• 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!

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not a new tax. And no, I am not bothered by them expiring. Nor ws I bothered by paying for the cost of health care reform. And I would not be bothered if we were asked to shoulder the cost of two wars, if we're going to fight them. We are the government, and what we want to do has to be pid for, be it war or health care or Social sercurity. that's called fiscal responsibility.


Right, so paying more money, is not a net tax gain for people?


Please, when people have to pay more, do you think semantics will help them swallow the pill more easily? :roll:
 
Now everyone likes to say, "You *want* to see the President fail? That's digusting."

Why wasn't it disgusting to want the President to fail when Bush was in office...?
 
Last edited:
Now everyone likes to say, "You *want* to see the President fail? That's digusting."

Why wasn't it disgusting to want the President to fail when Bush was in office...?

There's only one thing I ever wanted Bush to fail at. And that was convincing people that invading Iraq was a good idea.
 
finding that the commerce clause did not delegate that much power to the federal government is essentially a tenth amendment argument because powers not properly delegated to the federal government remain with the people and the several states but you are essentially correct.

I can't think of the court ever citing the 10th amendment outside of the government trying to get states to run certain federal programs
 
There's one solid reason to impeach Obama.

He didn't read the Health Care Scam bill he signed. That makes him derelict in his duty and invalidates his signature.

Well, it's a nice theory, anyway.

The other question is can he be impeached for having been born in Kenya? How would that one work, Constitutionally? Hmmm...

I doubt any president has ever read the full text of every single bill he signed, Obama is hardly unique.

And if you get any undeniable proof that Obama was born in Kenya, I'll personally help you push that case. Good luck.
 
nice try but the constitution delegates war to the president but welfare was not a power delegated to the executive or the congress.

WHAT? Dude, you clearly don't understand the Constitution at all:

Only Congress can declare war. The sad thing is, that our Congress has continuously, post WWII signed weak bills passing the declaration of war over the President. It's shameful. I thought someone who claims to know the Constitution would at least know that.
 
Right, so paying more money, is not a net tax gain for people?


Please, when people have to pay more, do you think semantics will help them swallow the pill more easily? :roll:

I think the truth matters. He did not hidethat he plan on letting them expire.
 
Most understand dollars leaving thier wallets.

Nothing new in that. Seriously, as high as our debt is, it's not realistic to expect lower taxes. If our politicians were honest, they tell us we have to cut spending AND raise taxes.
 
Nothing new in that. Seriously, as high as our debt is, it's not realistic to expect lower taxes. If our politicians were honest, they tell us we have to cut spending AND raise taxes.



Cool, cut spending first, then we will talk about raising taxes. :thumbs:
 
How about we simply argue both need to be done?



Because I disagree.... spending will never be cut unless we stop raising taxes. our representatives historically have shown us this.


Furthermore, cut taxes, cut spending more is what needs to be done. Isn't the UK doing just this?
 
Because I disagree.... spending will never be cut unless we stop raising taxes. our representatives historically have shown us this.


Furthermore, cut taxes, cut spending more is what needs to be done. Isn't the UK doing just this?

its amazing how so many ignore the fact that when a close to majority block of the voters don't suffer increased income taxes with increased spending (which is mostly spent on them) they have no incentive to call for less spending or lower taxes.
 
How about we simply argue both need to be done?

how come the libs only want to raise taxes on a minority of the voters?

because they really aren't serious about anything other than getting elected and pandering to the people who generally don't pay most or much of the taxes
 
I will probably have to pay another 100K in taxes next year-up from about 285 or so now but if that causes a massive depression that sweeps that turd Obama out of office and many of his malignant moonbat toadies in Congress it would be a price worth paying.

All that will get you is another turd politician, maybe worse, maybe better. What we really need is a commander in Chief with the guts to get us out of those money draining wars and cut the war budget in half.

ricksfolly
 
All that will get you is another turd politician, maybe worse, maybe better. What we really need is a commander in Chief with the guts to get us out of those money draining wars and cut the war budget in half.

ricksfolly

I cannot dispute that.

we also need to end

the war on drugs

the war on poverty

unconstitutional government programs that are essentially ponzi schemes.

we spend way too much money providing defense to counties that can afford their own self defense forces

but at least that is a constitutional use of tax moneys

the Obama health care plan is not

the war on drugs is not
 
I didn't realize you were in love with Obama. Obama is a scummy chicago politician who had no business being elected a senator (where he used all sorts of dirty tricks to kill of his competition) let alone president. "the will of the people" LOL-I guess you were upset when the demtards obstructed Miguel Estrada's appointment to the court of appeals?

You have a very bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome

A true Republican argument. Ignore every FACT presented to you and call someone names.

Welcome to the intelligentsia of the American right.

Refute (not "refudiate") a single fact that I presented you. Refute one of them.

You won't because you can't. So you slink away with your tail between your legs and pretend that you're right because you spouted out some funny names you read on the web somewhere.

There's a whole study out there about people like you: when you're presented with facts (a whole list of them I presented, vast majority of them sourced to neutral sites) and you simply get stronger in your fouled up beliefs.

How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

I know you won't read it, because clearly if it's something that doesn't support your viewpoint, you won't read it.
 
Oh, and I like how in your post you provide no facts whatsoever, AND compare the obstruction of an appointed position to the impeachment of an elected official.

There's only one person in this exchange showing derangement and it's clearly not me.
 
Sometimes people are pretty idiotic with their snippy and pithy comments. Tell me...when Bush was enacting his policies which you disagree with, where you 'pretty disgusting' too?
 
Sometimes people are pretty idiotic with their snippy and pithy comments. Tell me...when Bush was enacting his policies which you disagree with, where you 'pretty disgusting' too?

I honestly don't care what Turtle says about Obama. It's that when presented with a list of sourced, indisputable facts - his response was nothing but insults.

Why? Because he couldn't refute a singe fact that I had posted here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...30-tax-tsunami-horizon-10.html#post1058877996

So when you can't fight facts, hurl insults.
 
Back
Top Bottom