Pat Toomey Debates Joe Sestak on Fox and Friends

[kenny99996565665]

In my opinion its all about making debt more "manageable" rather than just "less". I mean, a richer person most likely has MORE debt than a poorer one. But is that necessarily bad? Of course not, they can afford it. Thats the problem I have in the debate against supply side.

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 This is what the flat tax as your proposed would have to take into account. The percentage taken from a poor person is more vital than the percentage taken from a wealthy person who "can afford it." For a flat tax to work, the wealthy would have to account for 50% and above of the tax burden since that's how much income they account for. Currently they only account for 40% of the tax burden. Sounds like a lot, but isn't due to the disparity.

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame Whats wealthy to you? The rich carry the income burden in this country. Thats not a debatable point. The top 25% pays over 86% of taxes. Stop acting like they dont pay Read for yourself please. They pay wayyyyy over what you think they pay. And im not arguing they shouldnt. Im just saying when you have the progressive system like we do with deductibles and things, they sometimes end up paying a LESS than they should

[kenny99996565665]

I dont know why I cant post the link!

ntu./tax-basics/who-pays-incom­e-taxes.html

add an "org at the end of ntu....it would let me post it with it in there

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 I can't bring up the link even with the addition of "org" after "ntu.". BUt when I searched for "ntu.org" I got this in the description line: "America's oldest grassroots taxpayer organization working for lower taxes, smaller government, accountability from public officials, and economic freedom at ..." Despite their non-partisan claim, they have an agenda & likely a think thank -- an org. paid to maintain & argue on behalf of a particular view. Their findings may be doubtful.

[altosame]

With ObamaCare, everybody will have to have some form of insurance, but by insurance that's available to meet their needs. THAT's credible and needed CHANGE. As for tax breaks for the wealthy, Democrats are generally not in favor of them because currently only 5 percent of the country's population account for the top 50 percent of wage earners. And, as generally reported, they only account for 40 percent of the taxload. That's 10 percent of top U.S. wage-earnings already untaxed!

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame Economic inequality? WTF is this russia?

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 The ideal in this country is that anyone can become rich. I used the word "inequality" because I was afraid a lot of people on this web page in favor of Pat Toomey won't know the meaning of the word: "disparity." The economic disparity in this country is the highest it's been since the days of Carnegie and J.P. Morgan. With greater disparity, economic and social mobility has decreased. The richer have simply become richer, and the middle class have been driven down to poverty.

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame While this may be the current trend, I find it hard, when looking at what happened with the economy, to blame Republican policy. Its simple mathematics to understand why the rich would be getting richer and the poor, not necessarily getting "poorer", but advancing at a slower rate.

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 As I've stated: Only 5 percent of the population in this country fall into the top 50 percent of wage earners. That leaves the other 95 percent on the lower half. This 5 percent want even more tax breaks. Most likely this 5 percent is made up of families that have long been wealthy and continue that tradition thru credentialism and legacy university enrollment. So those who vote Republican thinking it assures the American dream, actually undermine that dream by their vote.

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame Ok, let's be honest here. You seem like a smart guy, so you KNOW that the rich DO carry the heavy income burden. Thats really not a debate....it's fact.

I think you're being naive in the aspect of "most likely this 5%..." But having said that, I honestly do believe that a flat rate income tax % with no loopholes or tax breaks would be the best way to go. Keep it\ncome tax around 15-18%, cut capital gains tax, death tax, and cut corporate income tax. That IMO is the best way to go

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame But also having said that, I dont believe a vote for the Republicans is "undermining" that dream. Supply-Side economics has been a proven "success". I use "success" in quotation because obviously there are holes, no one will deny that, but its better than the rest. Think about it. Have we ever had economic advancements so great, that a major increase in debt was almost eliminated by GDP growth as we had under Reagan? Have we ever had such failures as the New Deal or the Stimulus?

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 I've thought about it: Supply-side economics doens't work in a global economy. The money will trickle out. It trickles out to India and third world countries that now handle our nation's manufacturing. Reaganomics relied on deficits: borrow now so we can build for later. It's hardly the economic model we should choose for the 21st century, and with the amount of debt that we owe.

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame Supply Side economics works the best. Does it extend the spectrum of income? maybe. But it puts the most people to work. Reaganomics in my opinion were genius. Like I said, the debt from all those deficits were almost nullified due to the massive growth in GDP. Uneployment shot down from the horrendous Carter years and inflation came down out of double digits as well. I find there to be really no argument against Reaganomics thats true

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 It puts a lot of people in India to work. Recently Apple was discovered using third world countries to cheaply manufacture their iphone's. For supply-side ecomomics to work, privileges given to suppliers to pass down to manufacturers have to be restricted to this country for earnings to trickle-down. Also: supply-side side economics is comparable to big Rube Goldberg device. It would take at least 8 yrs for the process to work, and it didn't: Bush I had to raise taxes.

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame incentives need to be placed to keep companies here. I agree. Which is where I think Obama is going wrong. He's driving business OUT of this country like crazy.

Elder Bush raised taxes, but not nearly to what they were under, lets say, Clinton. Reagan cut taxes to a dangerously low level to get out of a terrible recession (which he did)...Let's not act like Bush raised them up to 39% on the top level, then 34%, etc.

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 The question is how much these companies -- supposedly being driven out -- are currently invested in this country. The point to keep in mind: it's a global economy. Reagan raised the deficit, and Clinton taxed to level it out.

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame Well, good sir, it was a priveledge. Ill be happy to continue this later if you'd like, however, I do have class to go to.

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 When Bush came into office it became a popular mantra to say we don't live in a democracy, but a republic. In actuality, we live in a republic run as a representative democracy that's digressing into a representative oligarcy.

We thank the latter, in part, to the Republican majority of the Supreme Court in allowing less limits on corporations in funding election campaigns. Mr. Toomey must have been pleased.

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame And if we are moving towards this "oligarchy" as you say (which I agree to a point), you dont see an Obama, Pelosi, Reid thing as that?

For one, the Supreme Court does not have "parties". Let's establish that off the bat. I also dont think a corporation can sway and election enough to switch voters. Maybe its not a good idea, it has its flaws I know that. But is it a RIGHT? Free Speech? Well 5 people on the court decided that it was.

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 What Obama et al. are doing is leveling out the excess 'entitlements' for the wealthy that was created by decades of supply side economics that didn't keep up with the global changes.

The Supreme Court is the third branch of the government: it's a political institution. The people who are seated on the Supreme Court are decided by the other two political branches. Rarely do we have a supreme court justice that doesn't vote down party lines - from either party.

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame You totally ignore my points and just write back democratic talking points. He is NOT doing that. What he is doing and massively increasing spending 4x as much as bush, then promises to keep taxes low? Really? Thats not possible. Hes not leveling out anything....what hes doing is making it impossible for businesses to get anything done creating a backlash among the BUSINESS WORKERS TOO.

[kenny99996565665]

@altosame and you know damn well the Judicial Branch is suppose to stay away from all the "politics as usual" stuff. They read the law thats all they do. They are either strict constitutionalist or they are loose constructionists....they arent parties. And they dont vote down party lines, The most liberal justice that just retired was nominated by a Republican. Don't even try to pass this over on me. You know its not true

[altosame]

@kenny99996565665 Have a good day. As for the Supreme Court, though, constitutionalist//constructio­nalists are terms that mainly mask party ideology. A constitutionalist typically is in favor of state rights, laissez faire economics, etc. -- what the Republican party favor. Constructionist, on the other hand, favor federal oversight among the three branches of government in reflection of changing times and values, as per Democrats. Stevens was nominated eras ago by a very different Rep. party.

[altosame]

"Sounding like a Republican"... Apparently this news pundit believes the Republican rhetoric. Democrats are in favor of cutting unnecessary taxes, not the across the board tax breaks that create the economic inequality in this country created by the Repubs. "Obamacare" will probably reduce taxes as it cuts down the number of uninsured that tax the country because their healthcare providers deny them (for pre-existing conditions) or drop them (by HMOS due to costly health care)....