• 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 Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

We weren't talking costs dude. Stay on topic for more than one post, lol. You called it socialized medicine. I showed you it wasn't, and then you start bitching that I have no idea how much it will cost? I'd say I have a better idea than you simply because you have no ****ing clue what it even is. Once you can wrap your head around the fact that Obama didn't socialize the entire medical sector we can start on the rest of your childish arguments.

Incrementalism, rough, incrementalism, you crawl before you walk. No private business can compete with govt. so tell me why do you believe a word this Administration tells you? I have seen no evidence that you have a ******* clue on any issue yet but you do have that liberal arrogance claiming you do.
 
You think it is the Government's role to regulate human behavior when it comes to what they can eat or not eat? Did the govt. raise you? As a Libertarian, your leaning, it seems to me that govt. involvement in personal choice issues isn't part of the libertarian platform. Thought Libertarians wanted less govt. not more?

That was your statement, not mine. I never stated that anything should be made illegal; only that a proper way to deal with obesity is to increase tax junk food. The only person who brought up illegality was you!
 

Here is how these polls go: "Hey person who isn't going to get his taxes raised, how about we raise taxes on these rich guys. Person says hey, that would be a great idea."
 
That was your statement, not mine. I never stated that anything should be made illegal; only that a proper way to deal with obesity is to increase tax junk food. The only person who brought up illegality was you!

So you have no problem with the govt. collecting revenue on something you think is harmful to the public? Why not just make it illegal?
 
UPS and Fed Ex are doing fine.

Next line: Government is incompetent.

So, now private is better.

But private can't compete with government.

But government is incompetent.

I feel a headache coming on.

:coffeepap
 
Incrementalism, rough, incrementalism, you crawl before you walk. No private business can compete with govt.
Private business doesn't have to compete. Read the bill if you don't believe me but I can't sit here all day repeating this for the unpteenth time, I gots **** to do later. Obamacare isn't competing with private insurance, it is entirely built upon the idea that you need to take care of yourself by going and buying private insurance from a privately owned insurance company. That's like complaining that the government has taken over all residential construction because the government won't give you a building permit until you get a privately owned architect to draw up some plans for you. The government is in no way competing with the insurance companies, they are helping them if anything by giving them more customers.

If you can't grasp that concept then everything else we could debate about is pointless because this is a simple concept and you need to understand it before I can learn you any better bro.
 
Next line: Government is incompetent.

So, now private is better.

But private can't compete with government.

But government is incompetent.

I feel a headache coming on.

:coffeepap

Business kicks governments arse when it comes to efficiency, and profit. The only way government competes is through subsidy, and force.

j-mac
 
What else is new, other than the amount Obama now says is the evil "rich" just went down to $200K from $250K....Funny how that keeps creeping down...

j-mac

This is like going to the Oprah show and winning a car but then you have to pay taxes on it. Just a load of crap, anybody who believes in this scam has lost his/hers marvels.
 
Here is how these polls go: "Hey person who isn't going to get his taxes raised, how about we raise taxes on these rich guys. Person says hey, that would be a great idea."
Washington Post-ABC News Poll (washingtonpost.com)
17. In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose [ITEM]? Do you feel that way STRONGLY or SOMEWHAT?

4/17/11 – Summary Table

------ Support ------ ------- Oppose ----- No
NET....Strngly....Smwht....NET....Smwht....Strngly....op.

a. Cutting spending on Medicaid,
which is the government health
insurance program for the poor 30 14 16 69 17 52 2

b. Cutting spending on Medicare,
which is the government health
insurance program for the elderly 21 8 13 78 13 65 1

c. Cutting military spending 42 22 20 56 15 41 2

d. Raising taxes on Americans
with incomes over 250-thousand
dollars a year
72 .... 54 .... 18 .... 27 .... 10 .... 17 .... 1

This is supposed to be the exact wording of the poll. Not anything like what you've suggested. I believe that you are very mistaken on what happens during polling.
 
Tell that to Warren Buffett and Henry Block. They make more in a day than you'll make in your lifetime and they're all for jacking up tax rates on the rich.


It's seem that while Mr. Buffett might mouth that opinion, he really doesn't believe in what he says ..

Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.

Of course many liberals are the same, they feel that the rich should be paying more, but of course as long as they aren't included. So much for Buffett's mouthing of what is right huh ?? still owes taxes from 9 years ago ...
guess he felt he was taxed enough that he didn't pay the taxes he does owe..... ohhh I know .. it must be he is fighting the IRS ... to pay more then what they are asking huh?
 
So corporate welfare according to the libs in the know here all defer to some dictionary definition. But fail to explain how it is that only some corporations should have their plug pulled on this, while others get to suckle massively, go bankrupt, and everyone ignores that.

How is that fair? How is that America?

j-mac

Exactly the opposite. Corporate welfare is given to a few corporations that play the extortion game while those that play by the rules suffer. Close the corporate tax loopholes that benefit the few and end corporate welfare.
 
Washington Post-ABC News Poll (washingtonpost.com)


This is supposed to be the exact wording of the poll. Not anything like what you've suggested. I believe that you are very mistaken on what happens during polling.

Ah, why don't they put a poll out there .. just asking a simple question ..... would you mind seeing "your" taxes raised ?

While it's easy to say yeah lets tax someone else .. as long as it isn't me, I somehow think that polling numbers would change drastically if it was their money they were talking about.
 
I don't. But sports fans want teams, and I think often don't think this through. Just an opinion. :coffeepap

Sports corporations are the perfect example. They extort money from taxpayers and threaten to move if they are not given free land, free stadiums, tax exemptions, etc. Its corporate extortion....plain and simple.
 
Exactly the opposite. Corporate welfare is given to a few corporations that play the extortion game while those that play by the rules suffer. Close the corporate tax loopholes that benefit the few and end corporate welfare.

Okay, then close corporate welfare for “everyone” that includes giving money to green companies, including offering tax breaks for people to purchase green products, like electric cars, solar panels and other such things. After all if you are against corporate welfare, you have to be against it all right ?
 
From the conservative publication Forbes:

First of all, let the record show that President Obama is right and the GOP is wrong about these tax breaks. They make the economy less--not more--efficient and do nothing to reduce prices at the pump.

Although the president hopes to eliminate eight specific tax breaks--which cost the Treasury $43.6 billion over 10 years--only three, accounting for $31.9 billion of that total, are particularly important. Conservatives have no business defending any of them.

(snip)

Rigging the tax code to make investments in manufacturing artificially more attractive than investments in something else is an enterprise designed to harm non-manufacturers for the benefit of ... manufacturers. Conservatives who want government to leave markets alone have no business throwing their political bodies in front of this tax break. If their political rhetoric means anything, they would see the president's bid and raise him by calling for total repeal of this tax break for everyone, not just for oil and gas companies.

Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers For President Obama - Forbes.com

So the US President is eliminating oil subsidies while simultaneously doing whatever he can to make sure that the American people have less access to the energy they need to keep the country running, and more jobs will be lost and costs eventually passed on to the consumer.

Barrack Obama is either seriously stupid or intent on destroying the US economy. There is absolutely nothing in his policies any rational person can defend.

TransCanada in eye of the storm | Energy | Financial Post
 
Private business doesn't have to compete. Read the bill if you don't believe me but I can't sit here all day repeating this for the unpteenth time, I gots **** to do later. Obamacare isn't competing with private insurance, it is entirely built upon the idea that you need to take care of yourself by going and buying private insurance from a privately owned insurance company. That's like complaining that the government has taken over all residential construction because the government won't give you a building permit until you get a privately owned architect to draw up some plans for you. The government is in no way competing with the insurance companies, they are helping them if anything by giving them more customers.

If you can't grasp that concept then everything else we could debate about is pointless because this is a simple concept and you need to understand it before I can learn you any better bro.

I asked you a question, why do you believe a word Obama tells you and I am waiting for an answer? What happens if you are wrong?
 
Sports corporations are the perfect example. They extort money from taxpayers and threaten to move if they are not given free land, free stadiums, tax exemptions, etc. Its corporate extortion....plain and simple.

I think extort is rather strong language, more often then not new stadiums are put up for a vote to the people that will be expected to pay a higher tax rate for a period of time on something. If that vote is passed, then that is the peoples will. No one is out there twisting the arm of the voter to go along with it. People have the right to vote no to anything, if they do so, and a team leaves for greener pastures that is their choice.

While I might agree with you that teams should build there own stadiums I can hardly blame them for moving to a city that offers them a new stadium, tax breaks, and whatever else they are offered.

How is it any different then a company coming to you or me, offering us a new house, a new car every 3 years and 40% more in salary, and additional perks that we are not now getting.... but we would have to move to say …. Texas? I'm not sure about you, but I would probably take the new job …... unless the company I worked for was to offer something similar to keep me.
 
I think extort is rather strong language, more often then not new stadiums are put up for a vote to the people that will be expected to pay a higher tax rate for a period of time on something. If that vote is passed, then that is the peoples will. No one is out there twisting the arm of the voter to go along with it. People have the right to vote no to anything, if they do so, and a team leaves for greener pastures that is their choice.

While I might agree with you that teams should build there own stadiums I can hardly blame them for moving to a city that offers them a new stadium, tax breaks, and whatever else they are offered.

How is it any different then a company coming to you or me, offering us a new house, a new car every 3 years and 40% more in salary, and additional perks that we are not now getting.... but we would have to move to say …. Texas? I'm not sure about you, but I would probably take the new job …... unless the company I worked for was to offer something similar to keep me.

It is all BS and it is extortion. These are private businesses....We don't give money to all other private businesses. We don't build restaurants for restaurant companies, we don't give free land to Sears or Macy's. We don't lower taxes for Kroger to stay in the city. These things should not be put to a vote. Public money should not be given to private companies.

I'm proud of the cities that refuse to give into this extortion. Good riddance.
 
It is all BS and it is extortion. These are private businesses....We don't give money to all other private businesses. We don't build restaurants for restaurant companies, we don't give free land to Sears or Macy's. We don't lower taxes for Kroger to stay in the city. These things should not be put to a vote. Public money should not be given to private companies.

I'm proud of the cities that refuse to give into this extortion. Good riddance.

That's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, I just disagree, people should be allowed to vote, they should be able to have a say in such matters, that is the American way, and if they vote yes, then that is there own will. As long as they are given a choice in the matter … then in my opinion, you can't call it extortion.
 
Someone please explain why you believe a word that Barack Obama and his Administration says? this thread topic is a retread of Stimulus One being paid for by NOT spending cuts but instead by increasing taxes. Guess Obama supporters are just used to failure
 
Someone please explain why you believe a word that Barack Obama and his Administration says? this thread topic is a retread of Stimulus One being paid for by NOT spending cuts but instead by increasing taxes. Guess Obama supporters are just used to failure

All of that is according to you since none of it is factual.
 
Back
Top Bottom