• 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!

GOP 'Pledge' makes closing argument to voters

I'm not just singling out the GOP when I say this, but why would anyone believe lofty campaign promises anymore? Haven't people had enough of being lied to by transparently power-grabbing parties and their relentless sycophants?

I swear... the first party to actually be honest about what they can and cannot do will probably win the next Presidential election.

Wow I agree with your assessment of Obama, he's all you say and then some.

And thanks for making sure we knew you weren't talking about the GOP.

I have been saying this stuff about Obama since early 2008.

It's refreshing and encouraging to have so many people come around to the truth
 
Last edited:
Ya know, if I were trying to cover for Obama; the last thing I would do is say that he's too stupid to come up with his own, fresh ideas.

He's not.

BTW, what do the not-so-secret prisons have to do with the economy? :rofl

What does anything in your post have to do with showing I'm wrong?

So you do agree that Obama is in fact in lock step with Bush in many ways? Or are you going to act like your usual immature partisan self?
 
LOL...tax cuts for who? My taxes sure as hell didn't go down.

That's because you don't understand taxes as demonstrated time and time again by your posts. Generating more taxable income from prior year results in more taxes. But as marginal effective tax rates, you are pay less as a percent then you did last year.
 
Yay for fuzzy math!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/opinion/26sun1.html?_r=1&emc=rss&partner=rssnyt

Anyone who can do basic math (sorry, that excludes most people here) can tell this "pledge" is a sham. Without touching medicare, social security and defense, there's no way they can cut down the deficit. And if they get rid of Obamacare (which is little more then an old Republican idea), they have to make up the difference in cost savings from it.

Without touching the big items, the GOP has to eliminate the rest of the government. No parks. No corporate subsidies. No homeland security. No SBA loans. No Congress. No Executive Branch. No Judicial System.

Anyone who falls for this pledge is an idiot and should be taken for a ride. The GOP is just as worthless as the Dems and they think you're a bloody idiot. And you are in you think they have any chance of actually getting us anywhere near the black.
 
if 30% of the stimulus was tax cuts, then 600B wasn't

It was technically 36.6%.

It's amusing watching people who want tax cuts attack Obama for giving tax cuts. Nothing he does will ever please you, even when it's the things you want. My the hypocrisy has shifted. Even more amusing, you people never gave Bush flak for doing the same things Obama is doing. Democrat doing the same thing we praised Bush for? No way we can praise him. He's a democrat. Ignore the fact the policies are the same.
 
Show us how the repubs created the recession.

Actually, if you read this segment from Wikipedia, you'll find that both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the mess our country's in today.

Deregulation

Further information: Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis

Critics have argued that the regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation, such as the increasing importance of the shadow banking system, derivatives and off-balance sheet financing. In other cases, laws were changed or enforcement weakened in parts of the financial system. Key examples include:

Jimmy Carter's Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) phased out a number of restrictions on banks' financial practices, broadened their lending powers, and raised the deposit insurance limit from $40,000 to $100,000 (raising the problem of moral hazard).[61] Banks rushed into real estate lending, speculative lending, and other ventures just as the economy soured.

In October 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed into Law the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which provided for adjustable-rate mortgage loans, began the process of banking deregulation and contributed to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s/early 1990s.[62]

(Sidenote: There was also the issue of the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), passed by Congress in 1982, which ended the long standing practice of limiting banks to making conventional fixed-rate mortgages. For further details on those U.S. policies that contributed directly to the subprime housing crisis, see the "Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis," above.)

In November 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into Law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized for reducing the separation between commercial banks (which traditionally had a conservative culture) and investment banks (which had a more risk-taking culture).[63][64]

In 2004, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.[65][66]

Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base.[67] This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly-leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications.

Regulators and accounting standard-setters allowed depository banks such as Citigroup to move significant amounts of assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into complex legal entities called structured investment vehicles, masking the weakness of the capital base of the firm or degree of leverage or risk taken. One news agency estimated that the top four U.S. banks will have to return between $500 billion and $1 trillion to their balance sheets during 2009.[68] This increased uncertainty during the crisis regarding the financial position of the major banks.[69] Off-balance sheet entities were also used by Enron as part of the scandal that brought down that company in 2001.[70]

As early as 1997, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated.[71] With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets,[72] the U.S. Congress and President allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.

So, in reality Carter, Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush all can be blamed for how this mess not only got started but further compounded over the years until we arrived at where we are today. Here's a decent article by theNation.com that in some ways explains the importance of opening the housing market for economic growth, but the article also outlines the dangers that were foretold and few paid attention.

There are those who have questioned who had control of Congress when the crisis came to a head in the Fall of October 2008 and wish to lay blame on the Democrat since they controlled the House when the crisis occurred. I don't think that's a fair assessment considering it left the Democrats with only one year in leadership (at least in the House) to determine what was going wrong on Wall Street and to act accordingly. It's not a cop-out; it's just reality. I think the more important question should be who controlled Congress at the time these Acts were signed into law? For no matter what a President's agenda may be, Congress still writes the laws. Therefore, in answer to the question...

With few exceptions, Democrats held the majority in both chambers of Congress From 1933 until 1981. From 1981-1987, both chambers were split: Reps held the Senate; Dems held the House. From 1987-1995, Dems held both chambers again, but Reps regained full control of Congress from 1995-2007.

As detailed in the linked Wikipedia articles herein, the following Acts have been identified as being the primary pieces of legislation that have affected the housing market and brought about the economic collapse on Wall Street:

-- Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act(R) and the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act(R) both signed into law in 1982 (House: majority Democrat; Senate: majority Republican)

-- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act(D) signed in 1999 (Congress: majority Republican)

-- Commodity Futures Modernization Act(R) signed in 2000 (Congress: majority Republican)

All four Acts were signed with a Republican House majority in Congress. (See last page of linked pdf document)

Note: (R) = Act signed by Republican president. (D) = Act signed by Democrat president

Here's another Wikipedia link that provides more of the indepth financial dealings that resulted in the housing crisis: Financialization

Admittedly, I still don't have a full understanding of how things got to this point, but I have a better understanding since I've read the linked articles herein. I would suggest everyone do the same.
 
Last edited:
600 billion divided by 50,000 per job is 12 million jobs

where are they?
 
600 billion divided by 50,000 per job is 12 million jobs

where are they?

Why should each job cost 50,000? Salary isn't the only expense that goes into a particular job. A 747 pilot has a job that "costs" tens of thousands of dollars per day.
 
Actually, if you read this segment from Wikipedia, you'll find that both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the mess our country's in today.



So, in reality Carter, Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush all can be blamed for how this mess not only got started but further compounded over the years until we arrived at where we are today. Here's a decent article by theNation.com that in some ways explains the importance of opening the housing market for economic growth, but the article also outlines the dangers that were foretold and few paid attention.

There are those who have questioned who had control of Congress when the crisis came to a head in the Fall of October 2008 and wish to lay blame on the Democrat since they controlled the House when the crisis occurred. I don't think that's a fair assessment considering it left the Democrats with only one year in leadership (at least in the House) to determine what was going wrong on Wall Street and to act accordingly. It's not a cop-out; it's just reality. I think the more important question should be who controlled Congress at the time these Acts were signed into law? For no matter what a President's agenda may be, Congress still writes the laws. Therefore, in answer to the question...

With few exceptions, Democrats held the majority in both chambers of Congress From 1933 until 1981. From 1981-1987, both chambers were split: Reps held the Senate; Dems held the House. From 1987-1995, Dems held both chambers again, but Reps regained full control of Congress from 1995-2007.

As detailed in the linked Wikipedia articles herein, the following Acts have been identified as being the primary pieces of legislation that have affected the housing market and brought about the economic collapse on Wall Street:

-- Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act(R) and the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act(R) both signed into law in 1982 (House: majority Democrat; Senate: majority Republican)

-- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act(D) signed in 1999 (Congress: majority Republican)

-- Commodity Futures Modernization Act(R) signed in 2000 (Congress: majority Republican)

All four Acts were signed with a Republican House majority in Congress. (See last page of linked pdf document)

Note: (R) = Act signed by Republican president. (D) = Act signed by Democrat president

Here's another Wikipedia link that provides more of the indepth financial dealings that resulted in the housing crisis: Financialization

Admittedly, I still don't have a full understanding of how things got to this point, but I have a better understanding since I've read the linked articles herein. I would suggest everyone do the same.

That's the usual tactic of Libbos. When Republicans are to blame, blame the Republicans. When the Democrats are to blame, blame everyone. Just like Katrina.
 
You should check your return.

I gave the government $4,000 for my 09 taxes. Believe me, I did look at my return.

Don't forget, I'm one of those greedy, rich business men that doesn't qualify for the earned income credit. What was your tax obligation for 2009?
 
He's not.



What does anything in your post have to do with showing I'm wrong?

So you do agree that Obama is in fact in lock step with Bush in many ways? Or are you going to act like your usual immature partisan self?

Your post showed that you're wrong, because very little of that has anything to do with the economy.
 
That's because you don't understand taxes as demonstrated time and time again by your posts. Generating more taxable income from prior year results in more taxes. But as marginal effective tax rates, you are pay less as a percent then you did last year.

Unlike yourself, I'm not a kid in school. I live in the real world, deal with real money, real laws, real problems and the real IRS, not the one you read about in your school book.
 
Why should each job cost 50,000? Salary isn't the only expense that goes into a particular job. A 747 pilot has a job that "costs" tens of thousands of dollars per day.

It doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars a day to employ an airline pilot.
 
It doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars a day to employ an airline pilot.

It does if you want him to do something meaningful like fly an airplane.
 
It does if you want him to do something meaningful like fly an airplane.

Again, a pilot's salary isn't, "tens of thousands of dollars a day".
 
Again, a pilot's salary isn't, "tens of thousands of dollars a day".

Well, for one that's not what you said before, so "again" is a bit off. Next, that post you quoted the first time specifically said salary wasn't the only expense. It costs tens of thousands of dollars because if you want a pilot to actually do something you also need to have an aircraft for him to operate. That costs money. Similarly, if you want the construction company you're paying stimulus dollars to do something meaningful, they're going to have to buy a bunch of machinery and building materials. Hence, the "cost" of a job is far in excess of just the salary of the employee.

So to get back to the point I was trying to make, you can't just divide the stimulus spending by $50,000 and expect to come up with a meaningful expectation of the number of jobs to be created, because the stimulus wasn't spent on jobs. It was spent on projects that needed to be completed. If you want to repave a road, you're going to need to buy some concrete.
 
I gave the government $4,000 for my 09 taxes. Believe me, I did look at my return.

Which doesn't mean anything in itself.

But thanks for proving my point. You entirely fail to understand taxes.

Unlike yourself, I'm not a kid in school. I live in the real world, deal with real money, real laws, real problems and the real IRS, not the one you read about in your school book.

Not at all. I pay more then you. I certainty will this year. I'll be lucky to get pay $4,500 this year.

Giving us just the amount you paid this year doesn't tell us anything if you benefited or not from the tax cuts. This is how I know you are completely uninformed about this topic. To show that you in fact did not benefit, you'd need to compare this year and 2007 before the additional tax cuts kicked in. If you had similar AGI and similar structural income (15% vs Earned) and you paid more, then you could actually say the stimulus didn't help your taxes. But instead, you just gave us 2010 tax numbers. That tells us aside from your ignorance on the topic, nothing.

Your post showed that you're wrong, because very little of that has anything to do with the economy

perhaps you should re-read your post.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...losing-argument-voters-21.html#post1059004728

Do you see that post restrict the discussion to the economy? No. You are wrong. And you are far too immature to admit it.

But thanks for answering my question. Noticed I say this:

"So you do agree that Obama is in fact in lock step with Bush in many ways? Or are you going to act like your usual immature partisan self?"

So yes, you are going to act like your usual, immature partisan self. It's amazing how I point that out....and then you go and do it. :doh

uber fail there Adpst. Uber Fail.
 
Which doesn't mean anything in itself.

But thanks for proving my point. You entirely fail to understand taxes.



Not at all. I pay more then you. I certainty will this year. I'll be lucky to get pay $4,500 this year.

Giving us just the amount you paid this year doesn't tell us anything if you benefited or not from the tax cuts. This is how I know you are completely uninformed about this topic. To show that you in fact did not benefit, you'd need to compare this year and 2007 before the additional tax cuts kicked in. If you had similar AGI and similar structural income (15% vs Earned) and you paid more, then you could actually say the stimulus didn't help your taxes. But instead, you just gave us 2010 tax numbers. That tells us aside from your ignorance on the topic, nothing.



perhaps you should re-read your post.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...losing-argument-voters-21.html#post1059004728

Do you see that post restrict the discussion to the economy? No. You are wrong. And you are far too immature to admit it.

But thanks for answering my question. Noticed I say this:

"So you do agree that Obama is in fact in lock step with Bush in many ways? Or are you going to act like your usual immature partisan self?"

So yes, you are going to act like your usual, immature partisan self. It's amazing how I point that out....and then you go and do it. :doh

uber fail there Adpst. Uber Fail.

When you get out of high school, come talk to us about paying taxes. Thaaaaanks!!!
 
When you get out of high school, come talk to us about paying taxes. Thaaaaanks!!!

Does the annoying fact that I explain taxes to you suggest that perhaps you are wrong? Furthermore, age has really no factor upon intelligence. Or wisdom. Or in your case maturity.

But keep going about being an immature partisan who can never, ever, ever admit he's wrong about anything.

Uber fail there on trying to argue that 1 year's tax liability with no AGI context proves you got no benefit from the stimulus tax cut. It's kind of like arguing 1 day's temperature proves global warming is a fraud.
 
Well, for one that's not what you said before, so "again" is a bit off. Next, that post you quoted the first time specifically said salary wasn't the only expense. It costs tens of thousands of dollars because if you want a pilot to actually do something you also need to have an aircraft for him to operate. That costs money. Similarly, if you want the construction company you're paying stimulus dollars to do something meaningful, they're going to have to buy a bunch of machinery and building materials. Hence, the "cost" of a job is far in excess of just the salary of the employee.

So to get back to the point I was trying to make, you can't just divide the stimulus spending by $50,000 and expect to come up with a meaningful expectation of the number of jobs to be created, because the stimulus wasn't spent on jobs. It was spent on projects that needed to be completed. If you want to repave a road, you're going to need to buy some concrete.


The government can't create jobs. That's the reality that you need to understand and learn to live with.
 
The government can't create jobs. That's the reality that you need to understand and learn to live with.

I guess everyone in the military doesn't have a job then. Apparently, according to your logic, every member of Congress, the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch plus all their staff are really unemployed.

Perhaps not, but experience trumps ALL of those things.

Not necessarily. Experience trumps intelligence? Really. So the capacity of someone to think on their feet, adapt and change to meet the situation in all kinds of scenarios is less important then experience in some specific field? LOL.

There's no way that you're familiar with all 44,000 pages of tax code

No one is. That code is way too big. That doesn't make you right. Or me wrong. Especially given your crackpot argument that one year's tax liability without AGI context proves you didn't get a benefit.

Maturity and experience would teach you that, hence, you don't know everything about taxes. You sure goddamn hell don't know anything about my taxes

About your's specifically? No. But I do know it is impossible to say that you got no benefit without a comparison of 2007 taxes and examination of the structure of income. You seem to think you can say you got no benefit without providing any context or benchmarks.

BTW, global warming is hoax.

Just like Co2 traps heat. Hoax.
 
Last edited:
Does the annoying fact that I explain taxes to you suggest that perhaps you are wrong? Furthermore, age has really no factor upon intelligence. Or wisdom. Or in your case maturity.

But keep going about being an immature partisan who can never, ever, ever admit he's wrong about anything.

Uber fail there on trying to argue that 1 year's tax liability with no AGI context proves you got no benefit from the stimulus tax cut. It's kind of like arguing 1 day's temperature proves global warming is a fraud.

Perhaps not, but experience trumps ALL of those things. There's no way that you're familiar with all 44,000 pages of tax code. Maturity and experience would teach you that, hence, you don't know everything about taxes. You sure goddamn hell don't know anything about my taxes.

BTW, global warming is hoax. What's next? 9/11 was an inside job??
 
Back
Top Bottom