• 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!

Govt. borrows 46 cents of every dollar it spends

What I showed you was how the US addressed income equality after the 1920's, through an increase in income tax rates for the wealthy. That is the same way we plan to address the wealth inequality today, by increasing the tax rates for the wealthy.
All of this is irrelevant to the point that no one has suggested that we tax wealth.
Thus, your failure, for all to see. Again.
 
Then why do Republican Administrations create so few jobs? Conservatives hate low unemployment it drives up wages.

As Obama is getting over $1 trillion in debt each year, despite all that job growth, there are a couple more examples of where these trillions went.

The Fisker Electric auto company with the $110,000 sports car, and almost $200,000,000 in Obama Dollars is now on its death bed.

A123, the company which was supposed to supply the batteries to Fisker, received $133 million of Obama Dollars and is now being sold to the Chinese. It was once valued at $2 billion though there should be some doubt on that number.

Maybe the idea is to create jobs based on Obama's entrepreneurial and management skills learned in Chicago before favoring American politics but so far the results have been "mixed".
 

WWII played a part in ending the Great Depression, however, the depression was in recovery when we got involved in WWII. It was in recovery because of the New Deal.
Try this link for more information.
New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
But the president just released a stunning new bipartisan plan to solve the spending crisis with....a slight increase in the tax rate for the wealthy coupled with.....0 reduction in spending.

The Obama administration has cemented this centrist as a permanent Republican...and don't get me started on their mental problems.

He doesn't get it, raising taxes for the millionaires won't solve our problem. We need to cut spending now.
 
The people who benefit from paving projects are the oil companies whose materials are the big cost of asphalt, and the guys who drive the equipment. It isn't like they take people off welfare and give them a backhoe, dump truck, or asphalt roller or let them put down steel or even direct traffic. Perhaps if your idea of infrastructure were a little more modern than hacking your way through the Blue Ridge Mountain during the depression. The jobs created are highly concentrated in existing industry that just add aggregate demand for isolated things like concrete production, steel work, metal fabrication. That is great for those people, but adds no wide-spread job bump and to hold it out as some great hope for people in manufacturing is just cruel and manipulative.

Think beyond those who will benefit directly from the government contracts. ALso, infrastructure involves more than road and bridge building. Still, when people have money in their pockets, they spend more. When more money is being spent, stores have to hire more people. When products are being sold, more people need to be hired to produce those products. This is how a major construction project can spur job growth in many sectors.
 
All of this is irrelevant to the point that no one has suggested that we tax wealth.
Thus, your failure, for all to see. Again.

If increasing tax rates on income and capital gains did not decrease wealth, it would not have decreased wealth when we did exactly that after the 1920's, and the wealthy would not be fighting against it now.

"Redistribution of wealth" they call it! I wonder why they would call it that you reckon? :cool:
 
He doesn't get it, raising taxes for the millionaires won't solve our problem. We need to cut spending now.

You mean like how Congress just voted to spend again next year almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military? 90 Democrats voted against the spending but not a single Republican.
 
You mean like how Congress just voted to spend again next year almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military? 90 Democrats voted against the spending but not a single Republican.

No I mean health care, gov. stimulus, ect.
 
Think beyond those who will benefit directly from the government contracts. ALso, infrastructure involves more than road and bridge building. Still, when people have money in their pockets, they spend more. When more money is being spent, stores have to hire more people. When products are being sold, more people need to be hired to produce those products. This is how a major construction project can spur job growth in many sectors.

So when Obama proposes trickle-down economics, it works better than when a republican does? I don't think so. Infrastructure is a necessity, but $85B is a drop in the bucket. That is like 1/2 of 1 % of annual GDP and it would not all be spent at once, just budgeted that way. I wouldn't over-estimate the ability of that amount to add velocity in a trickle-down way, but feel free to believe whatever makes you feel good.......
 
As Obama is getting over $1 trillion in debt each year, despite all that job growth, there are a couple more examples of where these trillions went.

The Fisker Electric auto company with the $110,000 sports car, and almost $200,000,000 in Obama Dollars is now on its death bed.

A123, the company which was supposed to supply the batteries to Fisker, received $133 million of Obama Dollars and is now being sold to the Chinese. It was once valued at $2 billion though there should be some doubt on that number.


Maybe the idea is to create jobs based on Obama's entrepreneurial and management skills learned in Chicago before favoring American politics but so far the results have been "mixed".

So all investments are sucessful? That's why capital gains need to be taxed as income. There is no risk involved. I'm glad we agree.
 
So when Obama proposes trickle-down economics, it works better than when a republican does? I don't think so. Infrastructure is a necessity, but $85B is a drop in the bucket. That is like 1/2 of 1 % of annual GDP and it would not all be spent at once, just budgeted that way. I wouldn't over-estimate the ability of that amount to add velocity in a trickle-down way, but feel free to believe whatever makes you feel good.......

Funding employment by rebuilding infrastucture is not trickle down. Giving more money to corporations and tycoons thru tax breaks and regulation changes is trickle down theory. Nice try
 
Funding employment by rebuilding infrastucture is not trickle down. Giving more money to corporations and tycoons thru tax breaks and regulation changes is trickle down theory. Nice try

Giving more money to corporations with the hope some of it reaches the peons is trickle down economics. Nice try to divert but it isn't like the Secretary of Transportation is the one paving roads and swinging hammers--big Bizzzzinesses will be.....
 
In fact it is important to all of us how other people run their countries because one day we may be strongly effected by their policies. This has happened throughout history. America was at war with Iraq and Afghanistan and Barrack Obama then decides, after many good Service people were killed or wounded, that Iraq was isn't worthwhile (it was) but another is. Then he announces a retreat from that war as well.

In other American wars there was a continuity of policy, often lasting years as with the Cold war, but everyone knew where America stood. Now there is confusion and malaise, and all coming from the American side. America looks foolish and weak as a result because there is no longer any continuity. This is no longer American Wars being fought, it is Presidential wars, one who decides attack and the next who decides retreat. And as a result foreign interests are already having more interest and input into US politics and policies. America ran from Iraq and now they are retreating from a country that is as third world as they come. This is really opening the US to long term danger.

Americans are getting killed during these 'training projects' in Afghanistan. Get the hell out now. You have lost. Get the planes ready and move on and the hell with those training programs. You're only training the enemy anyway because the Taleban will be back in power the moment the last plan leaves. ! You want a finely coordinated retreat while Americans are being killed? Run before there are more good people killed.


So he can buy any company or corporation he wants, fire the president and board of that company, and just have his people take over. He can give tax dollars to any person who fits his personal criteria in order to start up a company of which he approves, again despite not having any training or experience. And you're saying this is okay because it's in the Constitution? I had respected the US Constitution as being second only to the Magna Carta as one of the most important documents ever devised by man but this seems to illegitimatize the entire work of the forefathers if any politician can take taxpayer money and give it away to their political cronies. What surprises further is that many of the American people seem to be okay with this. No wonder Hugo Chavez supports Barrack Obama!



If the people want the Muslim Brotherhood so be it? I remember a Dem in the Clinton Administration once, during the Clinton administration saying that if the people of Cuba want a communist government they should have one. You don't know anything of the Muslim Brotherhood, do you? You'll see it in Libya and Iraq in a decade.



Really? Where does BHO want to reduce spending? Does it come anywhere near $1,000,000,000,000 a year?



So you think all that money is stored away is a safe place somewhere ready to be accessed when you need it?



And all these jobs will be paid for with money the American people don't have, keeping in mind that the government has to repay over $16,000,000,000,000 before they have nothing. So how will they pay for it? Borrow the money? Print it? My guess is on the latter because their credit has already been downgraded and will be downgraded again. Inflation is coming.


How is he going to stop corporations from moving overseas? Force people to stay? Put up a Berlin type Wall? At one time not that long ago everyone wanted to invest in the US, that is was a safe place to put your money, and entrepreneurial types were confident that this was the place to follow their dream. What went wrong? Have you given that much thought?

Maybe it was all George Bush, huh?

First of all, we should have never went into Iraq. It is not our place to tell other countries how to run things. The UN governs UN members and the US shouldn't step outside of UN authority. Other countries don't like the way we run our country and if another country tried to come here and take over, we would view that as wrong. We can't conduct our business with double standards. That gives us a bad reputation and the world will start seeing us as the ones who need to be taken out.
The President can follow the guidelines set forth by TARP, which congress enacted and GW Bush signed into law. TARP grants the president the power to help companies that are troubled as to avoid the problems it would cause to the economy. Obama bailing out the auto industry, for example, saved jobs and prevented the economy from going into a deeper recession. There is nothing in the constitution that says the president must have business experience in order to use his power in business matters.
OBama has already cut millitary spending and medicare spending. It's crazy to think Obama wants to just spend money because it's fun or whatever. The issues is on what we should spend money on. We should spend more money on job creation, because that would being in more revenue. That is wise spending, but if congress will not pass the jobs bill then the economy will remain sluggish. The people will have more money once they get jobs. This is basic economics 101. I don't see why it's so hard for people like you to understand. Spend money to make money is simple.
As for SS, yes, SS funds are held in a trust fund to pay out benefits. Some of that money is invested.
You talk a big talk about cutting spending, but you don't see that we should cut subsudies to corporations that ship jobs overseas? Really? Why should we reward companies with our tax money if they are not helping our economy. That makes no sense. If we cut out the tax breaks and subsudies to corporations that do not reinvest in our economy, they will either move or create jobs here in the US.
 
So all investments are sucessful?

No not all investments are successful so I can only assume you've been seriously misinformed by someone who you should not have trusted.

That's why capital gains need to be taxed as income.

Again, you don;t seem to quite understand what's at play here.
There is no risk involved.

No risk involved? Do you understand the nature of many of these investments?

I'm glad we agree.

On what?
 
Funding employment by rebuilding infrastucture is not trickle down. Giving more money to corporations and tycoons thru tax breaks and regulation changes is trickle down theory. Nice try

It will be interesting to watch Barrack Obama supervising where the materials go and then handing out the paychecks. I hope his engineering skills are better than his entrepreneurial skills.
 
First of all, we should have never went into Iraq.

But you did. And after that you have to win. Losing wars and establishing a reputation as a loser is not a good thing

It is not our place to tell other countries how to run things.

Quite often it is. That's why we have NATO, the UN, and other international organizations, treaties, etc. You don't think we didn't tell Hitler or Mussolini how not to run things?

The UN governs UN members and the US shouldn't step outside of UN authority.

The UN is a corrupt authority which serves mainly as a forum for dictatorships. It should not influence any democracy's self determination.

Other countries don't like the way we run our country

So what? These countries are usually third world backwaters where there is undereducation and a lack of human rights.
and if another country tried to come here and take over, we would view that as wrong.

That's pretty tough talk.
We can't conduct our business with double standards. That gives us a bad reputation and the world will start seeing us as the ones who need to be taken out.

Which world are you referring to? In fact much of the world wants to live in America, or at least it did when America represented the democracies and a secure place to invest.

The President can follow the guidelines set forth by TARP, which congress enacted and GW Bush signed into law. TARP grants the president the power to help companies that are troubled as to avoid the problems it would cause to the economy. Obama bailing out the auto industry, for example, saved jobs and prevented the economy from going into a deeper recession.

The president did not save jobs or the auto industry.

There is nothing in the constitution that says the president must have business experience in order to use his power in business matters.

Quite right but a sophisticated and informed electorate would make sure that they had a candidate with some experience and background to be in charge before they give him trillions of dollars to spend on any whim of his choosing. Has it occured to anyone that giving Barrack Obama all this money to do with as he wants might set a negative precedent for other Presidents in the future, perhaps of a political party less disciplined and financially astute than the Democrats?


OBama has already cut millitary spending and medicare spending. It's crazy to think Obama wants to just spend money because it's fun or whatever.

I think its Crony Capitalism and, though hugely expensive for the taxpayers, seems like fun for the participants.
The issues is on what we should spend money on. We should spend more money on job creation, because that would being in more revenue.

The government can create a lot of jobs just by digging holes and then filling them up again, while borrowing money to do so. You feel that's good for the economy?
That is wise spending, but if congress will not pass the jobs bill then the economy will remain sluggish. The people will have more money once they get jobs. This is basic economics 101. I don't see why it's so hard for people like you to understand. Spend money to make money is simple.

Not quite as simple as you make it out to be. If that were the case we'd all be rich and BHO wouldn't have racked up over $1,000,000,000,000 in debt each year.
As for SS, yes, SS funds are held in a trust fund to pay out benefits. Some of that money is invested.

Some of it is invested, huh? Any idea where? Maybe in GM? Solyndra? Oil wells?

You talk a big talk about cutting spending, but you don't see that we should cut subsudies to corporations that ship jobs overseas?

I don't see that the government should be subsidizing corporations at all, but they should lower the taxes to make them more internationally competitive.
Really? Why should we reward companies with our tax money if they are not helping our economy. That makes no sense. If we cut out the tax breaks and subsudies to corporations that do not reinvest in our economy, they will either move or create jobs here in the US.

Messages were twisted somewhere along the line, perhaps by me, but I think corporations should be allowed to follow their business plan according to the laws of the land and supply and demand.

Apart from playing favorites with public money Barrack Obama sent a very crude message to Boeing and the business world regarding their planned move to South Carolina, and purely for political reasons. The fact that there wasn't a national outcry over this nastiness suggests the real reason why companies are leaving the US and investing elsewhere.
 
No I mean health care, gov. stimulus, ect.


In other words, the spending that is helping our own people here at home is what you are opposed to? I'm opposed to the GOP spending that doesn't help our own people here at home.

Neither side is proposing spending cuts, they just have different priorities for how it is spent.
 
More like the topic should read "Govt borrows 46 cents of every dollar it borrowed to spend on a loan with 250% interest."
 
If increasing tax rates on income and capital gains did not decrease wealth...
The fact that you up my taxes on no way necessitates I will have less wealth than I had before you upped my taxes.
:shrug:
 
The fact that you up my taxes on no way necessitates I will have less wealth than I had before you upped my taxes.
:shrug:


Hell of a deal! Then the wealthy won't mind when their tax rates are increased! Its a win, win for everyone! :cool:
 
Hell of a deal! Then the wealthy won't mind when their tax rates are increased! Its a win, win for everyone! :cool:
:roll:
Your deliberate obtusebess and open williness to lie removes any need for anyone to consider any of your responses with any seriousnes.
 
In other words, the spending that is helping our own people here at home is what you are opposed to? I'm opposed to the GOP spending that doesn't help our own people here at home.

Neither side is proposing spending cuts, they just have different priorities for how it is spent.

Agreed, we should not increase defense spending. Keep it where it is, maintaining the worlds strongest military, and cut social programs.
 
Agreed, we should not increase defense spending. Keep it where it is, maintaining the worlds strongest military, and cut social programs.

We could cut our military spending by 2/3 and still spend more than the next biggest military spender. That is all that is required for defense.

What social programs are you talking about cutting? SS has been so successful, it helped fund the rest of the government. The only way to address health care cost is to upgrade to UHC. Is that what you are talking about?
 
We could cut our military spending by 2/3 and still spend more than the next biggest military spender. That is all that is required for defense.

What social programs are you talking about cutting? SS has been so successful, it helped fund the rest of the government. The only way to address health care cost is to upgrade to UHC. Is that what you are talking about?

I'm talking about stopping UHC, weening off SS, and spending less money in general. I am fine with cutting the defense budget as well.
 
I'm talking about stopping UHC, weening off SS, and spending less money in general. I am fine with cutting the defense budget as well.

Only UHC reduces cost of health care, and seniors will not let politicians abandon the obligation to repay the money taken from SS. Not happening in a democracy. Conservatives need senior's to get elected, and if they try to stop the repayment of the $3 trillion dollars owed to seniors, they will not get elected.
 
Back
Top Bottom