• 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

TurtleDude said:
the point that was obvious to most people was that government action doesn't create private sector jobs
Click to expand...

Wrong again... The government has contracts with dozens of private companies that do their own hiring. Ever heard of Martin or Boeing

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Wrong again... The government has contracts with dozens of private companies that do their own hiring. Ever heard of Martin or Boeing

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

No I have never heard of Martin or Boeing

geeez
 
TurtleDude said:
the point that was obvious to most people was that government action doesn't create private sector jobs
Click to expand...

The level of wrong coming from you is pretty astounding.

By your argument, government action in providing loans to nuclear power means that all of the jobs in nuclear power plants built by public financing don't actually exist. I guess you should tell Utahbill he actually doesn't have a job because government action created his private sector job.

Without government action, there would be no private sector nuclear. Period.

Solar subsidies are creating huge number of jobs. That's government action. The entire defense industry is centered around government action.

You are so wrong on this point it's not even funny.

No I have never heard of Martin or Boeing
Click to expand...

Totally not surprising.
 
The Prof said:
oh, govt creates jobs, alright

at 2 million dollars per pop

Employment generation disappointing: LA City Controller - International Business Times

way to go, barry!
Click to expand...

Nice double fail there prof:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...bs-2nd-quarter-cbo-says-5.html#post1058992941

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...bs-2nd-quarter-cbo-says-5.html#post1058992945

Tell me, the US buys 100 F-15s from Boeing. Boeing hires 45 people to build the plans. Have only 45 jobs been created? Let's see if you can answer this intelligently.
 
Last edited:
wendy greuel's dept of transportation TARGETED a total of 26 jobs to be created or saved at a cost of 40.8 million stimu... err, recovery act dollars

1.57M per position

sadly, the city of angels flew far short of this lofty goal

only 9 workers were brought in for the 40.8 price tag, a BOTTOM LINE of 4.56M per worker

ah, but if you include the hotdog vendor who's making a killing, hawking 9 frankfurters a day outside the plant...

LOL!

why can't obtuse obama utter the dread s-word?

Echo Chamber: The new S-word? - Alexander Trowbridge - POLITICO.com

let's see who can answer without getting obnoxious
 
ricksfolly said:
Wrong again... The government has contracts with dozens of private companies that do their own hiring. Ever heard of Martin or Boeing
ricksfolly
Click to expand...
Sounds like an argument for stimulating the economy by increaing defense procurement.
 
typical cherry picking by the LA CITY CONTROLLER

she's the one doing all the talking (except for you)

apparently the city of angels fell for it

why can't obama pronounce the s-word?
 
The Democrats really need to grow a pair of balls. The bottom line is that spending must be cut and taxes must be raised. The deficit is just too big
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Nice double fail there prof:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...bs-2nd-quarter-cbo-says-5.html#post1058992941

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...bs-2nd-quarter-cbo-says-5.html#post1058992945

Tell me, the US buys 100 F-15s from Boeing. Boeing hires 45 people to build the plans. Have only 45 jobs been created? Let's see if you can answer this intelligently.
Click to expand...

PROF, why are you ignoring this post doesn't exist?

Maybe because you know you are wrong and too immature to admit it?
 
Teh Internets said:
The Democrats really need to grow a pair of balls. The bottom line is that spending must be cut and taxes must be raised. The deficit is just too big
Click to expand...

Actually, if spending were to be cut, to match the revenue income, there wouldn't be a deficit. But, that would make too much sense.
 
apdst said:
Actually, if spending were to be cut, to match the revenue income, there wouldn't be a deficit. But, that would make too much sense.
Click to expand...

Of course we can't all live in la la land. Cutting spending to meet current government revenues is not only impossible, but (or because) the result would be catastrophic to our economy and society.

If you think otherwise, post your budget here.

Please that think the deficit issues can be solved by only cutting expenses or only by increasing taxes lack a command of the issue.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
I always love it when people try to post these charts as proof that Trickle down economics works. However, you fail to take into account 2 huge things. First of all, the population and therefore total revenue increases every year as a result of new people in the population. However, ever bigger, you fail to address the fact that while Reagan cut taxes in half for the richest Americans, he doubled taxes on the middle class.
Click to expand...

You failed to take into account one very huge thing.... proof of your allegations. I posted proof, you posted opinions.
 
Its WONDERFUL to see all these democrats in this thread caring about the "Debt" and deficits and fiscal responsability. Absolutely wonderful.

Now put your money where your mouth is and agree that if the Republicans agree to going along with allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for the top percentile of people that you'll also cut the budget by the same amount of money that we're supposed to "save" a year by not giving those tax cuts.

I mean, you all care so much about the debt and fiscal responsability, lets see you actually support BOTH sides of fiscal responsability other than simply "take take take".
 
Zyphlin said:
Its WONDERFUL to see all these democrats in this thread caring about the "Debt" and deficits and fiscal responsability. Absolutely wonderful.

Now put your money where your mouth is and agree that if the Republicans agree to going along with allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for the top percentile of people that you'll also cut the budget by the same amount of money that we're supposed to "save" a year by not giving those tax cuts.

I mean, you all care so much about the debt and fiscal responsability, lets see you actually support BOTH sides of fiscal responsability other than simply "take take take".
Click to expand...

What you propose is not easy, but probably necessary for the long term health of the country. The unfortunate fact is that we cannot afford to help everyone, so I would support cutting services as appropriate.
 
upsideguy said:
Of course we can't all live in la la land. Cutting spending to meet current government revenues is not only impossible, but (or because) the result would be catastrophic to our economy and society.

If you think otherwise, post your budget here.

Please that think the deficit issues can be solved by only cutting expenses or only by increasing taxes lack a command of the issue.
Click to expand...


If raising taxes is a necessary evil, which I am not so sure that as a result of Obama's foot loose spending spree of the last 18 months it isn't, then how is it not part of the equation to cut spending at the same time?

j-mac
 
The "cost" of the tax cuts for the "wealthy" is somewhere around $700 billion over ten years, according to Obama. I've also heard that the "cost" of tax cuts for everyone else is somewhere around $2 trillion over ten years. We (and when I say we, I mean democrats and moderate republicans) were willing to spend $800 billion all at once to bail out actual wealthy people who made bad investments, but we aren't willing to "spend" $70 billion a year to make more capital available to the people who earned said capital.

Personally, I think Obama's numbers are bogus. Pure class warfare and demagoguery. Yes, that's my opinion.
 
apdst said:
Actually, if spending were to be cut, to match the revenue income, there wouldn't be a deficit. But, that would make too much sense.
Click to expand...

but the dems cannot buy votes with that strategy. they cannot play class warfare or enable the handout addicts
 
Gill said:
You failed to take into account one very huge thing.... proof of your allegations. I posted proof, you posted opinions.
Click to expand...

They are known facts. Are you seriously trying to argue that the population and therefore total revenue doesn't increase every year? Hello....anybody home.

And do your own research on Reaganonmics. You will see that while Reagan cut taxes in half for the top 1%, he doubled taxes on the middle class.
 
disneydude said:
They are known facts. Are you seriously trying to argue that the population and therefore total revenue doesn't increase every year? Hello....anybody home.

And do your own research on Reaganonmics. You will see that while Reagan cut taxes in half for the top 1%, he doubled taxes on the middle class.
Click to expand...

good move-the middle class uses far more in government services than it pays in taxes. Maybe if the middle class had to pay for what it uses, they would put the brakes on runaway government.
 
TurtleDude said:
good move-the middle class uses far more in government services than it pays in taxes. Maybe if the middle class had to pay for what it uses, they would put the brakes on runaway government.
Click to expand...

What we do know....if that after Reagan, the concept of a one-parent working family was a thing of the past. It became a reality that both parents working became a necessity rather than a luxury...and yet....the Republican party wants to claim that they are the party of "family values". Puh-lease.....the GOP has done more to destroy the family unit than gay marriage ever would.
 
first orszag (who the instant he escaped the white house announced his recommendation that the bush tax cuts be extended to all americans, in times like these), then romer, now this:

The Obama Presidency. Minute by Minute | POLITICO 44

white house announces today summers is gone

what do you think it all means?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom