Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Feb '14 23:01
    What do you think and why?
  2. 08 Feb '14 23:05
    Probably, because he's not a complete dick.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    09 Feb '14 02:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Probably, because he's not a complete dick.
    Why else would he fight so hard for Obamacare? That certainly does not benefit the rich. Neither does making the rich pay higher taxes.
  4. 09 Feb '14 02:46
    Prior to his income tax returns becoming a matter of public record, here is what the Obamas gave to charity:

    2005: $77,315 to charity out of income of $1.66 million (4.6 percent)

    2004: $2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent)

    2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent)

    2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)



    That's about 3.6% of their income during those years. Back when they occasionally paid for things themselves, which they no longer do.

    You'd have to say they don't care. If you make six figures and only "donate" in the low-four figure range, that's nothing.

    Besides, who the hell goes around wondering whether or not the President "cares about them", when the President (Dem or Rep) doesn't even know they're alive?

    Do his policies help the poor and middle class? Of course not. When Obama makes a speech, all he talks about is extending unemployment "benefits". That's all he has to offer. That's all he WANTS to offer. Well, that and raising the minimum wage, which will of course price the lowest skilled workers out of the job market.
  5. 09 Feb '14 15:49
    Originally posted by TheBloop
    Prior to his income tax returns becoming a matter of public record, here is what the Obamas gave to charity:

    2005: $77,315 to charity out of income of $1.66 million (4.6 percent)

    2004: $2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent)

    2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent)

    2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)



    That's about 3.6% of their incom ...[text shortened]... g the minimum wage, which will of course price the lowest skilled workers out of the job market.
    The degree that someone cares about the poor and middle class is NOT quantified by the percent of their personal income.

    Donating 3.6% of your personal income is actually a lot. And How about his personal time being spent toward helping the poor and middle class?

    Putting quotations around the word "benefits" doesn't cease to make unemployment benefits unemployment benefits. I disagree with you about whether or not his policies help the middle class.
  6. 09 Feb '14 19:15
    Originally posted by whodey
    What do you think and why?
    Do politicians care about votes?
  7. 09 Feb '14 20:39 / 2 edits
    Hitler used to rail against the top 4% in Germany, and then taxed them heavily.

    It did not really make that much difference in raising revenue than it did in mass appeal. Germans liked the notion that the rich were getting hit hard.

    Nevertheless, Hitler spent far more than he collected in revenue, so much so that the economy almost collapsed. The point being, it as never about raising revenue. Hitler created one of the greatest nanny states of all time for the average German as he stole from Jews, the rich, and countries he conquered to do it. In return, the average war weary Germans looked the other way with mass genocide in their backyard.
  8. 09 Feb '14 21:47 / 2 edits
    As Obama demagogues about wanting to help the poor and the middle class, the poor increase and the middle class decrease.

    I say it's all Reagans fault!!
  9. 09 Feb '14 22:28
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Do politicians care about votes?
    Apparently Obama doesn't care enough to try to win over the likes of Whodey.
  10. 10 Feb '14 13:29
    Originally posted by TheBloop
    Prior to his income tax returns becoming a matter of public record, here is what the Obamas gave to charity:

    2005: $77,315 to charity out of income of $1.66 million (4.6 percent)

    2004: $2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent)

    2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent)

    2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)



    That's about 3.6% of their incom ...[text shortened]... g the minimum wage, which will of course price the lowest skilled workers out of the job market.
    I'm fine with Obama giving as much or as little as he wants to charity.
    My objection is that he wants to mandate that others give money to his causes. It is very easy to spend other people's money and that is why the government continually gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
  11. 10 Feb '14 13:31
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I'm fine with Obama giving as much or as little as he wants to charity.
    My objection is that he wants to mandate that others give money to his causes. It is very easy to spend other people's money and that is why the government continually gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
    By what measure does the government get "bigger and bigger"?
  12. 10 Feb '14 13:53
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    By what measure does the government get "bigger and bigger"?
    I was thinking by the amount it spends year after year and by the number of laws it passes but imagine it grows by just about any method you would use to measure size.
  13. 10 Feb '14 14:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I was thinking by the amount it spends year after year and by the number of laws it passes but imagine it grows by just about any method you would use to measure size.
    US federal spending hasn't changed much over the last couple of decades. Here are some graphs:

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

    Meanwhile, the amount of laws passed by Congress shows a downward trend:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
  14. 10 Feb '14 14:29
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    US federal spending hasn't changed much over the last couple of decades. Here are some graphs:

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

    Meanwhile, the amount of laws passed by Congress shows a downward trend:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
    You are showing spending as a percentage of GDP. The spending certainly has increased. There is no reason why the government needs to continually spend more and more. Similarly, the rate at which laws are passed is not relevant it is the total number of laws which increases. The tax code gets thicker, the number of regulatory bodies continues to increase. I think we'd be a better society if this were not the case.
  15. 10 Feb '14 16:21
    Originally posted by quackquack
    You are showing spending as a percentage of GDP. The spending certainly has increased. There is no reason why the government needs to continually spend more and more. Similarly, the rate at which laws are passed is not relevant it is the total number of laws which increases. The tax code gets thicker, the number of regulatory bodies continues to increase. I think we'd be a better society if this were not the case.
    If you inspect the graph carefully, you'll notice that most of the increase in government spending comes from an increase in state and local spending.

    The number of laws, by itself, does not mean much. Not all laws take an equal effort to enforce. Many of them may not even be effectively enforced at all. Some laws may replace and simplify others. Even with your shifting of the goalposts (rather than admitting your claim was false), there isn't much to be concluded from just the number of laws.