• 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!

Focus on Petraeus and Taxes as Obama Faces Reporters

I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you why. Because we cut their burden, and cut the help we give people, more fell below that line. Taking more out of the taxing population. Cause and effect.

This puts more people on welfare, but with less services to move them out. We've done it your way, and for a long time now. This is the result.

Oh we have ??? show me one budget line where we have "cut" money going to that program to help the poor ... show it to me

Another thing, did the Bush tax cuts put money in the pockets of the lower middle class .. don't skirt the answer, either he did or he didn't .
 
Last edited:
Well no one has impressed with the brilliance of their plans. But partisanship aside, at least he knows enough to suggest a balanced approach.

you are really funny .. a balanced approach ??? the CBO says his budget will add 9.7 billion over 10 years .. . now he is proposing 1.1 billion reduction in that deficit .... or in simple terms that even you should understand ... his balanced approached is going to add 8.6 trillion dollars our debt. Now if you are to stupid to realize that his "balanced" plan is a complete and utter failure then there really is no hope for you
 
Oh we have ??? show me one budget line where we have "cut" money going to that program to help the poor ... show it to me

Go to the polls forum or look up Stanford study gap between rich and poor. It's been going for a long time. I haven't quite figured out how link from the iPad.
 
I think you're missing the point.
 
Go to the polls forum or look up Stanford study gap between rich and poor. It's been going for a long time. I haven't quite figured out how link from the iPad.


It has been going up for quite some time because as the government grows the middle class shrinks. You cannot have a large government and a large middle class, at least not for very long.

And as long as the government spends over $1,000,000,000,000 each nine or 10 months with money that it doesn't have, with no budgets whatsoever, that trend has to continue until there is only the political class and the rich and powerful. There is no alternative.
 
You're missing badly. There is a context, a history. And if you read the NYT today, you'll find both sides think an agreement can be reached. Never pretend that a single sentence or even speech stands absolutely alone.

Youre missing badly. Obamas context and history both show that he does not compromise or accept new ideas. There no need to read the New York Times today when I can read his exact speech where he offers no options but his own.
 
It has been going up for quite some time because as the government grows the middle class shrinks. You cannot have a large government and a large middle class, at least not for very long.

And as long as the government spends over $1,000,000,000,000 each nine or 10 months with money that it doesn't have, with no budgets whatsoever, that trend has to continue until there is only the political class and the rich and powerful. There is no alternative.

Not what the Stanford study reports. Thing is, do you believe ideology or studies more?
 
Youre missing badly. Obamas context and history both show that he does not compromise or accept new ideas. There no need to read the New York Times today when I can read his exact speech where he offers no options but his own.

Anyone who believes that is drinking the koolaid.
 
Anyone who believes that is drinking the koolaid.

You told me! Now tell Obama. He hasnt gotten the message yet.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...working-together-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts

When it comes to taxes, for example, there are two pathways available.

One says, if Congress fails to act by the end of the year, then everybody’s taxes automatically go up – including the 98% of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year. Our economy can’t afford that right now. You can’t afford that right now. And nobody wants that to happen.

The other path is for Congress to pass a law right away to prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of anyone’s income. That means all Americans – including the wealthiest Americans – get a tax cut. And 98 percent of Americans, and 97 percent of all small business owners, won’t see their income taxes go up a single dime.
 
Please use quote where I said Obama was king or that the USA was China.

Otherwise don't bother me with your juvenile lerftisms.

It was the proper reply to what you said. To expect him to do what you want he would have to be one of those things. Don't get mad at others if the argument you present lacks logic.
 
True compromise takes two to meet in the middle, not one side saying they want compromise, then double down on their plan, and not budge. I say let it go over the cliff, and hang it around Obama's neck.
 
True compromise takes two to meet in the middle, not one side saying they want compromise, then double down on their plan, and not budge. I say let it go over the cliff, and hang it around Obama's neck.

Why? Obama's not getting re-elected either way. I think most people will see if Republicans try to do that, and every one in the House has to run again in 2 years. That would be a heck of a gamble for Boehner to take for no real gain politically.
 
Youre missing badly. Obamas context and history both show that he does not compromise or accept new ideas. There no need to read the New York Times today when I can read his exact speech where he offers no options but his own.

Actually, where Obama usually fails is that he STARTS at a compromise, and the Republicans smartly try to move him farther right. Think about how different the Obamacare debate would have been if Obama started with UHC and let the Republicans talk him down to Romneycare. Romney might even have won because he could have run on that instead of trying to convince everyone that it was his evil twin that did that.
 
Why? Obama's not getting re-elected either way. I think most people will see if Republicans try to do that, and every one in the House has to run again in 2 years. That would be a heck of a gamble for Boehner to take for no real gain politically.

I think people deep down know what is fair, and to have Obama acting like he and the demo's won some kind of overwhelming mandate, and refusing to budge off of the same old song and dance he has been doing since Jan. '09, and then saying that repubs won't join him and give him everything he wants is somehow repub obstructionism is ridiculous, and they will see that.

Demo's talk a good game of representing everyone, when in truth, anyone that doesn't tow the party line, the Obama line, you couldn't care less about.
 
I think people deep down know what is fair, and to have Obama acting like he and the demo's won some kind of overwhelming mandate, and refusing to budge off of the same old song and dance he has been doing since Jan. '09, and then saying that repubs won't join him and give him everything he wants is somehow repub obstructionism is ridiculous, and they will see that.

Demo's talk a good game of representing everyone, when in truth, anyone that doesn't tow the party line, the Obama line, you couldn't care less about.

You're just complaining about political gamesmanship. If the parties were reversed, you'd just have a Republican bitching about Democrats. That's just the game.

Remember when Clinton let Gingrich have his little hissy fit and shut down the government? Backfired on Newt big time. Obama's got nothing to lose, he's not getting re-elected no matter what. Boehner on the other hand, has to run again in 2014 if he wants to keep his job. So I'd say that the ball is definitely in the GOPs court. They know it too, which is why they're suddenly "willing to talk" on revenue when they weren't last year.

Maybe it's not fair, but in terms of the political game Obama already won. Politics ain't fair.
 
You're just complaining about political gamesmanship. If the parties were reversed, you'd just have a Republican bitching about Democrats. That's just the game.

Remember when Clinton let Gingrich have his little hissy fit and shut down the government? Backfired on Newt big time. Obama's got nothing to lose, he's not getting re-elected no matter what. Boehner on the other hand, has to run again in 2014 if he wants to keep his job. So I'd say that the ball is definitely in the GOPs court. They know it too, which is why they're suddenly "willing to talk" on revenue when they weren't last year.

Maybe it's not fair, but in terms of the political game Obama already won. Politics ain't fair.


He won the election to be President, not King....You obviously think that he should just dictate what he wants and everyone should kneel at his feet and say 'right away your highness'.... heh, heh...

Look it up, "ALL SPENDING BILLS ORIGINATE IN THE CONGRESS"...Period. It doesn't say that the President has the dictatorial power to just wave his hand and have the opposing party crumble.
 
He won the election to be President, not King....You obviously think that he should just dictate what he wants and everyone should kneel at his feet and say 'right away your highness'.... heh, heh...

Look it up, "ALL SPENDING BILLS ORIGINATE IN THE CONGRESS"...Period. It doesn't say that the President has the dictatorial power to just wave his hand and have the opposing party crumble.

Constructing strawmen again? I knew you would, but that's OK, I've come to expect it.

I don't think he should just dictate, but his victory is going to force Republicans to come more to the left than they'd like to. "All spending bills originate in the Congress" doesn't mean the President's just a rubber stamp either. Even if the bill originates in the House, it has to make it through the Senate too. You realize that, right?

You were saying that they should just stop anything unless it fits their dream world. That's not a realistic scenario for them anymore. If they think it'll just "hang on Obama" the way you think, they better be right or they'll be in BIG trouble in 2014.
 
Constructing strawmen again? I knew you would, but that's OK, I've come to expect it.

I don't think he should just dictate, but his victory is going to force Republicans to come more to the left than they'd like to. "All spending bills originate in the Congress" doesn't mean the President's just a rubber stamp either. Even if the bill originates in the House, it has to make it through the Senate too. You realize that, right?

You were saying that they should just stop anything unless it fits their dream world. That's not a realistic scenario for them anymore. If they think it'll just "hang on Obama" the way you think, they better be right or they'll be in BIG trouble in 2014.


No stawman here, just reading what you are saying, and restating it without the vague double speak.

I am well aware of how a bill works, and from what America saw in the last term, they saw bill after bill passed in the house that would have helped, be thwarted by Reid, like an Obama lap dog, whether it would have helped America or not.

Where is a budget?

This is all about ramming the progressive agenda down America's throat. And to that I say stand your ground. We will not sacrifice principles just to give more power over to demo's, and that is not what America voted for. Remember they increased the number of repubs in the house.

I say if you want to go back to Clinton era policies, and taxes, at this point go right the hell ahead! Just be sure to scope out the programs that progressives love, that they will also lose because of that....
 
Not what the Stanford study reports. Thing is, do you believe ideology or studies more?

The Stanford Study says that a government can get into debt to the tune of over $1,000,000,000,000 every ten months and there will be no consequences?

What ideology or study says you can spend that kind of money indefinitely without there being an eventual collapse?
 
It was the proper reply to what you said. To expect him to do what you want he would have to be one of those things. Don't get mad at others if the argument you present lacks logic.

No, it was not the proper reply. You did not understand at what was being said and therefore had a guess at how you should respond.

This is why Leftists must always use quotes. Guessing at what they think the proper reply might be never works for them.

Please use the actual quotes.
 
The Stanford Study says that a government can get into debt to the tune of over $1,000,000,000,000 every ten months and there will be no consequences?

What ideology or study says you can spend that kind of money indefinitely without there being an eventual collapse?

If you collect enough money to pay for what you spend, there is no debt. Now, you're being silly, so not sure you're really looking for a real answer. But, we taxed at a higher rate then, spend more on services then, and did better as a country in nearly every area. You whine silly, but it won't change history.
 
No, it was not the proper reply. You did not understand at what was being said and therefore had a guess at how you should respond.

This is why Leftists must always use quotes. Guessing at what they think the proper reply might be never works for them.

Please use the actual quotes.

As long as you argue with "leftists," whoever they are, you will always be caught short in a debate with an actual individual. And if in any way you think I got your point wrong, by all means, explain. Nothing prevents you from advancing your argument. But I will bet that I understood you fine, and the point I made was quite accurate.
 
Back
Top Bottom