• 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!

They did it on purpose

Did Democrats cause the super committee to fail on purpose?


  • Total voters
    40
I'm willing to say that this is the biggest lie ever !
Even conservatives are not that stupid or fearful, are they ???

the article is real, but it was posted by another member.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/214228/3/Company-Policy-We-are-not-hiring-until-Obama-is-gone

WACO, Ga. -- A west Georgia business owner is stirring up controversy with signs he posted on his company's trucks, for all to see as the trucks roll up and down roads, highways and interstates:

"New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone."
 
Last edited:
A loaded poll from a "very conservative" = no vote.
Instead of using congressmen on this panel, a group of eleven men should have been selected for this task. Our congress is too poisoned with fools.
Surely in our nation ,there are eleven intelligent people...I hope.

Eleven Libbos, too, I'm sure. Yes?

A committee of non-elected people is not only idiotic--moreso than the whole super committee idea--but un-constitutional.
 
Last edited:
The government gets out of the way....... what does that even mean? gets out of the way of what exactly?

A minor recession being but one temporary factor, all things considered Bush inherited probably the best financial situation any incoming president had come into in decades. Can you say "peace dividend"?

They thought the government was tolling in so much extra money because of he Clinton budgets that they could afford to give huge tax cuts in two of the next three years... and in doing so laid the foundation of their own demise and downfall... along with foreign wars unfunded and untaxed.

tax cuts don't cost money. spending does.
 
tax cuts don't cost money. spending does.

yeah.... sure ... whatever. And if I cut my income by 50% that does not impact my budget either. :roll:

Where in the world did some on the far right learn basic addition and subtraction from? ;)
 
yeah.... sure ... whatever. And if I cut my income by 50% that does not impact my budget either. :roll:

Where in the world did some on the far right learn basic addition and subtraction from? ;)

you are confusing terms deliberately.

it does impact your budget,

it does not cost you
 
yeah.... sure ... whatever. And if I cut my income by 50% that does not impact my budget either. :roll:

Where in the world did some on the far right learn basic addition and subtraction from? ;)

If you income is cut by 50%, your sending will have to be cut as well.
 
you are confusing terms deliberately.

it does impact your budget,

it does not cost you

You are simply playing games with words. Explain that to any wife and kids that the husband can willingly give up income and its not going to cost the family. That discussion I gotta hear.

If I am making 2 grand per week working 2 jobs and I give up one of them up and now only make 1400 a week, it certainly is costing my family that 600 a week I am giving up. I do not know a married woman in America, especially with kids, who would not look at it that way.
 
Last edited:
You are simply playing games with words. Explain that to any wife and kids that the husband can willingly give up income and its not going to cost the family. That discussion I gotta hear.

If I am making 2 grand per week working 2 jobs and I give up one of them up and now only make 1400 a week, it certainly is costing my family that 600 a week I am giving up. I do not know a married woman in America, especially with kids, who would not look at it that way.
you seem not to understand what cost means.

revenue is one thing-cost is another. yes you have less income to spend if your revenue goes down but that does not mean your costs increase.
 
you seem not to understand what cost means.

revenue is one thing-cost is another. yes you have less income to spend if your revenue goes down but that does not mean your costs increase.

You seem to not understand what everyday people know about money that does or does not go into their pockets.

I know of no responsible wife in America who would buy that sort of argument that a husband quitting a second job and no longer bringing home 600 a week is NOT costing the family.
 
You seem to not understand what everyday people know about money that does or does not go into their pockets.

I know of no responsible wife in America who would buy that sort of argument that a husband quitting a second job and no longer bringing home 600 a week is NOT costing the family.

I cannot help it is some people are ignorant about terms and confuse things.
 
So everybody is out of step but you?

when you can prove you speak for everybody get back to me. appealing to mass ignorance has no merit with me

we had a thread on this issue and as I recall, there were as many educated people (ie those who know that cutting taxes does not cost the government even if one could prove it DECREASES revenue [which is subject to much debate] ) as there were ignorant ones who think cutting taxes is a COST
 
[...] we had a thread on this issue and as I recall, there were as many educated people (ie those who know that cutting taxes does not cost the government even if one could prove it DECREASES revenue [which is subject to much debate] ) as there were ignorant ones who think cutting taxes is a COST
Playing with semantics indicates an attempt to obscure the obvious.

If a tax cut causes gov't revenues decrease then, all other things remaining the same, the budget surplus will decrease or the budget deficit will increase (whichever condition exists prior to the cut).

The decrease in surplus, if that is the case, is a cost to the gov't. In other words, the tax cut has cost the gov't that lost revenue.

The increase in deficit, if that is the case, is a cost to the gov't as that increase must be borrowed. Borrowing money is a cost in that it must be repaid (or accounted for, if you like).
 
Last edited:
when you can prove you speak for everybody get back to me. appealing to mass ignorance has no merit with me

we had a thread on this issue and as I recall, there were as many educated people (ie those who know that cutting taxes does not cost the government even if one could prove it DECREASES revenue [which is subject to much debate] ) as there were ignorant ones who think cutting taxes is a COST

Your argument is a political one based on an ideological extremist belief system that is intent on certain goals and objectives. In order to fight to attain them, it is necessary for you to adopt a certain vocabulary and subscribe to certain neologisms and memes as a right wing warrior.

Your current posts are but a recent example.
 
when you can prove you speak for everybody get back to me. appealing to mass ignorance has no merit with me

we had a thread on this issue and as I recall, there were as many educated people (ie those who know that cutting taxes does not cost the government even if one could prove it DECREASES revenue [which is subject to much debate] ) as there were ignorant ones who think cutting taxes is a COST

There is no debate...cutting taxs most certainly reduces revenue to the treasury and to say it doesnt is just disengenuous absurdity and teatard rhetoric...
Bush's tax cuts and His passing the prescription drug plan TO PROTECT big pharmas disgusting USA pricing....is what began all this debt...
 
Last edited:
Your argument is a political one based on an ideological extremist belief system that is intent on certain goals and objectives. In order to fight to attain them, it is necessary for you to adopt a certain vocabulary and subscribe to certain neologisms and memes as a right wing warrior.

Your current posts are but a recent example.

I find it amusing that anyone who doesn't buy into your welfare socialist mindset is an "extremist"
 
There is no debate...cutting taxs most certainly reduces revenue to the treasury and to say it doesnt is just disengenuous absurdity and teatard rhetoric...
Bush's tax cuts and His passing the prescription drug plan TO PROTECT big pharmas disgusting USA pricing....is what began all this debt...

yeah there is a debate and you cannot honestly make such a generalization and pretend its always correct. and it is not a cost no matter what-your paranoia of the tea party notwithstanding
 
I find it amusing that anyone who doesn't buy into your welfare socialist mindset is an "extremist"

Not everyone Turtle - not everyone. But you definitely are. Very few civilized people would publicly take a position to strip people of the right to vote if they do not pay a certain tax despite the Constitution saying otherwise. That is absolutely extremist. Show me five members of Congress - even extremist tea party whacko's - who agree with that extremist position. When you out fascist even the tea party - you are indeed an extremist.
 
yeah there is a debate and you cannot honestly make such a generalization and pretend its always correct. and it is not a cost no matter what-your paranoia of the tea party notwithstanding

No debate from me...I know the answer and its plain common sense and a part of recent history. Bush passed his drug plan because the country was up in arms over not being allowed to buy drugs from canada at less than HALF the cost of the same drugs here..RETAIL....it was exposed just how big pharma was gouging americans and just how much they were discounting their drugs everywhere else...drugs sold in mexico for 5cts on the dollar in canada for 25 to 50cts and here up to 400% higher and more.
Bush passed the drug program to calm down seniors and he conveniently put a clause in the bill that the government COULD NOT NEGOTIATE PRICES FROM THE DRUG COMPANIES...they just had to pay whatever price they were given...can you even imagine how much that has cost the taxpayers...thats why YOU WILL pay more taxs turtledude...:)
 
Not everyone Turtle - not everyone. But you definitely are. Very few civilized people would publicly take a position to strip people of the right to vote if they do not pay a certain tax despite the Constitution saying otherwise. That is absolutely extremist. Show me five members of Congress - even extremist tea party whacko's - who agree with that extremist position. When you out fascist even the tea party - you are indeed an extremist.

I bet its far more common among us who carry most of the load. I suspect you don't know many of us who are in that group. and its hardly fascist. fascist is making people subservient to the state-as you propose

people who have to pander to the masses to get elected aren't going to say stuff that pisses off the lowest common denominator.
 
No debate from me...I know the answer and its plain common sense and a part of recent history. Bush passed his drug plan because the country was up in arms over not being allowed to buy drugs from canada at less than HALF the cost of the same drugs here..RETAIL....it was exposed just how big pharma was gouging americans and just how much they were discounting their drugs everywhere else...drugs sold in mexico for 5cts on the dollar in canada for 25 to 50cts and here up to 400% higher and more.
Bush passed the drug program to calm down seniors and he conveniently put a clause in the bill that the government COULD NOT NEGOTIATE PRICES FROM THE DRUG COMPANIES...they just had to pay whatever price they were given...can you even imagine how much that has cost the taxpayers...thats why YOU WILL pay more taxs turtledude...:)
when Clinton jacked up the luxury tax did government revenues from that tax increase or decrease?
 
[...] fascist is making people subservient to the state-as you propose [...]
Hardly. Fascism is abuse of power to stifle opposition, silence criticism, and impose nationalistic will upon others in a xenophobic fashion. In other words, pretty much the ideology of those that reside on the far edge of the right wing (e.g. Hannity, McCarthy, Cheney).

What you describe would probably be closest to communism.
 
Hardly. Fascism is abuse of power to stifle opposition, silence criticism, and impose nationalistic will upon others in a xenophobic fashion. In other words, pretty much the ideology of those that reside on the far edge of the right wing (e.g. Hannity, McCarthy, Cheney).

What you describe would probably be closest to communism.

fascism is something clearly too confusing to many on this forum-usually the people who whine anytime someone notes that the current dem leadership has some socialist or communist proclivities. If you think Hannity and Cheney are far right you are beyond help but then again you probably consider Obama a moderate given how far extreme left you are
 
fascism is something clearly too confusing to many on this forum-usually the people who whine anytime someone notes that the current dem leadership has some socialist or communist proclivities. If you think Hannity and Cheney are far right you are beyond help but then again you probably consider Obama a moderate given how far extreme left you are
noticed that your post was unable to challenge Karl's illustration of fascism, and its current proponents within the USA
instead, it whined about something else entirely
 
I bet its far more common among us who carry most of the load. I suspect you don't know many of us who are in that group. and its hardly fascist. fascist is making people subservient to the state-as you propose

So instead, people who work for a living should be subservient to you. That's not elitist at all, no sir...
 
Back
Top Bottom