• 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!

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

Romney says right on his website his plan is to cut regulations. Obama has done something, and Romney badly wants to undo it.

Yes, under Obama we have institutionalized too big to fail. Romney would have done the same.

Obama has shown restraint with Iran, while McCain and Romney rattle sabers. Obama withdrew all the troops from Iraq last December, while both McCain and Romney said we should have left them there.

Obama is showing restraint (he's already shown he is up for new intrusions into other countries) because he knows what it would do to the price of gas and his re-election chances.

And the CAFE standards, and tighter tailpipe emissions restrictions, and the tighter smokestack restrictions for power plants, and the largest investment in alternative energy than by any president in history.

If you are proud of Solyndra and the like, well........as I said, Romney will reward his campaign donors also.

Obama is leading in the direction the country wants to go. This will become more apparent to you in November.

If he wins he will not be able to accomplish anything. Nor will Romney.
 
I have massive concern for the pestilence of socialism that has been inflicted on our great nation and I worry about how America is deteriorating since the scourge of the New Deal infected this once great nation

Yes, indeed, life was much better in the good old days of the Great Depression, robber barons, slavery and whatnot. Sniff.
 
the uber rich benefit when money is concentrated in the hands of a government they control

That about sums up the Republican game plan.
 
Yes, under Obama we have institutionalized too big to fail. Romney would have done the same.

"After Republicans took over the House of Representatives in November 2010, the incoming House Financial Services Chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), said he believes Washington’s role is to “serve the banks.” And the GOP has done its best this year to follow that directive, by denying regulators the money they need to implement the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, trying to repeal or water down some of the law’s key provisions, and blocking Obama administration nominations to regulatory posts."

"Senate Republicans have also put a hold on a slew of nominations to fill financial regulatory positions."

Two More Ways Republicans Are Undermining Financial Regulations | ThinkProgress


Obama is showing restraint (he's already shown he is up for new intrusions into other countries) because he knows what it would do to the price of gas and his re-election chances.

If you want the guy who proposes to spend more on the military, and thinks we should have kept the Iraq war going, you vote for him.
 
That about sums up the Republican game plan.

The rich control the government, not just the right wing of it. Hence why none of Obama's policies are really any different than his predecessor's.
 
The rich control the government, not just the right wing of it. Hence why none of Obama's policies are really any different than his predecessor's.

Which one of his contemporaries invested more in alternative energy, or got a payroll tax cut passed, or passed the most progressive CAFE standards in decades, or ended an almost decade long war that the GOP wanted to keep going, or has proposed ending the tax cuts for the wealthy that do not create jobs, or has passed financial regulations despite attempts to block it, or has done more to reduce C02 levels.
 
Which one of his contemporaries invested more in alternative energy, or got a payroll tax cut passed, or passed the most progressive CAFE standards in decades, or ended an almost decade long war that the GOP wanted to keep going, or has proposed ending the tax cuts for the wealthy that do not create jobs, or has passed financial regulations despite attempts to block it, or has done more to reduce C02 levels.

I'm sure you could list a thousand more things you think makes Obama so different from Bush, but he's not. It's the same country with the same allies and the same type of leadership and same central banking policies and the same rich favoritism.
 
I'm sure you could list a thousand more things you think makes Obama so different from Bush, but he's not. It's the same country with the same allies and the same type of leadership and same central banking policies and the same rich favoritism.

I am more than happy with having someone fighting for my ideals more than anyone has in the last 3 decades. Utopia only exists in fairytales! But you go ahead and vote for the Libertarian candidate if that is what floats your boat.
 
...Washington’s role is to “serve the banks.”

Since you included this portion of the article do you believe the opposite to be true? The banks' role is to serve government (Washington). Do you disagree with the 'of the people, by the people and for the people'?
 
the uber rich benefit when money is concentrated in the hands of a government they control

Now all you have to do should be easy - connect those widely spaced dots with every bit of verifiable evidence you can muster so we can see you have more than just your simple self imposed belief system. That is the essence of actual debate.
 
You haven't been keeping up with the news then:
"Obama announces Pentagon budget cuts"
Thanks, but no thanks!

Have you been keeping up?

Obama proposes TRICARE changes

So BHO wants to control military costs by having military retirees partially pay for their healthcare and that’s a good thing? Isn’t this similar to what is proposed in the ‘Ryan plan’ for Medicare and has stirred broad opposition? Isn’t this similar to what states want public sector unions to do which has stirred broad opposition?
 
Wrong. "Senate Republicans, united in opposition to the Democrats’ legislation to tighten regulation of the financial system, voted on Monday to block the bill from reaching the floor for debate."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27regulate.html

Thanks, but no thanks!

Maybe I’m wrong but wasn’t this ‘Dodd-Frank’? Per you link both Ben Nelson (D) and Harry Reid (D) ALSO VOTED AGAINST IT…And didn’t it ultimately pass AND BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT? If so what is your point?
 
"...Washington’s role is to “serve the banks.”

I don't know what this clip of a sentence is supposed to mean. From what article is this from and in what context was it used?
 
Have you been keeping up?

Obama proposes TRICARE changes

So BHO wants to control military costs by having military retirees partially pay for their healthcare and that’s a good thing? Isn’t this similar to what is proposed in the ‘Ryan plan’ for Medicare and has stirred broad opposition? Isn’t this similar to what states want public sector unions to do which has stirred broad opposition?

This is what you oppose??? From your article:

"To bring the TRICARE plan more in line with private and other federal plans, the president's proposed plan would eliminate co-pays for generic mail-order drugs, while shifting retail co-pays from a dollar amount to a percentage co-pay. The change would apply to military families and retirees, but not active-duty service members.

These changes will ensure fiscal responsibility without compromising quality care for service members and their families, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement released Sept. 19.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta "has consistently emphasized the need to keep faith with our troops and their families," Little said.

"That includes maintaining the highest quality health care for them," he continued. "We will continue to maintain the highest possible health care, but during this period of fiscal belt tightening, we may see modest cost increases in TRICARE enrollment fees and co-pays to sustain the health system."

The changes are necessary to help reduce the deficit and ensure the long-term strengths of the programs, a White House news release issued after Obama's speech said. The changes also would help to level "a measurable disparity" between military retirees and private sector workers, it says.

The statement notes that the administration has expanded GI Bill benefits, job training and veterans' homeless prevention programs, and proposed tax credits for employers to hire veterans."
 
Maybe I’m wrong but wasn’t this ‘Dodd-Frank’? Per you link both Ben Nelson (D) and Harry Reid (D) ALSO VOTED AGAINST IT…And didn’t it ultimately pass AND BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT? If so what is your point?

Look at the party that voted for financial regulations and which party voted against financial regulations..........that's the point!

223 Democrats voted Aye, and 176 Republicans voted No.
GovTrack: House Vote On Passage: H.R. 4173 [111th]: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection...
 
If the ‘Buffet rule’ was so important and would change the ‘playing field’ how will it compel ‘Buffet type’ folks to pay the taxes they are CURRENTLY liable for?

Buffett

What’s going to change? We're going to tell them to pay MORE and yet we cannot get them to pay what they owe now...:lamo

you dream...on


Your red herring has nothing whatsoever to do with raising the capital gains tax rate.
 
I don't know what this clip of a sentence is supposed to mean. From what article is this from and in what context was it used?

It came from YOUR post #104. It was what Spencer Bacus stated. My question to you was since you found fault in this is it position that the opposite is true? IOW is the banks' role to serve Washington?
 
This is what you oppose??? From your article:

"To bring the TRICARE plan more in line with private and other federal plans, the president's proposed plan would eliminate co-pays for generic mail-order drugs, while shifting retail co-pays from a dollar amount to a percentage co-pay. The change would apply to military families and retirees, but not active-duty service members.

These changes will ensure fiscal responsibility without compromising quality care for service members and their families, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement released Sept. 19.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta "has consistently emphasized the need to keep faith with our troops and their families," Little said.

"That includes maintaining the highest quality health care for them," he continued. "We will continue to maintain the highest possible health care, but during this period of fiscal belt tightening, we may see modest cost increases in TRICARE enrollment fees and co-pays to sustain the health system."

The changes are necessary to help reduce the deficit and ensure the long-term strengths of the programs, a White House news release issued after Obama's speech said. The changes also would help to level "a measurable disparity" between military retirees and private sector workers, it says.

The statement notes that the administration has expanded GI Bill benefits, job training and veterans' homeless prevention programs, and proposed tax credits for employers to hire veterans."

The specific bolded statements, yes they are the ones I oppose. How could any self-respecting Liberal agree to raise health care costs on military retirees, many of whom were put in harms way?
 
Look at the party that voted for financial regulations and which party voted against financial regulations..........that's the point!

223 Democrats voted Aye, and 176 Republicans voted No.
GovTrack: House Vote On Passage: H.R. 4173 [111th]: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection...

OH, I get it...the vote on some bill was divided on party lines and that is some big news???! Really? And since 'too big to fail' was one of the major causes of the financial downturn did Dodd-Frank address it? How about FM/FM, were they addressed?
 
Your red herring has nothing whatsoever to do with raising the capital gains tax rate.

Which red herring are you refering to? The one where you raise taxes on the wealthy and they find a way around it...
 
It came from YOUR post #104. It was what Spencer Bacus stated.

Oh, this is what you are referring to:

"After Republicans took over the House of Representatives in November 2010, the incoming House Financial Services Chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), said he believes Washington’s role is to “serve the banks.” And the GOP has done its best this year to follow that directive, by denying regulators the money they need to implement the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, trying to repeal or water down some of the law’s key provisions, and blocking Obama administration nominations to regulatory posts."

"Senate Republicans have also put a hold on a slew of nominations to fill financial regulatory positions."

My question to you was since you found fault in this is it position that the opposite is true? IOW is the banks' role to serve Washington?

No, which has nothing to do with re-regulating the banks which the Dems support and the GOPs oppose.
 
The specific bolded statements, yes they are the ones I oppose. How could any self-respecting Liberal agree to raise health care costs on military retirees, many of whom were put in harms way?

So you are opposed to:

"eliminate co-pays for generic mail-order drugs, while shifting retail co-pays from a dollar amount to a percentage co-pay. The change would apply to military families and retirees, but not active-duty service members."

"fiscal responsibility"

"That includes maintaining the highest quality health care for them," he continued. "We will continue to maintain the highest possible health care, but during this period of fiscal belt tightening, we may see modest cost increases in TRICARE enrollment fees and co-pays to sustain the health system."

"The changes also would help to level "a measurable disparity" between military retirees and private sector workers,"

"expanded GI Bill benefits" for veterans

"job training" for veterans

"homeless prevention programs" for veterans

"proposed tax credits for employers to hire veterans."


Well, its not hard to see why you differ from the majority of Americans.
 
OH, I get it...the vote on some bill was divided on party lines and that is some big news???! Really? And since 'too big to fail' was one of the major causes of the financial downturn did Dodd-Frank address it? How about FM/FM, were they addressed?

I'm going with the party that supports financial regulation, not the party that opposes it. The party that supported Dodd-Frank and the party that supports HR 1489, with 58 co-sponsors in the House, almost all Democrats.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1489/show
 
Last edited:
Well, its not hard to see why you differ from the majority of Americans.

I have yet to see a poll that supports 'majority of Americans'. Maybe you can furnish support for said claim. In fact I have seen very little discussion on this topic.

And to be clear, I am against increasing their personal cost for healthcare. I am for expanded GI Bill benefits, job training, homeless prevention programs, proposed tax credits for employers to hire veterans.

So to be clear YOU support increasing healthcare costs to military veterans...? Kinda weird as I assume you support ACA for everyone else but want to increase costs on those who have protected your right to support it.
 
Back
Top Bottom