

Since everyone got the same cut percentage, those that pay more as it is, will also get more back. That is the way percentage works. If I decide to take 15% of all items of different prices, then those items that cost more will have more money taken off the total price.

15% off $10 = $1.50 15% off $50 = $7.50

IOW, those that pay more in taxes to begin with will get more back when they take a set percentage off.

A) How is taking the same percentage off fair in terms of proportional benefit?

B) How does taking the same percentage off help our economy?

C) How do you think the effects of tax breaks differ between wealth classes? What do you suppose someone with a large income would do with $10k in tax breaks? What would lower income families do with 10k in tax breaks? I'll tell you. Give Bill Gates $10k in tax rebates, and he'll invest it overseas. That money never touches US soil. That money in no way benefits our economy. It only effects the personal wealth of Bill Gates and his children. Give $10k in tax rebates to a lower income family, and they'll spend every last dime. They'll buy groceries, pay rent, get toys for their kids. They will put that money back into their local economy. When money is put into the local economy, our economy grows stronger. Now which do you think is a better way for the government to issue $10k in tax rebates? To Bill Gates? Or to Joe Shmoe who makes $40k a year?

Interestingly, which of course you will continue to ignore as well, after the tax cuts, the top 1% actually pay a higher percentage of all the taxes collected. Now they contribute even more of the tax receipts:

2001 they payed 33.89% of all taxes
2002 they payed 33.71% of all taxes (slight decrease)
2003 they payed 34.27% of all taxes
2004 they payed 36.89% of all taxes
2005 they payed 39.38% of all taxes

In 2001, the top 1% controlled 40% of all financial wealth, yet they only paid 33.89% of all taxes? That is an atrocity! That means that the top 1% are paying a lower tax rate on their wealth than the bottom 99%!!! Yet they can certainly afford a higher tax rate. The burden on the top 1% from taxes is NOTHING

Thank you for helping support my point.

What does this have to do with anything?

Seriously? What does our economy being in the toilet have to do with anything? You're really asking me this? This is what its all about. I would probably be conservative if our economy and our middle class was prospering. But its not. People are in a major crunch while the super wealth are getting richer due to failed policies. I care about the middle class ultimately because I care about myself and my family. I'm not going to lie and tell you that my main concern is everyone else. I do care about everyone else, don't get me wrong, but my main priority is my future and the future of my family. And the reason that I want the middle class the prosper is because I sell things to the middle class. I sell products for new homes, and when people can't afford to buy homes, or they can't sell their home, I can't sell my products to them. My wealth depends on the wealth of others. This is true for most Americans (except for the wealthy elite; their wealth typically results in the loss of wealth from others) I believe that our economy is in this state due to conservative economic policies, and the push towards "supercapitalism," a state where the corporation acts in favor of maximizing profit with no regards to America's well being. Conservatives unwillingness to regulate business has led to this.

Because we have people in the government that spend too much, growing bureacracy beyond its constitutional responsibilities, going against true conservative principles. BTW, Bush is not conservative

I hope you aren't blaming Democrats. Ronald Regan accumulated more debt for this country than all previous presidents combined. He increased the debt from $1 trillion to about $3 trillion. Bush sr brought that up to $4 trillion in only 1 term. Clinton was the first to manage to balance our budget and left office with around a $5.7 trillion debt. The debt increase was thanks to an imbalanced budget left for him. Bush jr took the debt from $5.7 trillion to where it is now approaching $10 trillion. When Regan took office, our debt had been far below $1 trillion for as long as we want to look back. In just 27 years of Republicans in office (minus the Clinton fix), they managed to run our debt up to about $10 trillion. They did this by cutting taxes to the wealthy and not making up for it elsewhere.

YEAH, REAL CONSERVATIVE.

Bush isn't a conservative. But by that logic (which is 100% true) neither is Regan, or Bush Sr. Conservatives don't spend money they don't have. I guess I do need to give you some credit for disavowing bush as a conservative. True conservatives don't typically behave the way the last 3 have. Republicans in the past 25 years have just been plain old fiscally irresponsible. You cannot argue that.

It has? Where did you get this information from? Wherever you got it from, it isn't accurate:

2000-01-01 4.0
2001-01-01 4.2
2002-01-01 5.7
2003-01-01 5.8
2004-01-01 5.7
2005-01-01 5.2
2006-01-01 4.7
2007-01-01 4.6
2008-01-01 4.9

Let's compare this to Clinton's terms:

1992-01-01 7.3
1993-01-01 7.3
1994-01-01 6.6
1995-01-01 5.6
1996-01-01 5.6
1997-01-01 5.3
1998-01-01 4.6
1999-01-01 4.3

I don't see any significant difference in unemployment between an 8 year Dem and an 8 year Rep during the most recent time.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

I fucked up that figure. Its up almost 1 point, not 2. (It was just part of the blitzkrieg) This is a quote from Tim Russert in the January 24th GOP debate in Florida:
"and looking at the record over the last seven years, the unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.2; it's now 5.0"

Plus, look at your chart! Clinton's term reduced or maintained unemployment all 8 years. Bush's term saw a decrease only 3 years, and 5 years of increases! My quote of 2 points was wrong, but unemployment rates have been all over the place since Bushy took office. My general point remains correct.

This is what in the debating world is called a The Blitzkrieg. When your opponent is blasted with so many issues at once, there is no way they can respond. Do me a favor. Pick one, I will let you pick, and I will respond to it. Each one of these has different factors involved and most can be answered by understanding the simple business cycle.

I'll ask them one at a time, and I'll space them out so you can easily respond. They are all very valid concerns about our economy, and they all need to be addressed if you want to convince anyone that conservative economic policies have ever helped us:

1) Why has the housing market crashed, with millions and millions of people foreclosing all over the country? Shouldn't a responsible conservative government be able to prevent such an atrocity?

2) 3 part question, all related. If deregulation of business, and removal of tariffs and barriers are a good thing for the US economy, then why have our jobs been shipped overseas and to Mexico? (like our manufacturing jobs) Why should US businesses be allowed to fire American workers and take their business overseas, then sell their products in the US without any penalty or additional tax? And finally, Do you think its a good thing that US businesses go overseas?

Median household income NEVER DROPS? And you say you have facts on your side? Considering you have yet to provide a single fact, I find this rather funny.

3) Why has the median household income been suffering? (you missed my point about median household income. Look at your chart. I see 3 major recession points. They have the names Regan, Bush, and Bush all over them. The Clinton period, however, has the sharpest increase on the chart. Democratic president = strong economic middle class growth. Once again, your own chart supports my point!) We should always have an increase in median income. If we don't, something is wrong. That was the point to take out of my statement.

4) Why has oil doubled in price while Exxon Mobile reports $40 billion in profits for a single quarter?

5) Why is the stock market suffering if the economy is so good?

6) Why has inflation out paced wages like this?

I'm really curious as to who you blame for these things. Certainly you wouldn't blame the almighty Regan would you?

Can you provide any evidence that the median income dropped in 2007? I can only find info up to 2006, of which it increased from the previous year.

Not at the moment. Again, the point is, recession. Look at the 3 long recession points. Regan, Bush sr, Bush Jr. Then look at the long growth section. Clinton. Nuf said.

They do? You are realy starting to show everyone here that you know absolutely little about history, economics, politics, and debating

I only remember one Depression in our nations history

Yeah. Do you know anything about history? Do you know how we got into the Great Depression? Years of conservative politics, leading to the Robber Baron Era, (much like businesses of today) and finally the crash. Stop being a dipshit and trying to take every word by its literal meaning to discredit my main points.

You just said they ALWAYS lead us to a depression. Funny, when Kennedy implemented the same tax cut policies, this this lead to a depression?

If this is all you can come up with, then you are a really pathetic debater. You think that I meant EVERY time we have a republican president we hit a depression? Stop wasting my time. Use your brain.

And I am the one that doesn't have history of facts on my side?

Man, this is too easy

If you think that twisting words and posting charts and figures that support MY points means you have "facts on your side," then wow. You're right, this is too easy!

[Ntruder]

besides the misquoted unemployment stat, (my point that unemployment has risen under republicans is still valid) the only thing you've really demonstrated is that your entire argument comes from taking what I say, nitpicking over words, and pretending that it discredits the point.

Like the depression issue. The Great Depression was at the peak of a period of conservative policies. Our current recession, which I think is worse than anyone admits, it at the peak of a period of conservative policies. You take that point, and say "every time? Don't you know history?" All that statement is proving is that you are good at dodging facts and manipulating my words so that you can avoid the truth.

[Ntruder]

Little more to chew on.

Since conservative economic policies are in the best interest of America (according to dodger king), this next chart must be fake. Notice how corporate profits are up 106% from 1990 to 2005, yet production worker wages are up only 4.3%. Wow, talk about the "trickle down effect." 4.3% worker wage increase vs 106% corporate profit increase. And this doesn't mention the people that were laid off to achieve those higher profits.

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

How so? Come on man...Prove me wrong. Show everyone on here that you actually do know more than me. Show everyone that you are right and I am pathetically wrong. It shouldn't be that difficult if I am as pathetic as you think I am. That is what I thought????

This is your problem. I've re-read through this entire thread, and the only thing you have done thus far is sit back, wait for someone to make an argument, then nitpick it and try to prove people wrong with little tidbits of information or factoids, or studies. You haven't presented anything of your own. Just because you can discredit a small portion of an argument, doesn't mean that the opposite is true.

You want me to prove you wrong? TRY MAKING AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT! Tell me why your way is right and my way is wrong, and I'll prove you wrong.

Its really tough to debate with someone who consistently fails to provide any alternative solution. This whole debate has been me making a claim about the way things are according to my side, and you then nitpicking my argument and supposedly proving it wrong by posting some study. Your logic is "if not A, then B." Why not try discussing issues? Then I'll sit back and nitpick your posts and claim victory like you have up to this point.

Its easy to claim victory when all you have to do is find something that in some way disproves some portion of something someone said. The more time I spend on my posts, the more sound they are with less holes, as I can look up sources and prevent you from taking individual words and attacking them as a means to supposedly disprove my points.

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

500x's? Of course there is no way you can verify such a claim, can you?

Let me ask you a question:

How much do you think the CEO's make on the average?

Lol! My guess is CEO's make about 400-500x as much as their workers

CEOs' pay as a multiple of the average worker's pay


So if the average worker makes $45,000 a year, the CEO would make about $18 million.