• 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!

Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike

OK


OK

So how did any of this address my comment of "When was the last time conservatives reduced the size of government?". We can take the other things off the general budget books, which may be reasonable. But that doesn't actually reduce the size of government.

Neither party has reduced the size of Govt. Republicans tried after taking over the House but the President and the Senate wanted nothing to do with it. The better alternative is the Republican Party today. That is reality. Now you can live your pipe dream of a third party but all a third party does is keep Obama in power. Look at NY 23 and NY 26 when Republicans and T.E.A. Party candidates fought amoung themselves. The combined got the most votes but the Democrat won the elections.
 
Neither party has reduced the size of Govt. Republicans tried after taking over the House but the President and the Senate wanted nothing to do with it. The better alternative is the Republican Party today. That is reality. Now you can live your pipe dream of a third party but all a third party does is keep Obama in power. Look at NY 23 and NY 26 when Republicans and T.E.A. Party candidates fought amoung themselves. The combined got the most votes but the Democrat won the elections.

Well field better candidates and you won't lose the third party votes. But your answer was the correct ones. Neither party has reduced the size of government. Now, how has each party fared on increasing the size of government? You want to say "Republicans tried", but government expansion isn't a new thing; it's been happening for quite some time. And there were times when Republicans were in charge, and no reduction in the size of government came. We did realize increases in government from both sides, but not decreases. So are you saying the Republicans are best because they won't grow government as fast?
 
Neither party has reduced the size of Govt. Republicans tried after taking over the House but the President and the Senate wanted nothing to do with it. The better alternative is the Republican Party today. That is reality. Now you can live your pipe dream of a third party but all a third party does is keep Obama in power. Look at NY 23 and NY 26 when Republicans and T.E.A. Party candidates fought amoung themselves. The combined got the most votes but the Democrat won the elections.
"Neither party has reduced the size of Govt. "....so, why do you support the GOP? if, in your own words, they are no better than the democrats?
 
Well field better candidates and you won't lose the third party votes. But your answer was the correct ones. Neither party has reduced the size of government. Now, how has each party fared on increasing the size of government? You want to say "Republicans tried", but government expansion isn't a new thing; it's been happening for quite some time. And there were times when Republicans were in charge, and no reduction in the size of government came. We did realize increases in government from both sides, but not decreases. So are you saying the Republicans are best because they won't grow government as fast?

Yet during the Bush years when the Republicans controlled the WH and Congress the deficit was less than when the Democrats controlled the Congress and when they Democrats controlled the Congress and the WH. How is re-electing Obama going to put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work and actually cut the size of govt?
 
"Neither party has reduced the size of Govt. "....so, why do you support the GOP? if, in your own words, they are no better than the democrats?

You are kidding, right? No better than Obama? Get your union steward to explain it to you.
 
Yes, revenue is needed to run the govt. Today that requirement is 3.7 trillion dollars so explain why? How much of the current govt. is duplicated at the state and local levels. I have posted many times what I would do. First remove SS and Medicare from the Budget, second cut the size of the govt then down to 1.5 trillion dollars by eliminating all duplicated expenses.
You're arguing a strawman. I'm not supporting larger government. I'm in support of a functional government. To have a function government, we need to fund it. That's it. There's no more to it than that. I agree we have fat to trim. I'm definitely pro-cost cutting but I'm not for starving the beast as it was that so-called beast that enable the rich to become so. Cutting that makes it harder for those seeking wealth to get there.
Show me one comment made by a Republican or Conservative attacking income earned by a Democrat like Feinstein, Kerry, Boxer, etc?
Asking for them to pay their fair share isn't an attack.
So let me see if I have this right, Republicans spent too much so you have no problem with Democrats spending more?
Democrats don't spend more. Did you not get my point the first time? Republicans presidents have historically been the budget busters, not Democrats. Do you disagree with that fact?
By what standards hasn't trickle down worked. Reagan double Govt. revenue, doubled GDP, and created 17 million jobs.
And increased the budget deficit which is the beginning of our current debt problem. He achieved your so-called success by selling our future and the future of our children. If you don't consider a problem, why are you upset with Obama and concerned about the debt now?
Iraq and Afghanistan cost 1.4 trillion dollars in 10 years. Deduct that from the 14.6 trillion dollar debt and you still have 13.2 trillion dollar debt. iraq and Afghanistan are winding down so why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget.
1.4 trillion of borrowed money. You're okay with that? If so, you can't be a hypocrite and complain about Obama deficit spending.
Giving billionaires a better tax rate means they get to keep more of what they have earned. Why is that a problem for you? Govt has already wasted resources by putting too much power at the Federal level. What does a bureacrat know about education problems in your city?
We all need to contribute to our country equally if possible. If the poor do not have the means I'll give them a pass as they can't afford it. Millionaries and billionaries have no excuse for not equally contributing to America's success.
Why are you even comparing SS with cutting regulations and "giving" handouts to business? They aren't even in the same category and what exactly is the govt. giving business? It is their money before it ever goes to the govt.
I'm not comparing anything. Just pointing out what I find important against what I do not find important.
You really have been brainwashed and that is sad.
This is just your way of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "lalalalalala!" to avoid hearing (reading) the truth. I get it.
 
You are kidding, right? No better than Obama? Get your union steward to explain it to you.
i'm sorry that my question is so hard for you to give a straight answer to, but do try to give an answer, and dispense with the attempted baiting/trolling....again, if both are equally bad, why does the GOP get your vote? difficult question for you to answer, but do try.
 
Yet during the Bush years when the Republicans controlled the WH and Congress the deficit was less than when the Democrats controlled the Congress and when they Democrats controlled the Congress and the WH. How is re-electing Obama going to put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work and actually cut the size of govt?

How is electing Republicans going to cut the size? Bush grew the government by leaps and bounds. Obama carried on the tradition. Big spending, big deficit, big wars, big brother government; y'all are the same.

You keep saying "How is re-electing Obama" blah blah blah like your side will do the opposite. But your side has not done the opposite, it was done the same thing. So maybe you'll grow the government at a slower rate than the Democrats; but you're still growing the government.

When was the last time conservatives DECREASED the size of government?
 
no, the graph stops in 2005 because that's when it stops.

Ok, well the new one you posted shows what we need to know- revenue did in fact plummet after 2005 as we continued to lower taxes on the rich.

however, if we are looking at revenue as a % of GDP, and what causes it to move up and down, then the answer is actually rather simple. It is the relative size of government. Government, you see, does not tax itself quite like it taxes production, labor, and investment - so, as government expands as a share of GDP, revenue is being drawn from a smaller slice of the pie, and so it shrinks as a share of GDP. Observe:

So raising taxes, but keeping the size of government constant would result in more revenue. Right?

yes and no - they are an indirect determinate of revenue. mostly inasmuch as they alter GDP by altering the amount of time people spend doing productive things v spending trying to minimize their tax exposure.

Are you saying that cheating on taxes takes up so much time that people are less productive? And you think that is a significant factor?

that is also what we have seen for the past couple of decades. In 2006, for example, our savings rate hit the lowest point it has been since 1933. Are you saying that in 2006 the tax rates on the top of the spectrum were too high, and the ones on the bottom too low?

Consumers spending all their money, or more money than they have, and not being able to save anything is definitely a byproduct of directing too much of the money away from regular people and into the pockets of the super rich instead. They don't have enough money to sustain their lifestyle, so they borrow. That stat is about the rate of PERSONAL savings. That isn't big investors, that's people saving up for their kids college and whatnot. That is what is getting squeezed- regular people.

a long period of historically low unemployment?

Uh, no, the collapse of the economy. Again, Reagan's cuts worked. Clinton's first round of cuts worked. But Clinton's second round of cuts and Bush's cuts were both just followed by bubbles, not sustainable growth. That's why we are where we are today- those bubbles bursting.
 
How is re-electing Obama going to put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work and actually cut the size of govt?

It's not, but then again neither is any of that going to happen with a GOP candidate. Welcome to your two party system of whos going to drive America into the gutter faster.
 
Tettsuo;1059807583]You're arguing a strawman. I'm not supporting larger government. I'm in support of a functional government. To have a function government, we need to fund it. That's it. There's no more to it than that. I agree we have fat to trim. I'm definitely pro-cost cutting but I'm not for starving the beast as it was that so-called beast that enable the rich to become so. Cutting that makes it harder for those seeking wealth to get there.

In order to define the amount of revenue the govt. needs you first need to define the role of the govt. Here are the line item expenses and the amount spent in 2010. What would you elliminate?


Expenses

Defense 696.1
International Affairs 45.2
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy 11.5
Natural resources/env 41,6
Agriculture 23.2
Commerce -82.9
Transportation 92.5
Community Dev 24.9
Education/Train/Social 125.1
Health 369.0
Medicare 451.6
Income Security 624.0
Social Security 706.7
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice 55.2
General Govt. 18.1
Net Interest 196.9

So start here and eliminate the duplicate expenses paid at the state level. Further tell me what an increase in Federal Taxes does to state tax revenue?

Asking for them to pay their fair share isn't an attack.

Still waiting for a definition of fair share? Do you think millions of Americans not paying any FIT is their fair share? If you are going to use fair share then use the term fairly.

Democrats don't spend more. Did you not get my point the first time? Republicans presidents have historically been the budget busters, not Democrats. Do you disagree with that fact?

There is no excuse for what Obama has done, he had total control of the Govt. in 2009 and 2010 so what did he do to spending? Democrats controlled the purse strings from 2007-2011 and what did they do with spending? The 2009 budget was Democrat supported and passed.

And increased the budget deficit which is the beginning of our current debt problem. He achieved your so-called success by selling our future and the future of our children. If you don't consider a problem, why are you upset with Obama and concerned about the debt now?

In order to understand the Reagan deficits you need to understand the economic conditions and control of Congress during the Reagan years. I don't think anyone can justify 4 trillion added to the debt in 3 years by complaining about a 1.7 trillion debt in 8 years.

1.4 trillion of borrowed money. You're okay with that? If so, you can't be a hypocrite and complain about Obama deficit spending.

No, I am not ok with 1.4 trillion in borrowed money, why did Obama expand the role in Afghanistan and what do we have to show for it? 1.4 trillion is 140 billion a year. This years deficit will be 1.3 trillion or more so what would a reduction of 140 billion do?

We all need to contribute to our country equally if possible. If the poor do not have the means I'll give them a pass as they can't afford it. Millionaries and billionaries have no excuse for not equally contributing to America's success.

Still wating for someone, anyone that supports Obama to explain "fair share?" is it fair share for 47% of income earners to pay NOTHING? Is it fair share for promoting class warfare?

I'm not comparing anything. Just pointing out what I find important against what I do not find important.

That isn't what your post stated, anytime you talk about SS and Medicare along with other budget items you are comparing the two.

This is just your way of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "lalalalalala!" to avoid hearing (reading) the truth. I get it.

Seems that is what liberals are doing with everything Obama says, ignoring the consequences of the rhetoric and the lies being promoted. You have yet to refute anything I posted. What I have posted is verifiable facts, what Obama has spouted if verifiable bull****.
 
How is re-electing Obama going to put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work and actually cut the size of govt?

No president can just fix this deep of an economic hole by themselves overnight. This kind of recession takes many years to correct.

People are mad that Obama isn't fixing the problems created by Republicans fast enough, but is just going back to creating more new problems better? That would be like getting shot, going in to the doctor, getting mad that they aren't treating you quickly enough, so you go back to the guy that shot you and ask for them to shoot you some more...

chart-job-growth-bush-obama.jpg

0831-sbn-webVIEW.gif
 
Last edited:
It's not, but then again neither is any of that going to happen with a GOP candidate. Welcome to your two party system of whos going to drive America into the gutter faster.

Great, let's elect a third party candidate, who would that be and what power would they have with a Congress of Democrats and Republicans? Name for me a successful third party Governor?
 
No president can just fix this deep of an economic hole by themselves overnight. This kind of recession takes many years to correct.

People are mad that Obama isn't fixing the problems created by Republicans fast enough, but is just going back to creating more new problems better? That would be like getting shot, going in to the doctor, getting mad that they aren't treating you quickly enough, so you go back to the guy that shot you and ask for them to shoot you some more...

View attachment 67115837

What you are posting is gross job growth not net job growth which is still negative from when he took over and after spending over a trillion dollars. Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts. More people are dropping out of the labor force than at any time in U.S. history and we count employment and unemployed differently these days thanks to Clinton in 1994. Discouraged workers are dropped from both employment and unemployment roles thus are no loner counted. The real unemployment rate is 16.2% according to bls.gov.
 
Great, let's elect a third party candidate, who would that be and what power would they have with a Congress of Democrats and Republicans? Name for me a successful third party Governor?

No President in modern history has ever had 25 plus million unemployed and under employed and no President in modern history has ever added 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years. How is that not worse than any Republican?
 
No President in modern history has ever had 25 plus million unemployed and under employed and no President in modern history has ever added 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years. How is that not worse than any Republican?
republicans grow the government as well, but you continue to vote for them...what inspires such blind loyalty from you? why don't you hold them accountable? why not apply the same standard to republicans that you do democrats? why the double standard?
 
What you are posting is gross job growth not net job growth which is still negative from when he took over and after spending over a trillion dollars. Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts. More people are dropping out of the labor force than at any time in U.S. history and we count employment and unemployed differently these days thanks to Clinton in 1994. Discouraged workers are dropped from both employment and unemployment roles thus are no loner counted. The real unemployment rate is 16.2% according to bls.gov.

Again, the question you need to ask yourself isn't "Is Obama doing as well as I would like", but rather "Is Obama doing better than Republicans do"? Certainly we'd all like to have seen him be sworn in to office, snap his fingers, and all of a sudden everybody was working again... But the decision we have to make in the next election isn't between Obama and magic, it is between Obama and more of the Republican agenda that just collapsed the economy very recently. So even if everything you said was true and we were still losing jobs (that is not true) but we were losing them much more slowly than under Republicans, then that would still mean you should vote for Obama.

But, what you're saying is not true. The graph is net jobs. The total number of jobs in the US. It was falling rapidly under Bush, as soon as Obama took over it started falling more and more slowly- he was stopping the bleeding- and then it started to rise. That means more people working, so the labor participation stuff isn't relevant. This isn't the unemployment rate, it is the number of jobs in the country. Secondly, it is not true that the number of jobs in the country is still negative at all. I think there have been a couple months where it was here and there, but overall it is most definitely going up. What you see is right wingers posting threads here and right wing pundits ranting on when there is a month or even a week where the number goes down, but then they're silent the substantial majority of months when it goes up... That you think it is consistently going down is just a product of the sources you choose to pay attention to being ludicrous. It went down in August. That's why you think it is "still" going down, but that was a major exception. It had gone up many months in a row before that.
 
republicans grow the government as well, but you continue to vote for them...what inspires such blind loyalty from you? why don't you hold them accountable? why not apply the same standard to republicans that you do democrats? why the double standard?

Yes, because the alternative was worse just like it will be to re-elect Obama. We have had almost 3 years of Obamanomics and the results are there for all to see. Keep spouting the partisan bs. I do apply the same standards, why would anyone vote for Gore and Kerry over Bush? Why would anyone vote for Obama for a second term with the results we have today. He had his chance and failed. Bush performance didn't decline until 2008 when Democrats took control of Congress. That is reality even in your union world.
 
Again, the question you need to ask yourself isn't "Is Obama doing as well as I would like", but rather "Is Obama doing better than Republicans do"? Certainly we'd all like to have seen him be sworn in to office, snap his fingers, and all of a sudden everybody was working again... But the decision we have to make in the next election isn't between Obama and magic, it is between Obama and more of the Republican agenda that just collapsed the economy very recently. So even if everything you said was true and we were still losing jobs (that is not true) but we were losing them much more slowly than under Republicans, then that would still mean you should vote for Obama.

But, what you're saying is not true. The graph is net jobs. The total number of jobs in the US. It was falling rapidly under Bush, as soon as Obama took over it started falling more and more slowly- he was stopping the bleeding- and then it started to rise. That means more people working, so the labor participation stuff isn't relevant. This isn't the unemployment rate, it is the number of jobs in the country. Secondly, it is not true that the number of jobs in the country is still negative at all. I think there have been a couple months where it was here and there, but overall it is most definitely going up. What you see is right wingers posting threads here and right wing pundits ranting on when there is a month or even a week where the number goes down, but then they're silent the substantial majority of months when it goes up... That you think it is consistently going down is just a product of the sources you choose to pay attention to being ludicrous. It went down in August. That's why you think it is "still" going down, but that was a major exception. It had gone up many months in a row before that.

Please name for me ANY President in Modern history that has added 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years, had a net job loss over 2 years after the end of a recession, had a decline in the labor force 2 1/2 years after taking office. Add that to the rising miery index and socialist economic programs and it boils down to Obama, you had your chance, you are fired!

BLS shows a net job loss for Obama and as I pointed out the Obama job approval rating reflects the American view of his performance, one that you want to ignore. I suggest you stop spouting liberal lines and get the facts.


Create your own chart and stop making a fool of yourself

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
Yet during the Bush years when the Republicans controlled the WH and Congress the deficit was less than when the Democrats controlled the Congress [...]
While your statement, in a vacuum (sans context), would be correct it ignores the fact that the economy imploded while the Democrats controlled Congress (and in no part due to their control). This economic implosion was a major factor in the increased deficit.

If the roles had been reversed -- Democrats controlling Congress during the first 6 years of the Bush administration, with the Republicans wresting control in the last 2 years, the deficit figures would be little changed (assuming the Dems had gone along with the Bush tax cuts, no foregone conclusion)... the economy still would have imploded at about the same time, but on the Republican congressional watch instead of the Democrats. Therefore your argument is purely circumstantial, and therefore invalid.
 
The size of Govt. is 3.7 trillion dollars and the debt is almost equal to GDP. Why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar govt/
What size do you propose?

I will note that $3.7 trillion is somewhat high; with a $15 trillion GDP the historical norm (20%) would be $3.0 trillion govt. Would you settle for that?

Or will you again bandy about out-of-context numbers in an attempt to make a point via sheer unrelated size alone?
 
While your statement, in a vacuum (sans context), would be correct it ignores the fact that the economy imploded while the Democrats controlled Congress (and in no part due to their control). This economic implosion was a major factor in the increased deficit.

If the roles had been reversed -- Democrats controlling Congress during the first 6 years of the Bush administration, with the Republicans wresting control in the last 2 years, the deficit figures would be little changed (assuming the Dems had gone along with the Bush tax cuts, no foregone conclusion)... the economy still would have imploded at about the same time, but on the Republican congressional watch instead of the Democrats. Therefore your argument is purely circumstantial, and therefore invalid.

Thus your opinion which you are entitled to no matter how wrong you are. Socialism and Communism don't work and never will work in a country founded on free market capitalism unless you create so much dependence on govt. programs that you cause this country to fail economically which Obama is trying to do.
 
[...] This is class warfare and a step towards socialism and the question is do you really believe it thus are part of the problem or are you just brainwashed into believing the liberal rhetoric?
The class warfare belongs squarely in the GOP toolbox as they rant and rave about entitlements, promulgating a class hatred towards those who they paint as not paying their own way / 'fair share'. Reagan himself started this war with his "welfare queen" meme.

As far as socialism goes, the USA has been leaning decidedly in the social progressive camp for some 70 years; otherwise we would not have programs like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, and a progressive income tax. I ROF and LMAO everytime I see some hysterical right wing pol claim this is a "center right" country :lamo
 
Last edited:
Yes, because the alternative was worse just like it will be to re-elect Obama. We have had almost 3 years of Obamanomics and the results are there for all to see. Keep spouting the partisan bs. I do apply the same standards, why would anyone vote for Gore and Kerry over Bush? Why would anyone vote for Obama for a second term with the results we have today. He had his chance and failed. Bush performance didn't decline until 2008 when Democrats took control of Congress. That is reality even in your union world.
no sir, you do not apply the same standards, as has been shown repeatedly, and as you prove here, as long as there is an (R) next to the name, you will vote for them, even, if by your own standards, the results, as you see them, are the same as someone with a (D) next to their name. again, why the double standard? and again, please dispense with the attempted baiting/trolling, just answer the question.
 
The class warfare belongs squarely in the GOP toolbox as they rant and rave about entitlements, promulgating a class hatred towards those who they paint as not paying their own way / 'fair share'. Reagan himself started this war with his "welfare queen" meme.

As far as socialism goes, the USA has been leaning decidedly in the social progressive camp for some 70 years; otherwise we would not have programs like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, and a progressive income tax. I ROF and LMAO everytime I see some hysterical right wing pol claim this is a "center right" country :lamo

Coming from a guy named Karl, with a picture of Marx... the irony is heavy and pungent.
 
Back
Top Bottom