• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do I have to remind you that he NEVER said that?

If obama never said it then why didn't he point that out in a news conference when he could have, based on a question from a reporter?

Still want to stick to that?

You can have your own opinion but not you own facts.
 
You want to compare what a cruise missile cost with losing 535 million on Solyndra, let me put it to you this way, at least we got something for our investment in a cruise missile, and we got nothing for our investment in Solyndra. Well, we did get something, an increase in our national debt. Thank you very much.

YOu do realize that a large portion of our debt is due to unfunded wars and the unfunded tripling of the military over the last decade, right?
 
YOu do realize that a large portion of our debt is due to unfunded wars and the unfunded tripling of the military over the last decade, right?

Define large portion? you have been told what the wars cost but as usual you ignored the information so let's get your version?
 
If obama never said it then why didn't he point that out in a news conference when he could have, based on a question from a reporter?

Still want to stick to that?

You can have your own opinion but not you own facts.


What the administration said was that they estimated that the stimulus would keep unemployment under eight percent, but they also noted that there was a high margin of error in the calculation. They obviously underestimated the severity of the recession, as the unemployment rate even with the stimulus ended up exceeding their worst-case estimate. The main point was that the stimulus would reduce unemployment by 2-3% over what it would have been otherwise, and most economists agree that it succeeded in that respect.

And to recap, you claimed that Obama "promised" that unemployment would never exceed 8% if the stimulus passed, and that he never did.
 
What the administration said was that they estimated that the stimulus would keep unemployment under eight percent, but they also noted that there was a high margin of error in the calculation. They obviously underestimated the severity of the recession, as the unemployment rate even with the stimulus ended up exceeding their worst-case estimate. The main point was that the stimulus would reduce unemployment by 2-3% over what it would have been otherwise, and most economists agree that it succeeded in that respect.

And to recap, you claimed that Obama "promised" that unemployment would never exceed 8% if the stimulus passed, and that he never did.

Name for me one economic "promise" made by Obama that has been kept? His record is quite clear and the question is why do you still support him?
 
What the administration said was that they estimated that the stimulus would keep unemployment under eight percent, but they also noted that there was a high margin of error in the calculation. They obviously underestimated the severity of the recession, as the unemployment rate even with the stimulus ended up exceeding their worst-case estimate. The main point was that the stimulus would reduce unemployment by 2-3% over what it would have been otherwise, and most economists agree that it succeeded in that respect.

And to recap, you claimed that Obama "promised" that unemployment would never exceed 8% if the stimulus passed, and that he never did.

"promised" that unemployment would never exceed 8% if the stimulus passed, and that he never did

Difference without a distinction.

On the 2-3% benefit in unemployment you attribute to stimulus that would be 3-4.5 million jobs. I have not heard too many economists suggest that was the benefit.

Do you even believe what you write, or do you just like to throw trash for the fun of it.
 
"promised" that unemployment would never exceed 8% if the stimulus passed, and that he never did

Difference without a distinction.

On the 2-3% benefit in unemployment you attribute to stimulus that would be 3-4.5 million jobs. I have not heard too many economists suggest that was the benefit.

Do you even believe what you write, or do you just like to throw trash for the fun of it.

Of course it's not a difference without a distinction. There is a huge distinction between predicting a specific ceiling and predicting that the measure would lower unemployment relative to where it would have been otherwise.

You're right, I should have said 1-2% instead of 2-3%. "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."
 
Last edited:
I strongly suspect that the Obama administration never envisioned that government itself would end the jobs of over 500,000 workers in the last two years not to mention the ripple wave effect of those in private employment whose jobs were lost in the ripple effect. And much of those half million unemployed added to the numbers came at the urging of Republican dominated governments on a crusade for "smaller government" - but at what societal cost?

Isn't it interesting that at GOP meme has come to be repeated constantly that "we should not raise any taxes in a recession because it will hurt the economy". Well, what about "we should not lay off any workers increasing and swelling the unemployment numbers in a recession"? Somehow, someway, they never quite get around to that do they?

Many of the same people who bitch, moan, whine and complain about the high unemployment figures are the same people who are urging these firings from government jobs in the first place.
 
Well, what do you expect? These are the same people who maintain that the deficit is our number one problem while their number one policy goal is to cut taxes -- and thereby increase the deficit.
 
Of course it's not a difference without a distinction. There is a huge distinction between predicting a specific ceiling and predicting that the measure would lower unemployment relative to where it would have been otherwise.

You're right, I should have said 1-2% instead of 2-3%. "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."


Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees with you because saved jobs aren't calculated nor can they be. Which one is more accurate, BLS or CBO? Do you even know what CBO does?
 
Well, what do you expect? These are the same people who maintain that the deficit is our number one problem while their number one policy goal is to cut taxes -- and thereby increase the deficit.

Different day same tired old rhetoric. Are you sending back your Bush Tax cut and sending in more than you are legally bound to pay? If not, why not? You want to send more revenue to the same people that contributed to the 14.6 trillion dollar debt? Interesting logic on your part.
 
I pay attention to results, when will you. If those promises were kept and we have the results we have today why would you support him for re-election? It would be a lot easier and more credible if you just admitted who you are.

You pay attention to results without considering the circumstances that contribute to the results. As such, you have no notion of what caused the results and no idea what the results would have been like if other policy choices had been made.
 
Different day same tired old rhetoric. Are you sending back your Bush Tax cut and sending in more than you are legally bound to pay? If not, why not? You want to send more revenue to the same people that contributed to the 14.6 trillion dollar debt? Interesting logic on your part.

You're right, same old tired, non-arguments. My personal tax bill has nothing to do with the government's tax policy. It's a weak ad hominem attack.
 
Of course it's not a difference without a distinction. There is a huge distinction between predicting a specific ceiling and predicting that the measure would lower unemployment relative to where it would have been otherwise.

You're right, I should have said 1-2% instead of 2-3%. "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."


fair enough. But then I think you have to take it a bit further. I will grant the CBO estimates as they are our official scorekeeper. However you have to then ask how much of the weakness in the last few months do to stimulus money waning. My point is that the stimulus did in fact give the economy a pick me up which is fine, but did not invest very much in anything that would have a sustainable impact. So the gains were relatively short term.
 
I pay attention to results, when will you. If those promises were kept and we have the results we have today why would you support him for re-election? It would be a lot easier and more credible if you just admitted who you are.

The reason people will vote Obama again is they feel the republicans are not going to offer a better way and the results will be the same or worse. The difference is that certain social and foreign policies will be different.

Like it or not the republican way has NOT lowered the deficit.

Given that choice of the deficit not decreasing, people are going to side with other pet issues. The same goes for those that vote GOP.

It's your 2 party system and as you say "it is what it is", so enjoy it. Many like myself are removing ourselves from that equation a d refusing to vote GOP or Dem.
 
You pay attention to results without considering the circumstances that contribute to the results. As such, you have no notion of what caused the results and no idea what the results would have been like if other policy choices had been made.

Yes, I consider the circumstances as well, like the Democrats taking control of Congress in January 2007 and the country going into recession in December 2007. Then of course there is the budget of 2009 which Obama supported, voted for, and was passed by the Democrat Congress. You and the other Obama apoligists continue to blame Bush when Congress makes the laws and passes the budgets. Obama cannot inherit what he helped create. Now he promotes more class warfare and you buyt the rhetoric. That says a lot about you.
 
I strongly suspect that the Obama administration never envisioned that government itself would end the jobs of over 500,000 workers in the last two years not to mention the ripple wave effect of those in private employment whose jobs were lost in the ripple effect. And much of those half million unemployed added to the numbers came at the urging of Republican dominated governments on a crusade for "smaller government" - but at what societal cost?

Isn't it interesting that at GOP meme has come to be repeated constantly that "we should not raise any taxes in a recession because it will hurt the economy". Well, what about "we should not lay off any workers increasing and swelling the unemployment numbers in a recession"? Somehow, someway, they never quite get around to that do they?

Many of the same people who bitch, moan, whine and complain about the high unemployment figures are the same people who are urging these firings from government jobs in the first place.

Your problem is that the local governments grew and got fat while the economy was rosy and they were taking in more money. Did your state grow expenditures more than inflation in the first decade of this century? Do you really think that anyone is happy about people being fired?

Most of local taxes in my state are raised through property taxes. For retired folks, social security has not gone up for two years, lets see what happens this year. If you supplemented your social security with interest on CDs, the policy of the Fed and the administration have brought the interest rates they receive to 2% on a ten year treasury. So they have in fact taken a large haircut on their income, yet you seem to think that government has the right to grow by some percent every year, even as the people who the government serves makes less but is taxed more. No rational person can believe that this can continue forever.
 
fair enough. But then I think you have to take it a bit further. I will grant the CBO estimates as they are our official scorekeeper. However you have to then ask how much of the weakness in the last few months do to stimulus money waning. My point is that the stimulus did in fact give the economy a pick me up which is fine, but did not invest very much in anything that would have a sustainable impact. So the gains were relatively short term.

Stumulus is intended to provide a sufficient short-term lift to get the broader economy going. Unfortunately they did underestimate the severity of the downturn and the stimulus was too small to create a self-sustaining recovery.
 
The reason people will vote Obama again is they feel the republicans are not going to offer a better way and the results will be the same or worse. The difference is that certain social and foreign policies will be different.

Like it or not the republican way has NOT lowered the deficit.

Given that choice of the deficit not decreasing, people are going to side with other pet issues. The same goes for those that vote GOP.

It's your 2 party system and as you say "it is what it is", so enjoy it. Many like myself are removing ourselves from that equation a d refusing to vote GOP or Dem.

You think this country was built on class warfare and redistributiof of wealth? Do you think the people of this country support the massive expansion of govt and the current 3.7 trillion dollar spending?

Republicans control one HOUSE not the govt. and the Ryan plan cut the budget deficit as did Cut, cap, and balance. What was the Obama position on those and where is the Obama plan to cut the deficit?
 
Stumulus is intended to provide a sufficient short-term lift to get the broader economy going. Unfortunately they did underestimate the severity of the downturn and the stimulus was too small to create a self-sustaining recovery.

If they did underestimate the severity as you claim they are incompetent and don't deserve the office. They didn't underestimate as they didn't have a clue. They are all liberal elites better suited for sitting in the faculty lounge at Harvard.
 
Yes, I consider the circumstances as well, like the Democrats taking control of Congress in January 2007 and the country going into recession in December 2007. Then of course there is the budget of 2009 which Obama supported, voted for, and was passed by the Democrat Congress. You and the other Obama apoligists continue to blame Bush when Congress makes the laws and passes the budgets. Obama cannot inherit what he helped create. Now he promotes more class warfare and you buyt the rhetoric. That says a lot about you.

That is pure partisan delusion. Anyone with the slightest grasp of reality understands that the recession was hardwired by 2007. The real estate bubble was already inflated and destined to burst. The high level of spending and lower revenues that followed were predestined no matter who succeeded Bush.
 
You're right, same old tired, non-arguments. My personal tax bill has nothing to do with the government's tax policy. It's a weak ad hominem attack.

Why is it that anytime a liberal is challenged that it called an attack. When are you ever going to address the facts presented. Obama added 4 trillion to the debt in less than four years, Obama has more unemployed than when he took office. Obama has less people in the labor force than when the took office. Economic growth is 1% in 2011. Now his solution is class warfare and redistribution of wealth. That is devisive and damaging to the country.
 
That is pure partisan delusion. Anyone with the slightest grasp of reality understands that the recession was hardwired by 2007. The real estate bubble was already inflated and destined to burst. The high level of spending and lower revenues that followed were predestined no matter who succeeded Bush.

Obama was hired to fix the mess he helped create and failed. Results don't matter to ideologues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom