• 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!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
sangha said:
The rightwing believes that paying legitimate debts is "irresponsible". No wonder they always screw up the economy
Click to expand...

No, the irresponsible is not shutting down deficit spending. The Republicans are more than willing to raise the debt ceiling. It's the Democrats who want to lie about tax cuts yet again rather than just cutting spending.
 
Objective Voice said:
What can I say, Conserv...

You have Blue-Dog Democrats amongst Liberals as you have Tea Party hardline conservatives among Republicans. Speaker Boehner isn't President, but he's having no better luck convincing members of his party to act in the best interest of the country and work with him than Pres. Obama had with conservative Democrats early in his presidency. That's why you need someone who is able to force "compromise" when you can't get your way 100%.
Click to expand...

There are far too many that misinterpretted the Obama "Hope and Change" Message in that they believed it meant one thing whereas Obama meant it another way. Too many buy the rhetoric, are brainwashed, overwhelmed by the youth, vigor, and smile but ignore the incompetence. You can never delegate responsibility which is what Obama does all the time. You can delegate authority but never responsibility. Someone Obama doesn't understand that.
 
Conservative said:
Christianity is built on free will and not forced redistribution. Liberals always confuse that fact and believe Jesus would force people to give to someone else. Free will promotes people doing the right thing and the fact that there are consequences for failure.
Click to expand...

And Democrats think they are God and want to be the ones that punish people for their sins, rather than God Himself.
 
1Perry said:
It got him a vote of 0-97. Let's make no mistake in believing that anything voted down 0-97 was anything other than a dishonest effort.
Click to expand...

Because we all know how honest those Congress critters are, right? :roll:
 
Boo Radley said:
Second you do. So, say it for the record, Bush is repsonble for increasing the debt.
Click to expand...

Of course Bush is responsible for the debt on his term, 4.9 trillion in 8 years. Obama has generated 4 trillion in three. President's get a lot of help on the debt, they cannot spend a dime without Congressional approval. Congress was under Democrat control from January 2007-January 2011
 
LesGovt said:
And Democrats think they are God and want to be the ones that punish people for their sins, rather than God Himself.
Click to expand...

Republicans think they are God and want to punish people for their sins. That's why the rightwing Talibornagains always vote GOP
 
1Perry said:
I did. It wasn't an honest effort.
Click to expand...

WRONG!

From the Hill.com:

The president’s budget called for ending tax cuts for the wealthy and a three-year domestic spending freeze, saving an estimated $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Democratic senators at the time called it “an important step forward”, “a good start” and a “credible blueprint.”

No Democratic senator was willing to support it, however, after Obama discussed a more ambitious plan at George Washington University to save $4 trillion over 12 years. Republicans criticized his speech for lacking detail.
Click to expand...

It was rejected in the Senate not because it wasn't serious, but because for Republicans it called for eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy - something the GOP will not back away from - and the Dems learned of the President's intentions to propose still more spending cuts and would rather have seen the high cost cuts take affect than what was originally proposed.

So, take the President's February budget of $1 trillion in spending cuts and leave an additional $2-3 trillion on the table, or reject the President's plan and seek more cuts? Which would you choose? Of course a plan that was proposed in February but wasn't brought to a vote until May would be rejected if the 2nd plan was better. Who wouldn't accept the latter over the former?
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Because we all know how honest those Congress critters are, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

I have no clue what this means. The Dems in the Senate had the numbers to pass this. They knew that there was absolutely no way it was a responsible budget and wanted nothing to do with it.
 
sangha said:
They all share the same republican brain cell. The names have been changed, but it's the same bunch of theives they've always been
Click to expand...

Oh, so Bush and the GOP ran up the deficits and now the GOP wants to dramatically cut spending and you say they are the same. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Objective Voice said:
WRONG!
It was rejected in the Senate not because it wasn't serious, but because for Republicans it called for eliminated the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy - something the GOP will not back away from - and the Dems learned of the President's intentions to propose still more spending cuts and would rather have seen the high cost cuts take affect than what was originally proposed.

So, take the President's February budget of $1 trillion in spending cuts and leave an additional $2 trillion on the table, or reject the President's plan and seek more cuts? Which would you choose? Of course a plan that was proposed in February but wasn't brought to a vote until May would be rejected if the 2nd plan was better. Who wouldn't accept the latter over the former?
Click to expand...

This is the problem we have right now. Obama isn't trustworthy. He sends Congress a budget but says that he has other ideas for more cuts. Well if so, why weren't they simply included in the budget?

I'll answer. Because these cuts would never have materialized.
 
The right wing position on getting rid of Social Security because its going to cost money down the road in thirty years reminds me of a couple who put aside five dollars a week for their childs college education at Harvard.

At age eight, they are informed that they will need a whole lot more to cover the costs than what they are on track to save. So they go home, throw out the kids HARVARD CLASS OF 2025 t-shirt and tell the kid, "sorry son, lets practice saying "welcome to wal-mart".
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
When does one stop the bleeding...


chart.jpg



When does one think that we may have spent too much?



What's the end game to all this spending?




How much more does the far left wing need to fix this? dollars please.
Click to expand...
Deficits don't actually reflect spending, they reflect revenue versus spending. For example, compare that chart with this one, which is actual spending by year, and you'll see both parties increase spending...


chart.jpg

www.usgovernmentspending.com
 
sangha said:
The deficits under the dem president went down. Under the repuke presidents, it went up
Click to expand...

I understand that when the GOP was in the Executive in the 1980s and 1990s, the Democrats lied about making the cuts. You have acknowledged that. You are being totally disingenuous in ignoring that fact when you make your faulty comments. A little context helps.
 
Objective Voice said:
WRONG!

From the Hill.com:


It was rejected in the Senate not because it wasn't serious, but because for Republicans it called for eliminated the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy - something the GOP will not back away from - and the Dems learned of the President's intentions to propose still more spending cuts and would rather have seen the high cost cuts take affect than what was originally proposed.

So, take the President's February budget of $1 trillion in spending cuts and leave an additional $2 trillion on the table, or reject the President's plan and seek more cuts? Which would you choose? Of course a plan that was proposed in February but wasn't brought to a vote until May would be rejected if the 2nd plan was better. Who wouldn't accept the latter over the former?
Click to expand...

1.1 trillion over 10 years is 110 billion a year which won't pay the debt servive on the debt. No Democrat voted for it, why? Democrats control the Senate. Obama proposed a budget only because Ryan and the House did after Republicans took control of Congress
 
Conservative said:
There are far too many that misinterpretted the Obama "Hope and Change" Message in that they believed it meant one thing whereas Obama meant it another way. Too many buy the rhetoric, are brainwashed, overwhelmed by the youth, vigor, and smile but ignore the incompetence. You can never delegate responsibility which is what Obama does all the time. You can delegate authority but never responsibility. Someone Obama doesn't understand that.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! Which is why I lay the blame for this mess squarely at the feet of Congress, not the President.
 
Conservative said:
Watch it, you are dealing with someone who runs to the Mods when challenged to get you thread banned. I want you to remain here doing a great job. Those people I ignore and will never communicate with again
Click to expand...

No, I will not always ignore. Some are lost and will never be found. I don't write for their benefit. I write for the benefit of others. I always have and I always will.
 
sangha said:
Where did I say anything about a govt mandate. It would help if your responses were to things I actually said, as opposed to what you would have liked me to have said.
Click to expand...

Well, then your comment is meaningless with regards to this discussion. If you wish to talk about Jesus and God, I would suggest you take it to the Religious threads here. There it would be meaningful.
 
Conservative said:
1.1 trillion over 10 years is 110 billion a year which won't pay the debt servive on the debt. No Democrat voted for it, why? Democrats control the Senate. Obama proposed a budget only because Ryan and the House did after Republicans took control of Congress
Click to expand...

Got any proof of that? What's your timeline on who submitted their budget proposals? Remember: President Obama submitted his budget in early February, 2011. When did Paul Ryan and House Republicans submit theirs?

Also, as I stated in an ealier post to this thread, per the GOP Pledge to America, their baseline for spending cuts was $1 billion/per year. Seems to me the President's original budget proposal would have netted them just over their baseline benchmark. And yet they rejected the offer.
 
Objective Voice said:
EXACTLY! Which is why I lay the blame for this mess squarely at the feet of Congress, not the President.
Click to expand...

Congress was totally controlled by the Democrats from January 2007 to January 2011 when the Republicans took over the House. The budget was due prior to October 2010 but democrats didn't want to prevent one because of the election. Democrats could have addressed the current debt crisis anytime in 2009 or 2010 so where was the Obama leadership to push Congress for a plan?
 
Objective Voice said:
Now, ask yourself and be honest about it...why did the Senate vote that way?
Click to expand...

They voted that way because the entire Senate knew it was a bogus plan. Had it been even a fair program, it would have gotten a vote or two.
 
LesGovt said:
Oh, so Bush and the GOP ran up the deficits and now the GOP wants to dramatically cut spending and you say they are the same. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

No, the republicans only SAY they want to dramatically cut spending, but when the President offered to do so, the repubs ran out of the room like a bunch of schoolgirls with a spider in their hair
 
haymarket said:
Not at all. we get the meaning of that election.

Get out and vote and don't let the wingnuts catch you resting on your fat behind.
Click to expand...

Aha! So you did not learn the lesson. Oh well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom