• 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

then I will say zip is correct. Currently I am very skeptical

Right now the debt is 13.67 trillion dollars and our GDP is 14.5 trillion to we should have total debt at 100% of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2011. Obama has added 3 trillion to the debt in two years, Bush added 5 trillion in 8 and Reagan added 1.7 trillion in 8.
 
Boo, seems you have a problem with anyone that presents verifiable, non partisan actual facts, not predictions or rhetoric. How you can support Obama with the results he has generated is quite telling. Keep buying the liberal rhetoric about how bad Bush was while ignoring that the change promised is worse.

No, I have a problem with someone name calling and being silly, and not addressing the explination as to why what you present doesn't do what you claim it does.
 
No, I have a problem with someone name calling and being silly, and not addressing the explination as to why what you present doesn't do what you claim it does.

Name calling? Been paying any attention to the names I have been called here? What explanation haven't I addresssed? I cannot help it if some do not understand that we have three equal branches of govt. I cannot help it if people do not recognize that the legislative branch of the govt. was controlled by Democrats beginning January 2007. I cannot help it if the results today represent the efforts of that Democrat Congress and Democrat executive branch.

The numbers I presented are actual facts, they are actual results, not predictions or projections. They show what happened not what someone hoped would happen. You always point to the forward looking statements of the CBO while not recognizing the role of the CBO which is to take Congressional assumptions and come up with a conclusion.

I would be more than willing to give Obama a chance if his agenda was pro business, pro private sector, pro free enterprise but it isn't and the results are there for all to see. So to compare Obama to Reagan at the same time in his tenure is quite a stretch when Reagan and Obama are at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to economic policy.
 
Name calling? Been paying any attention to the names I have been called here? What explanation haven't I addresssed? I cannot help it if some do not understand that we have three equal branches of govt. I cannot help it if people do not recognize that the legislative branch of the govt. was controlled by Democrats beginning January 2007. I cannot help it if the results today represent the efforts of that Democrat Congress and Democrat executive branch.

The numbers I presented are actual facts, they are actual results, not predictions or projections. They show what happened not what someone hoped would happen. You always point to the forward looking statements of the CBO while not recognizing the role of the CBO which is to take Congressional assumptions and come up with a conclusion.

I would be more than willing to give Obama a chance if his agenda was pro business, pro private sector, pro free enterprise but it isn't and the results are there for all to see. So to compare Obama to Reagan at the same time in his tenure is quite a stretch when Reagan and Obama are at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to economic policy.

Yes, I have. And I would complain about that if you weren't so willing to resort to the same tactic everyone time some one disputes you. The numbers you post don't speak to the issue. We've been over this, and you have never addressed that as best I can recall. Just posting numbers are meaningless unless you can show they speak to the issue, and that no other factors are involved. you've failed to that.
 
Yes, I have. And I would complain about that if you weren't so willing to resort to the same tactic everyone time some one disputes you. The numbers you post don't speak to the issue. We've been over this, and you have never addressed that as best I can recall. Just posting numbers are meaningless unless you can show they speak to the issue, and that no other factors are involved. you've failed to that.

Yes, I get over zealous at times and frustrated with you and others who never really address the issues. the numbers posted do speak to the issues because they are actual results, not projections. There are issues that generated those results but unfortunately there are a lot of people here who don't understand basic civics and the three equal branches of govt. We do not elect a king and nothing the President does can be done without the support of Congress.

Those that blame President Bush for everything ignore the reality of Congressional Oversight. Bush and Reagan had a different direction for the country that Obama. Which direction do you believe our Founders supported, focus on the individual and private enterprise or focus on expansion of the central govt. and redistribution of wealth?

That is a very basic question that is being ignored here. No one can say that the Obama agenda is based upon the founding fathers vision or the Constitution. Penalizing individual wealth creation is violation of the basic principles upon which this country was founded. Too bad history and civics don't seem to be a part of our education system.
 
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.

Hmm... is it also "basic military strategy" to tell your enemy when you're gonna pull out the troops? I guess you haven't noticed the afghan leaders already starting to chum up with the Talaban and Iran... When/if we leave the middle east, then you'll see the real fireworks begin.

Mccain is a dinosaur who probably won't even live another decade.

There you go with that crystal ball again...

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.

I don't need anyone to protect me from getting into a "dangerous" loan... do you? I rarely use credit cards and when I do... I pay off the balance when I get the statement.
The only problem I have with "interest" rates is I can only get about 1-2% on short term CD's.... and practically nothing in the Money Market. Believe it or not... there was a time when I got 12-13% on CD's

However, I can see your point on the fed loans helping with your educ. And for you those who need the other stuff... good for you.

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.

I thought you were a grad student? Don't they teach math at your school?


Do you need more or are you enlightened yet?

Not really but i'm happy for you.

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!

I don't recall saying anything about Mccain in my post to you.
 
Yes, I get over zealous at times and frustrated with you and others who never really address the issues. the numbers posted do speak to the issues because they are actual results, not projections. There are issues that generated those results but unfortunately there are a lot of people here who don't understand basic civics and the three equal branches of govt. We do not elect a king and nothing the President does can be done without the support of Congress.

Those that blame President Bush for everything ignore the reality of Congressional Oversight. Bush and Reagan had a different direction for the country that Obama. Which direction do you believe our Founders supported, focus on the individual and private enterprise or focus on expansion of the central govt. and redistribution of wealth?

That is a very basic question that is being ignored here. No one can say that the Obama agenda is based upon the founding fathers vision or the Constitution. Penalizing individual wealth creation is violation of the basic principles upon which this country was founded. Too bad history and civics don't seem to be a part of our education system.

No, they area set of numbers, but ehy don't support you. Remember we have tax cuts in place right now. your very numbers show right now, with them in place, things are not as good. You rightly say other factors are involved, which supports exactly what I'm telling you. Other factors are involved.

I also point to other times and history, and not just your selective effort. You don't address that.

As for your central question, that's actually a new question you're throwing out and too generalized to actually answer. We certainly know that the founding fathers did use government to tackle larger problems. What they did was dispurse the power in order to supply checks and balances, and to make radical change difficult. Not impossible. They were wise enough to see that things could change, that they could not know the future.

And btw, history and civic are part of our educational system. So is government.
 
=Boo Radley;1059066870]No, they area set of numbers, but ehy don't support you. Remember we have tax cuts in place right now. your very numbers show right now, with them in place, things are not as good. You rightly say other factors are involved, which supports exactly what I'm telling you. Other factors are involved.

I never said other factors weren't involved only that tax cuts put more money into the individual's pocket and that continues to happen today. The problem today is that business doesn't have a clue what the Obama agenda is going to cost them. Right now their taxes go up January 1 and they don't know what Obamacare is going to cost. Business wants certainty but in the meantime keep pocketing more of your own money because you are going to need it. Business will NOT hire under these circumstances.

I also point to other times and history, and not just your selective effort. You don't address that.

What you continue to ignore is human behavior. Please tell me why you have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn? Tell me why the left is so concerned about that reality?

As for your central question, that's actually a new question you're throwing out and too generalized to actually answer. We certainly know that the founding fathers did use government to tackle larger problems. What they did was dispurse the power in order to supply checks and balances, and to make radical change difficult. Not impossible. They were wise enough to see that things could change, that they could not know the future.

What larger problems did our Founders use Central govt. to tackle? Defense? Yep, that is in the Constitution

Our founders knew that central power corrupts and that is what we have today. They gave the power to the people at the local level and that is the battle today, between those that want a strong central govt. and those that believe it belongs at the state and local level. I am in the latter camp. Unfortunately there are millions in the former because they have become dependent on the power brokers in D.C. for their very existence. The powerful elite are fighting hard to keep people dependent and that gives them power. There is so much duplication at the Federal and State levels and the battle brewing is to determine which item belongs where. More money in individual hands means less need for all that so called federal help.

And btw, history and civic are part of our educational system. So is government.

Trouble is history is being revised not taught and civics is being ignored IMO. No one can blame the President alone for all the problems if they truly understood history and no one could support this massive expansion of the Federal Govt. if they understood history.
 
Then your numbers are meaningless. Putting more money into individal pockets sugegsts we look at individuals. For most, the number is so small, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Only for the wealthy, who benefit most, is the number large enough to make any real difference, and the numbers say they don';t spend it and they don't create jobs with it. And as we look at history, all of our hsitroy, we see that the economy, effected by factors other than taxes, does well with a high tax base, and poorly. And does poor with a low tax base, and well. So, in this debate, concerned with the economy, if your going to kppe presenting those numbers as evidence, you have to show why they have meaning. And if you're going to drop those numbers and try to make some folksy argyument about more monmey in the pockets, you have show some numbers to support that jobs will be created from this, and the latest effort at addressing that say tax cuts won't create jobs.
 
Trouble is history is being revised not taught and civics is being ignored IMO. No one can blame the President alone for all the problems if they truly understood history and no one could support this massive expansion of the Federal Govt. if they understood history.

No, it's being taught. It may be more honest (though not completely honest) than it was when you were a kid, but it is being taught. Some just like the old propaganda more than they like actual history. ;)
 
No, they area set of numbers, but ehy don't support you. Remember we have tax cuts in place right now. your very numbers show right now, with them in place, things are not as good. You rightly say other factors are involved, which supports exactly what I'm telling you. Other factors are involved.

I also point to other times and history, and not just your selective effort. You don't address that.

As for your central question, that's actually a new question you're throwing out and too generalized to actually answer. We certainly know that the founding fathers did use government to tackle larger problems. What they did was dispurse the power in order to supply checks and balances, and to make radical change difficult. Not impossible. They were wise enough to see that things could change, that they could not know the future.

And btw, history and civic are part of our educational system. So is government.

The numbers don't lie and they do support Conservatives arguement. I find it hilarious that a liberal would compare anything about this administration to the founding fathers. Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson... et al would be insulted and appalled by any comparision between [most of] what they stood for and believed versus what's happening in Washington today.
 
Then your numbers are meaningless. Putting more money into individal pockets sugegsts we look at individuals. For most, the number is so small, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Only for the wealthy, who benefit most, is the number large enough to make any real difference, and the numbers say they don';t spend it and they don't create jobs with it. And as we look at history, all of our hsitroy, we see that the economy, effected by factors other than taxes, does well with a high tax base, and poorly. And does poor with a low tax base, and well. So, in this debate, concerned with the economy, if your going to kppe presenting those numbers as evidence, you have to show why they have meaning. And if you're going to drop those numbers and try to make some folksy argyument about more monmey in the pockets, you have show some numbers to support that jobs will be created from this, and the latest effort at addressing that say tax cuts won't create jobs.

LOL, suggesting that people keeping more of their money IS focusing on the individual because it is the individuals that make up the country. Individuals with more of their money give them control vs. politicians. People with more money give more to charities and need less of that govt. help. The liberals are scared to death of people keeping more of what they earn because that means they need less of that so called help.

It is only possible to show what happened and up to the individual to tie the two together. No one can explain why when tax rates were implemented that govt. revenue went up as did employment. Now I believe there is a correlation whereas you don't. the positives however outweigh any negatives you claim. There is no negative to people keeping more of what they earn regardless of what you and others believe. You have yet to prove any negative.
 
The numbers don't lie and they do support Conservatives arguement. I find it hilarious that a liberal would compare anything about this administration to the founding fathers. Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson... et al would be insulted and appalled by any comparision between [most of] what they stood for and believed versus what's happening in Washington today.

No, numbers lie all the time. There's a reason why Mark twian said "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

And while I do wish the foundering fathers were here, faced with today's problems. We both might be surprised that our misconceptions said more about our flaws than their stance. I other words, we may be wrong about what they would do.

However, I spoke to history of numbers. I spoke to economic perfomrance regardless of the tax rate. ;)
 
LOL, suggesting that people keeping more of their money IS focusing on the individual because it is the individuals that make up the country. Individuals with more of their money give them control vs. politicians. People with more money give more to charities and need less of that govt. help. The liberals are scared to death of people keeping more of what they earn because that means they need less of that so called help.

It is only possible to show what happened and up to the individual to tie the two together. No one can explain why when tax rates were implemented that govt. revenue went up as did employment. Now I believe there is a correlation whereas you don't. the positives however outweigh any negatives you claim. There is no negative to people keeping more of what they earn regardless of what you and others believe. You have yet to prove any negative.

I thought I made clear that by focusing In mean focusing your numerical research on. What do they do and what little money they get, and how does it factually effect the economy. Not what you or others think it does. But what can you show?
 
I thought I made clear that by focusing In mean focusing your numerical research on. What do they do and what little money they get, and how does it factually effect the economy. Not what you or others think it does. But what can you show?

Whatever they do is their choice which you seem to have a problem with but regardless it puts money into the economy directly or indirectly and that seems to scare liberals who want to control how people spend their own money. Why do you have a problem with the individual keeping more of what they earn including you?

What can I show? I can show that govt revenue went up right after the tax cuts as did Job creation. You, of course, don't seem to believe that had anything to do with job creation. There in lies the difference between us. Regardless there is no downside to people keeping more of what they earn unless you are a liberal elite who needs individual wealth for your control
 
Whatever they do is their choice which you seem to have a problem with but regardless it puts money into the economy directly or indirectly and that seems to scare liberals who want to control how people spend their own money. Why do you have a problem with the individual keeping more of what they earn including you?

What can I show? I can show that govt revenue went up right after the tax cuts as did Job creation. You, of course, don't seem to believe that had anything to do with job creation. There in lies the difference between us. Regardless there is no downside to people keeping more of what they earn unless you are a liberal elite who needs individual wealth for your control

See, you're bouncing all over agian. I have no such problem. I'm speaking to the issue of the economy. And you can only show it went up at a few select times, not the entire history of the country (I've noted this for you before). Nor can you show tax cuts are the reason. and you ignore that the evidence that contradictions you, like the current state of the economy with tax cuts in place, or the rest of our history.
 
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.
A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans

Ron Paul is a politician, doesn't know didily squat about economics. Repealing the far left agenda is really all they've got, and since the economy has started to pick up, making drastic changes could stop the progress. As for putting more capital into new private job sectors, even in good times records show only 5 percent last over a year.

Point is... There are no simple solutions, even the experts are baffled, and you want to believe a politician can fix everything... Give me a break!!!

ricksfolly
 
See, you're bouncing all over agian. I have no such problem. I'm speaking to the issue of the economy. And you can only show it went up at a few select times, not the entire history of the country (I've noted this for you before). Nor can you show tax cuts are the reason. and you ignore that the evidence that contradictions you, like the current state of the economy with tax cuts in place, or the rest of our history.

It has only happened four times in history when tax RATES were cut. I believe people keeping more of their own money is a good thing, apparently you don't. We disagree, so be it.
 
Ron Paul is a politician, doesn't know didily squat about economics. Repealing the far left agenda is really all they've got, and since the economy has started to pick up, making drastic changes could stop the progress. As for putting more capital into new private job sectors, even in good times records show only 5 percent last over a year.

Point is... There are no simple solutions, even the experts are baffled, and you want to believe a politician can fix everything... Give me a break!!!

ricksfolly

LOL, I want a politician to fix everything? Where did I ever say that? I want the politicians out of it, period. Let the people keep more of what they earn, even you. I really don't care. I know that when I keep more money I give more to charities. Local and state govt. can do more to solve social problems than a bureaucrat in D.C. If they don't then the people need to react. It is easier to kick out state govt. than bureaucrats in D.C.

There are very simple solutions, slash the size of govt. and return all social programs to the states. Pretty simple.
 
It has only happened four times in history when tax RATES were cut. I believe people keeping more of their own money is a good thing, apparently you don't. We disagree, so be it.

Not that simple. You shouldn't speak for others. I also believe in being fiscally responsible, and that means paying for what you get.
 
It's not new. We're not following suit, we've nearly always had some form of a progressive tax. Again, as most countries always have had. And no one has made any claim about redistributing anything. This is just more of the old unoriginal scare tactic your side is using right now. Don't confuse it with fact. ;)

Oh my.

Boo, you're a lost cause.
It's not some obscure theory for me. It's crystal clear. I've lived half my life between socialist countries and North America; and I spent a number of years in Kanuckistan. I used to be like you... it took years to make the conversion... but one by one... if you truly seek the greatest good for the greatest number, conservatism wins all day long.

Enjoy the journey, all it takes is an open mind.

We haven't always had progressive taxation. Taxing folks 7% on 10 million in 1913 doesn't leave a lot for progression.

zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture67110562-federal-spending-1789-2003.jpg

You think there is any correlation here?

.
 
Last edited:
Not that simple. You shouldn't speak for others. I also believe in being fiscally responsible, and that means paying for what you get.

How about individuals paying for what they need instead of what they want? you think sending more money to Washington makes the fiscally responsible? You sstill don't get it and probably never will. Some are simply very naive and gullible buying what they are todl instead of actually thinking.

It is very simple, put all social programs back in the hands of the state and local governments. Take SS and Medicare off budget and cut the size of the govt. back to what our founders envisioned? That would make all liberals one term Representatives and irrelevant.
 
How about individuals paying for what they need instead of what they want? you think sending more money to Washington makes the fiscally responsible? You sstill don't get it and probably never will. Some are simply very naive and gullible buying what they are todl instead of actually thinking.

It is very simple, put all social programs back in the hands of the state and local governments. Take SS and Medicare off budget and cut the size of the govt. back to what our founders envisioned? That would make all liberals one term Representatives and irrelevant.

Need? Want? who decides which is which? By what standard?

I call for us to cut spending and raise taxes. How much and what of each is something that needs to be hammered out, but that should be our focus. BVut I will give you one thing, you can't be serious about cutitng spending unless you discuss SS and Medicare/medicaid, but I would add the military. As for the founding fathers, I'm not sure any of us actually know what they would support if they were here today. ;)
 
Oh my.

Boo, you're a lost cause.
It's not some obscure theory for me. It's crystal clear. I've lived half my life between socialist countries and North America; and I spent a number of years in Kanuckistan. I used to be like you... it took years to make the conversion... but one by one... if you truly seek the greatest good for the greatest number, conservatism wins all day long.

Enjoy the journey, all it takes is an open mind.

We haven't always had progressive taxation. Taxing folks 7% on 10 million in 1913 doesn't leave a lot for progression.

zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture67110562-federal-spending-1789-2003.jpg

You think there is any correlation here?

.

Yes, we've pretty much always had some form of progressive tax. Check out the tax imposed for the civil war for example. It was progressive.
 
Back
Top Bottom