Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Obama Pet Peeve

JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 3:15:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay, as you all know, there used to be and still is a group of people who make insane claims about the president. They say things like he wasn't born in America or that he is a Muslim or that he is an old fashioned marxist. These things are obviously wrong.

However, there is another group, this one on the left, that says equally untrue things about the president. And, unfortunatley, this group is much more mainstream.

This group says things like: the president really does believe in American exceptionalism, that he is a centrist, that he actually does like business, or, and this one is the funniest, that he really does believe in capitalism and free enterprise.

This is just as crazy as saying that he is a marxist or Muslim. It is wrong and, frankly, a waste of time to say.

Here are the facts: Obama is a man of the hard left. No, not quite the radical left. But, as far as elected officials go, he is about as far left as there is.

Everyone should be able to agree on this, yet some people do not... in fact many do not.

But, the fact is that Obama rejected the DLC, the group that John Kerry, Al Gore, both Clinton's, and Edwards all belonged to as being not far left enough. He opposed NAFTA, oppose welfare reform (calling it "disturbing"), supported single payer, and even proposed raising capital gains taxes even if it didn't increase revenue "for purposes of fairness.

This puts him distinctly to the left of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and other dems.

Now, nobody can really or has ever tried to deny that Obama was a man of the hard left before he became president. BUt, now, they argue, he has moved to the center.

Again, they are wrong. In fact, the first thing he did as president was pass a nearly $1 Trillion stimulus into law. He has also just recently been working to reverse welfare reform.

One of the silliest things I have heard is that Obamacare is a "free market" bill. This is laughable. The only reason that we didn't have single payer or a public option is that Obama didn't have the votes. Instead, he got as close as he coud... as far left as he could... with Obamacare. BTW, if you bring up Romneycare, I will point out that Romney wanted a much more far right, market oriented bill but had to settle for a more left wing bill... and he even vetoed most of the left wing parts... but they were overridden.

On regulations, he has vastly expanded regulations both by putting anti business extremists at the head of reg. agencies and passing massive regulatory bills like Dodd Frank and Obamacare, among others.

On taxes, he has raised taxes by $500 Billion through Obamacare and proposes even larger increases. He proposes raising the capital gains marginal tax rate by 67%... that's right, talk about a job killer.

And, the tax cuts that he and supporters claim are phonies. What he does here is an accounting gimmick. Obama merely makes a subsidy to either a favored business or class. But, to make it look like a tax cut instead of welfare or a subsidy, Mr. Obama disguises these as "tax credits" and calls them tax cuts... dishonest if you ask me.

Spending.... lol, dont even start (and spare me Rex Nutting's debunked BS)

My point is that, no, Obama isn't some crazy marxist. But, he also isn't a believer in capitalism. He admires places like France. These aren't marxist countries, but they aren't free enterprise either.

Pretending that he is something he isnt is just dishonest. Please, stop trying to disguise these differences by claiming that the most anti capitalist president in history really is a believer in the individual hand... He just isn't. No matter how much you may want him to be.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 3:55:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry, all this does is make him still centre-right.

"But, the fact is that Obama rejected the DLC, the group that John Kerry, Al Gore, both Clinton's, and Edwards all belonged to as being not far left enough. He opposed NAFTA, oppose welfare reform (calling it "disturbing"), supported single payer, and even proposed raising capital gains taxes even if it didn't increase revenue "for purposes of fairness.

This puts him distinctly to the left of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and other dems."

Statement by statement:

Obama rejecting the DLC? He did in the past, possibly, but for reasons that make sense. And he still is probably on icy terms with them. I don't like to, but I'm just going to quote wikipedia for this:

"The 2008 Democratic Primary pitted New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a prominent DLC member, against Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who had previously stated that his positions on NAFTA, the Iraq War and universal health care made him "an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC."[28] However, President Obama has since surrounded himself with DLC members, appointing Clinton herself as Secretary of State and another, (Tim Kaine), as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In May 2009, President Obama reportedly declared to the House New Democrat Coalition, the congressional arm of the DLC, "I am a New Democrat."[21]"

And still, the claim that single-payer healthcare makes you "right wing" would make almost all non-American politicians, and certainly 95% of European ones, far left. When Obama starts pushing for a 90% tax on the richest, then he's left-wing. When he starts pushing for lower retirement ages, he'll be partly left-wing. When he wants to construct another four million state-run homes in the US and recruit a quarter of a million public workers (proportional to the French Policy), then he'll be left wing. Almost all policies he's done has been done or continued by other centrist or right-wing politicians in the past, while left-wing ones are much more clearly acting differently.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 4:25:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 3:55:39 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Sorry, all this does is make him still centre-right.

"But, the fact is that Obama rejected the DLC, the group that John Kerry, Al Gore, both Clinton's, and Edwards all belonged to as being not far left enough. He opposed NAFTA, oppose welfare reform (calling it "disturbing"), supported single payer, and even proposed raising capital gains taxes even if it didn't increase revenue "for purposes of fairness.

This puts him distinctly to the left of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and other dems."

Statement by statement:

Obama rejecting the DLC? He did in the past, possibly, but for reasons that make sense. And he still is probably on icy terms with them. I don't like to, but I'm just going to quote wikipedia for this:

"The 2008 Democratic Primary pitted New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a prominent DLC member, against Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who had previously stated that his positions on NAFTA, the Iraq War and universal health care made him "an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC."[28] However, President Obama has since surrounded himself with DLC members, appointing Clinton herself as Secretary of State and another, (Tim Kaine), as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In May 2009, President Obama reportedly declared to the House New Democrat Coalition, the congressional arm of the DLC, "I am a New Democrat."[21]"

And still, the claim that single-payer healthcare makes you "right wing" would make almost all non-American politicians, and certainly 95% of European ones, far left. When Obama starts pushing for a 90% tax on the richest, then he's left-wing. When he starts pushing for lower retirement ages, he'll be partly left-wing. When he wants to construct another four million state-run homes in the US and recruit a quarter of a million public workers (proportional to the French Policy), then he'll be left wing. Almost all policies he's done has been done or continued by other centrist or right-wing politicians in the past, while left-wing ones are much more clearly acting differently.

This is American politics. One could say that, in North Korea, Obama would be on the far right.

But, that is kind of meaningless. I am talking about the left-right paradigm that exists in America, as he is an American politician. On that paradigm, he is distinctly left.

Much more left that Clinton or Kerry.

And, yes, advocating single payer puts you pretty far on the left in the USA.

Obama's ideas and policy direction certainly align him more with the centre left parties in Western Europe (Like the pre Blair Labour Party and the French Socialist Party, which is a mainstream centre left party in France) than the one in the USA, the Democratic Party.

He advocates and has implemented dramatically more regulation, higher taxation of capital and business, much higher domestic spending, and much more government control of industry.

No, just saying that he could be, hypothetically, more far left, does not mean that he is not far left.

I am a solidly conservative guy. Not a radical. But, I could be more conservative if I wanted to elimiate SS and medicare... but i Don't. Does that mean that I am not conservative?

Of course not, that is silly.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 5:04:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?

No one paid those rates. There were so many loopholes and deductions that the top marginal tax rates were never paid. No one gave the government 90% of their income.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 5:09:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 5:04:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?

No one paid those rates. There were so many loopholes and deductions that the top marginal tax rates were never paid. No one gave the government 90% of their income.

Nobody ever pays the top rate. Ever. Even without loopholes or deductions, it's impossible to pay the top rate unless it's a flat rate, which ours aren't.

Ppl don't understand taxes, but we focus on them so much. Is another stoopid thing.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 5:10:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 5:04:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?

No one paid those rates. There were so many loopholes and deductions that the top marginal tax rates were never paid. No one gave the government 90% of their income.

Whereas now we're loophole free? In any case, even if deductions being more generous then meant that the tax rate worked out as "only" 50%, that'd still be to the right of Obama's proposals, which peak at 40%-ish, I think?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?

Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 10:25:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

A photo proves my point.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.

Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P

Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 12:00:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:25:48 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

A photo proves my point.

That statistic is discredited
http://reason.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...

Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 3:18:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?

Look, as far as I go, a tax cut is only a tax cut when marginal tax rates are reduced permanently, or for a long period of time, or a tax is eliminated.

Bush cut taxes, Clinton cut taxes (and raised some), Reagan cut taxes... Obama did not.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 4:12:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 3:18:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?


Look, as far as I go, a tax cut is only a tax cut when marginal tax rates are reduced permanently, or for a long period of time, or a tax is eliminated.

Bush cut taxes, Clinton cut taxes (and raised some), Reagan cut taxes... Obama did not.

I don't see what your basis for that is beyond partisanship? I can understand preferring long-term to short-term tax cuts, but I'm afraid excluding the latter is sort of No True Scotsman-y.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 4:18:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 4:12:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 3:18:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?


Look, as far as I go, a tax cut is only a tax cut when marginal tax rates are reduced permanently, or for a long period of time, or a tax is eliminated.

Bush cut taxes, Clinton cut taxes (and raised some), Reagan cut taxes... Obama did not.

I don't see what your basis for that is beyond partisanship? I can understand preferring long-term to short-term tax cuts, but I'm afraid excluding the latter is sort of No True Scotsman-y.

Not at all.

Look, Obama's supposed "tax cuts" are literally checks in the mail to poor people and government chosen businesses.

We usually call those things welfare and subsidies... and they go along with a big government agenda.

But, Obama does them through the tax cude and calls them "tax credits"... which is how he says he cut taxes.

No serious person would call this tax cuts. Real tax cuts increase freedom and help the economy. These checks Obama sends do the opposite.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 4:35:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 4:18:12 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:12:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 3:18:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?


Look, as far as I go, a tax cut is only a tax cut when marginal tax rates are reduced permanently, or for a long period of time, or a tax is eliminated.

Bush cut taxes, Clinton cut taxes (and raised some), Reagan cut taxes... Obama did not.

I don't see what your basis for that is beyond partisanship? I can understand preferring long-term to short-term tax cuts, but I'm afraid excluding the latter is sort of No True Scotsman-y.


Not at all.

Look, Obama's supposed "tax cuts" are literally checks in the mail to poor people and government chosen businesses.

We usually call those things welfare and subsidies... and they go along with a big government agenda.

But, Obama does them through the tax cude and calls them "tax credits"... which is how he says he cut taxes.

No serious person would call this tax cuts. Real tax cuts increase freedom and help the economy. These checks Obama sends do the opposite.

Loads of people are affected by payroll taxes in the United States. Like, 160 million.

What's it called when the government takes less money out of your paycheck? S'right, a tax cut.

What's the difference, beyond that it's Obama doing it, between the government taking less of 160,000,000 Americans' cash, and a regular tax cut?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 4:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 4:35:24 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:18:12 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:12:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 3:18:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?


Look, as far as I go, a tax cut is only a tax cut when marginal tax rates are reduced permanently, or for a long period of time, or a tax is eliminated.

Bush cut taxes, Clinton cut taxes (and raised some), Reagan cut taxes... Obama did not.

I don't see what your basis for that is beyond partisanship? I can understand preferring long-term to short-term tax cuts, but I'm afraid excluding the latter is sort of No True Scotsman-y.


Not at all.

Look, Obama's supposed "tax cuts" are literally checks in the mail to poor people and government chosen businesses.

We usually call those things welfare and subsidies... and they go along with a big government agenda.

But, Obama does them through the tax cude and calls them "tax credits"... which is how he says he cut taxes.

No serious person would call this tax cuts. Real tax cuts increase freedom and help the economy. These checks Obama sends do the opposite.

Loads of people are affected by payroll taxes in the United States. Like, 160 million.

What's it called when the government takes less money out of your paycheck? S'right, a tax cut.

What's the difference, beyond that it's Obama doing it, between the government taking less of 160,000,000 Americans' cash, and a regular tax cut?

What do you call a check in the mail from government?

I call it welfare.

But, according to liberals, that is what a tax cut is.

I love liberal logic.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 5:03:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 4:50:03 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:35:24 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:18:12 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:12:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 3:18:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?


Look, as far as I go, a tax cut is only a tax cut when marginal tax rates are reduced permanently, or for a long period of time, or a tax is eliminated.

Bush cut taxes, Clinton cut taxes (and raised some), Reagan cut taxes... Obama did not.

I don't see what your basis for that is beyond partisanship? I can understand preferring long-term to short-term tax cuts, but I'm afraid excluding the latter is sort of No True Scotsman-y.


Not at all.

Look, Obama's supposed "tax cuts" are literally checks in the mail to poor people and government chosen businesses.

We usually call those things welfare and subsidies... and they go along with a big government agenda.

But, Obama does them through the tax cude and calls them "tax credits"... which is how he says he cut taxes.

No serious person would call this tax cuts. Real tax cuts increase freedom and help the economy. These checks Obama sends do the opposite.

Loads of people are affected by payroll taxes in the United States. Like, 160 million.

What's it called when the government takes less money out of your paycheck? S'right, a tax cut.

What's the difference, beyond that it's Obama doing it, between the government taking less of 160,000,000 Americans' cash, and a regular tax cut?


What do you call a check in the mail from government?

I call it welfare.

But, according to liberals, that is what a tax cut is.

I love liberal logic.

So, if the IRS took all your money, then gave it back to you, that would be welfare?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 5:29:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 5:03:39 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:50:03 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:35:24 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:18:12 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:12:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 3:18:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?


Look, as far as I go, a tax cut is only a tax cut when marginal tax rates are reduced permanently, or for a long period of time, or a tax is eliminated.

Bush cut taxes, Clinton cut taxes (and raised some), Reagan cut taxes... Obama did not.

I don't see what your basis for that is beyond partisanship? I can understand preferring long-term to short-term tax cuts, but I'm afraid excluding the latter is sort of No True Scotsman-y.


Not at all.

Look, Obama's supposed "tax cuts" are literally checks in the mail to poor people and government chosen businesses.

We usually call those things welfare and subsidies... and they go along with a big government agenda.

But, Obama does them through the tax cude and calls them "tax credits"... which is how he says he cut taxes.

No serious person would call this tax cuts. Real tax cuts increase freedom and help the economy. These checks Obama sends do the opposite.

Loads of people are affected by payroll taxes in the United States. Like, 160 million.

What's it called when the government takes less money out of your paycheck? S'right, a tax cut.

What's the difference, beyond that it's Obama doing it, between the government taking less of 160,000,000 Americans' cash, and a regular tax cut?


What do you call a check in the mail from government?

I call it welfare.

But, according to liberals, that is what a tax cut is.

I love liberal logic.

So, if the IRS took all your money, then gave it back to you, that would be welfare?

Here is what a tax cut is:

If the government imposes a 40% tax rate one year and then only imposes a 30% tax rate next year, and that 30% tax rate will NOT rise back to 40% anytime in the near future, that is a tax cut.

A tax cut is not a check in the mail called a tax credit. A tax cut is not a one year check disguised as a "payroll tax cut".

Tax cuts are permanent, they improve incentives, and across the board. They help the economy.

Obama has not cut one tax.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 5:47:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 5:29:11 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 5:03:39 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:50:03 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:35:24 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:18:12 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:12:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 3:18:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?


Look, as far as I go, a tax cut is only a tax cut when marginal tax rates are reduced permanently, or for a long period of time, or a tax is eliminated.

Bush cut taxes, Clinton cut taxes (and raised some), Reagan cut taxes... Obama did not.

I don't see what your basis for that is beyond partisanship? I can understand preferring long-term to short-term tax cuts, but I'm afraid excluding the latter is sort of No True Scotsman-y.


Not at all.

Look, Obama's supposed "tax cuts" are literally checks in the mail to poor people and government chosen businesses.

We usually call those things welfare and subsidies... and they go along with a big government agenda.

But, Obama does them through the tax cude and calls them "tax credits"... which is how he says he cut taxes.

No serious person would call this tax cuts. Real tax cuts increase freedom and help the economy. These checks Obama sends do the opposite.

Loads of people are affected by payroll taxes in the United States. Like, 160 million.

What's it called when the government takes less money out of your paycheck? S'right, a tax cut.

What's the difference, beyond that it's Obama doing it, between the government taking less of 160,000,000 Americans' cash, and a regular tax cut?


What do you call a check in the mail from government?

I call it welfare.

But, according to liberals, that is what a tax cut is.

I love liberal logic.

So, if the IRS took all your money, then gave it back to you, that would be welfare?


Here is what a tax cut is:

If the government imposes a 40% tax rate one year and then only imposes a 30% tax rate next year, and that 30% tax rate will NOT rise back to 40% anytime in the near future, that is a tax cut.

A tax cut is not a check in the mail called a tax credit. A tax cut is not a one year check disguised as a "payroll tax cut".

Tax cuts are permanent, they improve incentives, and across the board. They help the economy.

Obama has not cut one tax.

It's a deduction from the amount of tax that has to be paid. There might be a technical difference, in the same vein as there's a difference between corporate tax and income tax, but it's essentially a retroactive tax cut. The fact that it's not as good as other tax cuts is neither here nor there: not all tax cuts are created equal. It's not redistributionist, it's giving people back their money.

Also, I haven't forgotten that the debate is about whether Obama would cut taxes if he could, rather than whether he has.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 7:49:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 5:47:16 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 5:29:11 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 5:03:39 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:50:03 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:35:24 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:18:12 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:12:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 3:18:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:38:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 1:11:34 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:18:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:03:31 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/8/2012 4:20:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:17:21 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:01:03 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:28:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/7/2012 4:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
The Reagan tax increase was larger than the Obamacare tax increases.

Under Reagan, the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, the corporate tax rate went from 46% to 34%, and capital gains rate stayed at 28%. Where are the tax increases. (remember, a real tax increase involves an increase in marginal tax rates... just like Obama proposes raising the top rate from 35% to 40% or the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% (25% including Obamacare increase))

Which means that the top tax rate pre-Reagan was 70%. So, tax-wise, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter?


Nope, not even close.

Kennedy and Johnson advocated lowering the rate... Johnson inherited that rate.

In fact, the key reason Obama is so left is that he is proposing an INCREASE in the rate.

Yeah, but they didn't. They could have prioritized lowering taxes on the top bracket, but they didn't, political expediency required that they keep it at 70%. By the same token, Obama wants to lower taxes, but he isn't, political expediency (eg: that balancing the budget is such an issue) requires that he raises it to 40%.

Besides, you've only mentioned 2/6.



Lol, I cAn guarantee you Obama doesnt have any intention of lowering tax rates. He's a Man of the hard left.

Just saying "He's a Man of the hard left." doesn't prove anything, no matter how many words you capitalize. :P



Here's Obama speaking appreciably of tax cuts. Seems like he's pretty positive about them...


Again, we are talking about a fake tax cut that does nothing to lower MARGINAL tax rates on a permanent basis.

How is it a fake tax cut?


Look, as far as I go, a tax cut is only a tax cut when marginal tax rates are reduced permanently, or for a long period of time, or a tax is eliminated.

Bush cut taxes, Clinton cut taxes (and raised some), Reagan cut taxes... Obama did not.

I don't see what your basis for that is beyond partisanship? I can understand preferring long-term to short-term tax cuts, but I'm afraid excluding the latter is sort of No True Scotsman-y.


Not at all.

Look, Obama's supposed "tax cuts" are literally checks in the mail to poor people and government chosen businesses.

We usually call those things welfare and subsidies... and they go along with a big government agenda.

But, Obama does them through the tax cude and calls them "tax credits"... which is how he says he cut taxes.

No serious person would call this tax cuts. Real tax cuts increase freedom and help the economy. These checks Obama sends do the opposite.

Loads of people are affected by payroll taxes in the United States. Like, 160 million.

What's it called when the government takes less money out of your paycheck? S'right, a tax cut.

What's the difference, beyond that it's Obama doing it, between the government taking less of 160,000,000 Americans' cash, and a regular tax cut?


What do you call a check in the mail from government?

I call it welfare.

But, according to liberals, that is what a tax cut is.

I love liberal logic.

So, if the IRS took all your money, then gave it back to you, that would be welfare?


Here is what a tax cut is:

If the government imposes a 40% tax rate one year and then only imposes a 30% tax rate next year, and that 30% tax rate will NOT rise back to 40% anytime in the near future, that is a tax cut.

A tax cut is not a check in the mail called a tax credit. A tax cut is not a one year check disguised as a "payroll tax cut".

Tax cuts are permanent, they improve incentives, and across the board. They help the economy.

Obama has not cut one tax.

It's a deduction from the amount of tax that has to be paid. There might be a technical difference, in the same vein as there's a difference between corporate tax and income tax, but it's essentially a retroactive tax cut. The fact that it's not as good as other tax cuts is neither here nor there: not all tax cuts are created equal. It's not redistributionist, it's giving people back their money.

Also, I haven't forgotten that the debate is about whether Obama would cut taxes if he could, rather than whether he has.

No, it is redistributionist. Welfare through the taxcode is still welfare.

And, if Obama wanted to cut marginal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, and capital tax rates, he could. In fact, the repubs have proposed such a plan, and he has pledged to veto it.

He is a typical tax and spend liberal with a redistributionist agenda... which is why he is proposing massive tax increases... on top of the obamacare increases he already passed.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:29:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Socialists on DDO do not understand modern socialism. In North Korean style socialism, the government runs industry directly to achieve the purposes of the ruling regime. In the U.S., control is achieved by detailed regulations governing every aspect company decision making. The government specifies the chairs you sit on, what benefits you must provide to employees, and on and on. There 3600 tax breaks to encourage approved behavior. New regulations are issued at the rate of 10,000 pages per month and there is no doubt that would at least double if Obama is reelected. Congress is not involved.

With the new method of implementing socialism, there is little need to have taxes achieve government control. Regulation can be enforced through civil lawsuits.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:00:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, it is redistributionist. Welfare through the taxcode is still welfare.

And, if Obama wanted to cut marginal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, and capital tax rates, he could. In fact, the repubs have proposed such a plan, and he has pledged to veto it.

He is a typical tax and spend liberal with a redistributionist agenda... which is why he is proposing massive tax increases... on top of the obamacare increases he already passed.

There's no redistribution about it, he's taking someone's money, then giving it back to them. You might say that the initial tax was partially redistributionist (to the extent that it wasn't paying for that individual's use of public services, etc.), the retroactive tax cut is the opposite of that, it's redistributing less.

Yes, there's an argument to be made that if Obama wanted to make additional cuts, beyond the payroll tax, he could. I agree that part of the stalling is ideological, that he isn't willing to capitulate to Republicans: offering to cut corporate tax in a way that sets minimums, and to extend the Bush tax cuts provided that it's "only" for the vast majority (more than 90% of Americans).

However, you have to admit that if he's offering some tax cuts, and Republicans are holding out for more, as they wish to package them in a particular way - for that he can't be blamed. If you go to an allegedly tax-cut friendly Congress, and offer them tax cuts, and they say, "No.", you've behaved reasonably.

No, he's dealing with a massive drive to balance the budget and decrease debt-levels, and hence is promoting policies which cut spending and improve government revenue, within the context of a comparatively weak economy.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper