• 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 to propose 'grand bargain' on corporate tax rate, infrastructure

Conservative said:
Your opinion noted, how do you know we were on the brink of depression and what exactly did Obama do to prevent that? You see, you continue to buy the rhetoric but there is nothing to support your claim. The next President has an additional 6.2 trillion debt to clean up, an economy that is stagnant, and job creation that isn't keeping up with population growth. That next President will be the leader that Obama never was.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right about the next president being a better leader ... granted, he has been a much better leader than Bush, but he still leaves a lot to be desired ... and I think you're right, I think Hillary will be a better leader, although she'll encounter problems as the first woman president, just as Obama has encountered problems as the first black man to be president, that white men don't encounter - the Jackie Robinson effect ... but that's to be expected ...

on Bush's deficit, keep something in mind ... when you push a car down the hill and jump out, as the GOP did, and someone else has to jump in to stop it (as Obama did), it's going to travel down the hill some before you can stop it completely, turn it around, and then have to push it back up the hill while the guys who pushed it down to begin with are pushing against you to keep it at the bottom of the hill ... the electorate understood this, too bad you don't and I can't explain it to you any better than this ...
 
Conservative said:
I know this is hard for you to understand but the role of the govt. is defense and regardless of how much waste you think is in that budget it remains 800 billion out of a 3.6 trillion dollar budget. You can cut the defense budget completely and still have trillion dollar deficits and no defense. Yours is nothing more than typical liberal whining without thinking through your position.
Click to expand...

Giving the military MORE than what they asked is spending more, something YOU claim is bad.

As for your personal attacks, please cite to me what makes me a liberal. I don't believe in gun control, I didn't vote for Obama in 2012, I don't believe in stimulus payouts, didn't agree with solyndra, don't think the government should dictate green energy, have criticized Obama on multiple things. What exactly makes me a liberal? Just because I don't worhship the GOP as you do doesn't make me a liberal. It does make your comments ridiculous, petty, and shows how a conservative can only make smear comments.
 
Conservative said:
How would you know the Conservative spending appetite? The last Bush budget was 3 trillion dollars. what is your solution, higher taxes and more handouts? Isn't 50 million on food stamps enough? How about 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer assistance? You think the liberal social agenda has worked? I never see any solutions from liberals,
Click to expand...

I dunno; look at a graph?

social_spending2.preview.png
 
The Republicans should have just said YES.
 
Conservative said:
So show me the line item in the budget that supports your contention of large corporation handouts. Thanks in advance. You seem to think that a company keeping more of what they earn is a govt. handout.
Click to expand...

Too big to fail, mega subsidies, lax regulation (strippers and cocaine for big oil refineries), etc.

Don't know why so many people rally against the free market these days.
 
windowdressing said:
I hope you're right about the next president being a better leader ... granted, he has been a much better leader than Bush, but he still leaves a lot to be desired ... and I think you're right, I think Hillary will be a better leader, although she'll encounter problems as the first woman president, just as Obama has encountered problems as the first black man to be president, that white men don't encounter - the Jackie Robinson effect ... but that's to be expected ...
Click to expand...

Did you ever consider the reason people don't like Obama is that he is a douchebag with policies that people disagree with? Why do you think conservatives turned on Bush? Maybe because he was doing things they didn't agree with?

If Hillary has problems if and when she gets elected as president it will not be because she is a woman, but because she generally stands for things that her opponents detest.
 
Henrin said:
Did you ever consider the reason people don't like Obama is that he is a douchebag with policies that people disagree with? Why do you think conservatives turned on Bush? Maybe because he was doing things they didn't agree with?

If Hillary has problems if and when she gets elected as president it will not be because she is a woman, but because she generally stands for things that her opponents detest.
Click to expand...

There is never going to be a president of any party who isn't going to do things that someone doesn't agree with.

In the words of Harry Truman, "No matter what you do in this job, some SOB doesn't like it."
 
Conservative said:
So show me the line item in the budget that supports your contention of large corporation handouts. Thanks in advance. You seem to think that a company keeping more of what they earn is a govt. handout.
Click to expand...

Obviously, we do not all require welfare payments, thankfully. But handouts come in many forms, mainly in getting stuff we like from government, without actually paying for it. For example, businesses rely on a lot of stuff: educated workforce; infrastructure; government funded research; cheap access to natural resources they sell back to us at a huge markup; etc. In fact, it's been suggested by more than a few economists that over half of government spending is in direct support of businesses. And once was a time business carried about half the tax burden. But not any more; they've gotten it down to less than 20%, placing 80% of the burden onto individuals. So it seems one investment is really paying off: lobbying expense.

Now consider Individual handouts. Federal outlays divided by the population is round about $13 grand, per. Add a spouse and a newborn, and the stuff being bought by the Federal Government on ya'll behalf (wars, fences on border, cool space toys by NASA, Interstate highways to see the grand parents on holidays, etc, etc.) is round about $39 grand. Business should in aggregate, be picking up half that tab. So really, the citizen-benefit stuff for your happy little family of three is nearer to $19.5 grand, annually. But if merely a schmuck making a median income, the amount of Federal Taxes they pay is maybe $3 grand. So they get a lot of stuff for free (handouts). $16.5 Grand in handouts, even if you don't drive or care about border security ... maybe your employer relies on that stuff, and it's why you have a job. Tough to say for sure. But chances are a median wage earner cares more about Interstates and airline security, etc, than some schmuck getting $200 / month in food aid and living in poverty, ergo not traveling much. It's all relative.

To clarify, I have 2 kids and a couple ex-spouses. But let's say the "ex" means it's only me and my two kids; $39 Grand a year. And in truth, I've hovered around $25 to $30 grand in Federal Income Taxes, going back a decade or two. So I've been getting handouts a plenty, too. In fact we all have, since we get stuff the Government has to borrow to pay for.
 
Henrin said:
Did you ever consider the reason people don't like Obama is that he is a douchebag with policies that people disagree with? Why do you think conservatives turned on Bush? Maybe because he was doing things they didn't agree with?

If Hillary has problems if and when she gets elected as president it will not be because she is a woman, but because she generally stands for things that her opponents detest.
Click to expand...

Henrin ... there are enuf deniers on these threads, they don't need you ... yes, most of Obama's critics, and I suspect this has been and will be the case for Hillary, don't like him because of his policies (although most people don't have a clue what they're talking about when they talk about policies and issues), because he's a Democrat, because they're misinformed, etc. ... but if you think that the fact that he is black and that Hillary is a woman don't matter at all, you're in the worst kind of denial ... he's a Muslim, he's not really one of us, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born here, he's the foodstamp president ... give me a break ... even Hillary played on racial fears during her primary against him and she in turn had to deal with the sexism from Obama's campaign and the media ... what is it with so many posters on these threads constantly pretending we live in a post-racial and post-sexism America? it gets tiresome ... in fact, so much so, that posting is becoming less and less enjoyable ... and btw, you're an adult ... "douchebag?" I thought that was high school 1960s ... Call him an idiot or something, but douchebag? Really?
 
windowdressing said:
Henrin ... there are enuf deniers on these threads, they don't need you ... yes, most of Obama's critics, and I suspect this has been and will be the case for Hillary, don't like him because of his policies (although most people don't have a clue what they're talking about when they talk about policies and issues), because he's a Democrat, because they're misinformed, etc. ... but if you think that the fact that he is black and that Hillary is a woman don't matter at all, you're in the worst kind of denial ... he's a Muslim, he's not really one of us, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born here, he's the foodstamp president ... give me a break ... even Hillary played on racial fears during her primary against him and she in turn had to deal with the sexism from Obama's campaign and the media ... what is it with so many posters on these threads constantly pretending we live in a post-racial and post-sexism America? it gets tiresome ... in fact, so much so, that posting is becoming less and less enjoyable ... and btw, you're an adult ... "douchebag?" I thought that was high school 1960s ... Call him an idiot or something, but douchebag? Really?
Click to expand...


Why would I use idiot in place of douchebag? Calling obama an idiot does nothing to describe his over inflated sense of self worth nor does it describe his complete lack of self awareness. All it does is describe his lack of intelligence and while it's true he isn't all that bright, it does nothing to describe his other shortcomings. Sorry, but idiot does not work as a substitute for douchebag.

You're free to think whatever you want on why people oppose Obama, but it's probably wise to take note of the sharp differences between people like Obama and his opposition.
 
Last edited:
Sisyphus said:
Obviously, we do not all require welfare payments, thankfully. But handouts come in many forms, mainly in getting stuff we like from government, without actually paying for it. For example, businesses rely on a lot of stuff: educated workforce; infrastructure; government funded research; cheap access to natural resources they sell back to us at a huge markup; etc. In fact, it's been suggested by more than a few economists that over half of government spending is in direct support of businesses. And once was a time business carried about half the tax burden. But not any more; they've gotten it down to less than 20%, placing 80% of the burden onto individuals. So it seems one investment is really paying off: lobbying expense.

Now consider Individual handouts. Federal outlays divided by the population is round about $13 grand, per. Add a spouse and a newborn, and the stuff being bought by the Federal Government on ya'll behalf (wars, fences on border, cool space toys by NASA, Interstate highways to see the grand parents on holidays, etc, etc.) is round about $39 grand. Business should in aggregate, be picking up half that tab. So really, the citizen-benefit stuff for your happy little family of three is nearer to $19.5 grand, annually. But if merely a schmuck making a median income, the amount of Federal Taxes they pay is maybe $3 grand. So they get a lot of stuff for free (handouts). $16.5 Grand in handouts, even if you don't drive or care about border security ... maybe your employer relies on that stuff, and it's why you have a job. Tough to say for sure. But chances are a median wage earner cares more about Interstates and airline security, etc, than some schmuck getting $200 / month in food aid and living in poverty, ergo not traveling much. It's all relative.

To clarify, I have 2 kids and a couple ex-spouses. But let's say the "ex" means it's only me and my two kids; $39 Grand a year. And in truth, I've hovered around $25 to $30 grand in Federal Income Taxes, going back a decade or two. So I've been getting handouts a plenty, too. In fact we all have, since we get stuff the Government has to borrow to pay for.
Click to expand...

I've never gotten a hand out from the government.
 
apdst said:
I've never gotten a hand out from the government.
Click to expand...

Drive on roads? Get electricity off the grid? Live safely within our borders? Use the Internet? Government buys a lot, and unless you're single and paying ~$13 grand in FIT annually, you're getting a lot without having to pay for it.
 
windowdressing;1062128881]I hope you're right about the next president being a better leader ... granted, he has been a much better leader than Bush, but he still leaves a lot to be desired ... and I think you're right, I think Hillary will be a better leader, although she'll encounter problems as the first woman president, just as Obama has encountered problems as the first black man to be president, that white men don't encounter - the Jackie Robinson effect ... but that's to be expected ...
Click to expand...

You think the "do as I say, not as I do" President is a good leader? What is your experience in judging leadership because quite frankly Obama is the worst leader this country has ever seen and the results show it. Rather than meet with top Congressional leaders and work on bipartisanship Obama goes on vacation and plays a lot of golf while giving campaign speeches for a job he already has.

You want to talk about Bush deficits but have no idea what you are talking about. Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit, EVER. It really is too bad that you are so partisan and full of misinformation that you cannot see how foolish you sound nor apparently do you care. How did the GOP push the car down the hill from 2007 through 2010 when Democrats controlled the gas pedal?

Rather than try to explain something you don't understand take a civics class and get back to me.

on Bush's deficit, keep something in mind ... when you push a car down the hill and jump out, as the GOP did, and someone else has to jump in to stop it (as Obama did), it's going to travel down the hill some before you can stop it completely, turn it around, and then have to push it back up the hill while the guys who pushed it down to begin with are pushing against you to keep it at the bottom of the hill ... the electorate understood this, too bad you don't and I can't explain it to you any better than this ...[/QUOTE]
 
TheNextEra said:
Giving the military MORE than what they asked is spending more, something YOU claim is bad.

As for your personal attacks, please cite to me what makes me a liberal. I don't believe in gun control, I didn't vote for Obama in 2012, I don't believe in stimulus payouts, didn't agree with solyndra, don't think the government should dictate green energy, have criticized Obama on multiple things. What exactly makes me a liberal? Just because I don't worhship the GOP as you do doesn't make me a liberal. It does make your comments ridiculous, petty, and shows how a conservative can only make smear comments.
Click to expand...


First of all you continue to show how little you know because Romney never submitted a budget and isn't in position to do so.

You claim that I got the President I deserved when I didn't vote for Obama thus you make things up to suit your position, that makes you a liberal. You think I am a member of the GOP, prove it.
 
Sisyphus said:
I dunno; look at a graph?

social_spending2.preview.png
Click to expand...

Mother Jones? come on, give me Treasury Data and not something from Mother Jones. Define Democrat and Republican controlled years in control. Republicans didn't Control Congress until 1994 and did so for 6 years. We had a divided Congress 2001-2003, Republican Control 2004-2006 and Democrat Controlled 2007-2010

Not sure why you believe Mother Jones other than that is what you want to believe. Mother Jones is a leftwing partisan site that wouldn't know the truth if it bit the site in the ass.
 
Ikari said:
Too big to fail, mega subsidies, lax regulation (strippers and cocaine for big oil refineries), etc.

Don't know why so many people rally against the free market these days.
Click to expand...

TARP was a loan, the private sector segment of that loan paid it back, that isn't a subsidy. Where are regulations in the line item of the budgets. Do you even know what a subsidy is? Most are businesses keeping more of what they earn and not getting a check back from the bank. The only cash subsidies I am aware of are to farmers and then again Obama green energy sources.
 
Conservative said:
Mother Jones? come on, give me Treasury Data and not something from Mother Jones. Define Democrat and Republican controlled years in control. Republicans didn't Control Congress until 1994 and did so for 6 years. We had a divided Congress 2001-2003, Republican Control 2004-2006 and Democrat Controlled 2007-2010

Not sure why you believe Mother Jones other than that is what you want to believe. Mother Jones is a leftwing partisan site that wouldn't know the truth if it bit the site in the ass.
Click to expand...

RepContrl. Note the reference credit.
 
Sisyphus;1062129101]Obviously, we do not all require welfare payments, thankfully. But handouts come in many forms, mainly in getting stuff we like from government, without actually paying for it. For example, businesses rely on a lot of stuff: educated workforce; infrastructure; government funded research; cheap access to natural resources they sell back to us at a huge markup; etc. In fact, it's been suggested by more than a few economists that over half of government spending is in direct support of businesses. And once was a time business carried about half the tax burden. But not any more; they've gotten it down to less than 20%, placing 80% of the burden onto individuals. So it seems one investment is really paying off: lobbying expense.
Click to expand...

So the fact that Obama has proposed a 3.77 trillion dollar budget means that all those things you mentioned are justified. You think it is the Government's role to educate people and by the way do you have any idea where funding comes for education? Hint, not the Dept of Education. I suggest you find out what your taxes actually were created to fund and where that money is now going. None of what you listed are direct subsidies to private business but rather perceived responsibilities of the federal govt. mostly by liberals who support those programs.

You have no idea what it costs to extract natural resources out of the ground or what the royalties paid to the govt. for those resources. Nor do you understand the tax revenue the govt. gets out of those resources once refined and sold to the consumers.

Now consider Individual handouts. Federal outlays divided by the population is round about $13 grand, per. Add a spouse and a newborn, and the stuff being bought by the Federal Government on ya'll behalf (wars, fences on border, cool space toys by NASA, Interstate highways to see the grand parents on holidays, etc, etc.) is round about $39 grand. Business should in aggregate, be picking up half that tab. So really, the citizen-benefit stuff for your happy little family of three is nearer to $19.5 grand, annually. But if merely a schmuck making a median income, the amount of Federal Taxes they pay is maybe $3 grand. So they get a lot of stuff for free (handouts). $16.5 Grand in handouts, even if you don't drive or care about border security ... maybe your employer relies on that stuff, and it's why you have a job. Tough to say for sure. But chances are a median wage earner cares more about Interstates and airline security, etc, than some schmuck getting $200 / month in food aid and living in poverty, ergo not traveling much. It's all relative.
Click to expand...

a little off track here as I asked you to show me the line items in the budget that support the claims of subsidies to businesses. You have offered none.

To clarify, I have 2 kids and a couple ex-spouses. But let's say the "ex" means it's only me and my two kids; $39 Grand a year. And in truth, I've hovered around $25 to $30 grand in Federal Income Taxes, going back a decade or two. So I've been getting handouts a plenty, too. In fact we all have, since we get stuff the Government has to borrow to pay for.
Click to expand...

Loans are not handouts, they are loans being paid back. Everything you get you pay for in some form or another thus it isn't a handout unless of course you get welfare payments from the taxpayers and with your tax burden that doesn't seem to be the case. My point will always be until people like you stop supporting the expansion of the Federal Govt. and proposals like the 3.77 trillion dollar Obama budget not much is ever going to change but the debt and that is going to destroy us.
 
Does ANYONE here have a reason to be 'for' or 'against' what is about to be proposed, beyond who is proposing it? And you are calling out politicians for being suck up political hacks?
 
Conservative said:
Mother Jones? come on, give me Treasury Data and not something from Mother Jones. Define Democrat and Republican controlled years in control. Republicans didn't Control Congress until 1994 and did so for 6 years. We had a divided Congress 2001-2003, Republican Control 2004-2006 and Democrat Controlled 2007-2010

Not sure why you believe Mother Jones other than that is what you want to believe. Mother Jones is a leftwing partisan site that wouldn't know the truth if it bit the site in the ass.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the source referenced for the MJ commentary is here: The Politics of Social Policy in America: The Causes and Effects of Indirect Versus Direct Social Spending by Christopher G. Faricy :: SSRN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom