• 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!

WH warns tax defeat could trigger new recession

No, you're just the most outrageously partisan person right now. Don't worry, I'm sure Turtledude will really get into the conversation soon.

what are you humping my leg about now kid? I don't recall addressing you in weeks
 
Not if they worked harder to avoid paying more taxes. If they played their cards right, it would cause there to be less tax revenue, which wouldn't decrease the deficit.

The only way to decrease the deficit, is to stop spending money they don't have.

Just pointing out the "ifs" of your statement. If money really grew on trees....
 
I would say probably not. I've read a lot about the history of partisanship and this has been going on forever. Doesn't mean it's OK.

What would you like to see happen?

Let's face it, both sides are doing what they think is best for the country. One sides is right and one side is wrong.
 
No, you're just the most outrageously partisan person right now. Don't worry, I'm sure Turtledude will really get into the conversation soon.

Do you have an opinion on the situation, or are you following CC's lead and going on the attack?
 
Yet, I'm the only one that you single out for criticism? Hypocrisy comes to mind all of a sudden.

You made the comment, apdst. Not my fault you did. Just wait. I'm sure you won't be the only one.
 
You made the comment, apdst. Not my fault you did. Just wait. I'm sure you won't be the only one.

The same comments have come from the other side, yet you didn't pick on them. Can't say as I'm all that surprised, Cap't. This is probably just a flamefest, anyway. You're good for those.
 
What would you like to see happen?

Let's face it, both sides are doing what they think is best for the country. One sides is right and one side is wrong.

Look at your comment. It's actually a contradiction. If both sides are doing what they think is best for the country, one side really can't be right and the other can't be wrong. Who's right and who's wrong is a matter of perspective.

What I'd like to see is assessment based on the issues, not based on the political affiliation. Too many people just make decisions based on beating the other guy.
 
I rarely start threads, but something struck me about the article that I am referring. I understand that we have several threads on this issue, but there was two lines from this article that I wanted to focus on:



I placed in bold the comments that annoyed me. This is the problem with this entire issue. Seems to me that neither side really cares what is best for the country. They just care about winning. Republicans refusing to accept ANYTHING unless they get what they want. Democrats charting wins and losses. This is the kind of stupid partisanship that has been ruining this country for a while. It would be nice if people could just get together and say, "ok, screw winning. Let's assess what works." I understand that there are differences in opinion in what works, but threatening to "take your toys and go home" or looking at it as a win/loss idea. misses the point of what is needing to be accomplished. IMO, both parties have acted atrociously, for the most part, putting the interests of their party above the interests of the country.

So. my question to you is NOT what you think of the tax cut compromise, but what do you think of the behavior of the two parties surrounding this entire thing.

*snip - nevermind. It's late, I'm tired!*
 
Last edited:
My sense is that the way the compromise was put together was close to what we would hope the two parties would do. Let's remember that both sides have truely different views on the topics they dealt with. So to say we "got" something we otherwise would not is true. For example the President was able to get the 2% reduction on payroll taxes which will he most helpful to lower earners. By got he meant that there is no way this would have passed as stand alone legislation. Same with the Republicans on the tax break for upper incomes.

The point you miss is that there is no absolute "Best Answer". Both sides think they have the best answer and thus the need to compromise to get to an answer that satisfies both sides and hopefully somewhere in there it also works for the American people.

Actually, I don't miss the point that there is no best answer. I'd like to SEE a best answer, but I'd like to see that both sides agree that it is the best answer rather than mocking the other for losing, berating the other... or their own for "selling out", or congradulate themselves for winning. I really don't see the point, if the desire is to do the best for the country.

I do agree, though, that the compromise was the best possible solution.
 
The same comments have come from the other side, yet you didn't pick on them. Can't say as I'm all that surprised, Cap't. This is probably just a flamefest, anyway. You're good for those.

No, actually, they haven't. I'm waiting for them, though.
 
Look at your comment. It's actually a contradiction. If both sides are doing what they think is best for the country, one side really can't be right and the other can't be wrong. Who's right and who's wrong is a matter of perspective.

What I'd like to see is assessment based on the issues, not based on the political affiliation. Too many people just make decisions based on beating the other guy.



No, who's right and who's wrong is a matter of results.
 
Letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire would decrease the deficit.

No it would not Obama would just spend more. If Obama has not taken the stimulus and tarp money that was not spent and has not used it to pay down the debt what makes you think he will use any money to pay the debt. If Obama was concerned about the debt he would use the stimulus and tarp funds to pay unemployment benefits.
 
No, who's right and who's wrong is a matter of results.

You know the old saying... there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. Results are a matter of perspective in a lot of cases.
 
All this sentiment about politicians just "doing what's best for the country" would carry a lot more weight if everyone actually agreed on what was best for the country. The fact that they don't is why we have all of this partisanship in the first place.
 
All this sentiment about politicians just "doing what's best for the country" would carry a lot more weight if everyone actually agreed on what was best for the country. The fact that they don't is why we have all of this partisanship in the first place.

I think everyone agrees that improving the economy is best for the country. No doubt about that, is there?

There's a difference of opinion about how to achieve that goal.
 
I think everyone agrees that improving the economy is best for the country. No doubt about that, is there?

There's a difference of opinion about how to achieve that goal.
That's sort of the issue I was pointing out.

I, for one, do not think that tax breaks for the ruling class is beneficial to the economy.
 
You know the old saying... there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. Results are a matter of perspective in a lot of cases.

Decreasing the deficit and cutting the unemployment rate by 3+ points would be good, based on a person's perspective?

You must be saying that one side, or the other, doesn't want these events to take place. Which side you would point to, is the ultimate question. That would make you a hyper-partisan hack, no matter which side you chose.

I think that both sides would love to see both/either of these happen. Their motivation may only be to get re-elected, but they want it to happen, just the same.
 
All this sentiment about politicians just "doing what's best for the country" would carry a lot more weight if everyone actually agreed on what was best for the country. The fact that they don't is why we have all of this partisanship in the first place.

I think everyone agrees that improving the economy is best for the country. No doubt about that, is there?

There's a difference of opinion about how to achieve that goal.

The two of you are about as opposite as you can be, politically. Yet not only did you say nearly the same thing, but you are both spot on correct. So, let's take this a step further. How would the two of you... or anyone else address these differences? If everyone wants what's best for the country, yet folks disagree on how to achieve that, how does this get dealt with?
 
That's sort of the issue I was pointing out.

I, for one, do not think that tax breaks for the ruling class is beneficial to the economy.

The ruling class isn't getting a tax break.

No matter what anyone says, the Bush tax cuts didn't cause the Great Depression II.
 
The two of you are about as opposite as you can be, politically. Yet not only did you say nearly the same thing, but you are both spot on correct. So, let's take this a step further. How would the two of you... or anyone else address these differences? If everyone wants what's best for the country, yet folks disagree on how to achieve that, how does this get dealt with?
With childish, partisan bickering.
 
No it would not Obama would just spend more. If Obama has not taken the stimulus and tarp money that was not spent and has not used it to pay down the debt what makes you think he will use any money to pay the debt. If Obama was concerned about the debt he would use the stimulus and tarp funds to pay unemployment benefits.

Ask Conservative on who controls the purse strings in government

(hint, he will say it is not the president buy congress)
 
Decreasing the deficit and cutting the unemployment rate by 3+ points would be good, based on a person's perspective?

Decreasing the deficit? No. I think that is more of a universal issue... probably one of the vew. Cutting the unemployment reate by 3+ points? Yes, I think that's a matter of perspective.

You must be saying that one side, or the other, doesn't want these events to take place. Which side you would point to, is the ultimate question. That would make you a hyper-partisan hack, no matter which side you chose.

If we are discussing decreasing the deficit, and one side wants to block legislation that would accomplish this because it was proposed by the other side, I agree 100% with you. Other than that, I do not.

I think that both sides would love to see both/either of these happen. Their motivation may only be to get re-elected, but they want it to happen, just the same.

I think there is a difference though. Some want to do it to get elected. Some because they believe it's the right thing to do. I have a problem with the first group and dismiss their position as based on nothing. I can respect the second, but want to know where their "line" is.
 
The two of you are about as opposite as you can be, politically. Yet not only did you say nearly the same thing, but you are both spot on correct. So, let's take this a step further. How would the two of you... or anyone else address these differences? If everyone wants what's best for the country, yet folks disagree on how to achieve that, how does this get dealt with?

Whom ever has the biggest dick--politically speaking--get's their way on the policy.

Right now, that's the Republicans and I'm glad of it, because I like their strategy.

Obama didn't cut this deal, because he had to, or because he's a *****. He wants, very badly, to get re-elected. personally, I think he's **** out of luck, but I think he believes that this is the best deal he could make and accomplish that goal.

The last thing he wanted, was to be the guy who raised everyone's taxes. That would have nailed his political coffin shut, tighter than a crab's ass...and, that's water tight.
 
Back
Top Bottom