• 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!

Senate deal averts shutdown

Henrin said:
And those polices are?

Tax cuts? I'm sorry but if that is all you got it's weaksauce.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts and deregulation. The motivation of capitalism in its current incarnation is to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible, even if that screws you in the long term. Give people the nod to do it, and they will, every time.
 
Henrin said:
Taking money out of SS to cause a surplus isn't a surplus. Its taking money out of an obligation to put towards other means.
Click to expand...

Did you read what he just said? Even if you ignore the money taken from SS, there was still a surplus.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Live in the now and stay on subject. We are broke and dems want to go even more in debt, reps want to at least break even.
Click to expand...

You must be kidding. The Republicans are interested in using the debt crisis to reduce the size of government. They have no interest in 'breaking even'. If they did, they would embrace or at least consider discussion on tax increases as a component to deficit reduction given that almost all credible economists and those that have studied the issue have recommended a combination of expenditure cuts and tax increases. The dems, at least, unlike the counterparts, are talking about using all of the tools in the toolkit.

Moreover, given the fact that we went from little to no annual deficit to annual deficits that exceed $1T per year under Republican leadership, there is no track record to support your assertion and every bit of evidence to refute it.
 
Last edited:
atrasicarius said:
Tax cuts and deregulation. The motivation of capitalism in its current incarnation is to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible, even if that screws you in the long term. Give people the nod to do it, and they will, every time.
Click to expand...

Deregulation didn't cause the housing bubble. If anything there was more regulation in that time than before.

As for you assumption that capitalism is about short term goals and trying to tell the housing bubble was capitalism is dishonest.
 
atrasicarius said:
Did you read what he just said? Even if you ignore the money taken from SS, there was still a surplus.
Click to expand...

Fact check does indeed say that tax increases(lol I like how they want to put out it was only on the rich) were part of it. It was however a small part of it. They even said it was only one billion. Any sort of bill that popped out could of easily killed it.
 
Henrin said:
Deregulation didn't cause the housing bubble. If anything there was more regulation in that time than before.

As for you assumption that capitalism is about short term goals and trying to tell the housing bubble was capitalism is dishonest.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it wasn't a lack of regulations that caused the housing bubble, it was just a complete failure to enforce the ones on the books. Don't think you can get away with trying to pin the recession on the government, though. Only a small minority of the bad loans were involved in the community reinvestment act. It was caused by good old fashioned greed, enabled by the Bush administration.
 
atrasicarius said:
To be fair, it wasn't a lack of regulations that caused the housing bubble, it was just a complete failure to enforce the ones on the books. Don't think you can get away with trying to pin the recession on the government, though. Only a small minority of the bad loans were involved in the community reinvestment act. It was caused by good old fashioned greed, enabled by the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

There was a large amount of lawsuits on businesses not interested in the loans. Some of them tried by Obama himself. The process was started and forced on the banks by the government. Even grading bad loans good was started by the government.
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
Im not sure what your upset about perry...you dont think they should have approved disaster relief for people ?
Click to expand...

They didn't do that. They came up with some story about the money actually being there despite their claims to the contrary. They did nothing.

I'm good with some disaster relief........as long as it's paid for.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Or we could do away with the Bush-era tax cuts AND cut spending - and actually pay down the deficit during the good times like we once did. Not continuing to pay down the deficit as Clinton was doing when things were good and cutting revenue instead is one of the reasons that we are now in the shape we are in. Reagan / GWB financial policies are responsible for the mess we are in.
Click to expand...

When I see a plan that calls for increased taxes and it's combined with a plan to actually cut spending, I'll support it. Not games claiming to cut spending years from now or claiming that spending already slated to end is additional cuts.
 
rocket88 said:
Really? Where did Republicans suddenly get religion on this? Cheney said "deficits don't matter." Republicans have certainly not governed with concern over the deficit in the past. How many budgets did Reagan and both Bushes balance?

We're reaching the point where as a nation we have to decide what we want, and make tax rates enough to pay for it consistently.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the arguement would be over how much we were going to go further into debt, not that we can not go further into debt without the last election.

The last election did change the arguement as we've seen. Not that many who would have argued for simply less debt are really changed, but there is nothing they can do about those who refuse to accept that position.
 
lpast said:
Thats fine...but when theres a disaster that no one can control and people need help...thats not the time to play lets pay for games after all the free money the teaparty gives to big oil and votes to keep giving it to them...whos BSin who
Click to expand...

You are....
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
We may have to spend to fix several things before we can balance this budget and start paying down the deficit. This was the thinking that got us out of the great depression and back into prosperity.
Click to expand...

Sheesh.... :roll:

However, we do need to start ending the pork and trimming the size of govt. now IMO. I am to a limited extend a Libertarian and was once a GOP. Reagan and his failed economics model was what caused me to leave the GOP. The cuts the Tea Party endorses are irresponsible while the economy is this bad.
Click to expand...

One of the cuts Boehner put on the table was the program that lost us a half billion dollars with Solyndra. Go ahead argue against that.
 
rocket88 said:
Cons need to study up on history. There were a couple of really bad ones in the 19th Century. Ever hear the name Andrew Johnson?? Must not have.

In fact, I'm guessing you've also never heard of Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding or Ulysses S. Grant. Next time you're going to make ridiculous claims, at least know what the hell you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Whether Obama ends up worse than any of these or not a few of those really aren't examples of telling people where they need to read up on history.

And you left out Carter.
 
Henrin said:
Deregulation didn't cause the housing bubble. If anything there was more regulation in that time than before.
Click to expand...

It played a role.

As for you assumption that capitalism is about short term goals and trying to tell the housing bubble was capitalism is dishonest.
Click to expand...

Indeed, no part of capitalism states that money should artifically be held so low for the simple idea of keeping bubbles inflated.
 
atrasicarius said:
To be fair,
Click to expand...

Sorry, you failed. Maybe one could argue that there were different motives but the housing debacle was enabled by both parties. It will be a major knock on Bush as he was president and that's the way it goes but there will be plenty of both parties to take the blame once history has been written.
 
My first post t started with “live in the now”. Nearly every response started out with Reagan or Bush. NOW we are in debt up to our eyeballs, NOW we are on the verge of a double dip, NOW housing prices and starts are in the toilet, NOW we have a pres that just squandered 4 trillion dollars and NOW he wants even more and NOW we need to stop spending money we don’t have. Feel free to Google NOW, you guys obviously don’t know the meaning of the word.
 
1Perry said:
Whether Obama ends up worse than any of these or not a few of those really aren't examples of telling people where they need to read up on history.

And you left out Carter.
Click to expand...

Carter was too recent and too obvious.

I think they are all examples of how people need to learn the history of the United States before they make big proclamations about Obama being "the worst ever." When you look at the corruption of the Grant administration, the ineptitude of Johnson (or James Buchanan for that matter), and the sheer criminality of Nixon, you realize that Obama's got a LONG way to sink before he reaches those depths. As much of a disappointment his administration has been (and it's been a big one), he's just not up there. Yet.
 
rocket88 said:
Carter was too recent and too obvious.

I think they are all examples of how people need to learn the history of the United States before they make big proclamations about Obama being "the worst ever." When you look at the corruption of the Grant administration, the ineptitude of Johnson (or James Buchanan for that matter), and the sheer criminality of Nixon, you realize that Obama's got a LONG way to sink before he reaches those depths. As much of a disappointment his administration has been (and it's been a big one), he's just not up there. Yet.
Click to expand...

In recent years it's been noted that Grant actually did many positive things during his presidency. He just wasn't much for holding people accountable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom