• 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 (Continued)

winston53660 said:
I can only go on what is it out there and right now it looks Romney is in the lead for the R nomination. So I picked Romney. and a comparison shows a close race.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Your information is hypothetical. The information that suggests Obama's approval rating is between 38% and 41% is derived from the real actual opinions of the American people. There is a huge difference. One is like using a video game to predict the outcome of a real sports game, and the other one is like the actual half-time score of the actual game.

I have not yet seen one positive thing come out of the Obama administration. Anyone who is still on the Obama wagon is simply too immature to admit that they just made a bad choice. You are not helping yourself and you are definately not helping America by voting for this failure of a leader.
 
Smokified said:
Actually the information is/was accurate when it was posted.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was not accurtate when he posted it today. He even admitted the last time reporting 38% would have been an accurate number would have been days ago.

And again, it's not even about the number -- it's about Conservative's ongoing struggles posting accurate information. He posts garbage numbers all the time.
Smokified said:
What is funny here is that you and your little team continue to ignore the fact that MOST OF AMERICA is not happy with the job Obama is doing.
Click to expand...
So? Almost all presidents have had JAR numbers south of 50%.

Here's a list of presidents who were re-elected despite having JAR's below 50% during their term leading up to the election...

FDR (48%)
Truman (36%)
Nixon (48%)
Reagan (35%)
Clinton (36%)
GWBush (41%)

And here's a list of presidents who failed to get re-elected despite having JAR above 70% during their term leading up to the election...

LBJ (71%)
Ford (74%)
Carter (75%)
GHWBush (89%)

So if there's anything I'm igonoring as far as JAR, it's the correlation between JAR and being re-elected.

Smokified said:
If you like him, fine. At least try to grow up enough to give us some actual example of what there is to like.
Click to expand...
I think he's done an ok job only when considering the hand he was dealt. I don't see how McCain could have done any better. But you asked for an example of something he's done that is to like and I'll start with this ...

6088811219_7177d24faa.jpg


Sheik Yerbuti said:
This is really more about your personal struggles with conveying accurate and factual information than it is the slight difference between 38% and 41%. How do you not get that?

Smokified said:
The difference between 38% and 41% is trivial and you look simply pathetic trying to use that as a point of argument.

It is sad that poeple with your level of maturity and intelligence get to vote and screw things up for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I thought I was crystal clear that my complaint was not that he was off by a few percentage points but that it's an ongoing problem with him being able to post accurate data. Too bad if crystal clear still wasn't clear enough for you. You'll just have to live with your G-d given limitations.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Actually, it was not accurtate when he posted it today. He even admitted the last time reporting 38% would have been an accurate number would have been days ago.

And again, it's not even about the number -- it's about Conservative's ongoing struggles posting accurate information. He posts garbage numbers all the time.


So? Almost all presidents have had JAR numbers south of 50%.

Here's a list of presidents who were re-elected despite having JAR's below 50% during their term leading up to the election...

FDR (48%)
Truman (36%)
Nixon (48%)
Reagan (35%)
Clinton (36%)
GWBush (41%)

And here's a list of presidents who failed to get re-elected despite having JAR above 70% during their term leading up to the election...

LBJ (71%)
Ford (74%)
Carter (75%)
GHWBush (89%)

So if there's anything I'm igonoring as far as JAR, it's the correlation between JAR and being re-elected.


I think he's done an ok job only when considering the hand he was dealt. I don't see how McCain could have done any better. But you asked for an example of something he's done that is to like and I'll start with this ...

View attachment 67116669



I thought I was crystal clear that my complaint was not that he was off by a few percentage points but that it's an ongoing problem with him being able to post accurate data. Too bad if crystal clear still wasn't clear enough for you. You'll just have to live with your G-d given limitations.
Click to expand...

Sheik, you are a legend in your own mind, the data I posted was accurate at the time and even though referenced today doesn't change the fact that those poll numbers have fluctuated between 38-42% over the past few months. You claim he has done an OK job although he was handed the hand that he helped deal himself. He has no economic plan other than promoting class warfare and fooling people like you which doesn't really take much. Like far too many who have had zero leadership experience you buy his rhetoric of blaming everyone else for his own failures and for delegation of responsibility. No leader can delegate responsibility, onlyl authority.

What is crystal clear is that you are putting on an act here as you cannot defend the failed results of this President, results that the American people are rejecting. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. It has been over 2 1/2 years and the results generated have been posted over and over again. You claim that no President could do better with the hand he was dealt, Reagan did and did a much better job with a pro growth economic policy. Still waiting for the Obama economic policy?
 
Sheik, you are a legend in your own mind, the data I posted was accurate at the time and even though referenced today doesn't change the fact that those poll numbers have fluctuated between 38-42% over the past few months. You claim he has done an OK job although he was handed the hand that he helped deal himself. He has no economic plan other than promoting class warfare and fooling people like you which doesn't really take much. Like far too many who have had zero leadership experience you buy his rhetoric of blaming everyone else for his own failures and for delegation of responsibility. No leader can delegate responsibility, onlyl authority.

What is crystal clear is that you are putting on an act here as you cannot defend the failed results of this President, results that the American people are rejecting. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. It has been over 2 1/2 years and the results generated have been posted over and over again. You claim that no President could do better with the hand he was dealt, Reagan did and did a much better job with a pro growth economic policy. Still waiting for the Obama economic policy?
Click to expand...

You just completely ignored his entire post and merely quoted it and went back to your talking points. Sheik, why do you do all this work if he isn't even going to read your posts? Hell, I bet if you searched back through the thread he is now just copy and pasting, wouldn't surprise me.
 
Conservative said:
Sheik, you are a legend in your own mind, the data I posted was accurate at the time and even though referenced today doesn't change the fact that those poll numbers have fluctuated between 38-42% over the past few months. You claim he has done an OK job although he was handed the hand that he helped deal himself. He has no economic plan other than promoting class warfare and fooling people like you which doesn't really take much. Like far too many who have had zero leadership experience you buy his rhetoric of blaming everyone else for his own failures and for delegation of responsibility. No leader can delegate responsibility, onlyl authority.
Click to expand...

So Bush is responsible for the 20.7 % point increase in debt to GDP ratio from 2005 to 2009.

RooseveltD1941–194550.4%117.5%+203+67.1%DD
Roosevelt/TrumanD1945–1949117.5%93.1%-8-24.4%79th D, 80th R79th D, 80th R
Harry TrumanD1949–195393.1%71.4%+13-21.7%DD
Dwight EisenhowerR1953–195771.4%60.4%+6-11.0%83rd R, 84th D83rd R, 84th D
Dwight EisenhowerR1957–196160.4%55.2%+20-5.2%DD
Kennedy/JohnsonD1961–196555.2%46.9%+30-8.3%DD
Lyndon JohnsonD1965–196946.9%38.6%+43-8.3%DD
Richard NixonR1969–197338.6%35.6%+101-3.0%DD
Nixon/FordR1973–197735.6%35.8%+177+0.2%DD
Jimmy CarterD1977–198135.8%32.5%+288-3.3%DD
Ronald ReaganR1981–198532.5%43.8%+823+11.3%DR
Ronald ReaganR1985–198943.8%53.1%+1,050+9.3%D99th R, 100th D
George H. W. BushR1989–199353.1%66.1%+1,483+13.0%DD
Bill ClintonD1993–199766.1%65.4%+1,018-0.7%103rd D, 104th R103rd D, 104th R
Bill ClintonD1997–200165.4%56.4%+401-9.0%RR
George W. BushR2001–200556.4%63.5%+2,135+7.1%R107th Split, 108 R
George W. BushR2005–200963.5%84.2%+3,971+20.7%109th R, 110th D109th R, 110th D
Barack Obama
D2009–201084.2%93.2%+1,653+9.0%111th D, 112th RD

U.S. president Party Years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt
(in Billions of $) Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points ) House Control
(with # if
split during term) Senate Control
(with # if
split during term)
(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)
 
Jryan said:
You just completely ignored his entire post and merely quoted it and went back to your talking points. Sheik, why do you do all this work if he isn't even going to read your posts? Hell, I bet if you searched back through the thread he is now just copy and pasting, wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

I have seen the same thing from Sheik over and over again. You have only been here since September. Sheik is a legend in his own mind taking data out of context and ignores the economic conditiions at various times i the past. Reagan inheritedd worse economic conditions for the working Americans than did Obama no matter how he spins it. He wasn't old enough, Golden Boy wasn't old enough, and you weren't old enough to refute the economic conditions at the time.

Your loyalty to Obama is quite interesting and normally reserved for the young and naive. It is a shame that actual results aren't something you pay attention to but instead buy the rhetoric from those that you want to believe. Too bad but I assure you that you will grow out of it.
 
Your loyalty to Obama is quite interesting and normally reserved for the young and naive. It is a shame that actual results aren't something you pay attention to but instead buy the rhetoric from those that you want to believe. Too bad but I assure you that you will grow out of it.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this like there are no democratic adults on this site.
 
Conservative said:
Sheik, you are a legend in your own mind, the data I posted was accurate at the time and even though referenced today doesn't change the fact that those poll numbers have fluctuated between 38-42% over the past few months. You claim he has done an OK job although he was handed the hand that he helped deal himself. He has no economic plan other than promoting class warfare and fooling people like you which doesn't really take much. Like far too many who have had zero leadership experience you buy his rhetoric of blaming everyone else for his own failures and for delegation of responsibility. No leader can delegate responsibility, onlyl authority.
Click to expand...

It's. Not. Warfare.
 
winston53660 said:
So Bush is responsible for the 20.7 % point increase in debt to GDP ratio from 2005 to 2009.

RooseveltD1941–194550.4%117.5%+203+67.1%DD
Roosevelt/TrumanD1945–1949117.5%93.1%-8-24.4%79th D, 80th R79th D, 80th R
Harry TrumanD1949–195393.1%71.4%+13-21.7%DD
Dwight EisenhowerR1953–195771.4%60.4%+6-11.0%83rd R, 84th D83rd R, 84th D
Dwight EisenhowerR1957–196160.4%55.2%+20-5.2%DD
Kennedy/JohnsonD1961–196555.2%46.9%+30-8.3%DD
Lyndon JohnsonD1965–196946.9%38.6%+43-8.3%DD
Richard NixonR1969–197338.6%35.6%+101-3.0%DD
Nixon/FordR1973–197735.6%35.8%+177+0.2%DD
Jimmy CarterD1977–198135.8%32.5%+288-3.3%DD
Ronald ReaganR1981–198532.5%43.8%+823+11.3%DR
Ronald ReaganR1985–198943.8%53.1%+1,050+9.3%D99th R, 100th D
George H. W. BushR1989–199353.1%66.1%+1,483+13.0%DD
Bill ClintonD1993–199766.1%65.4%+1,018-0.7%103rd D, 104th R103rd D, 104th R
Bill ClintonD1997–200165.4%56.4%+401-9.0%RR
George W. BushR2001–200556.4%63.5%+2,135+7.1%R107th Split, 108 R
George W. BushR2005–200963.5%84.2%+3,971+20.7%109th R, 110th D109th R, 110th D
Barack Obama
D2009–201084.2%93.2%+1,653+9.0%111th D, 112th RD

U.S. president Party Years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt
(in Billions of $) Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points ) House Control
(with # if
split during term) Senate Control
(with # if
split during term)
(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to mean anything? When Obama took office the debt was approximately 10.6 trillion dollars and today it is close to 14.6 trillion or a 4 trillion increase. Do you think taking the debt up 4 trillion dollars or 40% in less than 3 years is as bad as increasing the debt 4.9 trillion in 8 years but increasing the debt at a much higher percentage? It really is hard to deal with people who lack basic logic and common sense.
 
Snevert said:
It's. Not. Warfare.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, when you take the earnings of someone else and tax revenue from 53% of the people who pay FIT and distribute it to the other 47% that don't pay any FIT what would you call it?
 
Conservative said:
Is that supposed to mean anything? When Obama took office the debt was approximately 10.6 trillion dollars and today it is close to 14.6 trillion or a 4 trillion increase. Do you think taking the debt up 4 trillion dollars or 40% in less than 3 years is as bad as increasing the debt 4.9 trillion in 8 years but increasing the debt at a much higher percentage? It really is hard to deal with people who lack basic logic and common sense.
Click to expand...

Wow, only 14.6 trillion dollars, that statistic is only 6 months old. GO OBAMA!
 
Conservative said:
Sheik, you are a legend in your own mind, the data I posted was accurate at the time and even though referenced today doesn't change the fact that those poll numbers have fluctuated between 38-42% over the past few months.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Con, but there is no way you can claim accuracy when you post, "38% approval rating today," but his JAR is not actually 38% today. You could just admit you were wrong, but accepting responsibility for your mistakes is above your paygrade.

Conservative said:
You claim he has done an OK job although he was handed the hand that he helped deal himself.
Click to expand...
As a single member of Congress, his was but one vote among 100. Again, you fail here. Bush, whose 1 vote among 1, is responsible for the bills he signs into law, just as Clinton was before him. Not to mention, Obama didn't even vote on the bills which led to our financial destruction. Those bills were passed before Obama was even a U.S. Senator.

Conservative said:
He has no economic plan other than promoting class warfare and fooling people like you which doesn't really take much. Like far too many who have had zero leadership experience you buy his rhetoric of blaming everyone else for his own failures and for delegation of responsibility. No leader can delegate responsibility, onlyl authority.
Click to expand...
Yet more bull****. The truth is, Obama is promoting economic plans. Some may disagree with them, one is expected to get killed in the Senate any moment now, but to say, "he has no economic plan other than promoting class warfare," is a lie as obvious as your growing nose.

Conservative said:
What is crystal clear is that you are putting on an act here as you cannot defend the failed results of this President, results that the American people are rejecting. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. It has been over 2 1/2 years and the results generated have been posted over and over again. You claim that no President could do better with the hand he was dealt, Reagan did and did a much better job with a pro growth economic policy. Still waiting for the Obama economic policy?
Click to expand...
We'll see in 13 months from now, won't we.
 
Jryan said:
Wow, only 14.6 trillion dollars, that statistic is only 6 months old. GO OBAMA!
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean a thing to you, does it? Too big of a number for you to even comprehend.
 
Jryan said:
You just completely ignored his entire post and merely quoted it and went back to your talking points. Sheik, why do you do all this work if he isn't even going to read your posts? Hell, I bet if you searched back through the thread he is now just copy and pasting, wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...
He does that regularly. But ultimately, all he is doing is undermining his own position by doing so. Others see it as well, just as you did. But I keep posting because there are also others who do read them.
 
winston53660 said:
So Bush is responsible for the 20.7 % point increase in debt to GDP ratio from 2005 to 2009.

RooseveltD1941–194550.4%117.5%+203+67.1%DD
Roosevelt/TrumanD1945–1949117.5%93.1%-8-24.4%79th D, 80th R79th D, 80th R
Harry TrumanD1949–195393.1%71.4%+13-21.7%DD
Dwight EisenhowerR1953–195771.4%60.4%+6-11.0%83rd R, 84th D83rd R, 84th D
Dwight EisenhowerR1957–196160.4%55.2%+20-5.2%DD
Kennedy/JohnsonD1961–196555.2%46.9%+30-8.3%DD
Lyndon JohnsonD1965–196946.9%38.6%+43-8.3%DD
Richard NixonR1969–197338.6%35.6%+101-3.0%DD
Nixon/FordR1973–197735.6%35.8%+177+0.2%DD
Jimmy CarterD1977–198135.8%32.5%+288-3.3%DD
Ronald ReaganR1981–198532.5%43.8%+823+11.3%DR
Ronald ReaganR1985–198943.8%53.1%+1,050+9.3%D99th R, 100th D
George H. W. BushR1989–199353.1%66.1%+1,483+13.0%DD
Bill ClintonD1993–199766.1%65.4%+1,018-0.7%103rd D, 104th R103rd D, 104th R
Bill ClintonD1997–200165.4%56.4%+401-9.0%RR
George W. BushR2001–200556.4%63.5%+2,135+7.1%R107th Split, 108 R
George W. BushR2005–200963.5%84.2%+3,971+20.7%109th R, 110th D109th R, 110th D
Barack Obama
D2009–201084.2%93.2%+1,653+9.0%111th D, 112th RD

U.S. president Party Years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt
(in Billions of $) Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points ) House Control
(with # if
split during term) Senate Control
(with # if
split during term)
(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)
Click to expand...
Nicely done. Thank you.
 
Conservative said:
Is that supposed to mean anything? .
Click to expand...

Yes it does it means something that you do not stand by what you say and try to wiggle out of it. And I quote:


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Conservative
No leader can delegate responsibility, onlyl authority.
Click to expand...

Now is Bush responsible for the 20.7 percentage point increase in debt / GDP ratio or not from 2005 to 2009 ?
 
Last edited:
Jryan said:
Sheik, why do you do all this work if he isn't even going to read your posts?
Click to expand...

To see him froth at the mouth like a rabid chipmunk:mrgreen:


Hell, I bet if you searched back through the thread he is now just copy and pasting, wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

Oh he is copying and pasting.
 
Sheik Yerbuti;1059863877]Sorry, Con, but there is no way you can claim accuracy when you post, "38% approval rating today," but his JAR is not actually 38% today. You could just admit you were wrong, but accepting responsibility for your mistakes is above your paygrade.
Click to expand...

When I posted it, the approval rating was 38%. I errored in claiming it was today but probably will be accurate tomorrow as that is where it is fluctuating. To bad you don't take your own advice and be more specific and accurate in your posts as you take percentage change without putting it in context and ignore actual data.


As a single member of Congress, his was but one vote among 100. Again, you fail here. Bush, whose 1 vote among 1, is responsible for the bills he signs into law, just as Clinton was before him. Not to mention, Obama didn't even vote on the bills which led to our financial destruction. Those bills were passed before Obama was even a U.S. Senator.
Click to expand...

Pelosi and Reid controlled the Congress from January 2007 to January 2011. Obama was running for President since about 2006 or right before the Dems took control of Congress. Obama voted for the 2009 budget which passed with overwhelming Democrat support and then put the Department heads in place to spend the money. The results speak for themselves, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years. I suggest you take a civics class so as to stop making a fool of yourself.


Yet more bull****. The truth is, Obama is promoting economic plans. Some may disagree with them, one is expected to get killed in the Senate any moment now, but to say, "he has no economic plan other than promoting class warfare," is a lie as obvious as your growing nose.
Click to expand...

What economic plan, shovel ready jobs that weren't so shovel ready? Obamacare which drives up business costs? A jobs bill that has no chance of passing in the Democrat controlled Senate? What specific economic plan has Obama implemented that generated positive economic results because the actual numbers show that his economy is a diaster.

We'll see in 13 months from now, won't we.
Click to expand...

Yep, we shall see, tell us why anyone would vote for Obama with the results we have today?
 
Conservative said:
Yes it is, when you take the earnings of someone else and tax revenue from 53% of the people who pay FIT and distribute it to the other 47% that don't pay any FIT what would you call it?
Click to expand...

It's not warfare. What kind of planet are you living on to think it's that extreme? No one's getting shot because they're not paying their fair share.. You don't shoot somebody because of that! It's not class warfare, it's called sacrifice! Also, the people that don't pay any taxes range in all income ranges so don't give me that. It's wrong that there are companies like Exxon that don't get taxed at all. It's wrong that the poorest people in this country don't get taxed. It's a sacrifice that EVERYONE should make.

I really don't care about the complaints of the rich about paying too much. Are they really job creators? No. Their company is a job. Their companies hire people. That's why we should minimally tax companies and tax the wealthy individuals at a much heavier rate. Meanwhile the extremely wealthy never had the thought of "oh gee I pay so many taxes, why don't I just take a pay cut so I don't have to pay as much in taxes. I can still send the kids to college and not make my family starve" It's absolutely ridiculous! We also need to turn golden parachutes into lead parachutes.
 
winston53660 said:
Yes it does it means something that you do not stand by what you say and try to wiggle out of it. And I quote:




Now is Bush responsible for the 20.7 percentage point increase in debt / GDP ratio or not from 2005 to 2009 ?
Click to expand...

It certainly happened on his watch however Congress was responsible then just like they are responsible now. What amazes me is how you and Sheik focus on percentage change because that is all you have. Problem is we don't pay debt service, thus no cost to the taxpayer, on percentage change but instead on total dollars of debt.
 
Conservative said:
It certainly happened on his watch however Congress was responsible then just like they are responsible now. What amazes me is how you and Sheik focus on percentage change because that is all you have. Problem is we don't pay debt service, thus no cost to the taxpayer, on percentage change but instead on total dollars of debt.
Click to expand...

Oh god you are hilarious.:lamo
 
Snevert said:
It's not warfare. What kind of planet are you living on to think it's that extreme? No one's getting shot because they're not paying their fair share.. You don't shoot somebody because of that! It's not class warfare, it's called sacrifice! Also, the people that don't pay any taxes range in all income ranges so don't give me that. It's wrong that there are companies like Exxon that don't get taxed at all. It's wrong that the poorest people in this country don't get taxed. It's a sacrifice that EVERYONE should make.

I really don't care about the complaints of the rich about paying too much. Are they really job creators? No. Their company is a job. Their companies hire people. That's why we should minimally tax companies and tax the wealthy individuals at a much heavier rate. Meanwhile the extremely wealthy never had the thought of "oh gee I pay so many taxes, why don't I just take a pay cut so I don't have to pay as much in taxes. I can still send the kids to college and not make my family starve" It's absolutely ridiculous! We also need to turn golden parachutes into lead parachutes.
Click to expand...

I worry about people like you who are apparently having your head filled with a lot of mush in that you believe it isn't extreme to force once class to fund the programs of another class and to redistribute wealth. It is a sad state when people like you don't really understand how our economy works and how jobs are created. You will someday when you get a job and see what your paycheck looks like after tax deductions.

I find it interesting that people like you believe bureaucrats in D.C. can solve local social problems you your community. If liberals feel the govt. needs more money why aren't they sending more out of their paycheck or better yet sending their Bush tax cut back after each paycheck?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom