• 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!

Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
You keeping more of your money isn't an expense to the govt which Obama seems to claim every time he says that tax cuts have to be paid for.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts do have to be paid for with spending cuts. If you don't cut how much is going out when less is coming in, you get deficits.
 
Conservative said:
Results matter to me, when will they matter to you?
Click to expand...
Stop lying. Results do not matter to you. If results mattered to you, you would have voted for Clinton in 1996 and you would not have voted for Bush in 2004. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant, but it's been pretty well established that since Reagan, the only "R" word that matters to you is "R"epublican.
 
roguenuke said:
There is no other way to pay for government than some form of taxes. I have no problem paying taxes to ensure that we can pay for those things that provide for the good of society as a whole. I think we need to evaluate what exactly we are paying for, what we actually need, and what needs to change to even these out. If that means higher taxes somewhere, then so be it.

And this isn't just from Obama. This is how our government has been being run for decades now. It is very dishonest to blame this on Obama. He is responsible for his share of the problems only, but you keep attributing much more to him than what is actually due to him, at least it isn't just due to him alone.
Click to expand...
What the shame of it all is that about 40 cents more or less to the tax dollar actually hits the governmental programs after all the interested parties had their hands on it.
 
roguenuke said:
There is no other way to pay for government than some form of taxes. I have no problem paying taxes to ensure that we can pay for those things that provide for the good of society as a whole. I think we need to evaluate what exactly we are paying for, what we actually need, and what needs to change to even these out. If that means higher taxes somewhere, then so be it.

And this isn't just from Obama. This is how our government has been being run for decades now. It is very dishonest to blame this on Obama. He is responsible for his share of the problems only, but you keep attributing much more to him than what is actually due to him, at least it isn't just due to him alone.
Click to expand...

The current budget of the United States is 3.7 trillion dollars and that is outrageous. It is the role of the states and local communities to promote domestic welfare and to implement programs for the poor, not the Federal Bureaucracy. What does a politician in D.C. know about a social problem in San Diego. Why is that role delegated and paid for by the Federal Taxpayers? That is the problem and the nanny state being promoted by Obama. I don't blame Obama for we are getting exactly what his resume showed. I didn't vote for him and won't in 2012. He didn't deserve a first term let alone a second one.
 
rocket88 said:
Tax cuts do have to be paid for with spending cuts. If you don't cut how much is going out when less is coming in, you get deficits.
Click to expand...

No, tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they earn, they are not an expense and thus don't have to be paid for. Spending has to be paid for. I cannot figure out why you and others cannot understand that. To me that is brainwashing.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Stop lying. Results do not matter to you. If results mattered to you, you would have voted for Clinton in 1996 and you would not have voted for Bush in 2004. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant, but it's been pretty well established that since Reagan, the only "R" word that matters to you is "R"epublican.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to explain how the 8.4% unemployment rate didn't help the national unemployment rate and that you were wrong.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:


As far as why people are migrating to Texas, I have no idea. Why are people flocking to Utah? Why are people flocking to Wyoming, Colorado, and Arizona? Those are the states with the highest immigration and there is no single answer why.
Click to expand...

Its places like California, dude. A state that is properly ****ed. It is hemorrhaging tax revenue at an unsustainable rate that rivals the federal. The state government is the most inefficient aggregate of idiotic concepts and idealists. Local municipalities by and large are cesspools of corruption and mismanagement on a scale that would embarrass the most tight assed Enron executive.

People are beating down the doors to move to Texas.
 
ric27 said:
Its places like California, dude. A state that is properly ****ed. It is hemorrhaging tax revenue at an unsustainable rate that rivals the federal. The state government is the most inefficient aggregate of idiotic concepts and idealists. Local municipalities by and large are cesspools of corruption and mismanagement on a scale that would embarrass the most tight assed Enron executive.

People are beating down the doors to move to Texas.
Click to expand...

For our cesspool-less and uncorrupted municipalities, :lamo

FBI spends day searching through home of Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price and his assistants - KDAF

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011000557.html
 
Last edited:
deltabtry said:
Well there is one common denominator, most states you mentioned are conservative states meaning less regulation and lower taxes. I'll give no head a state ie; Governor of Texas or any other state's Governor credit for any thing accomplished in the private sector. What i will give Perry credit for is staying out of the way of the private sector and allowing the market to do what it does best, making money and hiring the citizens of Texas. Although on the other hand state Governors can take the credit for stepping on the necks of free markets and stifling growth and job creation, and as far as I can tell Perry is not a participant in this scenario.
Click to expand...
And yet, unemployment in Texas is up 31% since 2009; more than the national average of 17%.
 
Conservative said:
The current budget of the United States is 3.7 trillion dollars and that is outrageous. It is the role of the states and local communities to promote domestic welfare and to implement programs for the poor, not the Federal Bureaucracy. What does a politician in D.C. know about a social problem in San Diego. Why is that role delegated and paid for by the Federal Taxpayers? That is the problem and the nanny state being promoted by Obama. I don't blame Obama for we are getting exactly what his resume showed. I didn't vote for him and won't in 2012. He didn't deserve a first term let alone a second one.
Click to expand...

What social program, besides Obamacare, did Obama implement that wasn't there before he took office? I can't think of any and technically, Obamacare isn't in affect yet. As I said, I hate Obamacare.

Letting the states handle it on their own doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't have states taking money and needing to take money from the federal government, and not just for things that the federal government mandates.

What does a politician in California know about the needs of a person in San Diego? For that matter, what does a politician in San Diego know about the needs for all the people in their city? I would love to see more positive social programs handled at the state and local levels, but the state and local governments are doing just as bad as the federal government and they love to do things that impact the freedom of their citizens a lot more often than the federal government does.
 
Conservative said:
Still waiting for you to explain how the 8.4% unemployment rate didn't help the national unemployment rate and that you were wrong.
Click to expand...
How can I be the one wrong here when you're the one who said, since Obama took office. Don't you even realize that factors in more than just the current unemployment rate? Don't you even realize that factors in the change in unemployment since January of 2009? Don't you even realize that factoring in unemployment rates since January of 2009 means comparing 17% increase to unemployment (1.3 percentage points) with a 31% increase to unemployment (2.0 percentage points)? Don't you even realize that a 2.0 percentage point increase to unemployment is worse than a 1.3 percentage point increase to unemployment? Don't you even realize that a 31% increase to unemployment is worse than a 17% percentage point increase to unemployment? Don't you even realize that if the increase to unemployment since January of 2009 was worse for Texas than it was the nation overall, which it was, that is worse for the national average, not better?

Nah, you understand only one thing ... "R"epublican.
 
roguenuke said:
What social program, besides Obamacare, did Obama implement that wasn't there before he took office? I can't think of any and technically, Obamacare isn't in affect yet. As I said, I hate Obamacare.

Letting the states handle it on their own doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't have states taking money and needing to take money from the federal government, and not just for things that the federal government mandates.

What does a politician in California know about the needs of a person in San Diego? For that matter, what does a politician in San Diego know about the needs for all the people in their city? I would love to see more positive social programs handled at the state and local levels, but the state and local governments are doing just as bad as the federal government and they love to do things that impact the freedom of their citizens a lot more often than the federal government does.
Click to expand...

Much of the so called stimulus program for shovel ready jobs was a social program bailing out union pensions and saving public service jobs, i.e. teachers or so he said. He expaned Medicaid, Unemployment benefits, and has turned loose the NLRB to attack right to work states.

Letting the states handle there own is the only thing that makes any sense, closer to the people and thus the problems. Our fore fathers knew that power corrupts and a strong central govt is too far removed from the people to control. If a politician in California doesn't know about problems in San Diego whose problem is that, the people of TX? It is much easier to divert blame when you have a large central govt. and have local problems.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
How can I be the one wrong here when you're the one who said, since Obama took office. Don't you even realize that factors in more than just the current unemployment rate? Don't you even realize that factors in the change in unemployment since January of 2009? Don't you even realize that factoring in unemployment rates since January of 2009 means comparing 17% increase to unemployment (1.3 percentage points) with a 31% increase to unemployment (2.0 percentage points)? Don't you even realize that a 2.0 percentage point increase to unemployment is worse than a 1.3 percentage point increase to unemployment? Don't you even realize that a 31% increase to unemployment is worse than a 17% percentage point increase to unemployment? Don't you even realize that if the increase to unemployment since January of 2009 was worse for Texas than it was the nation overall, which it was, that is worse for the national average, not better?

Nah, you understand only one thing ... "R"epublican.
Click to expand...

keep spinning, 8.4% unemployment helped lower the Obama unemployment rate and from what I remember from basic math 8.4% is less than 9.1% just like 6.4% is less than 7.6%. TX is helping Obama look better. You continue to show that your ego won't let you admit when you are wrong. Claiming the unemployment rate change is a good measurement shows how little you really know and understand about basic economics. The labor force continues to grow in TX while it is declining at the Federal Level. Just think if Obama cuts enough from the labor force and no longer counts the discouraged he will have a great unemployment rate number. Sounds like a liberal plan
 
Conservative said:
Much of the so called stimulus program for shovel ready jobs was a social program bailing out union pensions and saving public service jobs, i.e. teachers or so he said. He expaned Medicaid, Unemployment benefits, and has turned loose the NLRB to attack right to work states.

Letting the states handle there own is the only thing that makes any sense, closer to the people and thus the problems. Our fore fathers knew that power corrupts and a strong central govt is too far removed from the people to control. If a politician in California doesn't know about problems in San Diego whose problem is that, the people of TX? It is much easier to divert blame when you have a large central govt. and have local problems.
Click to expand...

So no other President has used federal money to make federal and even state jobs? What about the fact that Rick Perry used some of that stimulus money to make those jobs in TX? The other things you mentioned were all programs in place before Obama took office. He didn't implement any of them. He may have expanded some of them, but he didn't actually implement any.

And why isn't Perry's program of basically bribing companies with government money a problem to you?

Also, what exact problems are you talking about? How is health care needs going to be that much different in CA than it is in TX? Don't people in this entire country need food? Aren't the poor people going to still be poor and unable to afford those things I mentioned above whether they live in CA or TX? And then there is education? Actually I can't stand NCLB and if I'm not mistaken, wasn't that a Bush program?

You can blame this country on Obama all you want, but it doesn't mean that Rick Perry is the solution. Obama is definitely not a good President, but Rick Perry, from my POV, would be much worse. And considering he is all for an anti-SSM amendment, I don't see how anyone can say he is for less government. Another thing that shows he isn't for less government, is the fact that he is offering bribes to businesses to bring them to his state. Is he going to do this on the national level, with federal funds? How is that less government?
 
roguenuke said:
So no other President has used federal money to make federal and even state jobs? What about the fact that Rick Perry used some of that stimulus money to make those jobs in TX? The other things you mentioned were all programs in place before Obama took office. He didn't implement any of them. He may have expanded some of them, but he didn't actually implement any.

And why isn't Perry's program of basically bribing companies with government money a problem to you?

Also, what exact problems are you talking about? How is health care needs going to be that much different in CA than it is in TX? Don't people in this entire country need food? Aren't the poor people going to still be poor and unable to afford those things I mentioned above whether they live in CA or TX? And then there is education? Actually I can't stand NCLB and if I'm not mistaken, wasn't that a Bush program?

You can blame this country on Obama all you want, but it doesn't mean that Rick Perry is the solution. Obama is definitely not a good President, but Rick Perry, from my POV, would be much worse. And considering he is all for an anti-SSM amendment, I don't see how anyone can say he is for less government. Another thing that shows he isn't for less government, is the fact that he is offering bribes to businesses to bring them to his state. Is he going to do this on the national level, with federal funds? How is that less government?
Click to expand...

Rogue, first of all thank you for your service. Now for the negative you don't know what you are talking about but do a great job spreading media talking points. I suggest you do some better research. Of course President's use money to create Federal Jobs but certainly not at this level. It isn't the Federal Government's job to bail out unions and state teachers' jobs. Where did you ever get that idea.

What govt. money did Perry use to bring businesses to TX? Do you understand that when you say govt. money you are saying taxpayer money? Is it the taxpayers of TX responsibility to fund jobs in California? You do realize that Federal Tax dollars come from all taxpayers from all over the nation?

Healthcare needs are personal and everyone's living habits are different thus there is no one size fits all program. There is nothing in Obamacare that lowers healthcare costs and the Federal Mandate will be proven unconstitutional. The poor get healthcare from Medicaid and other state programs so why Obamacare? That is part of the nanny state that liberals seem to want. Show a utopian country with Obamacare type healthcare?

Obama was hired based upon his rhetoric and not his resume. He is incompetent and has zero leadership skills. There is no comparision between Obama and Perry. I have seen nothing from your POV that is accurate in describing Perry but I do see DNC talking points and down right lies. I am still waiting for proof of those bribes to get business to come to TX. He doesn't have to bribe anyone, TX has no state income taxes. Let Obama have his way and raise taxes on those evil rich people and businesses, you are going to see a lot of businesses move to states with lower taxes. What affect will that have on your state? Think about it?
 
PolitiFact Texas | Rick Perry says a "rather extraordinary amount of non-classroom employees" were added by Texas school districts over the last decade

Hinting that Texas school districts should adjust budgets without laying off loads of teachers, Gov. RIck Perry told Capitol reporters March 9 that non-classroom school employees are burgeoning.
Click to expand...

Next, we looked at the overall change in all non-classroom employees, who increased 33 percent to 328,194 from 1998-99 to 2009-10. One way of summing this up is to say the districts’ overall hiring rate of non-classroom workers ran 18 percent ahead of the hiring rate for teachers.
Click to expand...
 
pbrauer said:
PolitiFact Texas | Rick Perry says a "rather extraordinary amount of non-classroom employees" were added by Texas school districts over the last decade
Click to expand...

Do you pay property taxes in Oregon? Where do those taxes go? If you need more money for your schools where do you go to get it? The state or the local community? I don't think you have a clue.

Still waiting for you to explain to sheik how TX 8.4% unemployment helps the Obama national numbers which were 9.1%? Do liberals ever challenge another liberal?
 
Conservative said:
keep spinning, 8.4% unemployment helped lower the Obama unemployment rate and from what I remember from basic math 8.4% is less than 9.1% just like 6.4% is less than 7.6%.
Click to expand...
I like how you started this by comparing the difference from when Obama started to now, but the moment it's brought to your attention that Texas unemployment is up 2 points to the nation's 1.3 points, you drop the "from when Obama started" part and just look at the current unemployment rate.

You also never answered the question, what Perry policies do you attribute people and companies migrating to Texas? Maybe you just can't cite any?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I like how you started this by comparing the difference from when Obama started to now, but the moment it's brought to your attention that Texas unemployment is up 2 points to the nation's 1.3 points, you drop the "from when Obama started" part and just look at the current unemployment rate.

You also never answered the question, what Perry policies do you attribute people and companies migrating to Texas? Maybe you just can't cite any?
Click to expand...

I like how you ignored your own post and how you ignore that the TX rate is under the national rate and how TX is creating Jobs having a net job gain since 2009 and Obama has a net job loss nationally. If it weren't for TX the net job loss would be worse. Obama and liberals should be thankful for TX
 
deltabtry said:
I indeed put some effort to keep Fox out;) I thought CNBC would be a good source and not up for argument.
Click to expand...

LOL, good move, but regardless most liberals will still ignore it. I bookmarked it so now have that for future reference when people like Sheik, Winston, Pb start talking about TX again.
 
deltabtry said:
Regardless the figures are meaningless to most, so long as Texas is number one in most area's of the economy.
News Headlines
Click to expand...
You don't think Texas hitting its highest unemployment rate in 25 years under Perry is going to hurt him? ANd trending upwards, no less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom