• 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.

Small ideas? How about NO ideas.

johnny_rebson said:
Why don't you realize that giving more money to the 1% is a good thing?
Click to expand...

its idiotic to claim that tax cuts is GIVING money to those who made it-
 
AdamT said:
I know this will be a foreign concept to Romney supporters, but Obama's agenda has not changed since '08, except to the extent that he's accomplished some of his goals, like health care reform. If someone doesn't know what Obama's agenda is he or she either hasn't been paying attention, or he or she is an idiot.
Click to expand...

so the next four years if Obama wins are going to suck as well
 
TurtleDude said:
its idiotic to claim that tax cuts is GIVING money to those who made it-
Click to expand...


to be fair, liberals think that all money is the governments, and it is the government that should decide how much you get to keep....
 
Martha Stewart is taking it upon herself to start helping people start and build small businesses. I suspect that she will have more success in that than <<insert your candidate of choice's name here>>.
 
Born Free said:
Huh, Obama threw out a budget that not one person voted for

how is that a "framework"?

I mean how can you push forward with reconciliation when both sides hate what the president is proposing?
Click to expand...
Nope! A mock form of Obama's budget with insufficient policy language to even hint at implementation was brought forth for a vote by house and senate republicans. This information has been available for some time now.

It's a framework in the sense that it brings parameters to the table concerning just about every portion of the budget, which can be used as a tool in the budget forming process itself, or as guidelines for reconciliation measures.

Senate democrats know full well that a bill authored by Obama himself would never sniff passage, the gist of the matter is that while a 51 vote traditional majority vote passes such reconciliation or budgetary measures, 60 votes or the cooperation of the House would be required in order for said resolution to actually take effect, and I don't think we need to defer to Vegas to get the odds on that happening in the near term.
 
TurtleDude said:
so the next four years if Obama wins are going to suck as well
Click to expand...

In the next four years the CBO forecasts that 12 million jobs will be created ... which not so coincidentally is exactly how many jobs Romney claims he will create (ignoring his meme that government does not create jobs). Unemployment is also projected to fall by essentially the same amount under existing policies as Romney claims it would fall under his policies.

In addition, discretionary spending is projected to fall to a level not seen since the Eisenhower administration (if then). Obama will have a chance to implement his health care reform, extending coverage to tens of millions of Americans. We will not piss trillions of dollars away by increasing defense spending, or by becoming involved in protracted wars in Syria and/or Iran. There is a good chance we will see meaningful immigration reform. And, if enough Republicans decide that they work for the American people and not the RNC, we will invest in our essential infrastructure and boost growth and reduce unemployment in the process.
 
j-mac said:
to be fair, liberals think that all money is the governments, and it is the government that should decide how much you get to keep....
Click to expand...

you are right, its the only thing that can explain the people who say that a tax cut is the same as giving someone else money you earned
 
AdamT said:
In the next four years the CBO forecasts that 12 million jobs will be created ... which not so coincidentally is exactly how many jobs Romney claims he will create (ignoring his meme that government does not create jobs). Unemployment is also projected to fall by essentially the same amount under existing policies as Romney claims it would fall under his policies.

In addition, discretionary spending is projected to fall to a level not seen since the Eisenhower administration (if then). Obama will have a chance to implement his health care reform, extending coverage to tens of millions of Americans. We will not piss trillions of dollars away by increasing defense spending, or by becoming involved in protracted wars in Syria and/or Iran. There is a good chance we will see meaningful immigration reform. And, if enough Republicans decide that they work for the American people and not the RNC, we will invest in our essential infrastructure and boost growth and reduce unemployment in the process.
Click to expand...

thanks for the campaign commercial but I tend to base what happens based on the truism

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
 
TurtleDude said:
thanks for the campaign commercial but I tend to base what happens based on the truism

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I prefer to base my decisions on facts rather than pithy sayings.
 
AdamT said:
Gotcha. I prefer to base my decisions on facts rather than pithy sayings.
Click to expand...

Well it would hard to be an Obama supporter if your real agenda is improving America and if facts really guided your support
 
AdamT said:
In the next four years the CBO forecasts that 12 million jobs will be created ... which not so coincidentally is exactly how many jobs Romney claims he will create (ignoring his meme that government does not create jobs). Unemployment is also projected to fall by essentially the same amount under existing policies as Romney claims it would fall under his policies.

In addition, discretionary spending is projected to fall to a level not seen since the Eisenhower administration (if then). Obama will have a chance to implement his health care reform, extending coverage to tens of millions of Americans. We will not piss trillions of dollars away by increasing defense spending, or by becoming involved in protracted wars in Syria and/or Iran. There is a good chance we will see meaningful immigration reform. And, if enough Republicans decide that they work for the American people and not the RNC, we will invest in our essential infrastructure and boost growth and reduce unemployment in the process.
Click to expand...

Hate to burst your bubble there, Ace, but ANY conflict with Iran is going to be protracted and expensive, so the only way what you say could be true would be if Obama turned his back and let Iran get nuclear missiles.
 
Hare said:
No, but it lays out a general framework and direction that the President would prefer, and is used to craft alternative plans, or as of more recent years, used in order to to push forward the reconciliation process with more clarity. Customarily, when one claims that a politician has "No ideas", they take 30 seconds or so of Google perusing in order to reach that conclusion. Quite literally the least you can do.
Click to expand...

Make a list of all the votes that got in congress - you can limit it to Democrats who supported it if you want to avoid 'writer's cramp' -

We can wait as long as it takes to complete the list.

T.I.A.
 
j-mac said:
Well, your imagination is what is running wild here. But Americans want answers. Obama is giving none.
Click to expand...

Cut taxes for business, close loopholes for every one. Hum...
 
Deuce said:
This guy told me Obama has no plan so it must be true. I wont go check or anything.
Click to expand...

Good idea. It would be so frustrating to see that there is no one sitting in the empty chair.
 
Fisher said:
Hate to burst your bubble there, Ace, but ANY conflict with Iran is going to be protracted and expensive, so the only way what you say could be true would be if Obama turned his back and let Iran get nuclear missiles.
Click to expand...

Quite a few assumptions in there, right? Two whit, you assume that:

1. Iran is attempting to build ballistic nuclear weapons. There are many security experts who do not believe that that is the case;

2. Iran cannot be deterred by sanctions. It is quite possible that the threat of sanctions and military actions will convince the Iranians to allow adequate inspections;

3. Even if military action is taken, it would significantly set back Iran's nuclear arms program -- assuming that they have one. I believe that MOST security experts -- including several former heads of MOSAD -- think that this is not the case;

4. Military action against Iran, even if it could permanently or significantly disable Iran's nuclear arms program (assuming again that they have one) would be less risky than having a nuclear armed Iran, which could not be contained even by the threat of absolute annihilation. I believe that a military conflict with Iran -- especially in the next two years -- would be disastrous for the world's economy. It would send us and most of the world into severe recession. I do not believe the Iranians are suicidal. I think that, if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, they are doing so to have them as a deterrance.
 
AdamT said:
Gotcha. I prefer to base my decisions on facts rather than pithy sayings.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Now take off your rose-colored glasses and see all the facts, not just the ones that support your decided view.
 
AdamT said:
.... I do not believe the Iranians are suicidal. I think that, if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, they are doing so to have them as a deterrance.
Click to expand...

Do you think Israel is going to care why they have them when they blow them up if we don't, at which point we will be dragged into it one way or the other. The danger to the US won't be in an Iranian nuclear blast--it will be in a perpetual string of terrorist attacks against soft targets at home and abroad.
 
nota bene said:
Good to know. Now take off your rose-colored glasses and see all the facts, not just the ones that support your decided view.
Click to expand...

I guess this is where you were supposed to list some of those facts I've been missing....
 
Fisher said:
Do you think Israel is going to care why they have them when they blow them up if we don't, at which point we will be dragged into it one way or the other. The danger to the US won't be in an Iranian nuclear blast--it will be in a perpetual string of terrorist attacks against soft targets at home and abroad.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Israel is going to undertake a full-scale military attack unless we agree in advance to participate, and I think that Obama will be much more cautious about that than Romney would be. Don't forget, Romney has absolutely no foreign policy experience and three quarters of his advisors are former Bush neocons.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think that Israel is going to undertake a full-scale military attack unless we agree in advance to participate, and I think that Obama will be much more cautious about that than Romney would be. Don't forget, Romney has absolutely no foreign policy experience and three quarters of his advisors are former Bush neocons.
Click to expand...

They don't have to. If they attack the reactors only, they will unleash a wave of Iran-supported terrorism against Israel and the US. The US needs to go after the regime and not the reactors, but I do not see Obama caring to do that either.
 
Fisher said:
They don't have to. If they attack the reactors only, they will unleash a wave of Iran-supported terrorism against Israel and the US. The US needs to go after the regime and not the reactors, but I do not see Obama caring to do that either.
Click to expand...

They can't really go after the reactors. The one's that could be used for military purposes are too far underground.

I don't think there would be any wave of terrorism against us if the Israelis went in by themselves. They've done it before in Iraq and Syria and there was no such backlash against us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom