• 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

Obamanator said:
Granted... the group you belong too and/or advocate for; pays federal taxes on their booze and tobacco. Thats just about all the TAX they pay the feds. But then it kinda goes against the grain to pay income taxes on money the govt gives you... from others who earn it for you.
Click to expand...

Do you believe 47% fall into that category? If so, the entire gap thing is getting even larger than I think.
 
Boo Radley said:
Do you believe 47% fall into that category? If so, the entire gap thing is getting even larger than I think.
Click to expand...


That's what happens when the populace discovers that they can vote themselves riches from the treasury....Oh, and it's also the downfall of society.

j-mac
 
Obamanator said:
Granted... the group you belong too and/or advocate for; pays federal taxes on their booze and tobacco. Thats just about all the TAX they pay the feds. But then it kinda goes against the grain to pay income taxes on money the govt gives you... from others who earn it for you.
Click to expand...

If you fill out your 1040 correctly, and don't make any mistakes, the IRS auditor will figure it all out for you.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
If you fill out your 1040 correctly, and don't make any mistakes, the IRS auditor will figure it all out for you.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Has anyone noticed that Obama supporters don't have any successes they can hang their hat on over the past two years thus can only divert from what they have failed to do and the disaster they have created? We have an election in a week (I already voted early) and Democrats can offer nothing to vote for as they continue to play the class warfare card and continue to keep people dependent for the source of their power. Let's see, if I were one of those 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes wonder how I would vote on issues of raising taxes on others while keeping my benefits in tact? Hmmm
 
j-mac said:
That's what happens when the populace discovers that they can vote themselves riches from the treasury....Oh, and it's also the downfall of society.

j-mac
Click to expand...

How do you think dems buy the votes of the 6-7 posters on this forum who spend hours clamoring for tax increases on "the rich"
 
Conservative said:
Has anyone noticed that Obama supporters don't have any successes they can hang their hat on over the past two years thus can only divert from what they have failed to do and the disaster they have created?
Click to expand...

Probably true in part, but the Reps don't have any solutions either. Just the usual tax cuts, and scatter-shot blame.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Probably true in part, but the Reps don't have any solutions either. Just the usual tax cuts, and scatter-shot blame.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Haven't been paying any attention, I see, check out Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America. Much of the Republican agenda is repealing the far left legislation and putting people back to work by re-focusing on the private sector where the jobs have to be created.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
 
TurtleDude said:
Libs such as you try to create a facade that society needs punitive tax rates
Click to expand...

Calling taxation "punitive" begs the question - you're trying to evade having to defend your position by simply defining the alternative as a punishment. I could play the same game, insisting that "cons such as you" insist that society needs "punitive tax cuts." But I would rather discuss this on a rational level - if you're not up for it, just say so.

TurtleDude said:
for the "good of society" or for "economic viability" when in reality, your true motivation is to punish the rich out of some warped sense of "social justice".
Click to expand...

I can tell you my motivations if you're interested, but I don't see how they're relevant to a policy discussion - especially if you're just going to pretend you're telepathic and call me a liar with no basis.

TurtleDude said:
This is why no matter what the evidence is you will continue to blather that tax cuts for people who already pay 40% of the federal income taxes while using less than a couple percent of the services paid for by those taxes aren't paying "enough".
Click to expand...

I haven't memorized the specific figures, so I can accept the general range you cite for the purposes of immediate discussion. But I think we can reasonably say that the problem stems from our approaching the issue from different standards: You seem to place greater value in the numerical rate than its effect on the lifestyle of the taxpayer. What, other than ego, is affected by half (or 60%, or 70%, or 80%) of a $500 million income being devoted to public responsibilities?

TurtleDude said:
You are impervious to reality because what Truly motivates you is a burning desire to either afflict the comfortable or to salve your own sense of hurt that you have totally failed to be successful.
Click to expand...

Feel free to ask me what my motives are, instead of wallowing in bitter ego-trip fantasies. But feel even freer to talk about the issues in a calm and civil way - we do much better by our country that way.

ricksfolly said:
Years ago a political cartoon showed a donkey being fed hay by a rich plutocrat and a ragged looking tax payer at the other end holding a bucket that said Trickle down.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the context of the cartoon, but it seems about right. Trickle-down (aka, laissez-faire) is basically manorialism.
 
j-mac said:
That's what happens when the populace discovers that they can vote themselves riches from the treasury....Oh, and it's also the downfall of society.

j-mac
Click to expand...

:lol: :lamo People can't and don't do that. You guys have to stop drinking the koolaid. :lamo :lol:
 
Boo Radley said:
Good thing I don't put much stock in your opinion. I'm just saying . . . . . :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
Has anyone noticed that Obama supporters don't have any successes they can hang their hat on over the past two years thus can only divert from what they have failed to do and the disaster they have created? We have an election in a week (I already voted early) and Democrats can offer nothing to vote for as they continue to play the class warfare card and continue to keep people dependent for the source of their power. Let's see, if I were one of those 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes wonder how I would vote on issues of raising taxes on others while keeping my benefits in tact? Hmmm
Click to expand...

I voted for Obama because I believed he would get us out of these pointless, messy wars, and that's already happening in Iraq and will happen in Afghanistan in about two years. Also I voted for him so he could put some regulations on these health insurance companies who don't want to insure people with preexisting conditions and want to drop people form their policies who get cancer, and he has done this. And I also voted for him so he could implement some other regulations in wall street and to the banks. He has done all of this, so I am happy with my vote.

And if you believe John Mccain and Sarah Palin could have fixed the economy in two years, I have some beach front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I voted for Obama because I believed he would get us out of these pointless, messy wars, and that's already happening in Iraq and will happen in Afghanistan in about two years. Also I voted for him so he could put some regulations on these health insurance companies who don't want to insure people with preexisting conditions and want to drop people form their policies who get cancer, and he has done this. And I also voted for him so he could implement some other regulations in wall street and to the banks. He has done all of this, so I am happy with my vote.

And if you believe John Mccain and Sarah Palin could have fixed the economy in two years, I have some beach front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
Click to expand...

I find it humorous that people who voted for Obama to get us out of wars are happy that he Increased our troop levels about 3x in afghanistan. I want all troops out now. No more waste of our kids and our treasure of this BS.
As to HC have you noticee that insurance stocks are up since it passed. Yes insurance companies will have to insure people with pre-existing conditions. What you fail to mention is that the bill does not put any limit on the rate they can charge. So saying someone can have a policy but it will cost $100K a year may not do much good for anyone. Just a good campaign slogan.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I voted for Obama because I believed he would get us out of these pointless, messy wars, and that's already happening in Iraq and will happen in Afghanistan in about two years. Also I voted for him so he could put some regulations on these health insurance companies who don't want to insure people with preexisting conditions and want to drop people form their policies who get cancer, and he has done this. And I also voted for him so he could implement some other regulations in wall street and to the banks. He has done all of this, so I am happy with my vote.

And if you believe John Mccain and Sarah Palin could have fixed the economy in two years, I have some beach front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
Click to expand...

It has been more than two years and the economy today is worse than it was last year as actual numbers show. We are not out of Iraq but Obama is implementing the Bush Doctrine. He has expanded the war in Afghanistan and defied the requests of his commanders on the ground by giving them less troops than they requested, firing his own hand selected commander, and then bringing back the Bush selected commander to save him in Afghanistan.

I keep hearing about how Bush drove the car into the ditch and it is amazing that the Democrats were in that car. Further actual economic numbers don't show that economic disaster that Obama claims he inherited. Obama has been in the Congress that helped drive the car into the ditch and the recession didn't begin until the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007. That recession began in December 2007 and prior to that we had 52 straight months of strong economic growth and job creation.

I base my statements on data from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Dept. All are non partisan and I suggest you do some research of those sites and you will see that my statements are accurate. The economy that Obama "inherited" is the one he helped create and we would be much better off today with a pro growth, pro business economic policy than the one he implemented.

The facts are 4 million more unemployed today than when Obama took office, higher unemployment each month of 2010 than in 2009 the year the recession ended, 1.6% economic growth, 1.29 trillion added to the debt. I don't think that McCain/Palin would have generated those numbers.
 
washunut said:
I find it humorous that people who voted for Obama to get us out of wars are happy that he Increased our troop levels about 3x in afghanistan. I want all troops out now. No more waste of our kids and our treasure of this BS.
As to HC have you noticee that insurance stocks are up since it passed. Yes insurance companies will have to insure people with pre-existing conditions. What you fail to mention is that the bill does not put any limit on the rate they can charge. So saying someone can have a policy but it will cost $100K a year may not do much good for anyone. Just a good campaign slogan.
Click to expand...

Not only that the statement "if you like your insurance and your doctor you can keep them" is totally bogus if that insurance company or doctor go out of business or drop coverage. Costs are up as were predicted as you cannot add 30 million new people to the roles and have a lower cost. Some just don't get it and cannot think because they want to buy the rhetoric.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I voted for Obama because I believed he would get us out of these pointless, messy wars, and that's already happening in Iraq and will happen in Afghanistan in about two years.
Click to expand...

Let me know where you got your crystal ball... I'd like one too. Also, last time I looked he was sending about 30,000 more your soldiers to war. What about that?

Also I voted for him so he could put some regulations on these health insurance companies who don't want to insure people with preexisting conditions and want to drop people form their policies who get cancer, and he has done this.
Click to expand...

So what do you do when your employer cancels your health insurance coverage and you can't afford the higher premiums insurance companies are now charging for an individual policy? Is the next step a new law to require employers carry health insurance for their workers? What about the cost to taxpayers... Douglas Holtz-Eakin,former Director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, wrote in his Mar. 20, 2010 New York Times op-ed "The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform": "In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion..."

And I also voted for him so he could implement some other regulations in wall street and to the banks. He has done all of this, so I am happy with my vote.
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me... and tell how these new banking laws are going to help you and me??
 
Conservative said:
I don't think that McCain/Palin would have generated those numbers.
Click to expand...

Did I tell you about that beach front property in Arizona I have for sale? I think you'd be interested in purchasing it. The only man who could have fixed this recession in two years was crucified about 2000 years ago.

BTW, the combat mission in Iraq has ended. The increase in troops in Afghanistan is to try to suppress insurgent activity to a level that can be then maintained by the Afghanis when we leave in two years. Compare both of these things with John Mccains "We will be in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it takes." I'd take Obama's foreign policy over Mccains neo-con policy any day.

Furthermore, I never said anything about whether Repubs or Dems caused the recession, you just completely imagined that and started arguing for a point I never made. Take your meds dude. And you claim you are bi-partisan but don't recognize that Repubs are just as guilty for the recession as the dems?

As for your "pro growth, pro business economic policy", how many times have we seen that strategy lead to bubble economies that eventually bust and dangerous deregulation that leads to things like subprime loans derivatives?
 
Johnny DooWop said:
BTW, the combat mission in Iraq has ended.

The increase in troops in Afghanistan is to try to suppress insurgent activity to a level that can be then maintained by the Afghanis when we leave in two years.

Compare both of these things with John Mccains "We will be in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it takes." I'd take Obama's foreign policy over Mccains neo-con policy any day.
Click to expand...

Let's address those points one at a time, shall we? Lets begin...

Yes, the combat mission in Iraq has officially ended. THat was in line with the timel;ine established by Dubbya BEFORE he left office. Obama simple followed through with a decision made by Dubbya. The credit belongs to the man who made the initial decison, not the guy who came along after the fact and simply said 'Yeah, let's do that. Sounds like a plan'.

An increase in troops in Afghanistan, to 'suppress insurgent activity to a level that can be then maintained by the Afghanis'. Sounds a great deal like the 'surge' in Iraq, which was to do the same thing. You know, the surge that Obama said would not work, and would make matters worse, not better? I'm happy to google the exact quote for you, if you can't do it yourself.

As for your comment about McCain? Every liberal with an ounce of common sense has already admitted that he was not talking about 'combat operations' with that statement. He was refering to a peace-time military presence like we have in dozens of other countries around the world. You should really join the rest of the liberals on that one.
 
Obamanator said:
Let me know where you got your crystal ball... I'd like one too. Also, last time I looked he was sending about 30,000 more your soldiers to war. What about that?
Click to expand...

Funny, that's the same thing people said (the crystal ball comment) when the 2008 elections were taking place I said he'd get us out of Iraq. Looks like my crystal ball worked because he ended the combat mission there. Therefore, I can logically believe he will follow through with his promises in Afghanistan. The troop surge is to suppress insurgency to a level that the Afghanis can maintain themselves. That's just basic military strategy dude.

As for health insurance, the problem you pose is legitimate, but it is just as legitimate as the problems I posed. Something needs to be done, and I knew Obama was radical enough to at least try to do something. Mccain is a dinosaur who probably won't even live another decade. He wasn't going to change anything and he's sold out to GOP issues instead of being the maverick he used to be.

As for the banks, he revamped student federal loans so that it makes people like me (graduate students) easier for us to fund our educations. He made it so our credit card companies can't increase interest rates without informing us and can't increase interest rates on previous balances. Mortgage brokers have regulations that will protect us consumers from getting into dangerous loans. With our personal banks, we can now opt to have our card decline if there are insufficient funds, whether than unknowingly be charged overdraft fees. Do you need more or are you enlightened yet? Seriously, what was Mccain going to do for the average consumer? Are you seriously defending Mccain? I don't even know many Republicans who like Mccain!
 
Whovian said:
Let's address those points one at a time, shall we? Lets begin...

Yes, the combat mission in Iraq has officially ended. THat was in line with the timel;ine established by Dubbya BEFORE he left office. Obama simple followed through with a decision made by Dubbya. The credit belongs to the man who made the initial decison, not the guy who came along after the fact and simply said 'Yeah, let's do that. Sounds like a plan'.

An increase in troops in Afghanistan, to 'suppress insurgent activity to a level that can be then maintained by the Afghanis'. Sounds a great deal like the 'surge' in Iraq, which was to do the same thing. You know, the surge that Obama said would not work, and would make matters worse, not better? I'm happy to google the exact quote for you, if you can't do it yourself.

As for your comment about McCain? Every liberal with an ounce of common sense has already admitted that he was not talking about 'combat operations' with that statement. He was refering to a peace-time military presence like we have in dozens of other countries around the world. You should really join the rest of the liberals on that one.
Click to expand...

First off please try to refrain from melting this debate into a "liberal" vs "conservative" fight. We've already had a civil war and no one wants another one. Lets just be Americans.

Secondly, the combat mission ending date in Iraq set by GW could have easily been renegotiated and extended and many people believed Mccain would do just that if he felt Iraq wasn't stablized yet. Also, he was very clear about his aggressive stance toward Iran. If he would have taken office we might be in three wars right now rather than one.

As for Obama's troop surge and his previous quote, personally I believe Obama was trying to make the pro-war guys happy, trying to play the middle line. "We will increase troops now but get out in two years", it was an obvious compromise.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Did I tell you about that beach front property in Arizona I have for sale? I think you'd be interested in purchasing it. The only man who could have fixed this recession in two years was crucified about 2000 years ago.

BTW, the combat mission in Iraq has ended. The increase in troops in Afghanistan is to try to suppress insurgent activity to a level that can be then maintained by the Afghanis when we leave in two years. Compare both of these things with John Mccains "We will be in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it takes." I'd take Obama's foreign policy over Mccains neo-con policy any day.

Furthermore, I never said anything about whether Repubs or Dems caused the recession, you just completely imagined that and started arguing for a point I never made. Take your meds dude. And you claim you are bi-partisan but don't recognize that Repubs are just as guilty for the recession as the dems?

As for your "pro growth, pro business economic policy", how many times have we seen that strategy lead to bubble economies that eventually bust and dangerous deregulation that leads to things like subprime loans derivatives?
Click to expand...

No, but I can give you the non partisan sites that show actual results of the disaster "your" President is.

What is different in Iraq than Bush did? Did Obama change the Secretary of Defense when he took office? He did change his hand selected Afghanistan Commander though.

I did not say that Repubicans weren't in part responsible for the recession only that Obama only inherited what he helped create.

History shows that the only viable economic model in the world that allows people to create their own individual wealth is pro growth, pro business. It created the greatest economy in the world, one that liberals want to destroy.

I posted the Obama results which show why Obama's approval ratings are dropping daily and are now between 38-42%. There is a reason that the majority in this country aren't seeing what you see. Wonder who has it right?
 
Johnny DooWop said:
First off please try to refrain from melting this debate into a "liberal" vs "conservative" fight. We've already had a civil war and no one wants another one. Lets just be Americans.

Secondly, the combat mission ending date in Iraq set by GW could have easily been renegotiated and extended and many people believed Mccain would do just that if he felt Iraq wasn't stablized yet. Also, he was very clear about his aggressive stance toward Iran. If he would have taken office we might be in three wars right now rather than one.

As for Obama's troop surge and his previous quote, personally I believe Obama was trying to make the pro-war guys happy, trying to play the middle line. "We will increase troops now but get out in two years", it was an obvious compromise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
History shows that the only viable economic model in the world that allows people to create their own individual wealth is pro growth, pro business. It created the greatest economy in the world, one that liberals want to destroy.
Click to expand...

Haha, this country was founded by liberals, it was liberals who established that idea of free market economy. You think it was conservatives who believed every man should be treated equal, have representation in his government, and have the rights to profit off of his labor? The revolutionaries were liberals (the conservatives were loyal to the crown), Abe Lincoln was a liberal (yes, I KNOW HE WAS A REPUBLICAN, PLEASE DON"T BRING UP THAT MUTE POINT. DEMOCRATS WERE CONSERVATIVES BACK THEN AND ONLY RECENTLY DID THOSE CONSERVATIVES SWITCH OVER TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY), and the civil rights movement was led by liberals. Liberals are the foundation of this country and responsible for every significant event that has shaped us in a better way. Hell, when compared to Saudia Arabia, North Korea, China, we are ALL liberals! Liberalism is a good thing and when you bash liberalism you bash America.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Haha, this country was founded by liberals, it was liberals who established that idea of free market economy. You think it was conservatives who believed every man should be treated equal, have representation in his government, and have the rights to profit off of his labor? The revolutionaries were liberals (the conservatives were loyal to the crown), Abe Lincoln was a liberal (yes, I KNOW HE WAS A REPUBLICAN, PLEASE DON"T BRING UP THAT MUTE POINT. DEMOCRATS WERE CONSERVATIVES BACK THEN AND ONLY RECENTLY DID THOSE CONSERVATIVES SWITCH OVER TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY), and the civil rights movement was led by liberals. Liberals are the foundation of this country and responsible for every significant event that has shaped us in a better way. Hell, when compared to Saudia Arabia, North Korea, China, we are ALL liberals! Liberalism is a good thing and when you bash liberalism you bash America.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom