• 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!

2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up

Because creeping incrementalism is no compromise, merely a slow motion surrender.

The idea is to keep taxes low period, force spending to remain low period, and keep government small period. Small government maximizes personal liberty. Period.

Yeh you're right, look at Somalia...the world's smallest government and maximum personal liberty.
 
Yeh you're right, look at Somalia...the world's smallest government and maximum personal liberty.

Strawman idiocy. But no surprise there.
 
Yeh you're right, look at Somalia...the world's smallest government and maximum personal liberty.
The Somalis have all the government, all the liberty, and all the accouterments of modern society they desire. As they should have. They choose to perpetuate a state of anarchy and tribalism.

Why are you so quick to disrespect their choice?
 
The Somalis have all the government, all the liberty, and all the accouterments of modern society they desire. As they should have. They choose to perpetuate a state of anarchy and tribalism.

Why are you so quick to disrespect their choice?

Just pointing out that your "ideal government" has already been shown not to work.
 
Yeh you're right, look at Somalia...the world's smallest government and maximum personal liberty.

Yea, we want Somali-style governance, you're right...:roll:
 
Just pointing out that your "ideal government" has already been shown not to work.

Wrong. You are falsely attributing an argument to CL that he did not make. No one is advocating a tribalist anarchy.
 
with all due respect, not many people care much what you prefer

most americans want their president to do what he promised

Do you have any evidence that the majority of Americans would prefer Obama to run the country into the ground while adhering to campaign promises than break his promises by implementing good policies? That sounds more like what you prefer, and, with all due respect, not many people care much what you prefer
 
Do you have any evidence that the majority of Americans would prefer Obama to run the country into the ground while adhering to campaign promises than break his promises by implementing good policies? That sounds more like what you prefer, and, with all due respect, not many people care much what you prefer

I think the majority of Americans will tell you what they prefer on upcoming election days. I don't think you're in any more of a position than anyone else to know what the results will be.
 
Do you have any evidence that the majority of Americans would prefer Obama to run the country into the ground while adhering to campaign promises than break his promises by implementing good policies? That sounds more like what you prefer, and, with all due respect, not many people care much what you prefer

LOL!

most americans prefer presidents who keep their pledges

why did he repeat 100's of times during the campaign that he would not raise taxes on those under 250?

evidently, HE's the one who believed that's what the voters coveted

and look what happened---he WON!
 
Do you have any evidence that the majority of Americans would prefer Obama to run the country into the ground while adhering to campaign promises than break his promises by implementing good policies? That sounds more like what you prefer, and, with all due respect, not many people care much what you prefer

Yeah, I agree. What is it with people these days and wanting their Presidents to be honest with them? It's so too 1776.
 
Taxes had better go up. We were running on credit back when the bailouts were going on. Since then we've tacked on top the stimulus and health care. I for one don't want to find out what the limit on that credit card from China is.

Here's a thought and I know it works in my household. How about we just quit spending money we don't have? Instead of continually creating massive spending programs, why don't we approach it from the other direction. Take last years budget and cut 10% in every department. Then you don't need to raise taxes. You take any surpluss and start paying down the debt.

But that would just be common sense and go knows that would never fly in DC.
 
I think the majority of Americans will tell you what they prefer on upcoming election days. I don't think you're in any more of a position than anyone else to know what the results will be.

So what you are saying is that people like you prefer to
1. tell people to not worry go shopping when a false war is foisted upon them
2. not be told how much that little war will cost.
3. Cut taxes even though it will double debt
4. Give Wall Street a piece of the SS pie - that was a real goodie
5. Freeze real wages in place so insurance companies can reap record medical coverage profits

rather than
1. bring that silly war to a close
2. focus on the real enemy in a practical way
3. Regain control over the cowboy banking and financial systems
4. Answer honesty the problems facing our nation

Good for you.

Expect about 30% of the vote.
 
Here's a thought and I know it works in my household. How about we just quit spending money we don't have? Instead of continually creating massive spending programs, why don't we approach it from the other direction. Take last years budget and cut 10% in every department. Then you don't need to raise taxes. You take any surpluss and start paying down the debt.

But that would just be common sense and go knows that would never fly in DC.

Are you the same one who saw a cash flow bonanza when you took that 0% Home loan about four years ago because you thought the market could only go up?

How about fessing up to a little responsibility. You want roads, sewers, bridges, schools, prestige, good food and water, security at home and abroad, to be proud that your country is the world leader in almost everything?

Pay for it!
 
Are you the same one who saw a cash flow bonanza when you took that 0% Home loan about four years ago because you thought the market could only go up?

How about fessing up to a little responsibility. You want roads, sewers, bridges, schools, prestige, good food and water, security at home and abroad, to be proud that your country is the world leader in almost everything?

Pay for it!

This is a particularly stupid strawman argument, which unfortunately pops up with regularity. If someone argues that there should be NO taxes yet there should still be services, then this holds. But unless that's what they're arguing, it doesn't. :roll:
 
Are you the same one who saw a cash flow bonanza when you took that 0% Home loan about four years ago because you thought the market could only go up?

How about fessing up to a little responsibility. You want roads, sewers, bridges, schools, prestige, good food and water, security at home and abroad, to be proud that your country is the world leader in almost everything?

Pay for it!

You must have me confused with someone else. Never played the home mortgage game, but thanks for asking.

I want government to do what government should do. No more, no less. The government does not need to tell me which car to buy, what medical procedures I'm "entitled too", what kind of light bulb I should be using in a lamp or making me pay some ghost organization for a carbon tax. Government should do what it is charged with doing in our Constitution. Provide defense for the nation, write and enforce the laws of the land (in accordance with the constitution) and build and maintain the infrastructure. Anthing else is just pandering for votes.
 
You must have me confused with someone else. Never played the home mortgage game, but thanks for asking.

I want government to do what government should do. No more, no less. The government does not need to tell me which car to buy, what medical procedures I'm "entitled too", what kind of light bulb I should be using in a lamp or making me pay some ghost organization for a carbon tax. Government should do what it is charged with doing in our Constitution. Provide defense for the nation, write and enforce the laws of the land (in accordance with the constitution) and build and maintain the infrastructure. Anything else is just pandering for votes.

The government doesn't tell you what car to buy. the government should use incentives to get people buying after they've been frightened to death by greedy bankers and investors. If that includes car incentives? God bless them.

The government doesn't tell you what procedures you are 'entitled to'. Insurance companies do that.

The government doesn't tell you what bulb to buy. They just reward you or tax you less if you buy wisely.

As for Carbon. There is a choice. We are net importers of Oil. We could tax that commodity to reduce consumption to the levels we produce or we could tax carbon users in industry. Secondly carbon is known as a cancer causer and it's use is exacerbating effects on climate. Bringing these pollutants down to more sane levels is a national priority. So instead of taxing consumers the government chooses to tax industrial users with incentives for them to generate pollution reduction solutions. good public policy.

Interesting you spent so little type on providing for general welfare and pursuit of happiness. Infrastructure is a biggie. Regulation is a biggie.

How about you comment on SS, Medicare, Military retirement and health care, Food and Drug regulation, Commerce.

then please advise why America is 50th in general health care, 37th in longevity, and first in cost of HC by more than $6000 per person a year.
 
Do you have any evidence that the majority of Americans would prefer Obama to run the country into the ground while adhering to campaign promises than break his promises by implementing good policies? That sounds more like what you prefer, and, with all due respect, not many people care much what you prefer

I would he prefer that he tried to create more tax revenue by putting more people to work vice putting people out of work and raising taxes. That's just me.
 
This is a particularly stupid strawman argument, which unfortunately pops up with regularity. If someone argues that there should be NO taxes yet there should still be services, then this holds. But unless that's what they're arguing, it doesn't. :roll:

so you would prefer no taxes and no services, and no government, just you and your gun against the world. Well, unfortunately that is not an option, the citizens of the US decided against that position about 150 years ago.
 
The government doesn't tell you what car to buy.
Not yet anyway. But with their involvement in GM and Chrysler, it won’t be long until the government begins to mandate which type of car will get built by these companies. Then they will give us all incentives to buy the correct “type” of car.

the government should use incentives to get people buying after they've been frightened to death by greedy bankers and investors. If that includes car incentives? God bless them.
People have not been frightened by bankers and investors. They have been frightened by the financial collapse leading to financial uncertainty. The collapse that was spurned by the government creating “incentives” to banks to make risky home loans to people that could not afford them.

The government doesn't tell you what procedures you are 'entitled to'. Insurance companies do that.
And if I don’t like their options, I am free to shop around for a different company. However, when the government takes it over, where then will I turn?

The government doesn't tell you what bulb to buy. They just reward you or tax you less if you buy wisely.
Once again, this is an example of the government trying to “guide” us into making the correct choice. When the government does this, you need to ask yourself, why? Follow the money trail on this one all the way back to General Electric. They are the ones pushing this Tax for Traitors policy. Guess who makes the most light bulbs?

As for Carbon. There is a choice. We are net importers of Oil. We could tax that commodity to reduce consumption to the levels we produce or we could tax carbon users in industry.
Or we could just let people make their own decisions. You act as though we need to tax people or products for the sake of taxing something. Change your paradigm.

Secondly carbon is known as a cancer causer
Really? And here I thought that carbon was the base element on which life is based. You must be the product of our public school systems.

and it's use is exacerbating effects on climate. Bringing these pollutants down to more sane levels is a national priority. So instead of taxing consumers the government chooses to tax industrial users with incentives for them to generate pollution reduction solutions. good public policy.
Only if you buy into Al Gores propaganda pushed upon us by those most likely to profit from it. There is plenty of evidence that the earth is going thru heating and cooling cycles now just as it has done for millions of years. I don’t think humans have much to say in the matter. The earth will do it with or without us.
Interesting you spent so little type on providing for general welfare and pursuit of happiness. Infrastructure is a biggie. Regulation is a biggie.
Read the Constitution. It does not say “Provide the General Welfare”, it says “Promote the General Welfare”. There is a difference. Promoting the General Welfare is the part that allows the government to provide the tools to allow its citizens to help themselves. And by this, I mean the Infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc. No where in the Constitution to I see anything about “Regulation”. Could you please provide me with a link that displays how the constitution says anything about regulating business?

How about you comment on SS, Medicare, Military retirement and health care, Food and Drug regulation, Commerce.
SS and Medicare are government run ponzi schemes. It was a social program started by FDR to pander for votes. Military retirement is something that is provided by the country to our service men and women as part of their contract with the government for their service. It is not “given” to them, it is “earned” by them. There is a big difference between being handed something (entitlement programs) and earning something.

Food and drug regulation is simply a way to ensure that people are not harmed by the actions (whether intentional or not) of food and drug providers. I generally agree with the concept, but know that abuses and payoffs occur in this area.

What about Commerce? I agree with Commerce.

then please advise why America is 50th in general health care, 37th in longevity, and first in cost of HC by more than $6000 per person a year.
You need to look at the way the statistics are put together. Just because we have the Best Healthcare system in the world does not mean everyone lives health life styles. I would say that because we have such a great system, some people live riskier lives than they would if they were not confident in our hospitals to take care of them in case of accidents or bad behavior.
 
so you would prefer no taxes and no services, and no government, just you and your gun against the world. Well, unfortunately that is not an option, the citizens of the US decided against that position about 150 years ago.
You must have misread his post. He nor any other conservative I know proposes that we don't pay taxes. What we propose is that we only pay for what is necessary. Funding every social program imaginable is neither fiscally responsible nor practical. I don't believe our government should be in that business. But I have no problem paying taxes to support the government doing that which is constitutionally mandated.
 
You must have misread his post. He nor any other conservative I know proposes that we don't pay taxes. What we propose is that we only pay for what is necessary. Funding every social program imaginable is neither fiscally responsible nor practical. I don't believe our government should be in that business. But I have no problem paying taxes to support the government doing that which is constitutionally mandated.

For many in your camp, what is "necessary" includes only bullets and bibles, the rest they will get for themselves.
 
For many in your camp, what is "necessary" includes only bullets and bibles, the rest they will get for themselves.
Well see, that is one of the problems I have with liberals, they always take everything to the extreme. I believe in the government funding the infrastructure, police and fire and some of the watch dog agencies charged with maintaining public safety.

But just because liberals believe that we should take care of everyone from cradle to grave and conservatives oppose it, seems to give them cause to over simplify conservative positions.
 
Back
Top Bottom