• 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!

Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

MarineTpartier said:
I don't entertain your questions anymore because they aren't honest and you do not seek debate. You seek argument. I've better things to do. I'm in the middle of a good debate with teamosil. Hang around and maybe you'll learn something.
Click to expand...

Debate is argument. btw, did you know that the Taliban had virtually eradicated poppy growing in Afghanistan before we booted them out of power?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Who said that ? What you did do is the same-old same-old useless libtard attack on the poster.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Those were direct quotes from you. :roll:
 
AdamT said:
Debate is argument. btw, did you know that the Taliban had virtually eradicated poppy growing in Afghanistan before we booted them out of power?
Click to expand...
Everybody's talking at me, I don't hear a word their sayin:2dance:
 
AdamT said:
Why don't you just say what you mean? No matter what Obama does or proposes, you are against it.
Click to expand...

I thought my meaning was quite clear but if you're having problems just point out the area where further explanation is needed.

Oh, poor Barrack Obama. Are people picking on him??
 
AdamT said:
You are no different than Grant. All of your comments start with the premise that Obama is bad and you fit your arguments around that.
Click to expand...

The country is hopelessly in debt with little likelihood of a turnaround, and you're worried about Barrack Obama?

You sound like an Obama groupie.
 
Grant said:
I thought my meaning was quite clear but if you're having problems just point out the area where further explanation is needed.

Oh, poor Barrack Obama. Are people picking on him??
Click to expand...

Your meaning was to claim that something that will do something won't do anything. Why make such an irrational claim? Obama. :shrug:
 
AdamT said:
Your meaning was to claim that something that will do something won't do anything. Why make such an irrational claim? Obama. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well you're buying whatever BHO is selling. no questions asked. That's how he got elected in the first place and now we can see the consequences. I guess you like it.
 
So why does Barry need this new power again?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
So why does Barry need this new power again?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Again ... because Republicans try to block him from doing anything ... unless their attempts to block everything are made so transparent that they're shamed into doing something.
 
AdamT said:
Again ... because Republicans try to block him from doing anything ... unless their attempts to block everything are made so transparent that they're shamed into doing something.
Click to expand...

I see, so you think that rather than go through the process, you'd like Obama to be just granted more and more power? Make congress irrelevant?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I see, so you think that rather than go through the process, you'd like Obama to be just granted more and more power? Make congress irrelevant?

j-mac
Click to expand...

If Congress agrees then that will be the process. And of course they still get an up or down vote (assuming they ever agree to take one).
 
AdamT said:
If Congress agrees then that will be the process. And of course they still get an up or down vote (assuming they ever agree to take one).
Click to expand...

No. How about that. This is insane. Obama should not be allowed to dismantle our constitution just because repubs disagree with him.

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
Again ... because Republicans try to block him from doing anything ... unless their attempts to block everything are made so transparent that they're shamed into doing something.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you were told he was going to be elected emperor, which is not the case at all.

In the American democracy the Senate and Congress also have input in the process and the President is often forced to work with these two. Perhaps we can expect a constitutional re-write some time soon but until that happens Congress also gets to represent the will of the people.
 
AdamT said:
Again ... because Republicans try to block him from doing anything ... unless their attempts to block everything are made so transparent that they're shamed into doing something.
Click to expand...

What is becoming apparent to more and more people: The GOP are saying the same thing they said every election of the last 30 years - We demand the budget deficit be reduced.........but what they do in actuality is continue spending too much and continue cutting tax rates for the wealthy.
 
Catawba said:
What is becoming apparent to more and more people: The GOP are saying the same thing they said every election of the last 30 years - We demand the budget deficit be reduced.........but what they do in actuality is continue spending too much and continue cutting tax rates for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

So the Republicans of today are not conservative enough for you?

Many Americans would agree, which is why the ended up giving George Bush such low ratings and whether Mitt Romney is also conservative enough. Perhaps you can get more information on public debt and what to do about it from your local Tea Party office.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps you were told he was going to be elected emperor, which is not the case at all.

In the American democracy the Senate and Congress also have input in the process and the President is often forced to work with these two. Perhaps we can expect a constitutional re-write some time soon but until that happens Congress also gets to represent the will of the people.
Click to expand...

Please, don't be such a drama queen. He's asking Congress for this authority -- not staging a military coup.
 
Grant said:
So the Republicans of today are not conservative enough for you?
Click to expand...

You missed the point, what they say and what they do are two different things as evidenced by every administration they have presided over for the last 30 years, all we get from them is ever greater spending, less taxes for the rich, and greater debt. The only departure from that track during the last 3 decades has been the Clinton Administration when both sides came together to both cut spending and increase taxes for the wealthy.

When the GOP gets serious about cutting the deficit that is what we will have to do again.
 
Catawba said:
You missed the point, what they say and what they do are two different things as evidenced by every administration they have presided over for the last 30 years, all we get from them is ever greater spending, less taxes for the rich, and greater debt.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've made your point the first time. And most American people agree with you on spending cuts while many still want more social programs coupled with pork barrel spending. The easier way for any politician is to promise one and play the other.

Less taxes from the rich ( or middle class) is irrelevant. If the government isn't bringing in income from any sources, and there many areas where they get their revenue, then they shouldn't be spending it. They should have a budget and follow it. When is the last time there was a budget? We all know that we should only spend what we have. Why should the government be any different?

The only departure from that track during the last 3 decades has been the Clinton Administration when both sides came together to both cut spending and increase taxes for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that was with a Republican Congress that controlled the purse strings, which is similar to what we see now and why Republicans were elected to Congress during the last elections. People wanted a halt to crazed spending.

When the GOP gets serious about cutting the deficit that is what we will have to do again.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and this is what the Tea Party is all about.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
What is becoming apparent to more and more people: The GOP are saying the same thing they said every election of the last 30 years - We demand the budget deficit be reduced.........but what they do in actuality is continue spending too much and continue cutting tax rates for the wealthy.
Click to expand...


No see, that was the problem no doubt. Our representatives failed to do what the promised largely I think because they were drawn into what liberal progressives told them they had to do to get along. For 40 years republicans let demo's call the shots, and coward into thinking that if we didn't continually run up the deficit in favor of more and more social spending programs that we wouldn't be able to put a nick in the liberal lie of standing for the poor, and middle class. It was a lie.

The age of progressivism is nearly over. They have been unmasked as destructive to what this country is, and what the promise of this country is, and we the people don't want your socialist progressivism anymore....Thank God.


j-mac
 
AdamT said:
Please, don't be such a drama queen. He's asking Congress for this authority -- not staging a military coup.
Click to expand...

We understand your creeping incrementalism pal.


j-mac
 
Catawba said:
...The only departure from that track during the last 3 decades has been the Clinton Administration when both sides came together to both cut spending and increase taxes for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

But the capital gains tax was reduced during the Clinton administration. I continue to hear from the left that the 'rich' are not paying their 'fair share' because of their income from cap gains and want to raise them. Which is it?

Further as the 'left' on here continue to pontificate, spending levels are set by Congress not the President. Who was the majority in Congress when the spending cuts occured?
 
Dickieboy said:
But the capital gains tax was reduced during the Clinton administration. I continue to hear from the left that the 'rich' are not paying their 'fair share' because of their income from cap gains and want to raise them. Which is it?
Click to expand...


Clinton lowered Capital gains rates from 28% to 20%, but increased other taxes and closed loopholes:

"Mr. Clinton, in 1993, signed the largest tax increase in American history, and on top of George HW Bush's a couple of years earlier in the midst of a recession. After HW's tax increase, the GDP began to rebound as Bill Clinton took office, promising to focus like a laser on "the economy, stupid". After Clinton's 1993 tax increase on the wealthy, job growth began, and by the end of Clinton's term 23M new jobs had been created."
Capital Gains Jumped Under Clinton And Fell Under Bush For Reasons That Had Little To Do With Either | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Bush II lowered Capital gains tax rate again to 15%. What is proposed now is raising them back to the level they had been lowered to by Clinton.


Further as the 'left' on here continue to pontificate, spending levels are set by Congress not the President. Who was the majority in Congress when the spending cuts occured?
Click to expand...

Why is it Obama is blamed for the debt then? The point is the only time in the last 30 years the deficit has been reduced significantly was when both sides came together in the 90's to both cut spending and increase taxes. The Congress in the 90's saw that spending cuts, especially in the military, were not enough, they saw that it also required tax increases.

That is what will eventually have to be done again, because it is not possible without doing both spending cuts and tax increases. It is ironic it is the GOP that is balking at cutting government spending now as well as their usual opposition to increasing revenues.
 
Catawba said:
Clinton lowered Capital gains rates from 28% to 20%, but increased other taxes and closed loopholes:
"Mr. Clinton, in 1993, signed the largest tax increase in American history, and on top of George HW Bush's a couple of years earlier in the midst of a recession. After HW's tax increase, the GDP began to rebound as Bill Clinton took office, promising to focus like a laser on "the economy, stupid". After Clinton's 1993 tax increase on the wealthy, job growth began, and by the end of Clinton's term 23M new jobs had been created."
Click to expand...

Clinton did increase taxes on the wealthy but he also CUT taxes at the same time for low income families. He also raised taxes on Social Security income. Thus it was not merely ‘raised taxes on the rich’.


It is ironic it is the GOP that is balking at cutting government spending now as well as their usual opposition to increasing revenues.
Click to expand...

Please point out where the GOP is balking on this…much of the discussion has been on the skepticism of his words and the apparent nominal monetary effect it will have but no one that I have read/heard is against this proposal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom