• 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!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flat taxes are regressive, which means they concentrate wealth at the top so they do not stimulate the economy as well as progressive taxes. This is because the rich do not spend as much of their wealth (in the US) as do the middle and lower working classes.
No one said anything about a purely flat tax, just a flatter one where the tax base is broadened so we can have that "shared sacrifice" Democrats long for. Besides, the middle, upper middle, and upper classes drive this economy. Who do you think invests in business and creates jobs? It's not the lower classes I can assure you. The reason that businesses didn't wholeheartedly reinvest in America under the Bush tax cuts is because businesses aren't dumb. They know that temporary measures end at some point, but they can't be sure of when. This climate of uncertainty doesn't encourage businesses to invest in America and open up wide scale hiring.
 
heck that's nothing. we have 90 million jobs in this economy - the Stimulus saved them all!!!

don'cha love non-falsifiable arguments? good thing they never actually subjected their whacko theories about how you can get richer by going deeper into debt to a falsifiable test marked by an objective prediction, eh?

oh. wait......


updatedobamaunemploymentApril2011.png



err... woops? :)

Exactly, but rhetoric trumps actual results in the Obama cult world. The merchandising of Obama continues and the cult followers buy the rhetoric. Thanks for posting actual results which will be ignored.
 
We will see how that strategy plays out for the GOP.
Well as my signature says:
I don't consult polls to tell me what my principles are or what our policies should be.-
Paul Ryan
But I happen to think, if 2010 is any indication, that it may work out well for the GOP. Someone as to be the adult and talk about the issues that are facing our nation even if it may be politically unpopular to do so. It appears as though those on the left want to fiddle while Rome burns, but those of us who are middle-right and over are ready to discuss the debt, entitlement reform, and tax reform.
 
heck that's nothing. we have 90 million jobs in this economy - the Stimulus saved them all!!!

don'cha love non-falsifiable arguments? good thing they never actually subjected their whacko theories about how you can get richer by going deeper into debt to a falsifiable test marked by an objective prediction, eh?

oh. wait......


updatedobamaunemploymentApril2011.png



err... woops? :)

Your unlinked graph was based on earlier predictions and does not show the value of the infrastructure improvements, nor the value of our improved economy. The majority of economists have determined that the stimulus helped our economy.


What has the GOP done to fix the problems caused by the last administration?
 
Last edited:
No one said anything about a purely flat tax, just a flatter one where the tax base is broadened so we can have that "shared sacrifice" Democrats long for. Besides, the middle, upper middle, and upper classes drive this economy. Who do you think invests in business and creates jobs? It's not the lower classes I can assure you. The reason that businesses didn't wholeheartedly reinvest in America under the Bush tax cuts is because businesses aren't dumb. They know that temporary measures end at some point, but they can't be sure of when. This climate of uncertainty doesn't encourage businesses to invest in America and open up wide scale hiring.

You mean like a 999 plan?
 
I have no interest in an outdated opinion by Fox news, no matter how much you spam it here. Try to focus on the thread topic.

Outdate? 1000 days is right now and the results are current. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty as you are showing?
 
What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty that you are displaying?

You don't have to be a liberal to see that Cain's 999 tax plan would be bad for the country.

See below:

I'm not a fan of the 999 "plan." I don't like the 9% sales tax idea, I find the "plan" a touch unrealistic and woefully simplistic.
 
Your unlinked graph was based on earlier predictions and does not show the value of the infrastructure improvements, nor the value of our improved economy. The majority of economists have determined that the stimulus helped our economy.


What has the GOP done to fix the problems caused by the last administration?

The value of our "improved economy" ????? Would you like some poll numbers on what the American people's opinion of the "improved economy" are ??

Let's look at a comparison of how Reagan's unemployment numbers looked at the same time in his first administration. Remember that unemployment was worse during Reagan's first term. UE under Reagan dropped rapidly, Obama's is the same or worse.

uer_rvo.jpg
 
Outdate? 1000 days is right now and the results are current. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty as you are showing?

Your article doesn't even mention the American Jobs Act. Do you have anything to contribute on topic at all???
 
You can't honestly think the 999 plan would work do you? Talk about class warfare then that is it.

It's not perfect - but it would certainly work better than what we are saddled with currently.
 
It's not perfect - but it would certainly work better than what we are saddled with currently.

If you do the math it increases the average households taxes by $5,000 a year (public radio was debating this whole thing this morning). Also, right now, we don't have a tax on the poor, this would tax the poor. Not perfect, I would call that insane. Not to mention it lowers the taxes on the rich by a CRAZY amount.
 
It's not perfect - but it would certainly work better than what we are saddled with currently.

I'd have to agree. "Simple" has never been used with "taxes" in this country except possibly during it's very earliest years. The progressive tax code is rampant with loopholes, benefits and ways to game the system for the rich. That would go away, so I'm surprised that the liberals are not in support of closing all of that. Second, this removes the requirement for an IRS, Tax Lawyers and CPA's who make a living off of tax season. Third, it actually DOES level the playing field which is what the liberal left has been asking for - but which hasn't been honest. Now that the playing field is actually going to be leveled, we see the class warfare supporters not liking it.

I find that hypocrisy wonderful. Any time someone, anyone of any political background says "level the playing field" and "tax the rich more" in the same thought process, they are lying. That lie is evident in this thread - it's not about leveling the playing field, it's about taxing those with more for the sole reason they have more, to provide for those who do not, or are unwilling.
 
Why do you think this Job's bill is going to do the job when the last one failed miserably? Obama had overwhelming numbers his first two years, much more than Bush ever had during his term yet Bush gets blame and Obama never is held accountable for the poor results. Obama even had a filibuster proof Congress part of his first two years something Obama supporters forget.

As for the job's bill please tell me after the funding runs out for state jobs, teachers, fire fighters, and police where does the money come from to keep paying these workers? Liberals always buy what Obama tells them yet with 4.2 trillion added to the debt in 3 years we have a net job loss of 2.6 million. Keep buying the rhetoric, liberals. Amazing what the cost of brainwashing gets these days.

You know, even Jeb Bush said recently in an interview w/Piers Morgan that he believed the President was doing the right thing concerning his focus on improving education in this country. If you're pushing to change the education system, why wouldn't you push to protect jobs for teachers?

Crime has been on the rise since the economy has stagnated a few months ago. Wouldn't you think it's smart to keep police on the job?

Put simply, Stimulus 1 helped keep teachers, police and firefighters on the job because the States couldn't afford to. I see nothing wrong with providing more short-term federal funding - Stimulus 2 - to do the same while also providing incentives for State and federal governments to form public-private partnerships to spur job growth and prop up local/state economies. Think of it this way...

States, especially those with Republican Governors and GOP majority legislatures, have worked hard to bring their budgets into balance and reduce waste, etc., etc. If they're finally getting their spending on track but just need alittle bit more of a cushion, why not provide that push at the federal level? It worked once for teachers, firefighters and police to keep them employed, why shouldn't it work again?

Because it did nothing for the deficit. Nothing is going to pass that doesn't in some way address the deficit.

You do realize that the President's Jobs Plan and his Deficit Reduction Plan are two separate proposals purposely designed to work together?

The Jobs Plan is intended to spur short-term economic growth while other legislation, such as trade agreements and expediting pattents, are intended for long-term economic stability.

Sidenote: Just heard Rush lie about the Senate vote on the President's Jobs Plan. He said the Dems on gained 50 votes which is true. However, he falsely claimed that the Dems could have passed the bill all by themselves. How is that possible when there are only 52 Democrats in the Senate?

He's also now claiming that the Occupy movement was "created by Liberals". Interesting, since I attended a local Occupy rally over the weekend and met folks who were both Democrats and Republicans - same political mix alleged by the Tea Party. Nice try, Rush. Not everyone is fooled by your :spin: and misinformation.
 
Last edited:
Sidenote: Just heard Rush lie about the Senate vote on the President's Jobs Plan. He said the Dems on gained 50 votes which is true. However, he falsely claimed that the Dems could have passed the bill all by themselves. How is that possible when there are only 52 Democrats in the Senate?

Rush is correct. Democrats could have invoked the "nuclear option" that only requires a majority vote.
 
You don't have to be a liberal to see that Cain's 999 tax plan would be bad for the country.

See below:

Liberalism is bad for the country yet you claim to be one. I prefer the 9-9-9 plan to tax the rich and redistribute wealth. What is it about 90 million Americans that aren't paying any or paying very little in FIT don't you understand? What is it about actual results that you don't understand? Still waiting for what it is about liberalism that creates such loyalty?
 
Liberalism is bad for the country yet you claim to be one. I prefer the 9-9-9 plan to tax the rich and redistribute wealth. What is it about 90 million Americans that aren't paying any or paying very little in FIT don't you understand? What is it about actual results that you don't understand? Still waiting for what it is about liberalism that creates such loyalty?

I thought you were against class warfare?
 
Your article doesn't even mention the American Jobs Act. Do you have anything to contribute on topic at all???

The American Jobs Act didn't pass and is nothing more than Stimulus 2 which failed. The article shows the actual results for Obama, do you have any comments on the actual results?
 
If you do the math it increases the average households taxes by $5,000 a year (public radio was debating this whole thing this morning). Also, right now, we don't have a tax on the poor, this would tax the poor. Not perfect, I would call that insane. Not to mention it lowers the taxes on the rich by a CRAZY amount.

You want more revenue to the govt, then support 90 million Americans paying at least something in FIT. Why don't you show us the math that generates those higher numbers
 
Rush is correct. Democrats could have invoked the "nuclear option" that only requires a majority vote.

Are you serious? Do you really think Sen. McConnel and the rest of the Senate GOP would have gone for that and accepted a straight-up majority vote? We ARE talking about the U.S. Senate after all - the most difficult chamber of Congress to get any legislation through.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom