• 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.
When did I ignore the facts? I didn't say Obama > Reagan. I didn't say Reagan didn't increase revenues with his tax cuts. I called him out on his blatant failure at basic math. Try again.

Blatant? that is total bull****. Fact that govt. revenue went up after the Reagan tax cuts went into full effect. Reagan took office with a tanking economy which of course you ignored. Reagan tax cuts didn't go int effect until fiscal year 1982 which again you ignore. Not sure what your problem is but you are doing everything possible to divert from the fact that Obama would take the Reagan results today in a heartbeat but isn't smart enough to do what Reagan did. Reagan won a massive landslide in 1984, something that Obama can only dream about.
 
Bush ran on an improving economy, check. Improving employment picture, check. rising labor force, check. Running against John Kerry, check. But what relevance does that have today?

Odd - not until his final year did he see any job creation / growth.

2001 137778
2002 135701 (-2077)
2003 137417

2004 138472

I don't have all the time to type out a full argument - should be back in about two hours.
 
Odd - not until his final year did he see any job creation / growth.

2001 137778
2002 135701 (-2077)
2003 137417

2004 138472

I don't have all the time to type out a full argument - should be back in about two hours.

Thus the term trending upward and a net job gain but then what does Bush have to do with the election in 2012 and the Obama record?
 
Deficits are created between October 1 and Sept 30 of each year, debt is cumulative. Obama has added 4.2 trillion to the ebt, where is your outrage? The wars cost 1.4 trillion over 10 years or 140 a year. It is frustrating to see so many people misinformed.

Now, this is the problem I have with people who think as you do.

Deficit (before debt limit increase) = $14 trillion

Obama responsible for: $4.2 trillion

Cost of both wars responsible for: $1.2 trillion

Total cumulative debt = $5.4 trillion

Whose responsible for the remaining $9 trillion?

You can try to blame a Democrat Congress (2006-2010) as you often do, but Republicans ran Congress for 10 years prior (1997-2007) and had a Republican President for 8 of those years (2000-2008), not to mention Clinton left a budget surplus when he left office in 2000. So, whose really to blame for our country's economic woes?
 
Now, this is the problem I have with people who think as you do.

Deficit (before debt limit increase) = $14 trillion

Obama responsible for: $4.2 trillion

Cost of both wars responsible for: $1.2 trillion

Total cumulative debt = $5.4 trillion

Whose responsible for the remaining $9 trillion?

You can try to blame a Democrat Congress (2006-2010) as you often do, but Republicans ran Congress for 10 years prior (1997-2007) and had a Republican President for 8 of those years (2000-2008), not to mention Clinton left a budget surplus when he left office in 2000. So, whose really to blame for our country's economic woes?

/sarcasm

I blame the letter D

sesamestreet_coloring_d_count.jpg

You see dancing is a sin and dancing starts with the letter D like democrat starts with the letter D. Therefore the letter D is responsible
 
Now, this is the problem I have with people who think as you do.

Deficit (before debt limit increase) = $14 trillion

Obama responsible for: $4.2 trillion

Cost of both wars responsible for: $1.2 trillion

Total cumulative debt = $5.4 trillion

Whose responsible for the remaining $9 trillion?

You can try to blame a Democrat Congress (2006-2010) as you often do, but Republicans ran Congress for 10 years prior (1997-2007) and had a Republican President for 8 of those years (2000-2008), not to mention Clinton left a budget surplus when he left office in 2000. So, whose really to blame for our country's economic woes?

Yes, Republicans and Bush share some of the responsibility, BUT the Democrat controlled Congress from 2006 - 2010 and Obama have spent like drunken sailors.

obama-deficit-2011.jpg
 
Now, this is the problem I have with people who think as you do.

Deficit (before debt limit increase) = $14 trillion

Obama responsible for: $4.2 trillion

Cost of both wars responsible for: $1.2 trillion

Total cumulative debt = $5.4 trillion

Whose responsible for the remaining $9 trillion?

You can try to blame a Democrat Congress (2006-2010) as you often do, but Republicans ran Congress for 10 years prior (1997-2007) and had a Republican President for 8 of those years (2000-2008), not to mention Clinton left a budget surplus when he left office in 2000. So, whose really to blame for our country's economic woes?

That might be one of the most misinformed posts that I have ever read, someone who doesn't understand debt and deficit. Obama has over 4.2 TRILLION in deficits that have been added to the debt. Not sure where you get your information but you need to get a refund if you paid for any of it. Democrats took control of the Senate the middle of 2001 but that doesn't seem to resonate with liberals.

Debt is 14.8 trillion, not deficit as deficits are yearly and debt is cumulative.

Obama has added 4.2 trillion to the debt in less than 3 years which were the result of the 2009-2011 spending.

Cost of both wars 1.2 trillion over 10 years or 120 billion per year so why are you applying the total cost of the wars to the yearly budget.

Try again?
 
Blatant? that is total bull****. Fact that govt. revenue went up after the Reagan tax cuts went into full effect. Reagan took office with a tanking economy which of course you ignored. Reagan tax cuts didn't go int effect until fiscal year 1982 which again you ignore. Not sure what your problem is but you are doing everything possible to divert from the fact that Obama would take the Reagan results today in a heartbeat but isn't smart enough to do what Reagan did. Reagan won a massive landslide in 1984, something that Obama can only dream about.

Again, it's funny you bring Obama into the discussion despite me NOT trying to defend him.

You lied and missed a basic math calculation and continue to support your disproven claim.
 
Now, this is the problem I have with people who think as you do.

Deficit (before debt limit increase) = $14 trillion

Obama responsible for: $4.2 trillion

Cost of both wars responsible for: $1.2 trillion

Total cumulative debt = $5.4 trillion

Whose responsible for the remaining $9 trillion?

You can try to blame a Democrat Congress (2006-2010) as you often do, but Republicans ran Congress for 10 years prior (1997-2007) and had a Republican President for 8 of those years (2000-2008), not to mention Clinton left a budget surplus when he left office in 2000. So, whose really to blame for our country's economic woes?

You mean the cumulative debt of the US since the dawn of record keeping? I think it is you who needs to re-evaluate your way of thinking. The past debt was the past debt regardless of who is responsible. What has Obama done as such a great leader to improve the situation? The right answer is that he has not made anything better but in fact only has made things worse. This means that he is not a good leader for this country and no matter how much you want his nuts on your chin, he is not somebody we need to vote for BASED ON HIS CURRENT PERFORMANCE. You can't go back in a time machine and fix a couple hundered years of poor government choices, you can however look forward and make choices that will improve our situation. Obama has adequately shown that he cannot provide the kind of positive change he advertised that he could. Just like you liberal simpletons, blaming everyone else for your failures will not solve the problems and that is all Obama has done. I don't know if I am going to vote for a president who's campaign platform has been "Fail and Blame".

Feel free to make all of the dumb, pride driven choices you make when those choices don't affect everyone around you.
 
Imagine that, inserting Obama into a thread about Obama? Wow, how dare me?

Amazing how liberals use the word lie all the time when a blatant lie would be that govt. revenue went up when it didn't but carry on, making a fool of yourself.
 
Imagine that, inserting Obama into a thread about Obama? Wow, how dare me?

Amazing how liberals use the word lie all the time when a blatant lie would be that govt. revenue went up when it didn't but carry on, making a fool of yourself.

I believe missing math a fourth-grader could do shows who the true fool is...
 
Odd - not until his final year did he see any job creation / growth.

2001 137778
2002 135701 (-2077)
2003 137417

2004 138472

I don't have all the time to type out a full argument - should be back in about two hours.

Please do, I don't know where you got your data but below was copy/pasted directly from BLS tables:

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Dec Annual Change
2001 136047
2002 136426 379
2003 138411 1985
2004 140125 1714
2005 142752 2627
2006 145970 3218
2007 146272 302
2008 143324 -2948
2009 137960 -5364
 
That's right those hating right wingerzzzzz, always against all that is pure and stinkless. Not once has a leeeberal voted against a Republican bill, not ever in a gagillion years I bet. I am politically enlightened because I watch John Stewart, he's so groovey.
 
The situation is already worse! We do not have enough jobs for our people because we continue to provide incentives for companies to move jobs overseas.
If you were serious you would see that the disincentives for doing business in the US outweigh reasons to stay here. If you were serious you would call for a complete rollback of all regulations and rules created by busybody bureaucrats. We have roughly 80,000 regulations that cost the nation a trillion dollars each year. And we are adding new ones at a rate of about 400 new ones per month.

Eliminate those, cut the corporate tax rate to one percent below the lowest current rate among the first world, and watch and jobs return.

Or you can continue with the Marxist scheme of creating classes and then using class warfare and progressive tax rates to destroy capital accumulation. I have already predicted which way you will turn.
 
If you were serious you would see that the disincentives for doing business in the US outweigh reasons to stay here. If you were serious you would call for a complete rollback of all regulations and rules created by busybody bureaucrats. We have roughly 80,000 regulations that cost the nation a trillion dollars each year. And we are adding new ones at a rate of about 400 new ones per month.

Eliminate those, cut the corporate tax rate to one percent below the lowest current rate among the first world, and watch and jobs return.

Or you can continue with the Marxist scheme of creating classes and then using class warfare and progressive tax rates to destroy capital accumulation. I have already predicted which way you will turn.

Their is so much facepalm in this post, where to start.

Lets start with cutting regulations and why they are there in the the first place.

Regulations were put in place because businesses were doing things that aren't right. If they were honest with their business we wouldn't have them, but as we have seen time and time again, they are crooks out to screw everyone else over (not all businesses are). This falls into the one business screws it up for everybody else.

Cutting the corporate tax rate to 1%:

While this would give an incentive for businesses to grow, it COMPLETELY ignores the fact that we have a huge debt we have to pay off...

Or you can continue with the Marxist scheme of creating classes and then using class warfare and progressive tax rates to destroy capital accumulation. I have already predicted which way you will turn.

I'm starting to love it when republicans use this word. They think it is "class warfare" to raise taxes on the rich? Right, but they also want to raise taxes on the poor. "Class Warfare" is a two way street people.
 
Their is so much facepalm in this post, where to start.

Lets start with cutting regulations and why they are there in the the first place.

Regulations were put in place because businesses were doing things that aren't right. If they were honest with their business we wouldn't have them, but as we have seen time and time again, they are crooks out to screw everyone else over (not all businesses are). This falls into the one business screws it up for everybody else.

Cutting the corporate tax rate to 1%:

While this would give an incentive for businesses to grow, it COMPLETELY ignores the fact that we have a huge debt we have to pay off...



I'm starting to love it when republicans use this word. They think it is "class warfare" to raise taxes on the rich? Right, but they also want to raise taxes on the poor. "Class Warfare" is a two way street people.

What you fail to recognize is that growing the economy creates more taxpayers and that generates more money to the Federal Govt. You can gain revenue two ways, raise taxes which destroys incentive or you can increase incentive and thus more taxpayers. Which one makes the most sense? Do you understand incentive? Where is the incentive when taxes are higher? Reagan increased tax revenue because 17 million new taxpayers were added to the tax roles. He did so by lowering tax rates on those paying taxes. There aren't enough rich people or corporations to fund the liberal spending appetite so increasing taxpayers is the only policy that makes any sense.
 
What you fail to recognize is that growing the economy creates more taxpayers and that generates more money to the Federal Govt. You can gain revenue two ways, raise taxes which destroys incentive or you can increase incentive and thus more taxpayers. Which one makes the most sense? Do you understand incentive? Where is the incentive when taxes are higher? Reagan increased tax revenue because 17 million new taxpayers were added to the tax roles. He did so by lowering tax rates on those paying taxes. There aren't enough rich people or corporations to fund the liberal spending appetite so increasing taxpayers is the only policy that makes any sense.

This post
COMPLETELY ignores the fact that we have a huge debt we have to pay off...

That is something we can't just put to the side while we stimulate our economy. BTW, where do 17 million new tax payers come from? Do people suddenly realize that they have a child or something? I'm confused.
 
This post

That is something we can't just put to the side while we stimulate our economy. BTW, where do 17 million new tax payers come from? Do people suddenly realize that they have a child or something? I'm confused.

That debt will never be paid off with 25 Plus million unemployed and under employed Americans nor can you pay off that debt by raising taxes on the rich and corporations. We have a current labor force of 154 million people with millions who have dropped out because they were discouraged. Today we have 139 million working so encourage people to get back into the labor force by creating the demand for jobs. Raising taxes doesn't increase jobs.
 
Their is so much facepalm in this post, where to start.
Begin in the beginning.

Lets start with cutting regulations and why they are there in the the first place.
Yes, lets.

Regulations were put in place because businesses were doing things that aren't right.
That may account for 10%.

So let's just roll back the half of them for starters.

Better yet let's sunset every regulation after two or three years, tops. Or we could zero baseline each year and assess each and every regulation promulgated by busybody bureaucrats. We could create a thousand blue ribbon panels comprised of experts in business, the hard sciences, and a few token politicians. We could hold public hearings and then have a vote on every one of them. Let's do a thousand a month and have a moratorium on new regulations for the next decade.

If they were honest with their business we wouldn't have them, but as we have seen time and time again, they are crooks out to screw everyone else over (not all businesses are). This falls into the one business screws it up for everybody else.
I see you as young, jaded, cynical and brainwashed. The government is not your friend. And businesses are not your enemy.

Cutting the corporate tax rate to 1%:
Actually, one percent below the current lowest corporate tax rate fin the rest of the first world economies.

While this would give an incentive for businesses to grow, it COMPLETELY ignores the fact that we have a huge debt we have to pay off...
Which, of course is not the point. Growing the economy at 4, 5, 6, or 7% per year is the point. The happy circumstance is that tax receipts would go way up and tax disbursements would go down.

I'm starting to love it when republicans use this word. They think it is "class warfare" to raise taxes on the rich? Right, but they also want to raise taxes on the poor. "Class Warfare" is a two way street people.
Class warfare was formulated my Radical Karl along with progressive taxes as a means to pit one group against another and to wreck capital formation essential to any capitalist, free economy. It is un-American.
 
BTW, where do 17 million new tax payers come from? Do people suddenly realize that they have a child or something? I'm confused.
I will avoid the obvious bait.
We have tax payers (that would be me) and tax consumers (perhaps people just like you). When businesses create well paying jobs there are no good reasons for the current leisure class to stay on welfare. They get jobs and become taxpayers. In addition there are, what, a few tens of thousands of new job seekers added each month to the economy?
 
I will avoid the obvious bait.
We have tax payers (that would be me) and tax consumers (perhaps people just like you). When businesses create well paying jobs there are no good reasons for the current leisure class to stay on welfare. They get jobs and become taxpayers. In addition there are, what, a few tens of thousands of new job seekers added each month to the economy?

The problem here is that lowering taxes on the rich doesn't create jobs. The rich just take the extra income and sit on it. (Hince the 2.2 trillion dollars they are currently sitting on)

That may account for 10%.

So let's just roll back the half of them for starters.

Better yet let's sunset every regulation after two or three years, tops. Or we could zero baseline each year and assess each and every regulation promulgated by busybody bureaucrats. We could create a thousand blue ribbon panels comprised of experts in business, the hard sciences, and a few token politicians. We could hold public hearings and then have a vote on every one of them. Let's do a thousand a month and have a moratorium on new regulations for the next decade.

I'm not seeing where the sarcasm started in this post.

I see you as young, jaded, cynical and brainwashed. The government is not your friend. And businesses are not your enemy.

First of all, what is wrong with being a cynic? The government is your friend because the officials are elected. IE, we get a say in what happens. With businesses it is to bad if you don't like it, don't work here. Oh, but there decisions still effect your every day life (See gulf of America Oil spill (We broke it, we bought it).

Class warfare was formulated my Radical Karl along with progressive taxes as a means to pit one group against another and to wreck capital formation essential to any capitalist, free economy. It is un-American.

Is this why you don't use it in your posts?

Which, of course is not the point. Growing the economy at 4, 5, 6, or 7% per year is the point. The happy circumstance is that tax receipts would go way up and tax disbursements would go down.

Still ignoring the debt crisis.

Actually, one percent below the current lowest corporate tax rate fin the rest of the first world economies.

finish this word?
 
The problem here is that lowering taxes on the rich doesn't create jobs. The rich just take the extra income and sit on it. (Hince the 2.2 trillion dollars they are currently sitting on)
I cannot recall saying anything about lowering taxes on the rich. But I do support a flat tax that does have everyone pay for the government services they receive. Your Marxist class warfare beliefs will eventually result in your own destruction. Do you realize this? You will not be able to escape its consequences.

First of all, what is wrong with being a cynic?
Perhaps nothing if you were not brainwashed as well.
The government is your friend because the officials are elected.
This is why you fail. Government must be the servant of the people. Not its master.

IE, we get a say in what happens. With businesses it is to bad if you don't like it, don't work here. Oh, but there decisions still effect your every day life (See gulf of America Oil spill (We broke it, we bought it).
Do you realize that the Obama Administration policies did more harm to the nation at the time and continue to damage us in the present? Who do we hold accountable? Do you stop flying after an airplane crashes? Do you stop driving after an automobile crashes?



finish this word?

Here is the way I meant to type it. Actually, one percent below the current lowest corporate tax rate in the rest of the first world economies.
 
I cannot recall saying anything about lowering taxes on the rich. But I do support a flat tax that does have everyone pay for the government services they receive. Your Marxist class warfare beliefs will eventually result in your own destruction. Do you realize this? You will not be able to escape its consequences.

I'm confused, am I supposed to be scared? So you think people that make less than 12k a year should pay taxes? Talk about class warfare.

This is why you fail. Government must be the servant of the people. Not its master.

Explain to me how the government is the master of the people.

Do you realize that the Obama Administration policies did more harm to the nation at the time and continue to damage us in the present? Who do we hold accountable? Do you stop flying after an airplane crashes? Do you stop driving after an automobile crashes?

Was this pertaining to the Gulf of America spill? I'm confused as to where you were going with this.
 
I'm confused, am I supposed to be scared? So you think people that make less than 12k a year should pay taxes? Talk about class warfare.
Explain to me how the government is the master of the people.
Was this pertaining to the Gulf of America spill? I'm confused as to where you were going with this.
Thanks for playing. Good luck with growing up. I hope you get everything you have coming to you.
 
I'm confused, am I supposed to be scared? So you think people that make less than 12k a year should pay taxes? Talk about class warfare.



Explain to me how the government is the master of the people.



Was this pertaining to the Gulf of America spill? I'm confused as to where you were going with this.

Gulf of America spill ?????

Must have missed that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom