• 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!

BREAKING: President Obama Addresses the Nation Tonight at 9

I don't speak for the Tea Party patriots and I am not expert on all their proposals but taxes should not be raised on anyone-especially those who pay too much of the burden as it is until massive painful cuts are passed to prove to us that the government is dealing in good faith

TRUE compromise would not involve tax hikes but rather each party suffering some cuts that they do not want

If I were Dictator, unconstitutional crap like the Department of Education would be gone in a heartbeat. so would some of the massive overseas nonsense that is not needed.

we don't need a ton of military in Germany now that the Warsaw Pact is pretty well toast

we spend way too much money on idiotic studies that serve no useful function such as studying the penis sizes of gay men or the mating habits of some creatures that are neither beneficial to us or a pest

Some military cuts are in order as well now that the Soviet Union is not the threat it once was (that does not mean cutting off your pension which seems to be your main issue)

most welfare functions are a state function and have the benefit of checks and balances meaning if some state is too generous with the taxpayers' coin, those taxpayers move to a friendlier state.

the war on drugs at a federal level again is clearly an unconstitutional function and demonstrates that the history of the prohibition era was forgotten. If a state wants to ban dope of blow that is a state power. If a state wants to allow blow or dope that is a state power as well

I know a lot about our justice system and how much it costs to say incarcerate someone for 250 months at USP florence or FCI Ashland. like 40-65K a year. do the math

You are beginning to make sense. I don't totally agree, but I don't disagree on much of what you've listed above.
 
money had nothing to do with it

I grew up with Rob Portman. He called my dad "Uncle" as I called his father. His late mother, dying of cancer, threw an engagement party for my wife and I. We didn't know she was dying. The second time my wife and I attended a service in the cathedral where we were wed was for his mother's funeral. My dad was a close friend of Steve Chabot and ran a campaign for him many years ago for a minor office. Steve came in quietly to my dad's funeral. when one major league republican asked him about some political bit Steve said "not the time or the place, I am here as a friend of the man not as a politician"

I stand corrected.

But you do have to admit that the way you described the reason boehner not getting back to you: "Boehner, probably not. He doesn't know me nor was I one of his big contributors though other members of my family were." gives the appearance that money was the deciding factor, here.
 
Let's be perfectly honest and summarize both speeches:

Obama: Boehner and the Tea Party sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

Boehner: I'm rubber and you're glue, anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

I believe that at this point Boehner can't stand the Teabaggers. I think next election, there won't be so many left in congress

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

republicans have a 65% disapproval rating right now.
 
Last edited:
Because you are cutting the current tax revenue meaning they are losing money. Hence why it is considered a cost.

But a cost would be something you spend money on. If I told my friend to buy me a car, it would be silly to say he cost me $30,000 when he refuses.
 
because they are merely a conduit to transfer money to their owners

there should be no double taxation on corporate profits

That may be, but I believe it was jmac who said to me in a post today that this country is rich not because of our profits, but because our land has an abundance of natural resources. If that is the case, doesn't a business use natural resources in order to construct the facilities that house that business? Does in some cases it takes turning some of those natural resources into a good or an object to present that service to the marketplace? A bulding or facility is constructed from cement, brick, concrete or steel. Goods are made of wood, glass, steel or aluminum, grains and an assortment of other minerals or food source from the soil. Services require the use of paper which is a wood product same as several desks in many buildings and facilities across the country. Why shouldn't a corporation pay a tax if for no other reason than using the abundance of the country's natural resources?

But beyond that, as I stated earlier, the Supreme Court has declared a corporation as an individual. If I, as an individual, am required to pay taxes, so should a corporation. Unless you want to start claiming that said corporation - that individual where "money [profits] passes through that conduit to that owner" - is an illegal alien. Now, you've really got problems, don't you? (That last part was sarcasm, but it should show just how ridiculous TurtleDude's comment was, not to mention just how problematic the Citizen's United case truly is.)
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen either speech but this post is a little ironic given how many on the left (not saying you, I don't know), resent failing to raise taxes on people as if the money they wouldn't have to pay somehow just belongs to...uh...society, I guess.

I'm truly Independent. It depends on the issue. I didn't vote for Obama and I doubt that I will in 2012.

In my opinion we damn near need to wipe the slate clean and start over. We should stop the practice of earmarks and we could do without some the of government that we have now. The tax structure is unjust. By the same token no one can deny the massive gap between the haves and the have nots in the U.S. The wars have to stop. We cannot afford them. Period.

Much could be done, but both ruling parties dance to the tune Big Money plays. Do you honestly think Joe and Jane Sixpack are getting or will get fair representation in Washington? Of course not.
 
Looks like a bunch of talking points designed to appeal to conservartives, to me. :shrug:

"Talking points." God how I wish we could retire that phrase. Don't care to rebut an argument? Call it a talking point.

The only thing I question in Boehner's talking points is the "bi-partisan" bit. Other than that I can't refute a single talking point.

BO's taking points seemed more talky and less pointed.
 
I believe that at this point Boehner can't stand the Teabaggers. I think next election, there won't be so many left in congress

Congress: Republicans
Boehner's going to single-handedly vote them all out?

republicans have a 65% disapproval rating right now.
It's funny, I remember when the health care debate was raging and all the polling data showed that Americans didn't want it, Obama was claiming how noble it was to do the "right" thing even if it's the unpopular thing. One things for sure, Dems are not going to be able to claim any high ground about listening to the people.
 
I haven't seen either speech but this post is a little ironic given how many on the left (not saying you, I don't know), resent failing to raise taxes on people as if the money they wouldn't have to pay somehow just belongs to...uh...society, I guess.

I would argue:

1) The rich have benefited from government spending and government policy too. It's not just people getting welfare checks. To take the extreme example, how vastly has the CEO of FedEx benefited from having a lavish highway and aviation infrastructure in this country? How much does a business benefit from having those same roads to transport customers and employees from longer distances to the place of business? How about various contractors given taxpayer dollars to perform various tasks? Nobody works in a vacuum, nobody is ever successful entirely on their own. Before the slippery slope nonsense crops up (not necessarily from you, but someone would) no, this does not mean I support COMMUNISM or 99.999% tax rates. A rich person benefits to a greater degree from government spending and gets a greater marginal utility out of their dollar, so I don't see a problem with progressive taxation in principle.
2) Given 1, it's a matter of priorities. We've all been taking the benefit of spending that was in excess of revenue. Rich and poor alike, we've all gotten an artificial boost through the government spending money it didn't have. Therefore, we should all have at least some sacrifice, and to demand that ALL of the sacrifice comes from those least able to afford it is just downright wrong.

Of course, to those unable to think in terms other than black and white, what I just expressed is socialism.

Opinions expressed are those of Deuce and Deuce alone. Void where prohibited. Restrictions apply. Not a treatment or cure for any disease or illness.
 
"Talking points." God how I wish we could retire that phrase. Don't care to rebut an argument? Call it a talking point.

The only thing I question in Boehner's talking points is the "bi-partisan" bit. Other than that I can't refute a single talking point.

BO's taking points seemed more talky and less pointed.

You seem to be under the impression that I want to rebut his points and therefore I'm calling them talking points, but in order to rebut something, someone actually has to present an argument. Neither one of the douchebages who spoke tonight presented an argument. Neither actually stated a singel reason why their plan was actually the better one (They'd have to go into detail about the plans to do that, and that's a big "no no" iin a soundbite society).

Both of those transcripts can be translated as "the other guys are bad, mmmkay? They have bad ideas, Mmmmkay? Our ideas are gooder than their ideas, mmmkay? It;s all their faults if things go to ****."

I call the mindles drivel served up by both of these douchebags "talking points" because neither presented an argument for why their proposal was the better and more necessary one. They simply claimed theirs was better and left it at that. If they would ever say something substatiative, I'd certainly love to try to form a rebuttal, but that's not what these things are designed for.

Both speeches do nothing other than appeal to those who already agree with them. Also known as: pandering.
 
You seem to be under the impression that I want to rebut his points and therefore I'm calling them talking points, but in order to rebut something, someone actually has to present an argument. Neither one of the douchebages who spoke tonight presented an argument. Neither actually stated a singel reason why their plan was actually the better one (They'd have to go into detail about the plans to do that, and that's a big "no no" iin a soundbite society).

Both of those transcripts can be translated as "the other guys are bad, mmmkay? They have bad ideas, Mmmmkay? Our ideas are gooder than their ideas, mmmkay? It;s all their faults if things go to ****."

I call the mindles drivel served up by both of these douchebags "talking points" because neither presented an argument for why their proposal was the better and more necessary one. They simply claimed theirs was better and left it at that. If they would ever say something substatiative, I'd certainly love to try to form a rebuttal, but that's not what these things are designed for.

Both speeches do nothing other than appeal to those who already agree with them. Also known as: pandering.
Tonight's speeches were all about blaming "the other guy" to lay the ground work for excuses for when the **** hits the fan next week. Republicans of late have been the party of "no." Now we will learn if that's the sort of government America wants.

:hitsfan:
 
Another Dems good, Repubs bad speech. I can't wait to watch, not.

That about summed it up. I do think there was a hint of "vote for us not them" in there as well though.
 
Tonight's speeches were all about blaming "the other guy" to lay the ground work for excuses for when the **** hits the fan next week. Republicans of late have been the party of "no." Now we will learn if that's the sort of government America wants.

:hitsfan:

I can't wait for the next election. Big changes need to be made.
 
That about summed it up. I do think there was a hint of "vote for us not them" in there as well though.

But that wasn't what he said. Obama praised the repubs who have been willing to negotiate, will criticizing those who are earning the repubs a reputation as "the party of no"
 
I would argue:

1) The rich have benefited from government spending and government policy too. It's not just people getting welfare checks. To take the extreme example, how vastly has the CEO of FedEx benefited from having a lavish highway and aviation infrastructure in this country? How much does a business benefit from having those same roads to transport customers and employees from longer distances to the place of business? How about various contractors given taxpayer dollars to perform various tasks? Nobody works in a vacuum, nobody is ever successful entirely on their own. Before the slippery slope nonsense crops up (not necessarily from you, but someone would) no, this does not mean I support COMMUNISM or 99.999% tax rates. A rich person benefits to a greater degree from government spending and gets a greater marginal utility out of their dollar, so I don't see a problem with progressive taxation in principle.
Call is slippery slope if you like, but it makes sense that, if you believe raising taxes on the so called rich is the only right and moral thing to do then the you must also believe that the higher the taxation, the more moral and right it is, especially since I've never seen someone who advocates for taxing the rich express how much, they think, would finally be enough.

Also, you're speaking of corporations as if they don't contribute anything (like jobs and taxes) or provide any service. You also ignore the reality that anyone starting a business also runs the risk of having it fail spectacularly. The only reason to incur such risk is the potential for great reward. I know how distasteful the word "profit" is to some, but many people, rich and poor, benefit from the things brought about because of a motive to make money.

2) Given 1, it's a matter of priorities. We've all been taking the benefit of spending that was in excess of revenue. Rich and poor alike, we've all gotten an artificial boost through the government spending money it didn't have. Therefore, we should all have at least some sacrifice, and to demand that ALL of the sacrifice comes from those least able to afford it is just downright wrong.
I don't disagree that everyone should pay. The rich are paying and fully about half of the population is supported by the other half. Tell me how the so called poor (folks in other countries would just love the standard of living our poor have) are paying when they somehow get a tax refund on taxes they never had to pay. I'd really be interested in knowing how much "soaking the rich" would be enough for you.
 
Last edited:
That may be, but I believe it was jmac who said to me in a post today that this country is rich not because of our profits, but because our land has an abundance of natural resources. If that is the case, doesn't a business use natural resources in order to construct the facilities that house that business? Does in some cases it takes turning some of those natural resources into a good or an object to present that service to the marketplace? A bulding or facility is constructed from cement, brick, concrete or steel. Goods are made of wood, glass, steel or aluminum, grains and an assortment of other minerals or food source from the soil. Services require the use of paper which is a wood product same as several desks in many buildings and facilities across the country. Why shouldn't a corporation pay a tax if for no other reason than using the abundance of the country's natural resources?

But beyond that, as I stated earlier, the Supreme Court has declared a corporation as an individual. If I, as an individual, am required to pay taxes, so should a corporation. Unless you want to start claiming that said corporation - that individual where "money [profits] passes through that conduit to that owner" - is an illegal alien. Now, you've really got problems, don't you? (That last part was sarcasm, but it should show just how ridiculous TurtleDude's comment was, not to mention just how problematic the Citizen's United case truly is.)


If a corporation pays taxes it should have complete representation as well

meaning it should be able to vote in the jurisdictions where its located

just saying..........
 
Both speeches do nothing other than appeal to those who already agree with them. Also known as: pandering.

Tiny, tiny disagreement with you. I think pandering is telling people what they want to hear, whether the speaker actually agrees with it or not, in order to gain something.
 
Yeah, GOP are totally right in giving the Oil Companies substudies (sic) and tax breaks, and making those who work pay the full bill. Yeah, the TP should not compromise on anything, they should not budge because we know they are never wrong. NOT

Never said that. So you saying the dems are always correct? My stance is both sides are playing politics and are failing to do the job they were elected to do. So my saying it was another repub bad, dems good speech turned out to be true, did it not?
 
Last edited:
You seem to be under the impression that I want to rebut his points and therefore I'm calling them talking points, but in order to rebut something, someone actually has to present an argument. Neither one of the douchebages who spoke tonight presented an argument. Neither actually stated a singel reason why their plan was actually the better one (They'd have to go into detail about the plans to do that, and that's a big "no no" iin a soundbite society).

Both of those transcripts can be translated as "the other guys are bad, mmmkay? They have bad ideas, Mmmmkay? Our ideas are gooder than their ideas, mmmkay? It;s all their faults if things go to ****."

I call the mindles drivel served up by both of these douchebags "talking points" because neither presented an argument for why their proposal was the better and more necessary one. They simply claimed theirs was better and left it at that. If they would ever say something substatiative, I'd certainly love to try to form a rebuttal, but that's not what these things are designed for.

Both speeches do nothing other than appeal to those who already agree with them. Also known as: pandering.

These were not policy speeches for the wonks, no. You're right. The wonks know the plans and the score.

This was a political speech by the president, who needs badly to at least look like he's in charge. He climbed into the bully pulpit, quoted Reagan, explained the business as usual vote on the debt ceiling, and told us to call our Congressman. That's his privilege, just as it is Boehner's - who would not have otherwise spoken tonight - to counter.

Pandering? Yeah, but we can still grade them on honesty and effectiveness.
 
Call is slippery slope if you like, but it makes sense that, if you believe raising taxes on the so called rich is the only right and moral thing to do then the you must also believe that the higher the taxation, the more moral and right it is, especially since I've never seen someone who advocates for taxing the rich express how much, they think, would finally be enough.

Despite very clearly telling you the opposite, you've reached this conclusion about my beliefs.

Also, you're speaking of corporations as if they don't contribute anything (like jobs and taxes) or provide any service. You also ignore the reality that anyone starting a business also runs the risk of having it fail spectacularly. The only reason to incur such risk is the potential for great reward. I know how distasteful the word "profit" is to some, but many people, rich and poor, benefit from the things brought about because of a motive to make money.

Just because I didn't mention something in one post doesn't mean I don't think it. You're once again wrong about my beliefs.

I don't disagree that everyone should pay. The rich are paying and fully about half of the population is supported by the other half. Tell me how the so called poor (folks in other countries would just love the standard of living our poor have) are paying when they somehow get a tax refund on taxes they never had to pay. I'd really be interested in knowing how much "soaking the rich" would be enough for you.

And now you've just contradicted yourself. You already formed the opinion that I think the rich should be taxed at 100% because that's somehow more moral. It's standard conservative absolutism. You can't see the world in anything except black and white, so I see no reason to discuss it further with you.

I mean, I couldn't have spelled it out any clearer, but you went there anyway. Jesus, man. How do you live thinking this way?


Me: "I don't think taxing the rich more is always better."
You: "You think taxing the rich more is always better."

Really?
 
Last edited:
The GOP needs to stop. Raise the god damn taxes on the rich! For all the sacrificed their lives for this Nation. These wealthy people can sacrifice a few dollars. Not forever. But for now until we get the last 2 decades of crazy-ass spending under control! Not to mention the corporate welfare! For the love of GOD! Plus the Dems need to cut welfare on the lazy and destroy all State Unions!
 
Or maybe they're announcing they have a deal.

Like I said, wouldn't want to have your worldview challenged, right? It's easier to just assume the president was whining and tomorrow you can talk with your right-wing buddies about how the president was whining, and they'll laugh and agree because they didn't watch it either.

Even if you do watch it, you'll figure out a way to assume he was whining anyway. Doesn't matter what he says, you'll manage to interpret it that way. Proof will come later tonight when you post to this end.

Looks like I hit the nail on the head. Obama came out, to repeat the same propaganda he's been spewing for weeks, now.

I guess if he says it enough, people will believe it. It's just a shame that he would manipulate the media for his own political gain. But, that's really all he has going for him.
 
The GOP needs to stop. Raise the god damn taxes on the rich! For all the sacrificed their lives for this Nation. These wealthy people can sacrifice a few dollars. Not forever. But for now until we get the last 2 decades of crazy-ass spending under control! Not to mention the corporate welfare! For the love of GOD! Plus the Dems need to cut welfare on the lazy and destroy all State Unions!

You really are falling for all this bull****. Aren't you?

Don't forget the green programs. We have to raise taxes to pay for that crap, too.
 
Feedback starting to line up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/opinion/26tue1.html

House Republicans have lost sight of the country’s welfare. It’s hard to conclude anything else from their latest actions, including the House speaker’s dismissal of President Obama’s plea for compromise Monday night. They have largely succeeded in their campaign to ransom America’s economy for the biggest spending cuts in a generation. They have warped an exercise in paying off current debt into an argument about future spending. Yet, when they win another concession, they walk away.

This increasingly reckless game has pushed the nation to the brink of ruinous default. The Republicans have dimmed the futures of millions of jobless Americans, whose hopes for work grow more out of reach as government job programs are cut and interest rates begin to rise. They have made the federal government a laughingstock around the globe.
 
Back
Top Bottom