• 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 to call for middle class tax cut extension

Rich is rich is rich. No matter in what era of history you lived in.

And not rich is not rich is not rich. No matter what era of history you lived in.

Just plain ignorant seems to describe what you wrote. The prof was saying that people fool themselves into believing that they can identify with the rich when they are clearly not rich.

Apparently your skills in obtaining the lesson from a parable are sorely out of shape.

But I can see why a right libertarian would hate it.
I dont hate it, it is just a stupid analogy and an even dumber parable. Despite your professors claim, it in no way highlights the 'fundamental difference between a man and a dog.' But it does highlight the stupidity of some college professors, though.
 
:lamo :lamo :lamo

No economics thread would be complete if TD didn't play the Envy Card!

that is because every thread about taxes is permeated with butt hurt whining about the rich from those who have failed to achieve
 
You confuse me with somebody who give a tinkers damn about what people BELIEVE.

I guess your constant responses demonstrate that tinkers dam (not damn-major error there-a dam was what a tinker used in retaining molten solder from overflowing)
 
I dont hate it, it is just a stupid analogy and an even dumber parable. Despite your professors claim, it in no way highlights the 'fundamental difference between a man and a dog.' But it does highlight the stupidity of some college professors, though.

Based on your reaction, looks like he hit a home run out of the park.
 
I guess your constant responses demonstrate that tinkers dam (not damn-major error there-a dam was what a tinker used in retaining molten solder from overflowing)

Thank you for that bit of trivia. And I still do not care what somebody believes.
 
that is because every thread about taxes is permeated with butt hurt whining about the rich from those who have failed to achieve

What actual evidence do you have that anyone or everyone who disagrees with you about tax policy has failed to achieve?
 
What actual evidence do you have that anyone or everyone who disagrees with you about tax policy has failed to achieve?

several have whined how tough their economic situation is
 
several have whined how tough their economic situation is

Okay - fair enough. At least for those who identify their situation as such.

However many of us who do strongly disagree with you on taxes are very successful.
 
Okay - fair enough. At least for those who identify their situation as such.

However many of us who do strongly disagree with you on taxes are very successful.

there are people who believe that having dems in power will accentuate their wealth or power. those who work for the dem party or those who are beholden to dem policies for their wealth and power.

and there are single issue voters whose single issue trumps perhaps the deleterious impact dem policies have on their finances. Rich Gays are a classic example
 
there are people who believe that having dems in power will accentuate their wealth or power. those who work for the dem party or those who are beholden to dem policies for their wealth and power.

and there are single issue voters whose single issue trumps perhaps the deleterious impact dem policies have on their finances. Rich Gays are a classic example

You could be describing people on the Republican side also. That sword cuts both ways.

I do not work for the Democratic Party. I work for a State Representative who happens to be a Democrat. There is a difference and a difference with a distinction.
 
aheeem:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on July 11, 2012. H.R. 6079 would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the exception of one subsection that has no budgetary effect. This estimate reflects the spending and revenue projections in CBO’s March 2012 baseline as adjusted to take into account the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the ACA.

For various reasons discussed in the report, the estimated budgetary effects of repealing the ACA by enacting H.R. 6079 are close to, but not equivalent to, an estimate of the budgetary effects of the ACA with the signs reversed.

What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period.
Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

Is this your way of acknowledging that Obamacare is a one trillion dollar tax increase?
 
As moral people, with the goal of our Constitution to promote the welfare of we the people, we most certainly do have to do what is humane in regards to our fellow citizens.
And unless people are paid a living wage for full-time work, they have no option to escape state assistance. When we have more work with better pay, we have less people in need of assistance. This is not rocket science. You act like you have no knowledge of the history of labor laws in this country. Without labor laws, labor has always come up with the short end of the stick, as the management generally is most interested in their own bottom line, regardless of what it means for labor.
You do violence to the Constitution and to our history.

Promoting the general welfare does not mean taking care of each citizen. But you already know this.
 
There are not enough skilled jobs for your plan to work. If it were you wouldn't see skilled college educated people working at fast food restaurants. That helps explain why none of the candidates are espousing your views.
They have no skills or they would have jobs. They have worthless, expensive educations but they don't have any idea how to actually do anything of value.
 
They have no skills or they would have jobs. They have worthless, expensive educations but they don't have any idea how to actually do anything of value.

There are 4.1 unemployed job seekers for every one available job according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
 
You know that makes no sense, right?

It makes perfect sense to those who would open their minds to see it.

The prof with the tale about dogs hit it right out of the park and we have your negative reaction to it to prove it. It is similar to the movie LITTLE BIG MAN where an Indian scout is told by General Custer that he is the perfect reverse barometer.
 
They have no skills or they would have jobs. They have worthless, expensive educations but they don't have any idea how to actually do anything of value.
It certainly is humorous to watch those who deride Obama for supposedly destroying the labor market in it's entirety, proceed to lay the blame at the feet of the unemployed individuals themselves for their perceived lack of skill or initiative even though all statistics point to the contrary. As if the average American individual suddenly lost the will or skill to be a productive member of the work force, a phenomenon which just so happened to coincide with the collapse of the housing market.
 
They have no skills or they would have jobs. They have worthless, expensive educations but they don't have any idea how to actually do anything of value.

I know people with skills and educations in areas valued. They cannot get a job in their field and many are too skilled and educated to get jobs in other fields where they are simply over qualified and employers are reluctant to hire them figuring they will not stay very long.
 
I know people with skills and educations in areas valued. They cannot get a job in their field and many are too skilled and educated to get jobs in other fields where they are simply over qualified and employers are reluctant to hire them figuring they will not stay very long.

sounds like a most excellent reason to get rid of all the government obstacles to business growth
 
It makes perfect sense to those who would open their minds to see it.
Perhaps. And perhaps it just makes sense to those who have none of their own.

The prof with the tale about dogs hit it right out of the park and we have your negative reaction to it to prove it. It is similar to the movie LITTLE BIG MAN where an Indian scout is told by General Custer that he is the perfect reverse barometer.
This post makes even less sense than your last. Perhaps you should turn in for the night and get some rest.
 
Perhaps. And perhaps it just makes sense to those who have none of their own.

This post makes even less sense than your last. Perhaps you should turn in for the night and get some rest.

Its okay Fletch. I understand that it hit too close to home and this is your way of making a public denial to establish your libertarian credentials. Its okay.
 
sounds like a most excellent reason to get rid of all the government obstacles to business growth

I agree that we should get rid of all UNNECESSARY government obstacles to business growth.... providing that doing so reaps greater benefit than government involvement.
 
I agree that we should get rid of all UNNECESSARY government obstacles to business growth.... providing that doing so reaps greater benefit than government involvement.

I suspect your concept of benefit and mine vary greatly
 
I suspect your concept of benefit and mine vary greatly

I suspect you are 100% correct. I would hope that there is some middle ground upon which reasonable people can agree upon.

I am more that willing to concede that there are government regulations and programs that are simply not necessary.

I would hope that you would be willing to concede that there are government regulations and programs which are indeed necessary.

The trick is to find that ground upon which we both will agree.

If America is to dig itself out of the hole it is now in, we must do that as fellow Americans.
 
that is because every thread about taxes is permeated with butt hurt whining about the rich from those who have failed to achieve
I understand that your ideology is so limited you can see no other basis for the opinions of others except envy - and that's sad, really - but it's still hilarious when you play that card. LOL!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom