• 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

When would be the right time to raise taxes? There is no evidence that not raising them will help jobs. In fact, someone has a link to a study showing that it wouldn't. But not taxing will add to the debt. So, logically, based on this, what should we do? How much do we really care about the deficit?

Now is the right time to cut spending. Ditching Obama Care would be a great start. It's a redundent program.

"Uninsured" does NOT mean can't get health care. The HRSA on-line finder has a low cost/no cost Federally funded Health clinics.

Federally-funded health centers care for you, even if you have no health insurance. You pay what you can afford, based on your income. Health centers provide

1. checkups when you're well
2. treatment when you're sick
3. complete care when you're pregnant
4. immunizations and checkups for your children
5. dental care and prescription drugs for your family
6. mental health and substance abuse care if you need it

Health centers are in most cities and many rural areas. Type in your address and click the 'Find Health Centers' button to find health centers near you.

HRSA - Find a Health Center - Search Page

There are many State and County programs you can find on line as well.

Now when you take away all the people with access to these Health Care programs, how many actually have no access.

The clinics aren't as convenient, you may have to wait in line. But, Health Care is out there for those without insurance. I am currently with out health insurance and use my counties health care system for only $10 more than my old insurance co-pay with health net of $25.

If we're going to get a handle on the deficit, spending must be cut. Dumping every one of Obama's advisory panels and Czars along with their staffs would help as well.
 
Last edited:
if it werent for the republicans scaring the crap out of people and telling them that they are going to be paying more taxes, in effect causing democrats poll numbers to drop, basically telling democrats that the tax break issue is too hot to handle at the moment, we would have had this issue solved already.

that's why the party punted?

leadership refused to act cuz it was scared opposition would scare crap outta people, causing dem poll numbers to drop?

that's pathetic

leadership, i mean

meanwhile, america, WAKE UP---YOU ARE LOOKING AT AN INCREASED TAX BILL OF ABOUT 4000 DOLLARS PER YEAR STARTING IN ABOUT 90 DAYS!

see gibbs get grilled for pushing such a lame line---by the likes of CHUCK TODD, CHIP REID, JAKE TAPPER and mara liason

RealClearPolitics - Video - Press Batters Gibbs Over Blaming GOP For No Tax Cuts

we couldn't act on the extension of the bush cuts, which obnoxious obama himself declared must NOT be raised on the middle class in times like these...

we couldn't move, not now, not in lame duck, not on the middle class, not on higher earners...

we can offer NO assurances, no leadership---in times like these---beyond, "we might be able to address something somehow in december..."

and all because REPUBLICANS WILL SCARE CRAP OUTTA PEOPLE

LOL!

THIS is competent leadership to you, to anyone?

wow
 
It's all about economics, put that tax break money into people who will actually spend it ( middle class) verus people who will just save it ( because economic times are uncertain) and you can expect that demand will increase ( now that people have more money to spend) and that will therefore create a demand for work. Thus more jobs.

then why did the party punt?
 
Now is the right time to cut spending. Ditching Obama Care would be a great start. It's a redundent program.

"Uninsured" does NOT mean can't get health care. The HRSA on-line finder has a low cost/no cost Federally funded Health clinics.



There are many State and County programs you can find on line as well.

Now when you take away all the people with access to these Health Care programs, how many actually have no access.

The clinics aren't as convenient, you may have to wait in line. But, Health Care is out there for those without insurance. I am currently with out health insurance and use my counties health care system for only $10 more than my old insurance co-pay with health net of $25.

If we're going to get a handle on the deficit, spending must be cut. Dumping every one of Obama's advisory panels and Czars along with their staffs would help as well.

Well, you're clearly not too familiar with how those clinics actually work. Some of that care is as bad or worse than having no care. But they cost as well. And we pay. This is important to understand. Even doing nothing means we pay, just less effectively, payong more for less.

And yes, spending must be cut (an taxes raised selectively). We agree on that. But we should not cut spending that helps. We should cut spending that isn't needed as much. I would much rather pay for health care and stop spending on two needless wars, . .. for example.
 
Last edited:
What you also forgot to mention was that during 2000-2006 Republicans held all three branches of government under their control, and the deficit increased at a rate never seen before in history.


Yes. And what were the circumstances at that time?

Clinton handed Bush a recession that was exacerbated by 9/11.
We were at war in two different countries at the same time (whether you agree with the wars or not is irrelevant)
And toward the end the scheme invented, and defended by demo's to give out home loans based on nothing was crumbling despite efforts by repubs to warn congress what was happening.

Nice try at rewriting history there....

Oh, now your going to say, but Obama-Reid-Pelosi did it too, what you also forgot to mention is that Bush left us with an economy that was losing 750,000 jobs A MONTH, and something needed to be done.

What is the net number of jobs gained for Obama's term so far?

By basic principles of economics, the best thing you can do in a recession is cut taxes, and increase government spending.

What specific tax cuts are you referring to?

hat's exactly what he did, and to make money, you have to spend money, So he spent money.... and its now paying off.

Really? In what parallel universe?

The stimulus took effect in Febuary '09, give it about 4-5 months to take effect and the number of jobs lost significantly increased, and we actually created jobs. Since that time, we have had 8 months of consecutive job creation IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

That is a pure lie. There has not been one month during the Obama Presidency that can boast a net jobs creation gain against filed unemployment for any particular month. These are merely more pap and talking point rhetoric designed to deceive the American public. Looks like you fell for it.


Main point is: Democrats deficit spend less than republicans, when republicans deficit spend its because we are at war

Yep, a war Obama is not intent on winning. You libs are amazing. You hounded Bush for the entire 8 years over war time spending, when during that time this excuse of yours here, would have never flown......:lamo

or need to give tax breaks to the rich people

See here is the big lie. You say that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich people, then in almost the same breath you talk of extending the tax cuts for the middle class...:shock: It really is nothing but class warfare crap.

and when democrats do deficit spend, it is because it's nessecary,or we need to give taxes breaks to the middle class( which is usually in time of an economic crisis to stimulate the economy) take for example this recession.

Obama has had more deficit spending in his first 20 months than ALL Presidents prior combined!!!!!!


j-mac
 
Despite the Republican scoffing, Obama’s claims are backed up by the historical record — mostly.

■Budget surplus in 2000: The Congressional Budget Office reported on Nov. 14, 2000, in its Monthly Budget Review: "Fiscal year 2000 ended with a total budget surplus of $237 billion."
■Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, that black ink had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, days before Obama’s inauguration. Update Feb 5: The $1.2 trillion projection would have been $966 billion had CBO been accounting for mortgage losses then the way they were eventually treated in the official deficit figures. See clarification below.
So the president actually understated matters regarding annual surpluses and deficits for years past, but he may have strained the facts when he spoke of what was being predicted for future years at the time he assumed office. He said he inherited a projected 10-year deficit of $8 trillion. But at the time, CBO projected only a $3.1 trillion deficit over 10 years (Table 4, page 15).

In fairness, that CBO figure assumed that all of President Bush’s tax cuts would be allowed to expire on schedule. And in reality, Obama and congressional Democrats supported extending many of the cuts, while Republicans supported extending all of them. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts would add another $2.9 trillion to that (Table 7, page 22), for a total of $6 trillion — still short of Obama’s claim.

Obama’s State of the Union Address | FactCheck.org

Browse > Home / The FactCheck Wire / A Texas-size Whopper
A Texas-size Whopper
February 1, 2010
Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, at a nationally televised meeting of House Republicans in Baltimore, accused President Obama to his face of running up deficits a dozen times greater than the GOP’s. The president said, "That’s factually just not true, and you know it’s not true," and he invited "any independent fact-checker out there" to assess which man got the facts right.

OK, we will.

We have to score this one for Obama. Hensarling told a Texas-size whopper — and then tried to claim Republican credit for Blll Clinton’s budget surpluses.

A Texas-size Whopper | FactCheck.org

Just saying . . . .
 
Well, you're clearly not too familiar with how those clinics actually work. Some of that care is as bad or worse than having no care. But they cost as well. And we pay. This is important to understand. Even doing nothing means we pay, just less effectively, payong more for less.

And yes, spending must be cut (an taxes raised selectively). We agree on that. But we should not cut spending that helps. We should cut spending that isn't needed as much. I would much rather pay for health care and stop spending on two needless wars, . .. for example.


Joe, two questions if I could....

1. What do you see is the end perception in the world should the US just abandon its efforts in the ME?

2. How do we know that the HC law from Obama will help? Do you even know everything that is in it yet?

Instead of regurgitating talking points from the DNC, and Daily KOS how about you actually explain what will happen should these policies that so far have failed, will help?


j-mac
 
Despite the Republican scoffing, Obama’s claims are backed up by the historical record — mostly.

■Budget surplus in 2000: The Congressional Budget Office reported on Nov. 14, 2000, in its Monthly Budget Review: "Fiscal year 2000 ended with a total budget surplus of $237 billion."
■Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, that black ink had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, days before Obama’s inauguration. Update Feb 5: The $1.2 trillion projection would have been $966 billion had CBO been accounting for mortgage losses then the way they were eventually treated in the official deficit figures. See clarification below.
So the president actually understated matters regarding annual surpluses and deficits for years past, but he may have strained the facts when he spoke of what was being predicted for future years at the time he assumed office. He said he inherited a projected 10-year deficit of $8 trillion. But at the time, CBO projected only a $3.1 trillion deficit over 10 years (Table 4, page 15).

In fairness, that CBO figure assumed that all of President Bush’s tax cuts would be allowed to expire on schedule. And in reality, Obama and congressional Democrats supported extending many of the cuts, while Republicans supported extending all of them. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts would add another $2.9 trillion to that (Table 7, page 22), for a total of $6 trillion — still short of Obama’s claim.

Obama’s State of the Union Address | FactCheck.org

Browse > Home / The FactCheck Wire / A Texas-size Whopper
A Texas-size Whopper
February 1, 2010
Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, at a nationally televised meeting of House Republicans in Baltimore, accused President Obama to his face of running up deficits a dozen times greater than the GOP’s. The president said, "That’s factually just not true, and you know it’s not true," and he invited "any independent fact-checker out there" to assess which man got the facts right.

OK, we will.

We have to score this one for Obama. Hensarling told a Texas-size whopper — and then tried to claim Republican credit for Blll Clinton’s budget surpluses.

A Texas-size Whopper | FactCheck.org

Just saying . . . .


Wow!, just Wow! You really must think that the American people are stupid.


j-mac
 
Joe, two questions if I could....

1. What do you see is the end perception in the world should the US just abandon its efforts in the ME?

2. How do we know that the HC law from Obama will help? Do you even know everything that is in it yet?

Instead of regurgitating talking points from the DNC, and Daily KOS how about you actually explain what will happen should these policies that so far have failed, will help?


j-mac

1. Nothing. I'm not and have never said we don't take concern for the ME seriously. Just not recklessly. Our wars have done nothing to protect our interests or make us safer. Especially in Iraq all we did is help our eneimes. It was a stupid and reckless war. And our interests would have been better served without that reckless war.

2. We know plenty about the bill. It needs improvement, and a public option would have been a far better help. But, we had to have a first step, or we'd have been left with noting yet again. Republicans give lip serivce to this issue. In all the years they were in power, nothing of substance or actual help was ever passed.

And j, I don't reguritate, especially from things I never read. And you've shown time and again that you don't like explination for it is too nuanced for you. ;) :lamo
 
Wow!, just Wow! You really must think that the American people are stupid.


j-mac

No, I think you and people like Palin think the public is stupid. You believe you can throw any wild claim out and that no one will ever look to see if it is true.
 
1. Nothing. I'm not and have never said we don't take concern for the ME seriously.

First off, did I say you did? Um nooooo, I don't think I did Mr. Strawman....

Our wars have done nothing to protect our interests or make us safer. Especially in Iraq all we did is help our eneimes. It was a stupid and reckless war.

We are all aware of your dislike of the Iraq war, and your dismay that we actually won it.

And our interests would have been better served without that reckless war.

Opinions matter not in this case, the war is over, and we won.

So you really didn't answer this question at all, no surprise. Care to try again and actually answer the question?

We know plenty about the bill.

But you still don't know everything that is in it do you?

It needs improvement, and a public option would have been a far better help.

The so called "Public Option" was a lie. A rouse to actual government take over.

But, we had to have a first step, or we'd have been left with noting yet again.

So you admit that the current HC plan by demo's was nothing more than incrementalism toward the end of total government control. Thanks.

Republicans give lip serivce to this issue.

Republicans are not in total power like the demo's are, what are they supposed to do?

In all the years they were in power, nothing of substance or actual help was ever passed.

That sir is a talking point lie. You'll believe anything won't you?

And j, I don't reguritate, especially from things I never read.

Sure you do, the evidence of that is in your posting style, and substance.

And you've shown time and again that you don't like explination for it is too nuanced for you.

Nuance is an important when explaining something, however it is all too often used by the liberal left as a tool to disseminate information and hide true intent.

j-mac
 
No, I think you and people like Palin think the public is stupid. You believe you can throw any wild claim out and that no one will ever look to see if it is true.

And in some wise words I listened to at one time..."All one has to do to understand what your political opponent from the far left is up to, is to listen to what they accuse you of doing....." -Author unknown.

j-mac
 
And in some wise words I listened to at one time..."All one has to do to understand what your political opponent from the far left is up to, is to listen to what they accuse you of doing....." -Author unknown.

j-mac

Now we need a definitin of wise for you. Nothing wise has "the left" or the "right" (who ever any of them are) within the statement. :lamo
 
Well, you're clearly not too familiar with how those clinics actually work. Some of that care is as bad or worse than having no care. But they cost as well. And we pay. This is important to understand. Even doing nothing means we pay, just less effectively, payong more for less.

And yes, spending must be cut (an taxes raised selectively). We agree on that. But we should not cut spending that helps. We should cut spending that isn't needed as much. I would much rather pay for health care and stop spending on two needless wars, . .. for example.

I use the county clinic in my area as I am underemployed in the Obama depression.

Some of that care is as bad or worse than having no care.

May we see some proof of your assertion or should we assume your talking out of your backside?
 
First off, did I say you did? Um nooooo, I don't think I did Mr. Strawman....

No, you're speakg to me, asking me the question and not 'the left," whoever they are. So, I answer you.

We are all aware of your dislike of the Iraq war, and your dismay that we actually won it.

Won what? Excessive debt? Thousands of lives lost? Helped our enemy? For what? You have a funny definition of winning. (BTW, referees don't win. Just thought you should know.)



Opinions matter not in this case, the war is over, and we won.

So you really didn't answer this question at all, no surprise. Care to try again and actually answer the question?

More, "I don't liek the answer so I'll complain that it wasn't answered. Try again. What part of the complete answer don't you get?

But you still don't know everything that is in it do you?

I'm not too confused on it. No. I might have missed a period here or there, but have a pretty good working understanding of it.


The so called "Public Option" was a lie. A rouse to actual government take over.

Say who? The American nonThinker? Beck? Which vile hateful misinformed garbage voice told you that?

So you admit that the current HC plan by demo's was nothing more than incrementalism toward the end of total government control. Thanks.

No. That too is your very biased and uninformed world view. It is a first step in reform.

Republicans are not in total power like the demo's are, what are they supposed to do?

Participate. But I spoke to when they were in complete control.

That sir is a talking point lie. You'll believe anything won't you?

Nope. Truth. No meaningful reform in their tenure. Helping drug companies is not meaningful reform.

Sure you do, the evidence of that is in your posting style, and substance.

Says the American nonThinker poster. :lamo

Nuance is an important when explaining something, however it is all too often used by the liberal left as a tool to disseminate information and hide true intent.

j-mac

Or, more accurately, something to give you an excuse not to address the actual points, as you do with the answer to first question. Again, it is not a choise or either be reckless and invade these countries or abandon the ME. You ask a question on the assumption of a false choice. When someone tries to point this out and answer your question honestly, which means your false choice isn't going to be treated as valid, you go off on not being answered. that sir is disingenuous.
 
Now we need a definitin of wise for you. Nothing wise has "the left" or the "right" (who ever any of them are) within the statement. :lamo


As if you don't know whom they are....Joe, I will only educate you once on this so pay attention. You, are on the political left, while I am on the political right. Got it?


j-mac
 
As if you don't know whom they are....Joe, I will only educate you once on this so pay attention. You, are on the political left, while I am on the political right. Got it?


j-mac

Are you saying you speak all who lean right and I speak for all who lean left, with no disagreement on any issue? That's stupid.
 
No, you're speakg to me, asking me the question and not 'the left," whoever they are. So, I answer you.

Ok, make it real simple then...you're a teacher of sorts, show me what I said, juxt opposed with your answer and explain how I said what prompted your answer then, would you?

More, "I don't liek the answer so I'll complain that it wasn't answered. Try again. What part of the complete answer don't you get?

It's entirety, try again.

I'm not too confused on it. No. I might have missed a period here or there, but have a pretty good working understanding of it.

So you admit that Health Care is a wealth redistribution scheme? Baucus says it is....



Say who? The American nonThinker? Beck? Which vile hateful misinformed garbage voice told you that?


Says your very own Max Baucus....view the clip.

No. That too is your very biased and uninformed world view. It is a first step in reform.

Reform to what? Oh and leave the talking points out of the answer if you can.

Participate. But I spoke to when they were in complete control.

How does one participate when you are locked out?

Nope. Truth. No meaningful reform in their tenure. Helping drug companies is not meaningful reform.

Rewriting history is not your strong suit.

Says the American nonThinker poster.

Says the man that relies on Ariana Huffington.:lamo

Or, more accurately, something to give you an excuse not to address the actual points, as you do with the answer to first question. Again, it is not a choise or either be reckless and invade these countries or abandon the ME. You ask a question on the assumption of a false choice. When someone tries to point this out and answer your question honestly, which means your false choice isn't going to be treated as valid, you go off on not being answered. that sir is disingenuous.

No, no false choice to it. You use nuance to mask what you say so that when called on it you can weasel out of your own words because to you they really mean nothing. I on the other hand say what I mean, and like a man stand behind them. You should try it sometime.


j-mac
 
Ok, make it real simple then...you're a teacher of sorts, show me what I said, juxt opposed with your answer and explain how I said what prompted your answer then, would you?

Your question:1. What do you (me) see is the end perception in the world should the US just abandon its efforts in the ME?

This implies I have suggest we abandon efforts in the ME, something I have not endorsed. Again, simple as this is, it is a false choice to suggest either we do the reckless or we abandon.



It's entirety, try again
.

Entirely what? That you don't like the answer? I agree.

So you admit that Health Care is a wealth redistribution scheme? Baucus says it is....

Again, no. No one who is serious at all says this. This is more from the idiot class than anyone doing any real thinking. Baucus likely knows his audience.


Reform to what? Oh and leave the talking points out of the answer if you can.

And here we have the 'anything that doesn't pariot j's personal view is a talking point." Gottcha.

Reform. Better access. And if possible at less cost, or at least more value for the money. Remember, our costs have been going up with less and less access and less and less coverage.

How does one participate when you are locked out?

They weren't locked out from day one. Republicans got there when they showed clearly that they would not participate in good faith.

Rewriting history is not your strong suit.

That's why I don't do it. There was no meaningful health care reform during the republican temure in office.

Says the man that relies on Ariana Huffington.:lamo

?????? Do you have me confused with someone else again?

No, no false choice to it. You use nuance to mask what you say so that when called on it you can weasel out of your own words because to you they really mean nothing. I on the other hand say what I mean, and like a man stand behind them. You should try it sometime.


j-mac

Again, that's just false. And while you do stay firm to the nonsense you espouse, as silly as it is, you refuse to move enough to actually consider what is being argued. You misread and misunderstand because you're too blinded by partisan ideaology. Seeing the world as an us versus them proposition prevents you form honestly taking in and considering an argument, so you have to make claims like the one above. Sadly.
 
Your question:1. What do you (me) see is the end perception in the world should the US just abandon its efforts in the ME?

This implies I have suggest we abandon efforts in the ME, something I have not endorsed. Again, simple as this is, it is a false choice to suggest either we do the reckless or we abandon.

Oh here we go....Are we even talking now Joe? later on I am sure the sands will shift should you be caught red faced.

Entirely what? That you don't like the answer? I agree.

yep, I generally don't like dishonest foolishness.

Again, no. No one who is serious at all says this. This is more from the idiot class than anyone doing any real thinking. Baucus likely knows his audience.

So now C-SPAN is lying when they show Baucus in his own words? You didn't even watch it did you?:lamo


Reform. Better access. And if possible at less cost, or at least more value for the money. Remember, our costs have been going up with less and less access and less and less coverage.

Access being the buzz word. Access is not the real problem. cost is.

They weren't locked out from day one. Republicans got there when they showed clearly that they would not participate in good faith.

Ofcourse they were. to participate in good faith you have to be participating with honorable people. that is not today's liberal.

Do you have me confused with someone else again?

Nope, you just used HuffPost today.

Again, that's just false. And while you do stay firm to the nonsense you espouse, as silly as it is, you refuse to move enough to actually consider what is being argued. You misread and misunderstand because you're too blinded by partisan ideaology. Seeing the world as an us versus them proposition prevents you form honestly taking in and considering an argument, so you have to make claims like the one above. Sadly.

And here we have folks, the old "if you don't lean my way, I will dismiss your argument."

Your method is exposed and tired Joe, get a new bag.

j-mac
 
Oh here we go....Are we even talking now Joe? later on I am sure the sands will shift should you be caught red faced.

Your question was to me? explain.

yep, I generally don't like dishonest foolishness.

Then why do you give so much of it? Just asking . . .

So now C-SPAN is lying when they show Baucus in his own words? You didn't even watch it did you?:lamo

This is when I worry about you. no one said C-span was lying or that Bacus didn't say it. the question is why would you accept it as the gospel? Answer: because you want to believe it.

BTW, was your answe above dishonest or silly in its complete misunderstanding?


Access being the buzz word. Access is not the real problem. cost is.

So, when you decide what word is a buzz word, and attach your own meaning to it, as if everyone univerisally attaches that meaning to it, is that honest?

Ofcourse they were. to participate in good faith you have to be participating with honorable people. that is not today's liberal.

There's that partisan ideaology blinding you again. Neither party holds the market on honor or honesty or the high ground in any way. Because you divide the world to us and them, you don't seem to know this.



Nope, you just used HuffPost today.

As a link to a video. I use a lot of sources for various reasons. This was just the first with the video that came up. I never use silly sites like the American nonThinker. That would be like using Moveon.org and not realizing how partisan they are.

And here we have folks, the old "if you don't lean my way, I will dismiss your argument."

Your method is exposed and tired Joe, get a new bag.

j-mac


J, that's what you're doing. I have presented an answer, and insterad of tackling it, you went silly. You still ahven't addressed the answer.
 
More nonsense from the hypocritical left. Get this fact straight--I don't buy into the leftwing Bull poop that individuals should be sacrificed for the leftwing version of "the greater good"

I tire of class envy and spite being concealed by this crap that you all want to jack up taxes to "help society". And I am in the top 1% whether you like it or not and I tire of people like you telling me what I can afford and your crap that the obama tax hikes is only going to result in a 2% decrease in my income is not just stupid it is so inaccurate as to brand you incompetent to even discuss this subject

Yeah, your on the top 1% and here on this forum, I dont think so. Chances are you wish you were in the top 2% making a million dollars a year. Anyway, even if you were, we proved that first off, the Bush Tax Cuts don't work as well as the Clinton Tax cuts when it comes to jobs. Clinton = 23 million in 8 years, Bush = 3 million in 8 years. Sorry, we don't care that your not making that extra 50,000 a year. We all have to pay taxes, and in America, you pay taxes according to your ability to pay. In the 1950's under Eisenhower it was like that, and you conservatives were just fine. So please, quit your complaining.
 
that's why the party punted?



we couldn't act on the extension of the bush cuts, which obnoxious obama himself declared must NOT be raised on the middle class in times like these...

Obnoxious Obama isnt raising taxes on the middle class. He wants to leave the tax cuts for the middle class, and tax the richest top 2% in America. Please, quit spreading lies and get your facts straight.
 
then why did the party punt?

if it werent for the republicans scaring the crap out of people and telling them that they are going to be paying more taxes, in effect causing democrats poll numbers to drop, basically telling democrats that the tax break issue is too hot to handle at the moment, we would have had this issue solved already. I didnt say Democrats had a back bone. Democrats have a big tent, and other democrats don't like democrats acting like republicans, in the sense that they have balls. Republicans are aggressive and don't give a crap about passing something. It's their way or the highway. Democrats won't stand for another democrat acting like that. They want something passed, and if they can compromise and get something, versus nothing, they will do it. Its our own folly. Our own weakness is ourselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom