• 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

You mean the U.S. govt. of course, the project could not have been done without their money and direction.

Their money? Do you have any idea where the Federal Govt. money comes from? That post of yours alone shows the disconnect liberals have with reality.
 
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 ...

Your moniker suits you since you encompass the worst of cons on these threads ... Worst leader? Well, some 200+ presidential scholars would beg to differ since they had him 15th among presidents ... But what do they know, right? I, mean, they have Ph.D.s and we know know what that means in the cons' anti-intellectual world, don't we?

I didn't think you'd get the car metaphor, but I'm sorry, I can dumb it down more than that for you ...

I teach civics ...
 
The paper you posted doesn't do that and if that is what you are holding up as an example of Democrats being better on spending, you are showing your true colors and fooling yourself.

The problem with Democrats is they don't understand economic activity and growth which is your basic problem. Democrats don't spend less. Republicans controlled the Congress from 1994-2000 and you and others claimed Clinton had a balanced budget. Who actually cut those Clinton budgets and spending? Check out the deficits in years 2004-2006 vs. 2007-2009 and see who spent less.

Dems and other liberals are never held accountable for spending because it is spending in the name of compassion and that just makes people like you feel good.

Yes; it does. But RepContrl graphed some of the data. Hell; the Abstract says this(!):

"First, I find no statistically conclusive evidence that Democratic control of the federal government results in higher levels of total social spending. Additionally, my results show that Republican control of the legislature results in a higher ratio of indirect to direct social spending."
 
Meanwhile iguanaman, that was a bit glib. Obviously OMB has no scored it, or if it has, Obama ain't saying. The only number yet said, is $50 Billion on infrastructure.

And here's the supply-side foolishness in it: lower corporate tax rate; lower still for manufacturing sector enterprises. Pure supply-side idiocy.

Let's say you're Columbia Sportswear and buy in China, or the like. Will you raise your cost-to-produce, lowering your profit, merely to save some points on your taxes on profit? NO!! It would be idiotic.

We are not competitive in unskilled manufacture. But we have companies who make products that can be manufactured here and be competitive, and will, since close-in manufacture has myriad efficiencies, not to mention stricter oversight and QC. Everyone who can make a buck manufacturing here is already here or will come here. Those who cannot will manufacture elsewhere, since the name of the game is more and not less profit. So these cuts are merely gifts in the form of more after-tax profit, at a time that profits are already at a record and companies are rife with retained earnings and cash-on-hand, which they have not and will not pay to employees they do not have to, nor hire employees they do not need, even if they can afford them. And they will not invest in an opportunity that is not there!!! It's just more money, which will be hoarded by a few, and not invested back into the economy by being spent.

IT'S STUPID!!!!

Liberal economics is what is stupid, raise taxes and there will be on affect on human behavior? Do you have any idea what happens to economic activity when you have less money in your paycheck? You keep living in the past and you are doomed to repeat it. You want the United States to compete in a world economy with U.S. wages and benefits along with U.S. Regulations and taxes? You do live in a dream world that doesn't exist
 
You mean the U.S. govt. of course, the project could not have been done without their money and direction.

No, I mean the private companies that actually did the work. The government doesn't have any money and providing a plan for a project is hardly the same as providing everyday direction for a project. In fact, to a large degree the government is just a pest after the project gets going.

The only thing the government really does here is contract out work to private companies and even that they don't do all that well.
 
Last edited:
Their money? Do you have any idea where the Federal Govt. money comes from? That post of yours alone shows the disconnect liberals have with reality.

The reality that govt. requires money to exist? That projects like the highway system benefits all citizens and has paid for itself many times over? It is you that has denied reality.
 
Yes; it does. But RepContrl graphed some of the data. Hell; the Abstract says this(!):

"First, I find no statistically conclusive evidence that Democratic control of the federal government results in higher levels of total social spending. Additionally, my results show that Republican control of the legislature results in a higher ratio of indirect to direct social spending."

since you have no idea what years are listed your data is skewed to the answer you want to hear. The fact is all social engineering has been administered by Democrats and you only need to look at the actual budgets to see where that spending lies. There are two parts to the budget, discretionary and non discretionary spending/entitlements so in your paper which type of spending is referenced and what control does the Congress have on those types?
 
The reality that govt. requires money to exist? That projects like the highway system benefits all citizens and has paid for itself many times over? It is you that has denied reality.

The highway system is funded by the gasoline taxes that you pay when you fill up. Right now that goes into the general fund like SS and Medicare income and is spent on everything other than highways. You don't have a clue what your taxes fund or where your money goes. Obama loves having people like you supporting him
 
Spoken by someone who obviously has no concept of the line items in the budget and what your taxes fund. We don't need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt. with most of that money going to social programs. SS and Medicare along with the Payroll taxes that fund them should go off budget immediately. Excise taxes which come from gasoline purchases also need to come off budget and used for their direct purpose.

Then shift all unemployment benefits, healthcare costs, and other social engineering programs back to the states where they belong. There would be plenty of money for the programs needed if the money was allocated properly and spent as required by the taxes established.

Non-sequitur. Pure rhetoric. Whining about total spending without a modicum of what it's spent on.

Classic "Conservative."
 
Non-sequitur. Pure rhetoric. Whining about total spending without a modicum of what it's spent on.

Classic "Conservative."

We're 17 Trillion in debt

Wake up
 
since you have no idea what years are listed your data is skewed to the answer you want to hear. The fact is all social engineering has been administered by Democrats and you only need to look at the actual budgets to see where that spending lies. There are two parts to the budget, discretionary and non discretionary spending/entitlements so in your paper which type of spending is referenced and what control does the Congress have on those types?

You can run from the truth. But it's still the truth. If you cared a bit about spending, and not blaming Dems for everything and being an apologist for Reps, you might actually consider which to vote for. And when you can show voting Republican lowers spending, be real sure and clue me in.
 
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.

I've kept us safe with my service and I pay taxes, so no, I've never got s handout from the governkent.
 
I've kept us safe with my service and I pay taxes, so no, I've never got s handout from the governkent.

Cool. And thanks for keeping me safe. And hope you enjoy our collective thanks in form of GI benefits, on top of the pay, food, clothing and housing.

Beats flipping burgers.
 
Non-sequitur. Pure rhetoric. Whining about total spending without a modicum of what it's spent on.

Classic "Conservative."

Typical liberal having no idea what the tax was established to fund thus it is money can be spent however a liberal wants to spend it. That is fiscal irresponsibility.

Here are the line items of the budget. Learn what your taxes fund, tell me what items in this budget are already funded at the state and local levels thus are duplicated. What was the deficit in 2010?

Expenses

Defense 680.4
International Affairs 47.2
Gen. Science, Space 29.2
Energy 14.8
Natural resources/env 41.8
Agriculture 19.7
Commerce/Housing Cr 40.3
Transportation 91.2
Community Dev 26.1
Education/Train/Social 89.1
Health 346.7
Medicare 471.8
Income Security 542.1
Social Security 773.3
Veterans Benefits 124.6
Justice 57.6
General Govt. 23.4
Net Interest 222.5


Total 3641.8
 
Dodge noted

If you only could see the irony in that. Astonishing.

Now then, you mentioned a problem, which I think we all agree is a problem: debt.

So I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how to fix it, while I'm still awake. Do you?
 
You can run from the truth. But it's still the truth. If you cared a bit about spending, and not blaming Dems for everything and being an apologist for Reps, you might actually consider which to vote for. And when you can show voting Republican lowers spending, be real sure and clue me in.

I apologize for no one let alone people like you who defend Obama and liberal spending at every turn. "Your" President hasn't had a deficit under a trillion dollars and you are talking about the GOP spending money? The GOP hasn't spent a dime since Obama took office.
 
Typical liberal having no idea what the tax was established to fund thus it is money can be spent however a liberal wants to spend it. That is fiscal irresponsibility.

Here are the line items of the budget. Learn what your taxes fund, tell me what items in this budget are already funded at the state and local levels thus are duplicated. What was the deficit in 2010?

Expenses

Defense 680.4
International Affairs 47.2
Gen. Science, Space 29.2
Energy 14.8
Natural resources/env 41.8
Agriculture 19.7
Commerce/Housing Cr 40.3
Transportation 91.2
Community Dev 26.1
Education/Train/Social 89.1
Health 346.7
Medicare 471.8
Income Security 542.1
Social Security 773.3
Veterans Benefits 124.6
Justice 57.6
General Govt. 23.4
Net Interest 222.5


Total 3641.8

Blow me. How dare you use that word with me when you've yet to post on the thread I created at your urging?

Now then, nice copy paste. Thoughts on any of it?
 
Your moniker suits you since you encompass the worst of cons on these threads ... Worst leader? Well, some 200+ presidential scholars would beg to differ since they had him 15th among presidents ... But what do they know, right? I, mean, they have Ph.D.s and we know know what that means in the cons' anti-intellectual world, don't we?

I didn't think you'd get the car metaphor, but I'm sorry, I can dumb it down more than that for you ...

I teach civics ...

Well great, 15th? And you buy what they tell you? Why? What is it about the 17 trillion dollar debt, 21 plus million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, 50 million on food stamps, over 1 million discouraged workers last month that you don't understand? Wonder if people in those groups believe he is 15th and why do you believe he deserves that high of a ranking especially after one term?

Please post the data to support that claim he is 15th?
 
If you only could see the irony in that. Astonishing.

Now then, you mentioned a problem, which I think we all agree is a problem: debt.

So I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how to fix it, while I'm still awake. Do you?

Ideas to fix it?

How about not wasting 787B on Stimulus Programs that don't work

How about not doubling Food Stamp rolls

How about not doubling Disability rolls

How about not having unemployment last for 2 years

How about easing regulations on the coal industry, instead of trying to bankrupt it

How about not enriching your wall street bankster pals with worthless digital money that has no real wealth behind it to back it up

How about cutting taxes on small businesses to stimulate hiring

How about repealing Obamacare, which is the #1 job killer this country faces at the moment

How about approving Keystone

How about ending the corporate influence in WA that keeps potential competition at a minimum

How about companies like GE actually PAY SOME TAXES

How about a new President that isn't addicted to spending and running yearly trillion dollar deficits

That'd be a good start
 
Blow me. How dare you use that word with me when you've yet to post on the thread I created at your urging?

Now then, nice copy paste. Thoughts on any of it?

No thanks, not interested because like most liberals you need to be spoon fed and still sometimes you spit out what is good for you.

Cannot teach someone so unwilling to learn. You have shown no ability to think for yourself or accept actual data presented that proves your analysis wrong. Until you do and show you aren't anything more than a partisan hack I have no interest in even trying to educate you on what your taxes fund and the purpose of the govt.
 
Ideas to fix it?

How about not wasting 787B on Stimulus Programs that don't work

How about not doubling Food Stamp rolls

How about not doubling Disability rolls

How about not having unemployment last for 2 years

How about easing regulations on the coal industry, instead of trying to bankrupt it

How about not enriching your wall street bankster pals with worthless digital money that has no real wealth behind it to back it up

How about cutting taxes on small businesses to stimulate hiring

How about repealing Obamacare, which is the #1 job killer this country faces at the moment

How about approving Keystone

How about ending the corporate influence in WA that keeps potential competition at a minimum

How about companies like GE actually PAY SOME TAXES

How about a new President that isn't addicted to spending and running yearly trillion dollar deficits

That'd be a good start

Doesn't eliminate nor reduce the debt. Maybe this will help: debt = what we owe for past spending, which we cannot take back, since we're past the 30-day MBG. Drats. But it is what it is.

Care to suggest a way of reducing the debt?
 
No thanks, not interested because like most liberals you need to be spoon fed and still sometimes you spit out what is good for you.

Cannot teach someone so unwilling to learn. You have shown no ability to think for yourself or accept actual data presented that proves your analysis wrong. Until you do and show you aren't anything more than a partisan hack I have no interest in even trying to educate you on what your taxes fund and the purpose of the govt.

Thanks for blowing me. At least you're obedient.
 
Doesn't eliminate nor reduce the debt. Maybe this will help: debt = what we owe for past spending, which we cannot take back, since we're past the 30-day MBG. Drats. But it is what it is.

Care to suggest a way of reducing the debt?

Your responses are comical and embarrassing

All of that money that was wasted in the past could have been used to pay down existing debt at the time, instead of nearly DOUBLING the deficit within 5 years. #smh

Last time I engage you. You've been reduced to telling other posters to *&^% you because you can't put 2 coherent thoughts together. How embarrassing.
 
Back
Top Bottom