• 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!

CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

As the right goes further to the right they become blinded to what actually is left and what is center. Bill Clinton governed from the middle and Obama has angered many of more progressive supporters who are now offering criticism of his moderate positions.

It is a sad commentary on how far to the right some people and organizations have gone that they confuse the center or slightly left of center with far left.

Lol, if Obama is a far left Marxist then the rest of the world is 110% Communist. A comparison between even the conservative parties in the UK, Australia, etc make Obama look like a far right loon, relatively speaking.

the current dem leadership-the leadership that got bitched slapped a month ago but is whining about Obama now (who is moving right to bolster his waning re-election chances for 2012) is the most leftwing we have ever seen. and the problem is, many on this board crave outright eurosocialism and they pretend that far left is communism or anarcho-syndicalism when in the context of America, welfare-socialism is far left for our society

That explains perfectly why he's abandoned the views of the Democratic party on almost every issue, and why only 78% of the Democratic voters actually approve of him. His approval dropped an additional 2 points to 43% today.

If he's trying to get reelected he's doing a damn fine job :lol:
 
Last edited:
the current dem leadership-the leadership that got bitched slapped a month ago but is whining about Obama now (who is moving right to bolster his waning re-election chances for 2012) is the most leftwing we have ever seen. and the problem is, many on this board crave outright eurosocialism and they pretend that far left is communism or anarcho-syndicalism when in the context of America, welfare-socialism is far left for our society

Thank you for making my point Turtle. I can always count on you to be a beacon of right wing intolerance and greed as the perfect illustration of the dangerous swing to the radical right.
 
Thank you for making my point Turtle. I can always count on you to be a beacon of right wing intolerance and greed as the perfect illustration of the dangerous swing to the radical right.

you are the greedy one, it is not I who goes around demanding that the government take someone else's wealth for my political ends
 
you are the greedy one, it is not I who goes around demanding that the government take someone else's wealth for my political ends

I'm not the one advocating the virtual destruction of the middle class so that the top can get even more insane wealth than it's gained in the recession.
 
I'm not the one advocating the virtual destruction of the middle class so that the top can get even more insane wealth than it's gained in the recession.

1) I wasn't claiming you were (yet)

2) neither am I-you seem to think the way to preserve the middle class is for the government to grow and take more and more from the top, I disagree.
 
radical right seems to be the current talking point of the dems these days. actually it is the dems who are far more leftwing than they were a few years ago.

the gulf increases due to a party that wants lots of dependent pawns and has enacted 70+ years of policies that create such pawnage. Not because the "rich" aren't taxed enough.

To hand-out liberals, 'radical right' means people who dare believe that government (and others) doesnt exist to serve them, that hard work SHOULD be rewarded, that taxes should be collected to operate the government and affairs of state and that they should be able to keep income they have EARNED.
 
I do not know what country you think you inhabit. In the America I live in ALL citizens have rights. And that obviously does not please you.

the right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness
 
To hand-out liberals, 'radical right' means people who dare believe that government (and others) doesnt exist to serve them, that hard work SHOULD be rewarded, that taxes should be collected to operate the government and affairs of state and that they should be able to keep income they have EARNED.

Well.... not really.

Even far-right conservatives want some taxation. I know very little who want 0% tax in any area. So really they don't think people "should be able to keep income they have earned".

Turtledude is honest in this regard, and I like that.
 
Yes that makes logical sense. If someone has a few grand in the bank and his insurance doesn't cover his surgery what is he supposed to do? Take out LOANS for life saving surgery?

This can be a problem. We do need healthcare reform that would take care of catastrophic cases.
However, I think that kind of insurance was dismissed an unacceptable in the healthcare bill. They wanted it all, from preventive, on up.
 
To hand-out liberals, 'radical right' means people who dare believe that government (and others) doesnt exist to serve them, that hard work SHOULD be rewarded, that taxes should be collected to operate the government and affairs of state and that they should be able to keep income they have EARNED.

I think maybe liberals mistakenly think there is only so much wealth to go around so it must be taken from the rich so the poor won't be poor. They want to take pieces of someone else's pie instead of baking their own whole pie, when all the ingredients are there. (Thanks John Stossel)
He said something like that. :)
 
I think maybe liberals mistakenly think there is only so much wealth to go around so it must be taken from the rich so the poor won't be poor. They want to take pieces of someone else's pie instead of baking their own whole pie, when all the ingredients are there. (Thanks John Stossel)
He said something like that. :)

zero sum gain is one of the major assumptions underlying dem income redistribution schemes
 
Well.... not really.

Even far-right conservatives want some taxation. I know very little who want 0% tax in any area. So really they don't think people "should be able to keep income they have earned".

Turtledude is honest in this regard, and I like that.

"that taxes should be collected to operate the government and affairs of state"

Missed that part did ya?
 
It took a while but i thinks i has finally seen the light!! More tax is better!

So here is the plan:

  • Next year we raise the taxes on the rich to 100%. That oughta bring the deficit down.
  • So the following year the "rich" will all be broke so they won't have to pay any taxes. That should make them happy.
  • And since those former rich bastards are now broke and unemployed, they will be collecting Unemployment Benefits (which Pelosi assures us in the BEST way to inject money into the economy!!!)

Lordy. This plan looks like a WIN/WIN situation for everybody....!!!!!


.

Yes, clearly you can extrapolate someone's argument to an absurd degree and be intellectually honest! My turn!

You support lower taxes.
Therefore, you also support making tax rates 0%.
Therefore, you support disbanding the United States government entirely, at every level, plunging the Territory Formerly Known As The United States into total anarchy, central Africa style.
Therefore, you support the consequences of this zero tax rate, which includes more people dying from violence, including children.
Therefore, you support the murder of children.

Weeeeeee!
 
the right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness

i looked and looked and looked barb but I just cannot locate those "rights' in my copy of the US Constitution. Am I missing it?
 
To hand-out liberals, 'radical right' means people who dare believe that government (and others) doesnt exist to serve them, that hard work SHOULD be rewarded, that taxes should be collected to operate the government and affairs of state and that they should be able to keep income they have EARNED.

Wait, what does the government exist for, if not to serve the people?
 
i looked and looked and looked barb but I just cannot locate those "rights' in my copy of the US Constitution. Am I missing it?

Are you saying we don't have those inalianable rights?

What country do you live in? One where healthcare, a job, a house, an education, and food is a right?
 
Are you saying we don't have those inalianable rights?

What country do you live in? One where healthcare, a job, a house, an education, and food is a right?

I have looked and looked and cannot find those rights you previously listed in the Constitution.
 
Wait, what does the government exist for, if not to serve the people?

Well it depends on your vision now doesnt it? Government wasnt created to be a welfare/nanny state. Thats been a Democrat party philosophy (and its worked SO WELL...hasnt it...) but has had no basis in the origins of the country or foundation of the government. The fed wasnt established to take care of the people. Or maybe I missed it where they established health care...welfare, or any of the other handout programs. Point of fact I believe the founders would have puked their guts out at the thought of so many pathetic crippled and dependent pets running around begging for the government to take care of them. Government serves the people best when it does its job and stays out of the way of the private sector.
 
What is the threshold where you would stop extending the Unemployment Benefits? 2 years? 3 years? 10 years?

Not to sound judgmental, but if someone cannot find a job in 2 years I am suspicious about just how hard they are looking....:shrug:


.

Amazing, so you think there are jobs under every bush and tree in America? I am retired for 7 years now, the first year I went looking for a job but got nothing. I have skills, but I also have AGE. Finallyl, I just retired, at age 57. Good thing I was prepared for it and my wife had a good job. But back then people who had lost their jobs were competing then with new entries to the job market, like college grads. Now, even recent grads aren't finding jobs.
If you know where the jobs are, tell people about them....
 
Are you saying we don't have those inalianable rights?

What country do you live in? One where healthcare, a job, a house, an education, and food is a right?

Isn't the right to life the right to food, shelter and healthcare? All three of those guarantee such a right. Though education is not covered, do you think it should be privatized? If it is done so, the poor class wouldn't be able to afford it, the majority of labor would be unskilled and more jobs would be outsourced.
 
You seem to be consumed with you own impression of how valuable you are to the job market. If you can't find a ****ing job in two ****ing years maybe you need to rethink how precious you really are. 90% of the population has managed to find work...


.

You mean 90% haven't lost their jobs....
5% is acceptable to our system, so that leaves 5% are the newly unemployed.
Pray that you are never asked to be part of that 5%....
 
You seem to be consumed with you own impression of how valuable you are to the job market. If you can't find a ****ing job in two ****ing years maybe you need to rethink how precious you really are. 90% of the population has managed to find work...
.

Why the elitest personal attack? A lot of times it is not based on productivity just short term gain for the company. It can be also that the company is shutting down the whole branch or the company itself goes out of business.
 
You mean 90% haven't lost their jobs....
5% is acceptable to our system, so that leaves 5% are the newly unemployed.
Pray that you are never asked to be part of that 5%....

I find this interesting. people are concerned when a small group of a few percentage points lose jobs but when 5% of the tax payers are to be hit with a tax increase people say its not all that important because so few people suffer a tax hike.
 
I find this interesting. people are concerned when a small group of a few percentage points lose jobs but when 5% of the tax payers are to be hit with a tax increase people say its not all that important because so few people suffer a tax hike.

Because when people lose their job it becomes hard to survive. Often times they can fall into poverty and have their houses foreclosed. When the top 5% of the rich get taxed, they barely notice.
 
Because when people lose their job it becomes hard to survive. Often times they can fall into poverty and have their houses foreclosed. When the top 5% of the rich get taxed, they barely notice.

since you aren't in the top 5% where do you get off making such claims about what we notice or don't notice

you seem to think that everyone making a few hundred k have expenses or obligations no higher than yours. If somone has 100K in disposable income after taxes etc and have 2 kids at Ivy league schools a 12,000 dollar tax increas is going to be a major pain.

I know you think such a person ought to tell his kids to take student loans or drop out of Dartmouth and go to a community college

since the rich already pay for far more than they use, they are the ones who should least face a tax increase.
 
Back
Top Bottom