• 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!

Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
I made a mistake posting Reagan or Bush's numbers at all, they are irrelevant today. These are the relevant numbers

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 38% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.
Click to expand...

/babbling goobly gook translator on


128958417971448024.jpg


/babbling goobly gook translator off
 
xpiher said:
He is a serious contender, but thats not because he'd be a good president. His record in Texas is a very mixed bag and not as rosey as he or Fox tries to make it out to be, especially with job creation. For instance, unemployment is 8.8 in Texas making meaning that population growth is the main reason why jobs have been created in Texas, not economic policy.
Click to expand...

Get serious, man. You guys are going after Perry because you know damned well that he is a co-front-runner now, and would rather Obama face Romney in the general. Romney doesn't get anyone fired up about anything, and he can't challenge POTUS in a health care policy debate.
 
ric27 said:
Get serious, man. You guys are going after Perry because you know damned well that he is a co-front-runner now, and would rather Obama face Romney in the general. Romney doesn't get anyone fired up about anything, and he can't challenge POTUS in a health care policy debate.
Click to expand...

Go after him? Not at all unless telling the truth is going after someone now-a-days. Look at my political leaning its libertarian. I'd agree with Parry more often if he didn't have so much religious baggage.
 
ric27 said:
Get serious, man. You guys are going after Perry because you know damned well that he is a co-front-runner now, and would rather Obama face Romney in the general. Romney doesn't get anyone fired up about anything, and he can't challenge POTUS in a health care policy debate.
Click to expand...

I'd rather the Republicans field a decent candidate. But If I were a rabid Obama supporter I'd rather Obama face Perry.
 
xpiher said:
Go after him? Not at all unless telling the truth is going after someone now-a-days. Look at my political leaning its libertarian. I'd agree with Parry more often if he didn't have so much religious baggage.
Click to expand...

Religious baggage? C'mon...You and I know that in no case should a president's actions on behalf of the USA be decided on religious grounds. We all have some religious background, but we are a nation of laws

Get serious
 
winston53660 said:
I'd rather the Republicans field a decent candidate. But If I were a rabid Obama supporter I'd rather Obama face Perry.
Click to expand...

Huntsman and Paul are the only people in the current field I could see having a chance of beating Obama. The repubs need to understand that most of America doesn't want evangelicals forcing their interpretation of the bible on them.

Edit: No, I take that back. If Parry and Bachman can keep deflecting religious questions in an attemp to try to convince the people that they won't "go there" Parry could give Obama a run for his money. Assuming the economy doesn't improve at all that is (not likely IMO).
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
Huntsman and Paul are the only people in the current field I could see having a chance of beating Obama. The repubs need to understand that most of America doesn't want evangelicals forcing their interpretation of the bible on them.

Edit: No, I take that back. If Parry and Bachman can keep deflecting religious questions in an attemp to try to convince the people that they won't "go there" Parry could give Obama a run for his money. Assuming the economy doesn't improve at all that is (not likely IMO).
Click to expand...

If Perry gets in office, then he has to obey the law of the land. Period
 
ric27 said:
If Perry gets in office, then he has to obey the law of the land. Period
Click to expand...

If Parry gets in and the GOP maintain the house, he can set agenda. This means all those stupid social policy crap like Constitutional amendments to make marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, defunding research in stem-cells, re-establishing don't ask don't tell, pushing for father rights in abortion, etc.
 
winston53660 said:
Pffft like any President in recent history has obeyed the law, :lamo
Click to expand...

Wow, why so cynical?

Examples of Presidencies during which the laws of the land have basically not been obeyed? I can't think of a single one.
 
nota bene said:
Wow, why so cynical?

Examples of Presidencies during which the laws of the land have basically not been obeyed? I can't think of a single one.
Click to expand...

Iran Contra, Clinton perjury......
 
xpiher said:
If Parry gets in and the GOP maintain the house, he can set agenda. This means all those stupid social policy crap like Constitutional amendments to make marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, defunding research in stem-cells, re-establishing don't ask don't tell, pushing for father rights in abortion, etc.
Click to expand...

Again, from a personal standpoint, he has the right, and per his beliefs, but if he is in office, then he has to obey the law of the land. That doesn't mean he can't take steps to get some issues looked at, but he has to follow the law.
 
ric27 said:
Again, from a personal standpoint, he has the right, and per his beliefs, but if he is in office, then he has to obey the law of the land. That doesn't mean he can't take steps to get some issues looked at, but he has to follow the law.
Click to expand...

Executive orders are a funny thing. He doesn't believe in global warming, he can just fire the EPA, gut OSHA (might not be a bad thing), or any other agency.
 
xpiher said:
Executive orders are a funny thing. He doesn't believe in global warming, he can just fire the EPA, gut OSHA (might not be a bad thing), or any other agency.
Click to expand...

We'll see over the next 15 months who is right.
 
Conservative said:
Here we go again, reliving the war which has absolutely nothing to do with the yearly deficits that Obama has generated. Bush had nothing to do with the 3 trillion in 2010-2011 as those were totally Obama.

Ill timed tax cuts? You mean the Tax cuts that actually grew govt. revenue?

Federal Income Tax revenue by year. Bush tax cuts 2001-2003

2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

You do realize that Democrats controlled the Senate and voted 77-23 believing there were WMD's although what purpose does it serve to relive that now?
Click to expand...

Wow! I thought you were all about facts. Where on earth did you come up with these numbers? They certainly are quite interesting, but let's start with the fact the federal revenues (which includes payroll taxes and income taxes) has never exceeded $2.568T, which occurred in 2007. Moreover, total federal tax revenues include payroll taxes, which were unaffected by the tax cuts. They did rise, masking the shortfall of federal income tax receipts.

Sorry, but the highest amount ever collected in individual income tax was $1.163T (nothing north of $2T, which your table states), also in 2007 and corporate income taxes was .9T (in 2008). But, you don't have to take my word for it... see table 2.1 of the Budget

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

Now, you will also note from this table that individual income taxes (which were affected by the so-called Bush tax cuts) fell 20% for over $1T to under $.8T in four year, before finally rebounding in 2006. The Bush tax cuts resulted in LESS income tax revenue. They did not work (unless, of course you were an individual taxpayer in the highest brackets, in which case they worked very well).

As you are all about the facts, I know you will study the tables and correct this and future assertions accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
What bothers me are the Obama results and the fact that he is a total incompetent empty suit. He stands for nothing that I support. There is absolutely no reason to give him another four years. I will take the Romney record any day over what Obama has done and all the promises broken.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here had you in the "leaning Obama" category.

One of Romney's big problems will be that Bain Capital's business was to buy companies and off-shore jobs. His job creation record is all about new jobs in India. Nonetheless, he is a more credible candidate and far more likely to give Obama a run than the two "empty heads" that are running against him. Huntsman is also a respectable and credible candidate.
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
If Parry gets in and the GOP maintain the house, he can set agenda. This means all those stupid social policy crap like Constitutional amendments to make marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, defunding research in stem-cells, re-establishing don't ask don't tell, pushing for father rights in abortion, etc.
Click to expand...

Yep, all of those critical issues that once implemented will certainly return American to full employment, balance the budget, reduce our debt and re-assert America's standing as a world economic power.
 
upsideguy said:
Wow! I thought you were all about facts. Where on earth did you come up with these numbers? They certainly are quite interesting, but let's start with the fact the federal revenues (which includes payroll taxes and income taxes) has never exceeded $2.568T, which occurred in 2007. Moreover, total federal tax revenues include payroll taxes, which were unaffected by the tax cuts. They did rise, masking the shortfall of federal income tax receipts.

Sorry, but the highest amount ever collected in individual income tax was $1.163T (nothing north of $2T, which your table states), also in 2007 and corporate income taxes was .9T (in 2008). But, you don't have to take my word for it... see table 2.1 of the Budget

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

Now, you will also note from this table that individual income taxes (which were affected by the so-called Bush tax cuts) fell 20% for over $1T to under $.8T in four year, before finally rebounding in 2006. The Bush tax cuts resulted in LESS income tax revenue. They did not work (unless, of course you were an individual taxpayer in the highest brackets, in which case they worked very well).

As you are all about the facts, I know you will study the tables and correct this and future assertions accordingly.
Click to expand...
BDS suffering heathen.
 
Conservative said:
Here we go again, reliving the war which has absolutely nothing to do with the yearly deficits that Obama has generated. Bush had nothing to do with the 3 trillion in 2010-2011 as those were totally Obama.

Ill timed tax cuts? You mean the Tax cuts that actually grew govt. revenue?

Federal Income Tax revenue by year. Bush tax cuts 2001-2003

2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

You do realize that Democrats controlled the Senate and voted 77-23 believing there were WMD's although what purpose does it serve to relive that now?
Click to expand...
Making up numbers again, huh?


usgs_line.php
 
Last edited:
ZIRP4EVA said:
Link

Not a shock since he can appeal to virtually every faction of the Republican base.
Click to expand...

I predicted he would win the GOP nomination if he entered the race precisely for the reason you stated.
 
upsideguy said:
Wow! I thought you were all about facts. Where on earth did you come up with these numbers? They certainly are quite interesting, but let's start with the fact the federal revenues (which includes payroll taxes and income taxes) has never exceeded $2.568T, which occurred in 2007. Moreover, total federal tax revenues include payroll taxes, which were unaffected by the tax cuts. They did rise, masking the shortfall of federal income tax receipts.

Sorry, but the highest amount ever collected in individual income tax was $1.163T (nothing north of $2T, which your table states), also in 2007 and corporate income taxes was .9T (in 2008). But, you don't have to take my word for it... see table 2.1 of the Budget

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

Now, you will also note from this table that individual income taxes (which were affected by the so-called Bush tax cuts) fell 20% for over $1T to under $.8T in four year, before finally rebounding in 2006. The Bush tax cuts resulted in LESS income tax revenue. They did not work (unless, of course you were an individual taxpayer in the highest brackets, in which case they worked very well).

As you are all about the facts, I know you will study the tables and correct this and future assertions accordingly.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you get your information but FIT does NOT include payroll taxes and if you ever looked at the U.S. Budget you would know that. Payroll taxes fund SS and Medicare which are another line item in revenue as well as expense. Wonder why those are on budget? Hmmm, thought they were in that Gore lockbox.

I posted the data right from bea.gov. Suggest you go there and see the information. If you believe that tax cuts cause deficits, send yours back for you are still getting it today.
 
Conservative said:
Notice anything similar between border states in the rankings you posted. TX ranks higher than both California and Arizona. Shows the value of your rankings which isn't relevant at all. I guess people in Iowa don't have a true understanding of what we face in a border state just like you don't seem to have any idea on other issues.
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

You're just trying to make excuses. In Iowa, we have a huge immigrant population as well. The difference is we don't make excuses, but accept personal responsibility. Texas should try that.
 
Boo Radley said:
:lamo :lamo :lamo

You're just trying to make excuses. In Iowa, we have a huge immigrant population as well. The difference is we don't make excuses, but accept personal responsibility. Texas should try that.
Click to expand...

LOL, yep, Iowa, a real destination state for illegals and legal immigrants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom