• 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!

Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

It was money down the rat hole. Other that speculation there is no evidence that the expenditure did ANYTHING concrete to help our situation. And the spending continues.

j-mac

Not sure what you consider concrete. As I always say, the government can't control the economy However, if it prevent jobs from being lost, companies from going under, thus keeping jobs, it would be hard to say it did nothing concrete. I know for a fact money spent here kept jobs in place for a couple of years. Now unless you want to argue that government should take control of business, thus being responsible for hiring and firing, there is not much that really be done.
 
Not sure what you consider concrete. As I always say, the government can't control the economy However, if it prevent jobs from being lost, companies from going under, thus keeping jobs, it would be hard to say it did nothing concrete. I know for a fact money spent here kept jobs in place for a couple of years. Now unless you want to argue that government should take control of business, thus being responsible for hiring and firing, there is not much that really be done.

I disagree, this is the whole "saved jobs" meme that the WH wants us to swallow. There is no metric to determine, other than anecdotal, that jobs were "saved"....

j-mac
 
I disagree, this is the whole "saved jobs" meme that the WH wants us to swallow. There is no metric to determine, other than anecdotal, that jobs were "saved"....

j-mac

Are you really denying the fact that the stimulus kept thousands of public jobs (cops, firefighters, teachers) running during the harshest time of the economy?
 
I disagree, this is the whole "saved jobs" meme that the WH wants us to swallow. There is no metric to determine, other than anecdotal, that jobs were "saved"....

j-mac

Not true. Jobs here were kept with the money and lost without it. Others report the same. I've given you links before. I realize you don't want to accept it. Even when your peers start threads about ho much those saved jobs cost.

So, stop with the silliness and admit that while we could have let people lose those jobs, we did in fact save some jobs. And that government doesn't do hiring and firing, and cannot do much more than what was done.
 
If I thought you understood what was being said, I would point out that this doesn't dispute what've said. But, it's kind of a waste of time. Moving on. :2wave:

tell that to THE SLASHER and the DEPT CHAIR

LOL!

rock on, progressives
 
He basically posted exactly what I did. I'll have to add some random links to my prof impression next time though.
 
This has got to be among the most ridiculous statements I have read lately. TARP was paid back, Iraq, Afghanistan are a drop in the bucket compared to the $1.5 Trillion expenditures that this administration has laid out as far as the eye can see. Now either, you are purposely ignoring Obama's spending, or ignorant to such, but thanks for the laugh.

j-mac

Since you claim I'm "ignorant" on spending under Obama, perhaps you can enlighten me. Other than the Stimulus, unemployment compensation and the extension thereof, and Libya, list the spending that has come under Obama.
 
Since you claim I'm "ignorant" on spending under Obama, perhaps you can enlighten me. Other than the Stimulus, unemployment compensation and the extension thereof, and Libya, list the spending that has come under Obama.

It isn't my job to educate you, why not start with health care, and go from there. Just type in 'google' and I am sure you can find it all.

but rest assured you are leaving out alot.

j-mac
 
It isn't my job to educate you, why not start with health care, and go from there. Just type in 'google' and I am sure you can find it all.

but rest assured you are leaving out alot.

j-mac



I won't argue Obama hasn't spent, but I will argue you and your side tend to over state it.
 
It isn't my job to educate you, why not start with health care, and go from there. Just type in 'google' and I am sure you can find it all.

but rest assured you are leaving out alot.

j-mac

As expected, you're dodging. You've claimed that I'm ignorant of Obama's spending. It's now your job to enlighten me. So...

Other than the Stimulus, unemployment compensation and the extension thereof, and Libya, list the spending that has come under Obama.

Support your claim below with the actual numbers...

How do you overstate $1.5 Trillion each year as far as the eye can see?

j-mac

Getting back to the thread topic, it would seem Republicans are finally open to ending some tax loopholes - "revenue raisers" since Sunday (July 3) and Pres. Obama's Twitter townhall. From FoxNews:

"If the president wants to talk loopholes, we'll be glad to talk loopholes," said House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Cantor added that any revenues raised from closing such loopholes "should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else."

Cantor's comments reflected important, if nuanced, flexibility for Republicans. His earlier position was that closing loopholes should wait for a comprehensive effort to reform the tax code.
 
Last edited:
How do you overstate $1.5 Trillion each year as far as the eye can see?

j-mac

■That GOP document says Democrats in Congress and Obama increased the deficit 259 percent since 2008, when it was $458 billion. That ignores the fact that President George Bush was in office in 2008. Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit largely caused by declining revenues and Bush’s response to the economic crisis.

(snip)

■He says Obama’s budget “imposes $1.5 trillion in tax increases on job creators and American families.” But, as we written before, about half of that total would come from increases scheduled under current law.

Ryan’s Budget Spin | FactCheck.org

Like I said, overstated. yes, he spends, as did Bush before him and Clinton before Bush and Bush before Clinton and Reagan before Bush and carter before reagan and . . . . well . . . I hope you get the picture.
 
Which begs the question, "Why hasn't lower taxes generated more jobs?" Again, the Bush tax cuts have been in effect since 2001, revised in 2003, extended in 2010 and still no significant job growth. Yet we keep hearing the argument that tax cuts create jobs! Or is it that they allow moreso for the wealthiest among us to "keep more of what they earn" with many not putting that money back in circulation within the national economy.

I see both sides of the argument, but IMO what we have here is "forced" conditions for stagflation. Few new jobs; unemployment hovers; no new revenue streams, incomes remain flat; little to no consumer spending = stagflation.

Bush had 4% unemployment, too.
 
he spends

yeah...

part of his problem is that darn stimulus

it just cost so much, y'know, almost a whole trillion dollars

and it was such a full out LOSER

romer and bernstein (you wouldn't know who they are) promised america that unemployment would be just over 6.5% today, per our passage of that prodigiously expensive stimulus

their analysis is found by opening the krugman link above (you wouldn't know him either)

very sad

seeya at the polls, progressives

bring your crayons
 
■That GOP document says Democrats in Congress and Obama increased the deficit 259 percent since 2008, when it was $458 billion. That ignores the fact that President George Bush was in office in 2008. Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit largely caused by declining revenues and Bush’s response to the economic crisis.

(snip)

■He says Obama’s budget “imposes $1.5 trillion in tax increases on job creators and American families.” But, as we written before, about half of that total would come from increases scheduled under current law.

Ryan’s Budget Spin | FactCheck.org

Like I said, overstated. yes, he spends, as did Bush before him and Clinton before Bush and Bush before Clinton and Reagan before Bush and carter before reagan and . . . . well . . . I hope you get the picture.


Fact Check and PolitiFact are noted biased sites....Anything neutral?

j-mac
 
Fact Check and PolitiFact are noted biased sites....Anything neutral?

j-mac

:lamo :lamo :lamo

No, that's just what your inaccurate and extremely biased sources tell you. You get much wrong because you listen to them. :coffeepap
 
that's just what your inaccurate and extremely biased sources tell you

says someone who links to whitehouse.gov, comedy central and the SYDNEY MORNING HERALD on behalf of school teachers in new york

it's all in the sourcing

LOL!
 
Back
Top Bottom