• 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!

Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike

The class warfare belongs squarely in the GOP toolbox as they rant and rave about entitlements, promulgating a class hatred towards those who they paint as not paying their own way / 'fair share'.

As far as socialism goes, the USA has been leaning decidedly in the social progressive camp for some 70 years; otherwise we would not have programs like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, and a progressive income tax. I ROF and LMAO everytime I see some hysterical right wing pol claim this is a "center right" country :lamo

You think it is class warfare to not care what someone else makes or is it class warfare to redistribute what someone else makes? Entitlements create dependence and who benefits from dependency? Let me help you, govt!
 
no sir, you do not apply the same standards, as has been shown repeatedly, and as you prove here, as long as there is an (R) next to the name, you will vote for them, even, if by your own standards, the results, as you see them, are the same as someone with a (D) next to their name. again, why the double standard? and again, please dispense with the attempted baiting/trolling, just answer the question.

As usual you ignore the results and data posted to make a personal attack. Keep trolling.
 
As usual you ignore the results and data posted to make a personal attack. Keep trolling.
no sir, i have not made a personal attack against you, nor have i attempted to troll you, i have, several times, asked you a question, which you seem to have some difficulty in answering, that question being why you don't apply the same standard to republicans as you do democrats, and what inspires such blind loyalty to the GOP on your part...no trolling, no personal attack, a simple question which seems to have tied you all up in knots.
 
You don't seem to get it I am not bitching about the poor not paying taxes I am bitching about the govt. spending too much money. Look, I think you are a good person but you sure have been brainwashed into believing the liberal rhetoric that we need more money which is code word for "Hey, I support the current size of the govt!"

Your revisionist history about the Clinton years is a problem today because all it does is divert from the Obama record and agenda. Why do you believe sending more money to the govt. with 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans makes any sense at all? This is class warfare and a step towards socialism and the question is do you really believe it thus are part of the problem or are you just brainwashed into believing the liberal rhetoric?

if that's true...why do you post rants about the poor not paying taxes? i believe we should raise taxes on the wealthy and cut spending. by default, when we cut spending we affect the poor, so why not share the pain?

and are you really positing that the clinton years were anything but good?
 
Last edited:
no sir, i have not made a personal attack against you, nor have i attempted to troll you, i have, several times, asked you a question, which you seem to have some difficulty in answering, that question being why you don't apply the same standard to republicans as you do democrats, and what inspires such blind loyalty to the GOP on your part...no trolling, no personal attack, a simple question which seems to have tied you all up in knots.

Actually all you have ever done is parrot someone else's off topic post and question never asking one of your own. I grew up a Democrat but grew out of it but never outgrew my conservative beliefs. Some people never do and you appear to be in that class. Keep supporting that union and one of these days you are going to wake up and wonder what happened. Why would anyone vote for 4 more years of Obamanomics that promotes class warfare and individual wealth creation? why would anyone vote for Gore or Kerry and now why would anyone vote for another four years of this, net job loss, fewer in the labor force, 4 trillion added to the debt, rising misery index, and poor economic growth? Obama's only chance is to create so many dependent people that they have to vote just to keep their benefits that the taxpayers are funding.
 
Actually all you have ever done is parrot someone else's off topic post and question never asking one of your own. I grew up a Democrat but grew out of it but never outgrew my conservative beliefs. Some people never do and you appear to be in that class. Keep supporting that union and one of these days you are going to wake up and wonder what happened. Why would anyone vote for 4 more years of Obamanomics that promotes class warfare and individual wealth creation? why would anyone vote for Gore or Kerry and now why would anyone vote for another four years of this, net job loss, fewer in the labor force, 4 trillion added to the debt, rising misery index, and poor economic growth? Obama's only chance is to create so many dependent people that they have to vote just to keep their benefits that the taxpayers are funding.

see, sometimes you make a fiar argument, but then you fall back on bs rhetoric. fail.
 
if that's true...why do you post rants about the poor not paying taxes? i believe we should raise taxes on the wealthy and cut spending. by default, when we cut spending we affect the poor, so why not share the pain?

and are you really positing that the clinton years were anything but good?

Because you are the one making this about revenue as are all other Obama supporters. Look, if you think the govt isn't getting enough of your revenue send in more? Why is it that liberals always want to spread their misery equally to everyone else. Why don't I ever see you or anyone else claiming that you send in more than required? Raising taxes on the wealthy does what? It isn't the Federal Government's responsibility to "help" the poor, that is a state and local issue.
 
see, sometimes you make a fiar argument, but then you fall back on bs rhetoric. fail.

Define the bs rhetoric as it seems actual data has no place in your world. Think that people who aren't paying any FIT are going to have any trouble forcing those that do to pay more? How are they going to react when someone raises their taxes by implementing a flat tax?
 
Actually all you have ever done is parrot someone else's off topic post and question never asking one of your own. I grew up a Democrat but grew out of it but never outgrew my conservative beliefs. Some people never do and you appear to be in that class. Keep supporting that union and one of these days you are going to wake up and wonder what happened. Why would anyone vote for 4 more years of Obamanomics that promotes class warfare and individual wealth creation? why would anyone vote for Gore or Kerry and now why would anyone vote for another four years of this, net job loss, fewer in the labor force, 4 trillion added to the debt, rising misery index, and poor economic growth? Obama's only chance is to create so many dependent people that they have to vote just to keep their benefits that the taxpayers are funding.
please, answer the question put before you, and quit diverting...i want to know, what inspires such blind loyalty from you? yes con, i am a member of the UAW, and proud of it, and i find you constantly bringing it up to be amusing, to say the least....now, what inspires your blind loyalty, if one was to apply your 'standards' equally to republicans and democrats, you would be screaming about both, and voting third party....but, you don't...you are a loyal minion of the Republican party, and as long as there is an (R) next to the name, they will get your vote...i am just curious, trying to understand, what the republican party does to keep your blind loyalty, to keep you in lock step, with the rest of the minions....so...please answer the question, and don't divert.
 
Because you are the one making this about revenue as are all other Obama supporters. Look, if you think the govt isn't getting enough of your revenue send in more? Why is it that liberals always want to spread their misery equally to everyone else. Why don't I ever see you or anyone else claiming that you send in more than required? Raising taxes on the wealthy does what? It isn't the Federal Government's responsibility to "help" the poor, that is a state and local issue.

if that's true, why has obama proposed cuts to medicare? it's about revenue as well as spending, only the blindly partisan refuse to see that.
 
if that's true, why has obama proposed cuts to medicare? it's about revenue as well as spending, only the blindly partisan refuse to see that.

He's doing that to sway the political middle... he knows for a fact liberal Democrats will not vote for a Republican - his political base is safe as long as he doesn't go too far. A small cut in medicare/medicaid is just enough to show how "fair" he is and he can crow about it to the political middle and claim his centrist views. It's a good tactic to try and rise above partisan ideologue claims against him as it's small enough not too hurt too much over the next 10 years and it's enough of a something to make political hay on the campaign trail.
 
Define the bs rhetoric as it seems actual data has no place in your world. Think that people who aren't paying any FIT are going to have any trouble forcing those that do to pay more? How are they going to react when someone raises their taxes by implementing a flat tax?

Obama's only chance is to create so many dependent people that they have to vote just to keep their benefits that the taxpayers are funding.

the above is bs rhetoric, are you denying that?
 
please, answer the question put before you, and quit diverting...i want to know, what inspires such blind loyalty from you? yes con, i am a member of the UAW, and proud of it, and i find you constantly bringing it up to be amusing, to say the least....now, what inspires your blind loyalty, if one was to apply your 'standards' equally to republicans and democrats, you would be screaming about both, and voting third party....but, you don't...you are a loyal minion of the Republican party, and as long as there is an (R) next to the name, they will get your vote...i am just curious, trying to understand, what the republican party does to keep your blind loyalty, to keep you in lock step, with the rest of the minions....so...please answer the question, and don't divert.

my husband is a gm retiree.......and many, many of our acquaintances retired with bad knees, screwed up shoulders, you name it. possibly some union workers don't earn their pay, but i can tell you that anyone who works on a line does. luckily, my husband didn't have to do that for 30 years. it's unfortunate that people don't realize what great strides in wages and benefits that unions brought to all.
 
please, answer the question put before you, and quit diverting...i want to know, what inspires such blind loyalty from you? yes con, i am a member of the UAW, and proud of it, and i find you constantly bringing it up to be amusing, to say the least....now, what inspires your blind loyalty, if one was to apply your 'standards' equally to republicans and democrats, you would be screaming about both, and voting third party....but, you don't...you are a loyal minion of the Republican party, and as long as there is an (R) next to the name, they will get your vote...i am just curious, trying to understand, what the republican party does to keep your blind loyalty, to keep you in lock step, with the rest of the minions....so...please answer the question, and don't divert.

I don't see it as blind loyalty but instead reaction to actual results. Results matter more than rhetoric and why would you vote for someone whose results are worse today than when he took office. That isn't the case with Bush, GDP was up significantly as was employment in 2004 plus the candidate was Kerry.

I will not vote for a third party because all that does is re-elect Obama. that was proven in NY 23 and NY 26. It was also proven in 1992 when Perot took a large percentage of the vote and that was more than enough to elect Clinton.

I guess in your world reacting to results is being brainwashed whereas doing what your union says isn't? The Republican Party doesn't care what you or I make and that makes it better than the Democrat Party of today. I believe in personal responsiblity and not govt. responsibility on personal issues. Show me where Democrats have ever held anyone accountable for failure?
 
Please name for me ANY President in Modern history that has added 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years

Adjusted for inflation, several of them. That's what happens in a recession this big.

had a net job loss over 2 years after the end of a recession

Ah ha! So you concede that your previous claim that we are "still losing jobs" was not true and now you've retreated to that we've lost jobs total over Obama's term. That is true. First he had to stop the bleeding, then we had to start recovering. We haven't yet recovered to the point where we're better off than when we started. True. But that wouldn't really be expected. When Bush handed over the keys we were losing an astounding 800,000 jobs a month. Just one month like that would take 3-5 good months to make up for. So, yeah, we still have a ways to go in terms of recovery. But, again, what is better a slow recovery or a rapid collapse?

Add that to the rising miery index and socialist economic programs and it boils down to Obama, you had your chance, you are fired!

Honestly, when you guys say "socialist" is just makes you look dumb...

as I pointed out the Obama job approval rating reflects the American view of his performance

You know who has a worse approval rating than Obama? Every single Republican candidate for president, Congressional Republicans as a whole, the Republican Party and the Tea Party... Again, what is better? Recovering too slowly or collapsing? Nobody is super psyched about either, but certainly a slow recovery is the better of the two options.
 
Last edited:
my husband is a gm retiree.......and many, many of our acquaintances retired with bad knees, screwed up shoulders, you name it. possibly some union workers don't earn their pay, but i can tell you that anyone who works on a line does. luckily, my husband didn't have to do that for 30 years. it's unfortunate that people don't realize what great strides in wages and benefits that unions brought to all.

What is amazing is that people look back at the 40's and believe that is applicable today. We have laws on the books today so why are unions needed? Look at what unions have done to Detroit today?
 
teamosil;1059807778]Adjusted for inflation, several of them. That's what happens in a recession this big.

Adjusted for inflation? You don't realize that everything is relative? what went on in the 80's was in 80 dollars thus not even appropriate to compare that to today.


Ah ha! So you concede that your previous claim that we are "still losing jobs" was not true and now you've retreated to that we've lost jobs total over Obama's term. That is true. First he had to stop the bleeding, then we had to start recovering. We haven't yet recovered to the point where we're better off than when we started. True. But that wouldn't really be expected. When Bush handed over the keys we were losing an astounding 800,000 jobs a month. Just one month like that would take 3-5 good months to make up for. So, yeah, we still have a ways to go in terms of recovery. But, again, what is better a slow recovery or a rapid collapse?

We have net job loss today 2 1/2 years later. The bogus claim about month after month of 800,000 jobs is just another attempt to divert from the dismal Obama record. When Bush handed of the keys he gave Obama the Democrat budget and the Democrat economic plan. They were in charge of Congress and the Obama stimulus plan was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. Keep blaming it on Bush while ignoring the Obama JAR today.


Honestly, when you guys say "socialist" is just makes you look dumb...

Many liberals today just cannot admit who they really are. What is wrong with admitting that you support wealth and income redistribution and control of production? You cannot do it because it shows the world who you are.
 
He's doing that to sway the political middle... he knows for a fact liberal Democrats will not vote for a Republican - his political base is safe as long as he doesn't go too far. A small cut in medicare/medicaid is just enough to show how "fair" he is and he can crow about it to the political middle and claim his centrist views. It's a good tactic to try and rise above partisan ideologue claims against him as it's small enough not too hurt too much over the next 10 years and it's enough of a something to make political hay on the campaign trail.

yes, it's a good tactic, it's also exactly what he should be doing to salvage our economy.
 
yes, it's a good tactic, it's also exactly what he should be doing to salvage our economy.

salvage our economy? Good Lord, what has obama done to make the economy better? Wow, this truly is a cult following and behavior
 
the above is bs rhetoric, are you denying that?

I don't see it as BS at all. Democrats in particular extend government benefits in my opinion, primarily to garner votes. If a person is given food for 2 years and doesn't have to work to pay for that food and someone comes along who says, "I voted and was instrumental in getting you food for the last two years and I need your support to vote for me so I can continue to get you that food because, the person who wants my job wants to stop giving you that food and make you get up every day and work for it. If you vote for me, I'll continue and get you more food, I promise. Won't you vote for me?"

It's an analogy but it's partially true... the amount of government assistance is at an all time high and the argument for that assistance has some merit. But when there's talk of 3 years of unemployment benefits... it's over the top IMO.
 
yes, it's a good tactic, it's also exactly what he should be doing to salvage our economy.

It won't salvage anything - the amount being cut is insignificant when spread over 10 years. It's symbolic and political only.
 
Yes, because the alternative was worse just like it will be to re-elect Obama. We have had almost 3 years of Obamanomics and the results are there for all to see. Keep spouting the partisan bs. I do apply the same standards, why would anyone vote for Gore and Kerry over Bush? Why would anyone vote for Obama for a second term with the results we have today. He had his chance and failed. Bush performance didn't decline until 2008 when Democrats took control of Congress. That is reality even in your union world.

Not worse, the same. You're whole false dichotomy rests on invalidating third parties because they have yet to achieve power. "Well they can't win, so support the status quo which is already leading the ruination of this country!". That's not a good argument. You're giving more argument to STOP voting for the main party and switch to voting third parties till we can replace one of the major parties with a functioning party.

We need to decrease the size of government, you're solution is to vote for a party which has NOT DECREASED government. That's pretty damned insane.
 
Not worse, the same. You're whole false dichotomy rests on invalidating third parties because they have yet to achieve power. "Well they can't win, so support the status quo which is already leading the ruination of this country!". That's not a good argument. You're giving more argument to STOP voting for the main party and switch to voting third parties till we can replace one of the major parties with a functioning party.

We need to decrease the size of government, you're solution is to vote for a party which has NOT DECREASED government. That's pretty damned insane.

I have asked to name for me ONE successful Third Party Governor which is what you seem to be promoting. I will continue to vote for the lesser of the two evils so as to keep Obama from getting another 4 years.
 
I have asked to name for me ONE successful Third Party Governor which is what you seem to be promoting. I will continue to vote for the lesser of the two evils so as to keep Obama from getting another 4 years.

And I have asked you now MULTIPLE TIMES, when was the last time conservatives reduced the size of government.
 
Last edited:
Adjusted for inflation? You don't realize that everything is relative? what went on in the 80's was in 80 dollars thus not even appropriate to compare that to today.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.... I was the one saying we should adjust for inflation. I am saying that adjusted for inflation a number of presidents have added as much or more to the debt in a single term.

We have net job loss today 2 1/2 years later. The bogus claim about month after month of 800,000 jobs is just another attempt to divert from the dismal Obama record. When Bush handed of the keys he gave Obama the Democrat budget and the Democrat economic plan. They were in charge of Congress and the Obama stimulus plan was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. Keep blaming it on Bush while ignoring the Obama JAR today.

I'm not sure if you didn't understand my points or just chose not to respond to them, but either way I guess it is a concession.

Many liberals today just cannot admit who they really are. What is wrong with admitting that you support wealth and income redistribution and control of production? You cannot do it because it shows the world who you are.

Kiddo, the top income earners are paying lower percentages of taxes than they have in 100 years and less than they pay in any other first world country. So, by your standards, are the entire first world and the US for the last 100 years "socialist"?

Socialism is a system where the workers control the means of production. That historically has been by the government owning and running all the businesses. Nothing remotely like that is going on in the US or being proposed by anyone. Obviously.

When you just blurt out "socialism!" over and over given these two things, that just makes you look ignorant.
 
Back
Top Bottom