• 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

Erod said:
Hence, the tea party emergence among the Republican party. Conservatives need to start acting like conservatives.

Cut spending drastically, cut taxes (further in my opinion), and let the free market dig us out of this hole.

The problem is, what power has the government ever released over us once it had obtained it? Obama wants to increase it ten-fold, second term be damned.
Click to expand...

I actually really like a lot of financial policies of the Tea Party. Get rid of the IRS and implement a more simple tax system? Great! Demand a balanced budget each year? All for it! Implement more constitutionality in our law making? Hell yes! My main problem is that the Tea Party/GOP financial policies come in a package that includes ultra-social conservatism, aggressive foreign policy, xenophobia and jingoism. The worst thing the Republican party did was let the southern social conservatives infiltrate the party when they jumped ship from the Democrat party after the Civil Rights Movement didn't go their way. If that wouldn't have happened I'd probably be a Republican. I'd rather have higher taxes than live in country where people are discriminated against, wars are constantly waged and where GOP neo-cons try to ratify the separation of church and state clause to make Christianity the official religion of the country.
 
Conservative said:
Compared to what we have now almost anyone would be more fiscally responsible even McCain who has never taken an earmark. Bush spent too much money with the help of a receptive Congress but Obama has put Bush spending on steroids as evidenced by the amount of the U.S.Budget fiscal year 2010 vs. 2010. Where is the 2011 budget?
Click to expand...


Didn't Mccain vote for the $700 billion bailout that was loaded up with millions of dollars in earmarks for wool producers and race track owners?

Also, the tricky thing with these neo-con Republicans like Mccain is that they appear to be financially conservative, which in some ways they are, but if he was in office our role in Iraq would be much more significant than it is now and we'd propably have already invaded Iran and be on our way to North Korea. So the money he'd save us in vetos, he'd make up for with massive defense spending.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I actually really like a lot of financial policies of the Tea Party. Get rid of the IRS and implement a more simple tax system? Great! Demand a balanced budget each year? All for it! Implement more constitutionality in our law making? Hell yes! My main problem is that the Tea Party/GOP financial policies come in a package that includes ultra-social conservatism, aggressive foreign policy, xenophobia and jingoism. The worst thing the Republican party did was let the southern social conservatives infiltrate the party when they jumped ship from the Democrat party after the Civil Rights Movement didn't go their way. If that wouldn't have happened I'd probably be a Republican. I'd rather have higher taxes than live in country where people are discriminated against, wars are constantly waged and where GOP neo-cons try to ratify the separation of church and state clause to make Christianity the official religion of the country.
Click to expand...

You want to create your own little country, so be it, go for it. We live in a country where the majority dictate policy. When the majority rule in your favor you are all for it but when you disagree with the majority you take the issue to the courts to overturn the will of the majority.

You are so afraid of religion and I don't blame you, I would be too if I were in your shoes. One day you will get the opportunity to explain your position to "your" God. Looks like you haven't taken a history course either. This country was built on Judeo Christian values. There is nothing in the Constitution that denies your right to not believe in God or my right to believe. You can turn off the news or media anytime you want. Don't infringe on my right to religion and I will leave you alone as well.

In case you missed it, it was the GOP that passed civil rights, not the Democrats.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Didn't Mccain vote for the $700 billion bailout that was loaded up with millions of dollars in earmarks for wool producers and race track owners?

Also, the tricky thing with these neo-con Republicans like Mccain is that they appear to be financially conservative, which in some ways they are, but if he was in office our role in Iraq would be much more significant than it is now and we'd propably have already invaded Iran and be on our way to North Korea. So the money he'd save us in vetos, he'd make up for with massive defense spending.
Click to expand...

Yes he did and so did Obama. I didn't support it so what is your point. Regarding Iraq Obama adopted the Bush doctrine as evidenced by his selection of Sec. of Defense. You seem to have a problem with defense spending but no problem on personal responsibility spending. Read the Constitution and get back to me. Our elected officials decided that Iraq with Saddam Hussein was a threat. The Senate was under the control of the Democrats and voted 76-23 in support of the Iraq resolution. You didn't like the vote, get over it.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Also, the tricky thing with these neo-con Republicans like Mccain is that they appear to be financially conservative, which in some ways they are, but if he was in office our role in Iraq would be much more significant than it is now and we'd propably have already invaded Iran and be on our way to North Korea. So the money he'd save us in vetos, he'd make up for with massive defense spending.
Click to expand...

supposition is not your friend when trying to discuss facts.
 
Conservative said:
You want to create your own little country, so be it, go for it. We live in a country where the majority dictate policy. When the majority rule in your favor you are all for it but when you disagree with the majority you take the issue to the courts to overturn the will of the majority.
Click to expand...

I still don't know what the hell you are talking about. I have a feeling you are trying to lump me with all liberal and all policies overturned by liberal judges. It's so off the wall I'm just going to ignore it.

"You are so afraid of religion and I don't blame you, I would be too if I were in your shoes. One day you will get the opportunity to explain your position to "your" God."

Don't pretend to know my religion or my "God". I have done much more for the Christian community than you will ever do in your life and you'd be surprised how similar are spiritual beliefs are. Where we disagree is that those beliefs should be implemented into American government. This country was founded on the principle that religion shouldn't dictate our laws and I agree with that. If a gay person is wrong for marrying another gay person that is for God to judge not me. If a person wants to smoke pot in the privacy of their own home, that's not for me to judge based on my own interpretations of religion and sobriety, nor is it for the government to step in and judge. You say you want small government and more freedom, but you contradict that statement at every turn.

"In case you missed it, it was the GOP that passed civil rights, not the Democrats."

Oh lord, here we ago again. Whenever someone says this that's when I know I'm debating someone that is uneducated. Go back and read about how the southern conservative democrats infiltrated the Republican party after the civil rights movement, then get back to me.
 
Whovian said:
supposition is not your friend when trying to discuss facts.
Click to expand...

Trying saying that to your neo-con pals on this forum who also assert that if Mccain was in office the economy would be doing much better and he'd be spending less, instead of just going around and trolling on us "liberals" with the same redundant sentence.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I still don't know what the hell you are talking about. I have a feeling you are trying to lump me with all liberal and all policies overturned by liberal judges. It's so off the wall I'm just going to ignore it.

"You are so afraid of religion and I don't blame you, I would be too if I were in your shoes. One day you will get the opportunity to explain your position to "your" God."

Don't pretend to know my religion or my "God". I have done much more for the Christian community than you will ever do in your life and you'd be surprised how similar are spiritual beliefs are. Where we disagree is that those beliefs should be implemented into American government. This country was founded on the principle that religion shouldn't dictate our laws and I agree with that. If a gay person is wrong for marrying another gay person that is for God to judge not me. If a person wants to smoke pot in the privacy of their own home, that's not for me to judge based on my own interpretations of religion and sobriety, nor is it for the government to step in and judge. You say you want small government and more freedom, but you contradict that statement at every turn.

"In case you missed it, it was the GOP that passed civil rights, not the Democrats."

Oh lord, here we ago again. Whenever someone says this that's when I know I'm debating someone that is uneducated. Go back and read about how the southern conservative democrats infiltrated the Republican party after the civil rights movement, then get back to me.
Click to expand...

No, I will just ask AL Gore how he voted.
 
Conservative said:
Yes he did and so did Obama. I didn't support it so what is your point.
Click to expand...

My point? Are you able to stick with any issues in a debate? You keep making these claims and then I disprove them and then you say "what's your point?" Get your act together. YOU CLAIMED THAT MCAIN DOESN"T SUPPORT EARMARKS, I JUST SHOWED YOU HE DOES, THAT"S MY POINT!!!!! CAN YOU READ THAT!!! IS IT BIG ENOUGH FOR YOU!!!!!
 
Johnny DooWop said:
My point? Are you able to stick with any issues in a debate? You keep making these claims and then I disprove them and then you say "what's your point?" Get your act together. YOU CLAIMED THAT MCAIN DOESN"T SUPPORT EARMARKS, I JUST SHOWED YOU HE DOES, THAT"S MY POINT!!!!! CAN YOU READ THAT!!! IS IT BIG ENOUGH FOR YOU!!!!!
Click to expand...

So your point is that TARP was an earmark? Don't think you know what an earmark is. Getting a little emotional? Sure sign you have lost it.
 
Conservative said:
So your point is that TARP was an earmark? Don't think you know what an earmark is. Getting a little emotional? Sure sign you have lost it.
Click to expand...

Try reading the news.

"But on Wednesday -- in his first vote in months -- McCain voted for earmarks.

In an attempt to woo recalcitrant House Republicans to vote for the $700 billion economic bailout bill, senators loaded it up with earmarks, including $2 million in tax breaks for companies that make wooden arrows for children and millions for U.S. wool producers and auto racetrack owners.

McCain had warned against such a thing happening. In a speech in Michigan before the vote, he said: "It is completely unacceptable for any kind of earmarks to be included in this bill. It would be outrageous for legislators and lobbyists to pack this rescue plan with
taxpayer money for favored companies. This simply cannot happen."

It did. And he voted for it anyway."
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Try reading the news.

"But on Wednesday -- in his first vote in months -- McCain voted for earmarks.

In an attempt to woo recalcitrant House Republicans to vote for the $700 billion economic bailout bill, senators loaded it up with earmarks, including $2 million in tax breaks for companies that make wooden arrows for children and millions for U.S. wool producers and auto racetrack owners.

McCain had warned against such a thing happening. In a speech in Michigan before the vote, he said: "It is completely unacceptable for any kind of earmarks to be included in this bill. It would be outrageous for legislators and lobbyists to pack this rescue plan with
taxpayer money for favored companies. This simply cannot happen."

It did. And he voted for it anyway."
Click to expand...

Did McCain take any earmarks for his state? The TARP bill had earmarks in but what would you expect from a democrat Congress. none of those earmarks to my knowledge went to Arizona and that was the point.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Try reading the news.

"But on Wednesday -- in his first vote in months -- McCain voted for earmarks.

In an attempt to woo recalcitrant House Republicans to vote for the $700 billion economic bailout bill, senators loaded it up with earmarks, including $2 million in tax breaks for companies that make wooden arrows for children and millions for U.S. wool producers and auto racetrack owners.

McCain had warned against such a thing happening. In a speech in Michigan before the vote, he said: "It is completely unacceptable for any kind of earmarks to be included in this bill. It would be outrageous for legislators and lobbyists to pack this rescue plan with
taxpayer money for favored companies. This simply cannot happen."

It did. And he voted for it anyway."
Click to expand...

common courtesy would dictate that when posting an excerpt from a source, a link is included.

However, if that's the game you'd like to play...

McCain officials defend the vote, saying the overall purpose of the bill was worth it despite the earmarks, which they said he still opposes.

"In a national emergency, John McCain was willing to support a legislative compromise that could help protect hardworking families from losing their homes and savings despite the bill's regrettable inclusion of earmarks," spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "However, their addition serves as a perfect example of why Washington is broken, why we need new leadership and why we need John McCain's record of fighting wasteful spending."
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Yep, a game to you is people keeping more of what they earn and spending it as they see fit. I like that game.
Click to expand...

It's not a game. It's about your claim that tax cuts create jobs. When cornered, you change your claim and then try to sneak in back in later.
 
Whovian said:
common courtesy would dictate that when posting an excerpt from a source, a link is included.

However, if that's the game you'd like to play...
Click to expand...

Of course, Mccain is a hero and Obama is a thief. I think I'm beginning to understand the GOP way of thinking.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not a game. It's about your claim that tax cuts create jobs. When cornered, you change your claim and then try to sneak in back in later.
Click to expand...

As stated, after the tax cuts jobs were created. That is a proven fact.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Of course, Mccain is a hero and Obama is a thief. I think I'm beginning to understand the GOP way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Make sure that you watch all those Republicans that win next week getting on the "back of the bus" as obama stated. Or calling American citizens the enemy in talking to Hispanics. You don't seem to understand your own way of thinking so why would you think you can figure out anyone else?
 
Conservative said:
As stated, after the tax cuts jobs were created. That is a proven fact.
Click to expand...

As noted, not due to tax cuts. You make a causal relationship error. As noted, we ahve the tax cuts in place and yet have lost jobs. And all of or history shows a mixed bag concerning taxes and the economy. You can't ignore the other facts that rebute your claim.
 
Conservative said:
As stated, after the tax cuts jobs were created. That is a proven fact.
Click to expand...

Printing out money to cover war expenses and depressions has been beneficial for economies too, in the short term. Bush tax cuts hurt the economy in the long term, and that is a fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
As noted, not due to tax cuts. You make a causal relationship error. As noted, we ahve the tax cuts in place and yet have lost jobs. And all of or history shows a mixed bag concerning taxes and the economy. You can't ignore the other facts that rebute your claim.
Click to expand...

Actually, he can; and, mostly, does.
 
Boo Radley said:
As noted, not due to tax cuts. You make a causal relationship error. As noted, we ahve the tax cuts in place and yet have lost jobs. And all of or history shows a mixed bag concerning taxes and the economy. You can't ignore the other facts that rebute your claim.
Click to expand...

I showed that jobs increased with the tax cuts following months where jobs didn't increase when the taxes were higher. It is you that has a problem understanding that reality. Check out the job creation in 2002 vs 2003. Get back to me with the results. The Bush tax rate cuts hit in July 2003, all other taxes were rebates.
 
zip98053 said:
Actually, he can; and, mostly, does.
Click to expand...

Wonder why liberals don't send more of their own money to D.C. instead of forcing others to do it. You think the govt. needs the money more than the individual? Prove it, send more of yours instead of just what is required.
 
Conservative said:
I showed that jobs increased with the tax cuts following months where jobs didn't increase when the taxes were higher. It is you that has a problem understanding that reality. Check out the job creation in 2002 vs 2003. Get back to me with the results. The Bush tax rate cuts hit in July 2003, all other taxes were rebates.
Click to expand...

Read slower. Not due to tax cuts. You have those tax cuts in place right now, and yet jobs were lost. We have history to show other times with other tax cuts and the economy did not improve. We have studies showing that tax cuts do not create jobs. Slow down, read slowly, think about it, address the rebuttal. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom