• 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!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

calamity said:
Why was going to the "money tree" good under Reagan and Bush but bad under Obama? Partisan hack much?
Click to expand...

Still don't get it, do you, probably never will as you have never had any leadership opportunities at all. Reagan created 17 million jobs, doubled GDP, had a 60% increase in FIT revenue, and created a peace dividend. Debt to GDP was less than 60% and it is well over 100% now. How many times do I have to post his information until you realize you are out of your league here and have no idea what you are talking about?

Your support for Obama is misguided at best in that you support an incompetent whose resume showed no leadership skills or management experience. The results apparently are irrelevant to you. Are you a racist supporting Obama simply because he is black?
 

I'll ask others in this thread. If they concur with you that you explained why one must leave their current location when they leave an organization, then I'll drop the matter.

So how about it people? Has my question be answered with a perfectly wonderful explanation?
 
Grant said:
States, like countries, would compete for the best people, people would choose their own life styles more easily.

National programs are destroying Americas solvency, its freedoms and its character.
Click to expand...

Regarless if you or I like it or not, we no longer live in a hyper-regionalized country where people thought of themselves as Massachusetts men or Virginians or any other region or state and fight behind that states standard as they did even in the Civil War. Those days are long gone - for good or for ill.

Today a child is born in Michigan and is educated for five years in Ohio when his parents relocate for economic reasons. He goes to high school in Texas due to another move and spends his first two years of college in neighboring New Mexico. He then finishes his degree in California and does grad work in Oregon. He gets a job in Oklahoma and has three subsequent career moves over the next thirty years in New York, North Carolina and Washington. He marries a young lady from Indiana and they have three kids - all born in different states. They retire to Florida and then decide to become halfbacks and instead settle down in Asheville, North Carolina.

That is the America we live in.

the old regional or state roots are dead for many and for others never existed at all. That is the reality of the USA in the 21st century.
 

Ah - you are invoking the fallacy argument um ad populum. :doh

So the ignorance of others somehow bolsters your own. Very interesting. :roll:

The fact - which has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over again is that we are talking about YOUR CHOICE OF THE NATION YOU LIVE IN. We are talking about YOUR CHOICE of what laws to live under. And location be damned, damned again and thrice damned.
 

So earlier you were talking about people voluntarily joining a larger group. Now you mention the word "nation". Would you consider a nation to be such a group? Assuming you do, if one decides to quit that group, why do you seem to imply that one would then be required to abandon his current residence?
 
Last edited:

YOu willingly chose to live in the USA. As such you accept the USA with all its benefits and obligations. If you decide you can no longer do that, then exercise your right to chose something else.

you seem caught in a constantly repeating loop. Nine pages ago you were told this


and now despite page after page after page after page after page of detailed explanation you are right back where you started.
 
Last edited:

A discussion of progressive taxation is a discussion of comparative tax burdens, with higher incomes paying a progressively higher rate of income tax. The GWB tax cuts eliminated the tax burden for many in the bottom 50% of earners, and thereby made the system more progressive.eace
 
Do you agree that the higher incomes paid the same taxes whether or not the bottom 50% of earners were relieved of paying taxes?
 
pbrauer said:
Do you agree that the higher incomes paid the same taxes whether or not the bottom 50% of earners were relieved of paying taxes?
Click to expand...

Do you care more about the rates or the dollars paid? Would love to hear your definition of progressive if paying a higher percentage of the taxes isn't progressive?
 
JFK, Conservative

I grew up a JFK Democrat and although very young his vision for America is much different than today's Democratic Party. Here is what you miss and continue to miss because you cannot apply basic economics in your own life.

 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, I suppose I would.
Click to expand...
Good answer. In a progressive tax system income brackets are created and marginal rates are assigned to each of those brackets. Those rates are only applied to the income for each bracket, the total tax paid is the sum of all the applicable brackets. So if the Bush tax cuts was progressive the individual would be paying more, but we know they paid less.
 

Sorry, but no. Under the GWB tax cuts the high earners paid a higher percentage of the total tax burden. The system was thereby made more progressive.eace
 
Conservative said:
Do you care more about the rates or the dollars paid? Would love to hear your definition of progressive if paying a higher percentage of the taxes isn't progressive?
Click to expand...
Paying a higher percentage of all the taxes doesn't mean they pay more taxes. Anytime the number of tax payers goes down everyone who pays taxes will see the higher rate not just the upper incomes.
 

pbrauer said:
Paying a higher percentage of all the taxes doesn't mean they pay more taxes. Anytime the number of tax payers goes down everyone who pays taxes will see the higher rate not just the upper incomes.
Click to expand...

So . . . did they pay more? Or did they pay less?:mrgreen:
 
pbrauer said:
Paying a higher percentage of all the taxes doesn't mean they pay more taxes. Anytime the number of tax payers goes down everyone who pays taxes will see the higher rate not just the upper incomes.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question, do you care more about taxes collected or the rates? As we have seen less than 50% of income earners pay taxes, how many of them are the upper class?
 
I showed you how the Job creators themselves blame the GOP for stalling the recovery. Hell, here's an article about it that was cut today.
Here's Evidence That The GOP Is Not 'Pro-Business' Anymore
It goes on to give examples of GOP policy all of which were job killers. Earlier, I showed you an article that stated the GOP austerity measures cost the economy between 2-3 million jobs.


What part of that do you not get?
 
Yet, as in understand it, one of the key aspects of living in the US is that you can take steps to change a law you dislike. Granted doing so is a very long process and may fail.

Still, it is not a given that someone accepts current law, despite voluntarily living in the US. That they should obey the law, yes. That they agree with it, no.
 

The Repubs are no longer pro-business because the Huffington Post says so?:lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
The Repubs are no longer pro-business because the Huffington Post says so?:lamo
Click to expand...
I think the truth is probably that each individual politician is pro-business to the highest bidder. Democrat or Republican, whatever.

I don't trust any of em.
 

Tell me exactly what the GOP prevented from happening that caused what we had in 2009-2011? You buy what you are told and ignore actual reality. Your opinion is nothing more than an opinion based upon ignorance. I want to see what austerity programs prevented 2-3 million jobs from being created? Did those shovels ever arrive for those shovel ready jobs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…