• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What End of Bush Tax Cuts Means for You [W: 1475]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gimmesometruth said:
Most of the public sector jobs lost have nothing to do with Obama.
Click to expand...

That is a false statement and a mistake on my part, I apologize as that was never the intent which was to point out that Obama didn't do the actual firing as that was done by the Governors of the state or other state employees. To think that Obama had nothing to do with the firings is absolutely wrong and certainly isn't what I was trying to say. My point was with regard to the actual firing, but there is no doubt that Obama policies contributed to the need to fire these state employees
 
OpportunityCost said:
He may not be, but nearly every liberal in this thread is giving it a pretty game try.
Click to expand...
Am I supposed to answer for others? No.

Every discussion about the economy has "inherited" slipped into the conversation somewhere. Hes done very little to rein in spending and change that inheritance. He claimed he would. He hasn't.
Click to expand...
You are confused about what the "inheritance" argument is, it is about inheriting a crashing economy, job losses, war costs.

I would wager that you have a similar problem with understanding lagging indicators.
 
Conservative said:
That is a false statement and a mistake on my part, I apologize as that was never the intent which was to point out that Obama didn't do the actual firing as that was done by the Governors of the state or other state employees. To think that Obama had nothing to do with the firings is absolutely wrong and certainly isn't what I was trying to say. My point was with regard to the actual firing, but there is no doubt that Obama policies contributed to the need to fire these state employees
Click to expand...

Oh so now you are arguing that we should save public sector jobs
 
Conservative said:
That is a false statement and a mistake on my part, I apologize as that was never the intent which was to point out that Obama didn't do the actual firing as that was done by the Governors of the state or other state employees. To think that Obama had nothing to do with the firings is absolutely wrong and certainly isn't what I was trying to say. My point was with regard to the actual firing, but there is no doubt that Obama policies contributed to the need to fire these state employees
Click to expand...
Policy results that you ARE in favor of since you want LESS public employment.

You are still hanging from your own rope.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Am I supposed to answer for others? No.

You are confused about what the "inheritance" argument is, it is about inheriting a crashing economy, job losses, war costs.

I would wager that you have a similar problem with understanding lagging indicators.
Click to expand...

I would wager you need to shut up if youre going to make asinine assumptions about what I do and do not know. Stick with the topic and keep the veiled insults to yourself.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I would wager you need to shut up if youre going to make asinine assumptions about what I do and do not know. Stick with the topic and keep the veiled insults to yourself.
Click to expand...
That's not very civil....
 
You are confused about what the "inheritance" argument is, it is about inheriting a crashing economy, job losses, war costs.

I would wager that you have a similar problem with understanding lagging indicators.
Click to expand...

Nor is talking down to someone as though they are an imbecile. Which you plainly did. Dont do it and I wont have a reason to be uncivil to you.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Nor is talking down to someone as though they are an imbecile. Which you plainly did. Dont do it and I wont have a reason to be uncivil to you.
Click to expand...
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."


:cry:

Anytime you want to get back to the debate at hand, feel free to do so.​
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
You are apparently a neocon which is why you keep contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...

A neocon that probably gives more to charity in a year than you earn and one who understands results where you don't have a clue. You deserve Obama and ought to pay my share of his debt Sorry you cannot apparently compete in free enterprise economy, too bad, it really does work
 
Conservative said:
A neocon that probably gives more to charity in a year than you earn and one who understands results where you don't have a clue. You deserve Obama and ought to pay my share of his debt Sorry you cannot apparently compete in free enterprise economy, too bad, it really does work
Click to expand...

neocon is a term overused and hypo understood by the far left and the populist right. Neo cons are generally social liberals-often Jewish Democrats who aligned with the GOP on issues mainly involving Israeli interests and US primacy. When the dem party shied away from the JFK agenda of American Primacy and nation building after the Vietnam Debacle, many American Zionists and idealists saw the DNC becoming cynical about our unbridled support of Israel and related nation building. This sent this group into the GOP camp because the GOP continue to support Israeli interests as a key ally in the mideast
 
Conservative said:
A neocon that probably gives more to charity in a year than you earn and one who understands results where you don't have a clue. You deserve Obama and ought to pay my share of his debt Sorry you cannot apparently compete in free enterprise economy, too bad, it really does work
Click to expand...
Yeah, that free economy works really great, just look at 2008!
 
Moderator's Warning:
Almost to 2k post limit, closed thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom