• 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!

Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

pbrauer said:
What spending are you speaking of. Do you mean the spending Bush did on wars of choice that were never paid for. Or the Medicare Part D legislation that wasn't paid for. The tax cuts that favored the richest Americans.
Click to expand...

So... Obama has spent nothing. Interesting fantasy land you live in.
 
pbrauer said:
Is that so? The first GOP debate at the Reagan library is next month and so far it doesn't appear there any any takers. There is a gay guy who has thrown his hat in the ring, is that the guy you are backing?
Click to expand...
Ummm, that debate is being put off until September. Hopefully by then Republicans will find someone with balls who will show up. :lamo Maybe Palin or Bachmann?


GOP 2012 debate moved to September
 
TurtleDude said:
that is like saying most marathoners don't mind the mileage

its a PRICE they pay to win races

how many of those rich dems send extra money to the IRS

you also neglect to note that some find other issues (like sodomy rights for gay men and abortion for women) MORE important.

if they really WANTED to pay more taxes they would be sending extra money in

they don't
Click to expand...

why would they send more money to the government when less wealthy classes are still paying taxes that they perceive as too high? For example, if wealthy Jack pays $20 out of $1000 income to a government and middle class Sally pays $20 out of a $300 salary, then wealthy Jack donating an extra $100 doesn't change the fact that middle class Sally is still paying $20...what wealthy Jack wants is for his taxes to be $120 and Sally's to be $10.

If Bill Gates sends $10 million to the federal government, taxes for the less wealthy citizens are still the same. like i said - when wealthy people argue for higher taxes, they're arguing that they should take more of the burden than their less wealthy citizens.

sending EXTRA money doesn't change the middle class taxes they're fighting against....

edit: they want to pay more money...too take the burden off of others. they don't want to pay more money just for sake of paying more money.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
What spending are you speaking of. Do you mean the spending Bush did on wars of choice that were never paid for. Or the Medicare Part D legislation that wasn't paid for. The tax cuts that favored the richest Americans.
Click to expand...

What were the deficits during the Bush years, versus the current administration. What was 2008 federal spending versus 2010 or 2011. Regarding taxes, did Obama extend those for the next two years?

You might want to stick to topics you are better versed on.
 
theplaydrive said:
Demonizing the greedy and demonizing the wealthy are two different things, so yeah. Party on, peep.
Click to expand...

so anyone making over 250K a year is "greedy"

Sham wow constantly claimed those people needed to pay more
 
The Prof said:
LOL!

the president, head of his party on capitol hill, proposes

the congess disposes

where ya been?
Click to expand...

Ah, so you are saying that both have responsibility. I think I already asked you and you responded by saying that the President is the head of his party, but I'll ask again... are you saying that both Congress and the President have fairly equal responsibility in the economy?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
There is an error in your argument, here. You seem to believe that being OK with paying more taxes is equivelent to WANTING to pay more taxes. These two things are not the same.
Click to expand...

you are in error-you missed the point. no one wants to pay more taxes-some accept that as a necessary evil to get more wealth

for rich dems its better to pay 100K in more taxes if you get 300k more in income by being in power.
 
Whovian said:
So... Obama has spent nothing. Interesting fantasy land you live in.
Click to expand...

In my best Whovian impersonation: "Where did I say Obama didn't spend any money?"
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seriously?
"Employment 6.5 million jobs created/8 years=over 812 thousand per year." ~ Conservative
​
Where'd you get your information that Bush created 6.5 million jobs?
Click to expand...

Obama job creation-Employment Numbers from bls.gov

Jan 2009 142221
Jan 2010 138333
Mar 2011 139864

Jobs Lost 2.3 million jobs lost and all that money wasted yet Obama wants another four years and has your vote. Says a lot about the Obama supporter
 
TurtleDude said:
so anyone making over 250K a year is "greedy"

Sham wow constantly claimed those people needed to pay more
Click to expand...

He didn't demonize people who make 250K and he certainly did not call those people "greedy". - once again, you're spinning reasonable suggestions into demonization.
 
theplaydrive said:
why would they send more money to the government when less wealthy classes are still paying taxes that they perceive as too high? For example, if wealthy Jack pays $20 out of $1000 income to a government and middle class Sally pays $20 out of a $300 salary, then wealthy Jack donating an extra $100 doesn't change the fact that middle class Sally is still paying $20...what wealthy Jack wants is for his taxes to be $120 and Sally's to be $10.

If Bill Gates sends $10 million to the federal government, taxes for the less wealthy citizens are still the same. like i said - when wealthy people argue for higher taxes, they're arguing that they should take more of the burden than their less wealthy citizens.

sending EXTRA money doesn't change the middle class taxes they're fighting against....

edit: they want to pay more money...too take the burden off of others. they don't want to pay more money just for sake of paying more money.
Click to expand...

that is stupid

rich people pay the highest rates on like income

rich people pay far more actual dollars to the government

rich people pay the highest income tax rates

why do dems demand that those who don't pay enough should not have tax hikes but those who pay too much and are hit with the death tax surcharge pay even more?

vote buying pure and simple
 
theplaydrive said:
He didn't demonize people who make 250K and he certainly did not call those people "greedy". - once again, you're spinning reasonable suggestions into demonization.
Click to expand...

saying that the rich (ie over 250K) didn't pay their fair share is demonization
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Obama had control of the entire government? You're doing it again, Conservative. Talk about not understanding civics. Remind us again... who controls the government, Congress or the President?
Click to expand...

Remind the dem wit dems on this forum that continually blame Bush for the economic downturn that occurred in his last 2 years in office who controls the gov't.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are in error-you missed the point. no one wants to pay more taxes-some accept that as a necessary evil to get more wealth

for rich dems its better to pay 100K in more taxes if you get 300k more in income by being in power.
Click to expand...

No, you are making assumptions. Some accept paying more taxes as a necessary evil so that the government can provide services. Your assumption is about as accurate as liberals who claim that all conservatives are greedy.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Remind the dem wit dems on this forum that continually blame Bush for the economic downturn that occurred in his last 2 years in office who controls the gov't.
Click to expand...

OK... who do YOU think controls the government? Congress or the President?
 
TurtleDude said:
that is stupid

rich people pay the highest rates on like income

rich people pay far more actual dollars to the government

rich people pay the highest income tax rates

why do dems demand that those who don't pay enough should not have tax hikes but those who pay too much and are hit with the death tax surcharge pay even more?

vote buying pure and simple
Click to expand...

cool. some rich people have no problem paying more. maybe you should just take people at their word instead of finding a cynical reason behind every action - some rich people don't mind paying higher taxes.
 
Conservative said:
Obama job creation-Employment Numbers from bls.gov

Jan 2009 142221
Jan 2010 138333
Mar 2011 139864

Jobs Lost 2.3 million jobs lost and all that money wasted yet Obama wants another four years and has your vote. Says a lot about the Obama supporter
Click to expand...

Wait... didn't he ask you where you got your numbers that Bush created 6.5 million jobs?
 
pbrauer said:
What spending are you speaking of. Do you mean the spending Bush did on wars of choice that were never paid for. Or the Medicare Part D legislation that wasn't paid for. The tax cuts that favored the richest Americans.
Click to expand...
Is that all the better you can do is regurgitate the talking points I've heard hundreds of times before?

I didnt support Bushes big spending either, but the cost spent on defense dwarfs in comparison to what dear leader spends on social programs & goverment handouts, surely you cant deny this? Obama makes Bushes spending look like amateur hour and he did it in 2 years compared to Bushes 8.

Tax cuts for the richest Americans? maybe thats because the rich already pay 90% of taxes in this country, money that is essentially wasted by the feds on programs that dont work, that could be spent on expanding business's and hiring more workers. But like most Liberals your unfamiliar with that concept arent you?
 
TurtleDude said:
saying that the rich (ie over 250K) didn't pay their fair share is demonization
Click to expand...

No, it's really not.

Demonize: To represent as evil or diabolic.

Suggesting higher taxes is not a judgment on the evilness or immorality of a citizen. Demonizing would be saying "people who make over 250K are greedy jerks". Most Democrats do not do that because it's nonsensical. When we call people greedy jerks we're usually referring to greedy jerks.
 
Conservative said:
Thought this thread was about Obama so what does Bush have to do with it?
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought this thread was about Obama's candidacy, but you made it about US economics, so comparisons are fair game.
 
theplaydrive said:
cool. some rich people have no problem paying more. maybe you should just take people at their word instead of finding a cynical reason behind every action - some rich people don't mind paying higher taxes.
Click to expand...

yet they don't


your attempts to avoid the point are rather amusing

those who "support" higher taxes do so to gain in other areas. why have so many members of the Obama administration been accused of not paying taxes when their lord campaigned on sticking it to the rich?
 
theplaydrive said:
No, it's really not.

Demonize: To represent as evil or diabolic.

Suggesting higher taxes is not a judgment on the evilness or immorality of a citizen. Demonizing would be saying "people who make over 250K are greedy jerks". Most Democrats do not do that because it's nonsensical. When we call people greedy jerks we're usually referring to greedy jerks.
Click to expand...

weak semantic avoidance

saying someone is not paying their "fair share" is demonizing them or their actions
 
Conservative said:
Thought this thread was about Obama so what does Bush have to do with it?
Click to expand...
Of course they want to change the subject, would you want to discuss the truth about this disaster of a president if you voted for him?

Besides, who here is even advocating another Bush like presidency? Not I. I'd like to see a true fiscal conservative not a big spender.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, I thought this thread was about Obama's candidacy, but you made it about US economics, so comparisons are fair game.
Click to expand...

The Obama candidacy will be about economics so unless Obama is running against Bush any comparison isn't relevant. Obama will have to explain his record, not Bush's. Bush had a net job gain with two recessions, right now Obama is down over two million jobs and wants to be re-elected. When does the statute of limitations run out on blaming Bush or comparing Obama to Bush. Obama was hired to "clean up the mess" and the numbers to date don't provide a lot of support for another four years. He has a long way to go in the next 1 1/2 years to warrant re-election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom