• 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!

Tea party to GOP: We could make 'examples' of you over debt ceiling

upsideguy said:
I can appreciate the distinction between Debt Held by the Public and the Total Debt. You are correct that from a Total Debt perspective, there we did not have a surplus in the late 1990's, but that deficit was the lowest it had been in nearly half a century. Do not get so hung up in the political semantics that you miss the point: the deficit was very, very manageable during the Clinton years. It got out of control during the ensuing administration(s).
Click to expand...

Well, the point you just made doesn't address my point. Since you arrived mid-discussion, you have not seen my point. Not your fault, but I did not want to go through the explanation yet another time. Before, I get to my point, let me address your point. I am pleased to see you admit that there was no surplus during the
1990s; however, you have neglected to point out another fact of those days. That fact is Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Clinton signed the bills they passed. They both get credit. You will not find me defending the deficits of the Bush Era.

My point was that Reagan agreed to raise taxes in exchange for cuts in expenditures. The Dems got their tax increases, but Reagan did not get his expenditure cuts. That was the 1980s. I provided proof of that long ago. In the 1990s, Mr. Read My Lips, came to an agreement again with the Dems. This time it was $3 of expenditure cuts for $1 tax increase. The tax increase was implemented, but the Dems only cut 27 cents. These are the lies to which I speak. No offense, but I don't trust the Dems. I don't really trust the GOP all that much either. I'm afraid they will get snookered by a third lie.
 
upsideguy said:
Yep, lets ask the people that are hurting to sacrifice so the people that are prospering don't have to be bothered. This concept is the most absurd thing I have seen in my lifetime. The Conservatives should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

Why should conservatives be ashamed? Now is not the time to increase taxes. The President has played his class warfare game and after the lies of the past, the Dems can no longer be trusted. The President has poisoned the well with his vitriolic rhetoric. I would support the Deficit Commissions ideas about simplifying the tax code with less brackets and lowering the tax rates. I want the economy back on its feet first.
 
LesGovt said:
Well, the point you just made doesn't address my point. Since you arrived mid-discussion, you have not seen my point. Not your fault, but I did not want to go through the explanation yet another time. Before, I get to my point, let me address your point. I am pleased to see you admit that there was no surplus during the
1990s; however, you have neglected to point out another fact of those days. That fact is Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Clinton signed the bills they passed. They both get credit. You will not find me defending the deficits of the Bush Era.

My point was that Reagan agreed to raise taxes in exchange for cuts in expenditures. The Dems got their tax increases, but Reagan did not get his expenditure cuts. That was the 1980s. I provided proof of that long ago. In the 1990s, Mr. Read My Lips, came to an agreement again with the Dems. This time it was $3 of expenditure cuts for $1 tax increase. The tax increase was implemented, but the Dems only cut 27 cents. These are the lies to which I speak. No offense, but I don't trust the Dems. I don't really trust the GOP all that much either. I'm afraid they will get snookered by a third lie.
Click to expand...

You are quite the revisionist historian. Again, Clinton did run a surplus, according to the same accounting rules that are applied to other presidents. For some odd reason Republicans want to apply a different set of rules to Clinton.

Clinton was able to run a surplus primarily because of his tax hikes, which every single Republican in Congress voted against, and because of his spending cuts (including cuts to military spending, which were also opposed by Republicans). Republicans were largely unsuccesful in winning spending cuts beyond those proposed by Clinton, though they did succeed in winning some tax cuts -- without which surplus would have been even larger.
 
AdamT said:
You are quite the revisionist historian. Again, Clinton did run a surplus, according to the same accounting rules that are applied to other presidents. For some odd reason Republicans want to apply a different set of rules to Clinton.

Clinton was able to run a surplus primarily because of his tax hikes, which every single Republican in Congress voted against, and because of his spending cuts (including cuts to military spending, which were also opposed by Republicans). Republicans were largely unsuccesful in winning spending cuts beyond those proposed by Clinton, though they did succeed in winning some tax cuts -- without which surplus would have been even larger.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I was just being polite and agreeing with a "slightly liberal" person who made the statement.
 
Baralis said:
You could have an argument (and I am all for fixing tax loopholes) if the government didnt spend every single cent it receives regardless of tax revenue. In our history what percentage of the years did we pay down our debt vs how many did we simply increase spending + further in debt.

We could tax the wealthy 80% and in a matter of years that entire revenue would be spent and we would still be in debt.
Click to expand...

So, if you truely believe that, fight for them to make better choices. Don't simply say don't do your job.

Shared sacrifice should mean shared. To be shared, this calls for an increase in the tax rate.
 
LesGovt said:
LOL! You know what news I watch? LOL!
Click to expand...
Everybody knows most conservatives watch Faux News 24/7! LOL!


Unlike some people, I am not a perfect typist.
Click to expand...
The Forum has a "review" feature - in other words, you are able to review your post and make corrections before posting it. It just takes a few extra seconds.

I inadvertently left out the letter "e" in the word, "let."
Click to expand...

The word "let" is not spelled with an "i" -!

I take it you are a perfect typist. Cool!
Click to expand...
Far from it, but I do take pride in my work - I like to review to make sure that I said what I thought I had said. Also, gives me a chance to correct any typos or misspellings - my computer underlines words in "red" that are misspelled and you do have a dictionary at your fingertips on the internet.

Don't worry, if you follow my postings, I am sure you will find plenty of reasons to be snarky over my typing. If that makes you feel like a big person, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...
I'm only snarky with people that are snarky to me - and when you claimed that you had been very "clear" - I couldn't help but point out that I didn't understand your statement. If you don't like snarky, don't get snarky.

I believe that both Obama nd Boehner had been negortiating the figure of $800 billion in tax revenues. Then, per Boehner, the President demanded another $400 billion. He reneged on the agreement.
Click to expand...

Obama is not stupid - as most conservatives want to believe. He wants to make sure that the debt ceiling is large enough to insure the issues does not arise again until after the 2012 elections. Boehner and the GOP are deceitfully aiming for a smaller amount, because they want it to come up again before the election, so they can then use if for political posturing.

Why would Obama, or anyone, for that matter, want to go through the crap that we are going through again in another 6 months? It's a total waste of time and effort for Congress when they need to be working on creating more jobs - like the GOP promised.

I'm glad that the Democrats in the Senate are going to throw out the GOP's worthless piece of crap proposal out the window.
 
LesGovt said:
I know you guys keep forgetting the lies of the Dems regarding their promises to cut expenses when they did not do so, but that's okay, some of us do. Also, I think your nice little chart is out-of-date. You see, there was an election in 2010. That election put many new GOP members in Congress. This is not your mother's GOP.
Click to expand...

Give me a break! Bush spent more than Obama - I'm getting sick and tired of the repeated lie that Reps/cons like to spread around, that Obama is the big spender.

Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.
Don't believe it?
Let's go to the chart.

As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.
From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.


Read more: The Truth About Who's Responsible For The Explosion In Government Spending



And, the 2010 election caused a lot of looney people in the GOP to get elected - Whew, don't know how we managed to keep that looney Christine O"Donnell from getting elected and trumped the other Republican candidate, to boot! I guess she was a gift.

And, you are right, they are not my mother's GOP - they are a bunch of morons that are going to take the country over the cliff thinking they are doing what is right. They all cater to the rich - it is just unbelievable that conservatives are not able to see it - I'm sure not all conservatives are rich.
 
mertex said:
Everybody knows most conservatives watch Faux News 24/7! LOL!
Click to expand...

No, I doubt that everybody believes that most conservatives watches any network. Only fools would think that and I don't believe most people are fools.

mertex said:
The Forum has a "review" feature - in other words, you are able to review your post and make corrections before posting it. It just takes a few extra seconds.
Click to expand...

I often prefer not to use it.

mertex said:
The word "let" is not spelled with an "i" -!
Click to expand...

Really? Who spelled let with an i?

mertex said:
Far from it, but I do take pride in my work - I like to review to make sure that I said what I thought I had said. Also, gives me a chance to correct any typos or misspellings - my computer underlines words in "red" that are misspelled and you do have a dictionary at your fingertips on the internet.

Well, maybe you should read more carefully rather than correct your typing errors.

mertex said:
I'm only snarky with people that are snarky to me - and when you claimed that you had been very "clear" - I couldn't help but point out that I didn't understand your statement. If you don't like snarky, don't get snarky.

Yeah, right, Snarky.

mertex said:
Obama is not stupid - as most conservatives want to believe.
Click to expand...

You lie.

mertex said:
He wants to make sure that the debt ceiling is large enough to insure the issues does not arise again until after the 2012 elections. Boehner and the GOP are deceitfully aiming for a smaller amount, because they want it to come up again before the election, so they can then use if for political posturing.
Click to expand...

You are free to believe anything you wish. Just understand that just because you believe it does not made it true.

mertex said:
Why would Obama, or anyone, for that matter, want to go through the crap that we are going through again in another 6 months? It's a total waste of time and effort for Congress when they need to be working on creating more jobs - like the GOP promised.
Click to expand...

You'd think people would negotiate in good faith and not up the ante at the last moment.

mertex said:
I'm glad that the Democrats in the Senate are going to throw out the GOP's worthless piece of crap proposal out the window.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Hopefully sometime the GOP will see the Democrats step up to the plate. They haven't done that for weeks, or is it months?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by LesGovt

I know you guys keep forgetting the lies of the Dems regarding their promises to cut expenses when they did not do so, but that's okay, some of us do. Also, I think your nice little chart is out-of-date. You see, there was an election in 2010. That election put many new GOP members in Congress. This is not your mother's GOP.
Click to expand...

mertex said:
Give me a break! Bush spent more than Obama - I'm getting sick and tired of the repeated lie that Reps/cons like to spread around, that Obama is the big spender.
Click to expand...

What is this in response to? This has nothing to do with the Dem lies of the 1980s and 1990s. His chart was out of date. There was an election in 2010. There are new GOP members in Congress. Your response is gobbledygook.

mertex said:
Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.
Don't believe it?
Let's go to the chart.
Click to expand...


What is this in response to? This has nothing to do with the Dem lies of the 1980s and 1990s. His chart was out of date. There was an election in 2010. There are new GOP members in Congress. Your response is gobbledygook.

mertex said:
As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.
From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.
Click to expand...

What is this in response to? This has nothing to do with the Dem lies of the 1980s and 1990s. His chart was out of date. There was an election in 2010. There are new GOP members in Congress. Your response is gobbledygook.

mertex said:
Read more: The Truth About Who's Responsible For The Explosion In Government Spending
Click to expand...

Why would I read an article that has nothing to do with what I said?

mertex said:
And, the 2010 election caused a lot of looney people in the GOP to get elected - Whew, don't know how we managed to keep that looney Christine O"Donnell from getting elected and trumped the other Republican candidate, to boot! I guess she was a gift.
Click to expand...

Looney? Hey Snarky, I don't believe the GOP elected you.

mertex said:
And, you are right, they are not my mother's GOP - they are a bunch of morons that are going to take the country over the cliff thinking they are doing what is right. They all cater to the rich - it is just unbelievable that conservatives are not able to see it - I'm sure not all conservatives are rich.
Click to expand...

Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!

You are an absolute stitch!

Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!
*snicker*
 
You want to criticize Obama for pointing out that he inherited a recession from Bush, but you want to go back to the 80s and 90s? As you would say, "Ha!Ha! etc."
 
AdamT said:
You want to criticize Obama for pointing out that he inherited a recession from Bush, but you want to go back to the 80s and 90s? As you would say, "Ha!Ha! etc."
Click to expand...

What? Where did I criticize Obama for pointing out that he inherited a recession? Please post where I did that.

I freely admit that there were some pretty bad finanical messes when he sought the office of President. I think most conservatives here would acknowledge that. But, I will wait to see your proof that I said what you said I said. Ha!Ha!Ha!
 
LesGovt said:
No, I doubt that everybody believes that most conservatives watches any network. Only fools would think that and I don't believe most people are fools.
Click to expand...
What you think is not necessarily what is. Every conservative that I know watches Faux News, so you would be the exception, if you are telling the truth!

I often prefer not to use it.
Click to expand...
You don't care if your statements are misunderstood? That figures.

Really? Who spelled let with an i?
Click to expand...
You did, you said "I'll it" - then you claimed that you intended to say "I'll let" - that is an "i" in your post, unless you confuse "i" for "e"!


Well, maybe you should read more carefully rather than correct your typing errors.
Click to expand...
What? Your statement doesn't make sense. I do read carefully, but when trying to understand statements that say "I'll it" - it is impossible to understand. I shouldn't have to guess what you are trying to say. And, I correct my errors because I care about what I say.


Yeah, right, Snarky.
Click to expand...
Back at ya!

You lie.
Click to expand...
I don't lie, and I consider it a personal attack to be told that I lie. You may not agree with what I say, but you have no reason to tell me that I lie. You must have learned that type of behavior from one of your leaders, Cong Wilson?

You are free to believe anything you wish. Just understand that just because you believe it does not made it true.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on. Of course, anyone that is brainwashed will not be ble to see it.

You'd think people would negotiate in good faith and not up the ante at the last moment.
Click to expand...
It isn't just about Obama and Boehner - Obama as well as Boehner have to recognize what the rest in their party will agree to or not. And, the GOP is being snaky in trying to get a short-term proposal through and they know it, that is why they are now agreeing on something that will go beyond that. So, this crap about Obama reneging is just a bunch of BS.


Whatever. Hopefully sometime the GOP will see the Democrats step up to the plate. They haven't done that for weeks, or is it months?
Click to expand...
Ha,ha, all the GOP has done is show its true colors - protect those who they represent, the wealthy and the corporations. Which one of those two categories do you fit in?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Moderator's Warning:
Cease the personal attacks.
Click to expand...

I take it that it is okay to offer personal attacks about people a person votes for since that was what I responded to and that comment was not sanctioned. Okay, just so I understand, is it okay for me to say that Democrats are nothing but a$$wipes? I want to ensure that I stay within the bounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom