• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
no, that was a week ago, mcconnell-reid has moved quite a bit in recent days, now promising 1.5T in hard cuts

No, not real cuts. You should look at it very closely. A large portion of the cuts are things like reductions in military spending already expected because of the planned reductions in troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cuts in there are just a token so they can say they did something. The Democrats proposed $4T is actual cuts and revenue increases and got turned away. The McConnell thing is maybe, at the most, $1T. They accepted $3T in additional deficits just to facilitate this little circus they're putting on this week....
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,527
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know if he said all or any of his original statement was wrong, so now I'm not suggesting any such thing. I do know that many grad programs find it difficult to find qualified kids from the US. I do know that the SAT is an easier test than it once was. I know that college professors bitch a lot about how kids today don't do any work.
... and I could go on.

What do grad students have to do with what Greenspan said?
 

BDBoop

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The government gives corporations a tort-liability shield. This is a special perk given by the government which allows people who hold stock in a company to escape liability they would otherwise have been jointly and severally liable for. Traditionally, partners in a company are always held jointly and severally liable for the torts of their partners, even if they had no involvement in them. This means that their personal assets of the partner who wasn't directly responsible for the tort can still be seized to compensate a victim, up to 100% of the injury. But in a corporation, the government steps in and deprives that victim of their rights to seek compensation from the partners in a corporation. Thus victims of the torts have their rights taken away by the coercive protection arrangement between stockholders and the government.

Next time somebody says that the rich don't get more from the government, just remind them how many law suits those wealthy people have evaded thanks to government-back tort-liability shields. Anybody who has ever owned stock in a corporation has personally had their pocketbooks protected by the government.

Your obviously intelligent, insightful post is a like a drink of water for a parched woman. I think if I'd read one more kneejerk, attempted slap-in-the-face, insulting post, I would have been a goner.

Thank you, sir.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
120,128
Reaction score
12,071
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just yesterday, you were agreeing with the Wall Stret Journal chart where it showed 16 million jobs created during the Reagan years.

"Reagan generated 16 million new taxpayers" ~ Conservative

That was before you changed to different data showing 17 million jobs were created during the Reagan years.

What do the numbers show?

January 1981 99.9 million

January 1989 116.7 million

You do the math
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Would you please tell the forum why posting rates and not actual percentage collected is of value? You think that people paid 90% of their income in taxes? Ever hear of deductions?
Of course no one paid 90%, they kept their profits in their businesses. The huge tax cuts allow many to speculate in the stock market. The tax rate in the 1920's was 25% and Calvin Coolidge lowered that to 24%, then the stock market crashed.
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't give a damn where it was from, BLS is the keeper of employment data, not an op ed piece from any source, left or right.
One more time .... the data that was used to generate the Wall Street Journal chart which sangha linked came from the BLS. You should know that since I gave you the link to that BLS.gov website just yesterday.


I posted the chart, you ignored it. that is total laziness and will serve you well in the future. Just tired of your misinformation and lies.
The misinformation and lies are all yours. Yesterday, you quoted the payroll data from the BLS which says 16 million jobs under Reagan.


You then admitted you were posting payroll data


Then after you found numbers you like better, you switched from using payroll data to household survey data.

Nice.

:naughty:
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
120,128
Reaction score
12,071
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course no one paid 90%, they kept their profits in their businesses. The huge tax cuts allow many to speculate in the stock market. The tax rate in the 1920's was 25% and Calvin Coolidge lowered that to 24%, then the stock market crashed.

You posted tax rates as if they mean anything while ignoring what they actually paid and that is the point. Tax rates mean absolutely nothing
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
120,128
Reaction score
12,071
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
One more time .... the data that was used to generate the Wall Street Journal chart which sangha linked came from the BLS. You should know that since I gave you the link to that BLS.gov website just yesterday.



The misinformation and lies are all yours. Yesterday, you quoted the payroll data from the BLS which says 16 million jobs under Reagan.


You then admitted you were posting payroll data


Then after you found numbers you like better, you switched from using payroll data to household survey data.

Nice.

:naughty:

I gave you the chart, where in that chart does the 23 million jobs come from and don't you see a problem with your chart showing 132 million employed and mine 137 million? Where is the disconnect? Figure it out and get back to me. I know you can do it
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One more time .... the data that was used to generate the Wall Street Journal chart which sangha linked came from the BLS. You should know that since I gave you the link to that BLS.gov website just yesterday.



The misinformation and lies are all yours. Yesterday, you quoted the payroll data from the BLS which says 16 million jobs under Reagan.
You then admitted you were posting payroll data
Then after you found numbers you like better, you switched from using payroll data to household survey data.

Nice.

:naughty:

Do you think any of that matters to a propagandist?
 

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
remember him racing his cigarette boat in Marthas' Vineyard while people were losing their jobs

vote obama, 2012!

don't forget the cigarette boat!

LOL!
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I posted the total employment chart, refute it
I already have -- and with your own words.

You said 16 million jobs were created under Reagan. The only BLS data which says that is the same data in that WSJ article. The data you're now pointing to shows 17 million jobs were created.

You changed the data because it kills you that 23 million jobs were created while Clinton was president. You just can't accept a successful Democrat president.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
109,398
Reaction score
54,356
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Moderator's Warning:
You all went over the 2k post cap when I was not looking. Locking this before it bogs down the database or whatever happens. If the board blows up because of this thread, I am holding you all responsible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom