The Instigator
comoncents
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
tmhustler
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
comoncents
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,966 times Debate No: 9265
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

comoncents

Pro

obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor?
tmhustler

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posing this interesting debate.
I would also like it to noted that I took this debate purely for arguments sake.

first Obama does not tax the rich then give the money to people with less. he does support a higher tax bracket for the wealthy, and social welfare programs.

I cant argue this very well until I know why you think Obama is wrong about this. because of this I will defer my arguments to the next round
Debate Round No. 1
comoncents

Pro

Thank you for taking this on…

You are correct… he does support a higher tax bracket for the wealthy and tries to say that he is giving tax breaks to the middle or lower class.

The reason why I posted this was b/c of people just care about their situation without thinking about history.
I think we should cut taxes if not eliminated income tax period.

But now on the wealthy,
I am not wealthy by any means of the term… by wealthy I am referring to Obamas plan to tax people making 200,000 or more a year.
Again I am not wealthy but if I were I would be upset… they work just as hard as anyone if not more to accumulate wealth and it is not far to tell tax them b/c of the work they put in to things just happens to make them money… or smart enough to know how to.
They should not have to pay most of the taxes so the pres. can just continue to spend money on needless things continuing in our national debit.

I just don't think it is fair to tax the Americans who already were paying for 45% of taxes already…
It is just going to cause them to take their business out of country. If you allow them tax breaks they will be able to create more jobs and increase there business, in turn giving Americans more jobs and better pay

Wealthy people do no just hoard money they in turn invest money into our economy.
Just cut taxes or eliminate them.
tmhustler

Con

I would like to thank opponent for his arguments

==="I think we should cut taxes if not eliminated income tax period."===

the problem with this is that without that source of income he government would not be able to pay for road, schools, social security, welfare programs. Medicare, food stamps, etc,etc,etc

==="Again I am not wealthy but if I were I would be upset… they work just as hard as anyone if not more to accumulate wealth and it is not far to tell tax them b/c of the work they put in to things just happens to make them money… or smart enough to know how to."===

we live in a country were the top "300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans". http://www.nytimes.com...

this is obama's plan for those making more than 250k a year
"Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut." http://www.barackobama.com...
as you can see he is not raising there taxes but repealing the Bush tax cuts.

==="If you allow them tax breaks they will be able to create more jobs and increase there business, in turn giving Americans more jobs and better pay"===

If this is true than why did the worst economic downturn since the great depression happen when these tax cuts were in place? also Clinton had a much higher tax rate for the wealthy and that was one of the US's strongest periods of economic growth.
Debate Round No. 2
comoncents

Pro

"We live in a country were the top "300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans"."
Do you not think that they worked hard for that money… this is the principle at which America was founded on… you have to work for your money… nothing should be just handed to people… Obamas plan just discourages someone from trying to make it big and encourages more people to sit on their butts and do nothing to better them selves.

You just quoted Obamas way of shutting the wool over the eyes of American… lets call a spade a spade… he is raising taxes… period

"If this is true than why did the worst economic downturn since the great depression happen when these tax cuts were in place?"
B/c war is expensive… history shows that cutting taxes work... 1920 congress cut taxes 5 times... the us treasure said "as tax rates declined the economy was strengthen further", after the stock crashed in 1929 taxes were raised and by 1936 the tax rate was 79% increased... by the end of ww2 taxes were raised so much that the wealth had a top marginal tax rate of 94%... they took there money out of country, so Reagan came in were 1981 he cut taxes… worked so good that democrats even admitting that tax cuts worked…

"Also Clinton had a much higher tax rate for the wealthy and that was one of the US's strongest periods of economic growth."
Collapse of USSR… low inflation… plus we had the Internet just starting up… that's the answer.
So the first tax cuts of bush worked, when people get money they spend it therefore economic growth… Bush had tax cuts but then barrowed to do it…and then the printing of money came into play… that does not work. You are right. But that has nothing to do with just cutting taxes instead of making the wealthy pay for there hard work and give the people that are not trying at all some money. Bush printed money and that was wrong… but Obama is doing the same thing.
tmhustler

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his rebuttal

"Do you not think that they worked hard for that money… this is the principle at which America was founded on… you have to work for your money… nothing should be just handed to people… Obama plan just discourages someone from trying to make it big and encourages more people to sit on their butts and do nothing to better them selves."

regardless of how hard they work for that money they can afford to contribute more. { does a CEO work harder than a farmer} "nothing should be handed to you" would you suggest we let people starve. 'obamas plan just discourages someone from trying to make it big." why would raising taxes on the rich discourage someone from wanting to be rich. would they not still be rich after taxes.

"why did the worst economic downturn since the great depression happen when these tax cuts were in place?"
B/c war is expensive" the war cost the government allot of money, not the elite.

now to my opponents next argument because of his lack of sources on these subjects I will not be able to refute all the points.

1920 congress cut taxes 5 times... the us treasure said "as tax rates declined the economy was strengthen further", after the stock crashed in 1929 taxes were raised" in short the treasury director was wrong. the obvious correlation
is congress cut taxes on the wealthy in 1920s then we had a depression, Bush cut taxes then there was a massive recession. I need sources to rebut the other points in that paragraph.

I am running out of space here so I will differ my arguments to the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
comoncents

Pro

"Regardless of how hard they work for that money they can afford to contribute more. "
But this is not fair… at all… just b/c they can afforded it lets just take advantage and take more… that I just unfair

"Would you suggest we let people starve."?
If people choice to starve… then let them… it is a free country… that's what makes us America… the right to freedom
"Why would raising taxes on the rich discourage someone from wanting to be rich? Would they not still be rich after taxes."
Look my wife is a nurse… if she works one day of over time then she gets 500 dollars more on her check for that 1 day… if she works a 2nd day she gets 200 dollars for that 2nd day of over time… if she works a 3rd day of over time in a two week span. Then for the third day she makes 97 dollars for that day…
Everyday extra day she works 12 hour shifts… but b/c working 3 days makes us fall under a different tax bracket it takes 400 dollars in tax for that third day.
So what does that do… it is not worth it for her to work more then two days over time… the hospital stays under staffed and we can not afford to make something better of our lives b/c 97 dollars for the third day of over time is not fair since after the 1st day we got 500…

http://www.treas.gov...
"I need sources to rebut the other points in that paragraph."
http://www.treas.gov...
http://www.census.gov...
http://www.bls.gov...
http://www.census.gov...
Based upon the first tax cuts before the printing of money and inflation of the dollar

Sorry about the room situation... i just find limiting allows people to read with out being overwhelmed... i say more rounds with fewer characters... sorry again i know how frustrating it can be to make a point and be cut of or made to edit a great spirited debate...
Again sorry
tmhustler

Con

If people choice to starve… then let them… it is a free country… that's what makes us America… the right to"

What if someone is disabled, cant find a job, or retired, or otherwise handicapped should we also let them starve.
the only people that affects are those right at the barrier like those making 240k k a year not wanting to make 250k.
{think you would be happy about Obama lowering you taxes.}

Obama is spending billions of dollars and the only way to pay for all things the government pays for is to raise taxes. you cant raise taxes on the poor because they don't have any money, so that leaves the top two percent of our citizens the people that can easily afford these slight tax increases. the tax increases that obama is referring to is the repeal on the Bush tax cuts which would have dissolved in 2012. a large part of the reason for this increase is the bail out money, which certainly does not qualify as giving to the poor.
Debate Round No. 4
comoncents

Pro

"What if someone is disabled, can't find a job, or retired, or otherwise handicapped should we also let them starve."
They did not chose to be disabled or handicapped then no… but the poor class is not made up of handicapped and disabled people… it is made up of mostly people who are to lazy to try to find work or keep it…
Let me tell you some thing that is personal… I did not have a great life I was on the road to poverty but I chose to turn it around… I chose to stop being lazy and what do I get for it… more taxes…
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

"Critics argue that Obama's plan would punish success and stifle the very kind of spending that would foster investment and economic growth."

In total, the changes amount to nearly $1 trillion in new taxes on the wealthy over the next decade. The 95% of American families at lower income levels would share about $770 billion in new tax breaks over the same period. 

http://www.politico.com...

It's just not fair

vote pro... it is just not fair to vote con... think about america... the foundation

then you will vote pro
tmhustler

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his conclusion

first I will rebut some of my opponents statements
most of the poor in America are poor because of a lack education not a lack of effort. It is not right to tax someone living on the brink the same as someone making over 250k year.

Conclusion

Taxes are needed to pay for things like roads, schools, and many other things. My opponent has already shown a deep dislike of the united states simply printing money. { usually by borrowing money from China.} The only way we can pay for things like this without borrowing money is to raise taxes, and the group of people that you can raise taxes on the least and get the most return on is the wealthy, They are also the group that can easily absorb this increased burden. some quotes from my opponents Washington post source "The past eight years have discredited once and for all the philosophy of trickle-down economics -- that tax breaks, income gains and wealth creation among the wealthy eventually will work their way down to the middle class," This shows that my opponents argument that cutting taxes on the rich creates jobs is wrong "Clinton, like Obama, argued that the rich had benefited disproportionately from tax cuts enacted by previous Republican administrations" Obama's taxes on the rich will be lower than in the 1990s, and is simple a repeal on the Bush tax breaks. "Clinton tax increases did little to dampen enthusiasm for hard work and professional achievement." This shows that increased taxes do not damper someone's resolve to make money, or to become wealthy. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Now I have some questions For the voters

Did my opponent prove that obama was wrong? I would like to pint out that if you are indifferent than my opponent has failed to validate his resolution.

I would like to thank opponent for a lively debate.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jiggajones 5 years ago
Jiggajones
Sorry tm hustler you seriously cant fight this. I know this is from like two years ago but most of these poor people are just sittin on their butts waiting for that welfare check. Obama shouldnt be punishing the ones who have made themselves successful. And if he does this. His butt better be paying that too. He makes like 400000 annually. He is no different then everybody else
Posted by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
"the poor and working class produce the things that we need and use."

The ones that get the tax cuts are those who do not work.
Taking the money from small businesses and giving it to people that do not even pay taxes.
Pro won b/c he was right, pro won b/c taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor is not right.
Posted by The_Anarchist_Opposition 7 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
Con missed a major point here. If he truely wishes to argue this, then he must point out that the wealthy actually do not work harder than the poor, he must point out that the poor and working class produce the things that we need and use. Con failed in this argument.
Posted by idontbelieveit 7 years ago
idontbelieveit
RFD

C:tmhustler
S&G:tmhustler
Arguments:comoncents
Sources:comencents

You asked for an RFD and I gave one. Too bad I can't vote...
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
I read the debate and you make the same old tired arguments. The govt has enough money it does not need anymore money. It needs to be cut off at the knees and be forced to cut at least half of the bureaucracies it has created. They are unnecessary and are in no way the role of govt. You just advocate more taxes more taxes to pay for roads and schools and the like. They have all the money they need to pay for theses things. what part of that don't you understand. I can think of at least 50 bureaucracies right now that could be eliminated that do nothing but suck the tax payer dry. Here is a list of all the current govt agencies: http://www.usa.gov...

We can start with all the "Home Page" bureaucracies for each state. These are nothing more than tourist info sites paid for by the tax payer. God knows how many hundreds of millions of dollars these bureaucracies cost us the tax payer each year. This must be what you are talking about that we as tax payers should pay for through higher taxes. I can go through this list and eliminate 100 more that have nothing to do with the intended role of govt. Why don't we cut these instead of raising taxes? Wouldn't that be a new and novel idea!!
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
its just annoying when someone votes without ever reading the debate.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Quit your crying. And quit lecturing me about voting. I have had my voting record manipulated so many times my voting record is un known. And you cry about a single person not voting for you. BOO friken HOO.
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
I would like to share with everyone sadolites reason for giving 7 points to pro. " Taxing the rich is class warfare.The Govt has enough money way more than enough. you defend it getting even more. When I vote I give all points to one side to increase there chance of a winning. I dont like this new voting method, substance is all that matters." now does this sound like someone who is voting objectably or has even read this debate
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
I would still ask sadolite for an RFD on this debate. because he obviously would have voted a 7 for pro regardless of the arguments put forth. I am glad for your idea of what a socialist is because it is completely wrong. and shows how little you know. now to the presidency, so if a president has such little power than why should not expect capitalism under Obama. If you had actually read the debate you would know that under the Clinton administration the taxes on the rich were higher than Obama' s plan and it did nothing to hurt the economy. regrettably the old school fiscal conservatives are dead. the republican party had because dominated by the religious right, and people who will vote for anyone who is pro choose. finally Obama is not a socialist but you Sir could easily be labeled as a fascist
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Socialist as it is in this nation is the expansion of big govt and the redistribution of wealth (Taxing the rich) Your assumption that any President has any control of internal affairs in this country shows how little you know about our govt. Congress is responsible for all spending not the President. The President is just a mouth piece for the members of congress that he agrees with. The President is powerless in passing any spending bill through congress. His vote can be over ridden by a two thirds majority of congress. Anyone who hangs govt fiscal issues on a single man such as the President is ignorant. The congress was controlled by Republicans for 6 of the 8 years Clinton held office but the ignorant think Clinton was responsible for the thriving economy. The same thing is going to happen with Obama. In 2010 the Dem's are going to loose in a land slide and fiscal conservatives are going to clean up the mess and Obama will take credit. As predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. Then the twelve year cycle will start all over again
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
comoncentstmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
comoncentstmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
comoncentstmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
comoncentstmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by alwaz4dam 7 years ago
alwaz4dam
comoncentstmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by smc 7 years ago
smc
comoncentstmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by beamer1 7 years ago
beamer1
comoncentstmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70