• 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!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

Conservative said:
Is this what you are learning in school? This country wasn't founded by liberals, it was founded by small govt, free market, personal responsibility individuals who believed in individual wealth creation and did not trust a large central govt. Not sure what history book you are reading but our Founders are turning over in their graves seeing the current 3.8 trillion dollar massive bureaucracy we have as a federal govt.
Click to expand...

I don't think he realizes that 'liberals' in the 1700's were the 'conservatives' of today, and that 'conservatives' in the 1700's were the 'liberals' of today.
 
Whovian said:
I simply stated a fact. MOST liberals admit the '100 years' comment from McCain was exactly what I said, not what you implied. I can't help it if you're simply wrong and refuse to man up to it like the vast majority of other liberals already have.

You offer supposition, while I presented fact.

Again, you offer supposition where I offered fact.

I think you need to try a little harder.
Click to expand...

Most EVERYONE admits he was talking about military presence, why just say liberal? Because you're a liberal basher. His comment, even though talking about military presence, clearly dictated his pro-Iraq war views and those don't align with my views. If Colin Powell could have proved that there was actually a connection between Saddam and Alqaeda or if Bush could prove their was WMDs in Iraq still, I'd feel different. But neither of these were true. We were lied to and because of that 600,000 Iraqis have died and about 5,000 Americans have died and we've spent almost a trillion dollars. GTFO of Iraq is all I want to hear from a politician.
 
Whovian said:
I don't think he realizes that 'liberals' in the 1700's were the 'conservatives' of today, and that 'conservatives' in the 1700's were the 'liberals' of today.
Click to expand...

That's what you guys don't realize. You are liberals and you don't even know it.
 
Conservative said:
Is this what you are learning in school? This country wasn't founded by liberals, it was founded by small govt, free market, personal responsibility individuals who believed in individual wealth creation and did not trust a large central govt. Not sure what history book you are reading but our Founders are turning over in their graves seeing the current 3.8 trillion dollar massive bureaucracy we have as a federal govt.
Click to expand...

Did you even go to college? Look up John Locke and let me know when your foot is out of your mouth.
 
Conservative said:
You don't put much effort in to responding to facts either. Noticed how you ran from the bea and bls data and continue to run from explaining human behavior and how behavior affects economic activity.
Click to expand...

If by ran you mean explaining how it doesn't answer the question or do what you say it does, yeah. I did that. ;)
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Did you even go to college? Look up John Locke and let me know when your foot is out of your mouth.
Click to expand...

John Locke died in 1702 and this country was created in 1776 so he was hardly a Founder. Go back to class and this time read the book instead of hoping that you learn by osmosis.
 
Conservative said:
John Locke died in 1702 and this country was created in 1776 so he was hardly a Founder. Go back to class and this time read the book instead of hoping that you learn by osmosis.
Click to expand...

1704, actually... here's somethign interesting about Locke...
In 1671 he was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal African Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesbury's secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves.
For example, Martin Cohen notes that as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700) Locke was, in fact, "one of just half a dozen men who created and supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude".
Some see his statements on unenclosed property as having been intended to justify the displacement of the Native Americans. Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is accused of hypocrisy and racism, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists.
Click to expand...

sweet. :ninja:
 
Conservative said:
John Locke died in 1702 and this country was created in 1776 so he was hardly a Founder. Go back to class and this time read the book instead of hoping that you learn by osmosis.
Click to expand...

"Locke was an important political thinker, whose Second Treatise on Government is credited with influencing Thomas Jefferson's drafting of the Declaration of Independence. He also influenced other protagonists of the American Revolution including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton."

Locke, John

Please, go enroll in community college and take a history class before posting again. Debating about politics is educational and interesting. Debating about whether John Locke was a liberal and influential to the Founding Fathers is a joke and a waste of my time.
 
Last edited:
Johnny DooWop said:
"Locke was an important political thinker, whose Second Treatise on Government is credited with influencing Thomas Jefferson's drafting of the Declaration of Independence. He also influenced other protagonists of the American Revolution including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton."

Locke, John

Please, go enroll in community college and take a history class before posting again. Debating about politics is educational and interesting. Debating about whether John Locke was a liberal and influential to the Founding Fathers is a joke and a waste of my time.
Click to expand...

Better go back to studying history, did our Founders support a massive Central Govt? Never debated that he was a liberal but that he wasn't one of the founders. His influence wasn't what you think nor was much of it encompassed in the Constitution. Promote Domestic Welfare would have been changed to Provide for Domestic Welfare with a liberal in charge.
 
Conservative said:
His influence wasn't what you think nor was much of it encompassed in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Haha. I'll run that by one of my professors just so I can see him laugh.

I'm still trying to understand your point. Are you saying the Founding Fathers weren't liberals? Are you saying that the ideas of change, progression, equality and less government in people's lives aren't liberal ideas? Are saying that liberals haven't played a significant role in shaping this great country?
 
Johnny DooWop said:
"Locke was an important political thinker, whose Second Treatise on Government is credited with influencing Thomas Jefferson's drafting of the Declaration of Independence. He also influenced other protagonists of the American Revolution including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton."

Locke, John

Please, go enroll in community college and take a history class before posting again. Debating about politics is educational and interesting. Debating about whether John Locke was a liberal and influential to the Founding Fathers is a joke and a waste of my time.
Click to expand...

Yes, that certainly proves that all the Founding Fathers were what you call 'liberals'.

I wonder if he (a slave trader, owner and promoter) influenced Jefferson in the part where he wanted to abolish slavery (the part the South made them remove).
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Haha. I'll run that by one of my professors just so I can see him laugh.

I'm still trying to understand your point. Are you saying the Founding Fathers weren't liberals? Are you saying that the ideas of change, progression, equality and less government in people's lives aren't liberal ideas? Are saying that liberals haven't played a significant role in shaping this great country?
Click to expand...

Not by today's standards, but everyone has a little liberal in them. Think that liberals believe in personal responsibility, small central govt, individual wealth creation, free enterprise and capitalism? If your professor is putting this bs into your head I doubt seriously he has much credibility and I assure you that adopting his philosophy will assure total and complete failure on your part.
 
Conservative said:
Not by today's standards, but everyone has a little liberal in them. Think that liberals believe in personal responsibility, small central govt, individual wealth creation, free enterprise and capitalism? If your professor is putting this bs into your head I doubt seriously he has much credibility and I assure you that adopting his philosophy will assure total and complete failure on your part.
Click to expand...

Since when has a "liberal" politician tried to abolish capitalism and make the economy completely state owned? And since when has a "conservative" politician actually tried to reduce the size of government and reduce government spending?

As for my professors who "aren't qualified", lol, maybe I should just go by what ma pappy taught me when we used ta hunt and fish bout dem damn librals!
 
Whovian said:
Yes, that certainly proves that all the Founding Fathers were what you call 'liberals'.

I wonder if he (a slave trader, owner and promoter) influenced Jefferson in the part where he wanted to abolish slavery (the part the South made them remove).
Click to expand...

I wonder if it was the conservatives or the liberals who wanted to abolish slavery?
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Since when has a "liberal" politician tried to abolish capitalism and make the economy completely state owned? And since when has a "conservative" politician actually tried to reduce the size of government and reduce government spending?

As for my professors who "aren't qualified", lol, maybe I should just go by what ma pappy taught me when we used ta hunt and fish bout dem damn librals!
Click to expand...

Paid any attention to current events, bailouts, takeovers, increased regulations, massive growth in govt, wealth redistribution. Unfortunately there hasn't been a "conservative" in the WH for decades but the alternatives to GHW Bush, Bob Dole, GW Bush, and John McCain were much worse. That is irrelevant now because we have a radical in the WH who has taken Bush spending and put it on steroids

You definitely have an attitude, good luck with that. I spent 35 years in the business world and employed thousands. Those with an attitude like yours failed so good luck.
 
Conservative said:
Paid any attention to current events, bailouts, takeovers, increased regulations, massive growth in govt, wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

To say that reflects anti-capitalism is a gross exaggeration. Let me guess, you think Obama is communist right? Lol.

Conservative said:
Unfortunately there hasn't been a "conservative" in the WH for decades
Click to expand...

That's the smartest thing you've said so far. And that's my whole point. "Libs" "Dem" "Repubs" "Neocons", none of them are doing what they should be, they are all spending too much, all support big government, and both Bush and Obama signed bailouts. Choosing parties is elementary and the notion that Mccain would have done any better for this economy than Obama is ludicrous.

Conservative said:
You definitely have an attitude, good luck with that. I spent 35 years in the business world and employed thousands. Those with an attitude like yours failed so good luck.
Click to expand...

You've been alive a long time, so that means you won't be around too much longer. Good. Most people who voted for Mccain, who oppose gay marriage, who oppose the legalization of marijuana, who supported the war in Iraq, are older people. Once your generation dies off the world will be a much better place.
 
Johnny DooWop;1059065254]To say that reflects anti-capitalism is a gross exaggeration. Let me guess, you think Obama is communist right? Lol.
Click to expand...

Nope, a socialist which is close. His resume shows it but resumes don't matter to ideologues

That's the smartest thing you've said so far. And that's my whole point. "Libs" "Dem" "Repubs" "Neocons", none of them are doing what they should be, they are all spending too much, all support big government, and both Bush and Obama signed bailouts. Choosing parties is elementary and the notion that Mccain would have done any better for this economy than Obama is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Yes, Bush bailed out, Obama took over, there is a difference. The loans Bush gave to GM weren't a takeover, Obama took over the company to save the unions.

We will never know about McCain, but I do know that McCain wouldn't have created a 862 billion dollar stimulus program that bailed out union pension funds and did nothing to grow or stimulate the private sector. I do know that McCain would have worked to extend the Bush tax cuts on all taxpayers and that is pro growth and pro individuals. I do know that McCain wouldn't have supported a 1.29 trillion deficit and believe that McCain would have used the repaid TARP funds to pay down the deficit.

You've been alive a long time, so that means you won't be around too much longer. Good. Most people who voted for Mccain, who oppose gay marriage, who oppose the legalization of marijuana, who supported the war in Iraq, are older people. Once your generation dies off the world will be a much better place.
Click to expand...

LOL, spoken like a true selfish, arrogant liberal. Hope I am around when you grow up and realize just how "right" you have been on the real issues. I have a daughter who thought just like you believing that her dad wasn't very smart and she had all the answers. She graduated from college and once out in the working world she realized her dad wasn't that stupid and got it right. She and I are closer now than ever before. You have a long way to grow but I assure your parents you too will grow up.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, spoken like a true selfish, arrogant liberal. Hope I am around when you grow up and realize just how "right" you have been on the real issues. I have a daughter who thought just like you believing that her dad wasn't very smart and she had all the answers. She graduated from college and once out in the working world she realized her dad wasn't that stupid and got it right. She and I are closer now than ever before. You have a long way to grow but I assure your parents you too will grow up.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of "conservative" financial policies, just not all of them. The problem is, they come wrapped in a Republican package that includes xenophobia, jingoism, ultra-aggressive foreign policy, social conservatism based on Christianity, and even a little bit of racism (yes, polls show a larger number of Republicans hold racist beliefs than either Democrats or independents.) I like the Republican party Abe Lincoln created. The party you represent today is a completely different animal.

As for the conservative economics, I love the idea of lower taxes but don't think they should be implemented unless the spending is also cut, or else we end up in a deficit. I love the idea of cutting government spending but Republicans don't actually do that, they only preach it. People say that Obama spent more than Bush but they don't calculate the cost of the two wars we are in that Bush initiated that has cost almost a trillion dollars and is expected to reach 2 trillion when everything is said and done. Hell, look at how much Reagan spent when he was in office, and he is a conservative deity. I like the idea of government not meddling too much into businesses, but at the same time, when you let them do whatever the hell they want, we get business practices that are very unfriendly and even manipulative to the average consumer and we get bubble economies that eventually burst.

True, us youngins can be naive but you old folks can be very single-minded. Think for yourself instead of only on party lines. Its not only the "liberals" who are ruining the economy and when you realize that you'll be a better man for it. John Mccain and Sarah Palin are jokes. Most republicans don't even like John Mccain and I think you are more qualified to be vice president than Sarah Palin. She is the most uneducated politician in existence. You only voted for them because you despise everything Obama stands for. Whether that's really because you disagree with all of his policies or because you are obsessed with party loyalty, only you know.

The greatest politician living today comes from your state, and his name is Ron Paul. Even though he is more fiscally conservative than any other GOP politician who ran in '08, you guys wouldn't back him because he wanted a non-interventionist foreign policy.
 
Last edited:
Johnny DooWop said:
Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of "conservative" financial policies, just not all of them. The problem is, they come wrapped in a Republican package that includes xenophobia, jingoism, ultra-aggressive foreign policy, social conservatism based on Christianity, and even a little bit of racism (yes, polls show a larger number of Republicans hold racist beliefs than either Democrats or independents.) I like the Republican party Abe Lincoln created. The party you represent today is a completely different animal.

As for the conservative economics, I love the idea of lower taxes but don't think they should be implemented unless the spending is also cut, or else we end up in a deficit. I love the idea of cutting government spending but Republicans don't actually do that, they only preach it. People say that Obama spent more than Bush but they don't calculate the cost of the two wars we are in that Bush initiated that has cost almost a trillion dollars and is expected to reach 2 trillion when everything is said and done. Hell, look at how much Reagan spent when he was in office, and he is a conservative deity. I like the idea of government not meddling too much into businesses, but at the same time, when you let them do whatever the hell they want, we get business practices that are very unfriendly and even manipulative to the average consumer and we get bubble economies that eventually burst.

True, us youngins can be naive but you old folks can be very single-minded. Think for yourself instead of only on party lines. Its not only the "liberals" who are ruining the economy and when you realize that you'll be a better man for it. John Mccain and Sarah Palin are jokes. Most republicans don't even like John Mccain and I think you are more qualified to be vice president than Sarah Palin. She is the most uneducated politician in existence. You only voted for them because you despise everything Obama stands for. Whether that's really because you disagree with all of his policies or because you are obsessed with party loyalty, only you know.

The greatest politician living today comes from your state, and his name is Ron Paul. Even though he is more fiscally conservative than any other GOP politician who ran in '08, you guys wouldn't back him because he wanted a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Click to expand...

One of the best pieces of advice ever given to me came from Ronald Reagan when he said, "trust but verify." You made some claims above that aren't accurate and can be refuted by simply going to non partisan sites to check results. I grew up a Democrat and was very similar to you, believing what I was told. Reagan's words hit home so that is when I learned to go to sites like bea.gov, bls.gov, U.S. Treasury sites to verify what I have been told. The findings were quite an eye opener.

Democrats always told me that tax cuts caused deficits and that the govt. really needed the money to help those truly in need. Sounded right to me because if you cut taxes less money would go to the govt, right? Wrong, when tax rates were cut money to the govt grew according to the checkbook of the United States, the U.S. Treasury. Now how can that happen. Let's see, bea.gov. helped me there as did bls.gov. BEA.gov gave me the four components of GDP with the number one being personal consumption meaning consumer spending. When people had their taxes cut they had more spendable income and did so. That created demand and demand means more jobs. BLS showed what happened after taxes were cut. Instead of having one person paying less taxes we had two or three people paying taxes thus more tax revenue. Make sense to you?

Once that myth fell, tax cuts causing deficits, I started questioning other things like how can a bureaucrat in D.C. take care of a local social issue? They can't thus they want things to remain the same with them in control. Social problems are best handled by local officials and charities, not the Federal govt. It is all about personal responsibility and not govt. responsibility.

Now as for Obama, it is his policies that are being rejected, massive growth in the size of the govt, massive regulations, economiic lies and distortions, all verified by non partisan sites. For all the spending Bush did, Obama put that spending on steroids. Bush didn't have trillion dollar deficits. Bush didn't take over GM or sign a stimulus plan that bailed out union pension funds.
f
now I could go on through your items line by line but you get the drift, trust but verify and when you verify go to non partisan sites. Something to think about Obama had a 3.8 trillion dollar budget for fiscal year 2010. The wars you are talking about were 100 billion dollars a year so think about it, 100 billion dollars a year didn't create the 1.29 billion deficit Obama had this fiscal year.
 
Conservative said:
You made some claims above that aren't accurate and can be refuted by simply going to non partisan sites to check results.
Click to expand...

If you really want we can play a little game called "source for source". For your statistics that you claim refute the things I said, I can find non-partisan statistics refuting many of the things you just said, especially when it comes to Republican vs Democratic spending and the effect cutting taxes has on a deficit. However I'm sure you have better things to do and I really need to be studying for midterms. So we'll just see each other from across the trenches in the next civil war.

BTW, to everyone else, I'm conducting a study, I'm going around threads to see if every topic eventually melts down into a conservative/republican vs liberal/democrat debate instead of staying on the topic. This one melted on the first page.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
If you really want we can play a little game called "source for source". For your statistics that you claim refute the things I said, I can find non-partisan statistics refuting many of the things you just said, especially when it comes to Republican vs Democratic spending and the effect cutting taxes has on a deficit. However I'm sure you have better things to do and I really need to be studying for midterms. So we'll just see each other from across the trenches in the next civil war.

BTW, to everyone else, I'm conducting a study, I'm going around threads to see if every topic eventually melts down into a conservative/republican vs liberal/democrat debate instead of staying on the topic. This one melted on the first page.
Click to expand...

What would you expect this thread to do with the topic as it is?

As for my sources vs. yours, if you have a source better than bea.gov, bls.gov, or the U.S. Treasury then please offer them. What better source for the deficit and revenue is the U.S. Treasury which is the checkbook of the United States? I doubt anyone can come up with a better source than the actual checkbook.
 
Conservative said:
What would you expect this thread to do with the topic as it is?

As for my sources vs. yours, if you have a source better than bea.gov, bls.gov, or the U.S. Treasury then please offer them. What better source for the deficit and revenue is the U.S. Treasury which is the checkbook of the United States? I doubt anyone can come up with a better source than the actual checkbook.
Click to expand...

"Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.

In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.

It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate."

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Like I said, I'm all for lower taxes but claiming that they increase revenue is not accurate and doing it without cutting government spending ludicrous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom