• 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 says Senate plan ‘only viable way’ to prevent tax hike

AdamT said:
In other words, it is -- ONCE AGAIN -- a juvenile political ploy. Republicans don't give a **** whether or not it's approved. They just want to throw it in Obama's face either way. Gee, I wonder why Democrats objected to it?
Click to expand...

Remind me again how the Senate Democrats objected to it, OH YEAH...they didn't, they passed the bill.
 
Karl said:
That you do not concur is irrelevant, since my participation in the debate is not to convince you, but to convince those on the sidelines.
Click to expand...

It's not working with me either.
 
kamikaze483 said:
Everyone, I think, is attempting to make the system more fair.... I think the main difference is what your definition of fair is. I think fair is taking a flat percentage of what EVERYONE makes, while all the while working hard to contain spending so that the percentage stays as low as possible. If the tax code stands up to the Equal Protection clause- and is applied to EVERYONE the same way, then I think a good argument can be made that it is fair. If you take a higher percentage from the wealthy and use it to supplement tax cuts for the middle and lower class workers, how is that "fair?"
Click to expand...

Because the wealthy have more disposable income to spend unlike the poor. Your way would wind up with the poor and falling middle classes paying more than they do now. They can't afford what taxes are being taken from them (Not just talking about FIC) and you want to give (through the flat tax) more to the rich.

Brilliant idea, if you want to make the poor more poor and the rich more rich. It's clear that is the Libertarian dream. Through "fairness" make people worse off than they already are, unless you are rich.

And people wonder why the right are the for the rich.
 
Please note how similar the verbage in the Senate bill is to the House bill:

SEC. 501. PERMIT FOR KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.
4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection
5 (b), not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
6 this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of
7 State, shall grant a permit under Executive Order 13337
8 (3 U.S.C. 301 note; relating to issuance of permits with
9 respect to certain energy-related facilities and land trans10
portation crossings on the international boundaries of the
11 United States) for the Keystone XL pipeline project appli12
cation filed on September 19, 2008 (including amend13
ments).

Now remind me again who controls the Senate...and what was the vote count on passage of this bill?
 
Dickieboy said:
Remind me again how the Senate Democrats objected to it, OH YEAH...they didn't, they passed the bill.
Click to expand...

It was a compromise, worked out with Senate Republicans, who seem to care for their country a hell of a lot more than the Neandearthal knuckle draggers over in the House. Mitch McConnell I can respect. He had differences with Reid, so the two got together and worked out something that neither side entirely liked, but felt was best for their country.
 
danarhea said:
It was a compromise, worked out with Senate Republicans, who seem to care for their country a hell of a lot more than the Neandearthal knuckle draggers over in the House. Mitch McConnell I can respect. He had differences with Reid, so the two got together and worked out something that neither side entirely liked, but felt was best for their country.
Click to expand...

Let's see who the real knuckle draggers are....

This two month bill is paid for by placing a permanent monthly fee on everyone's house payment that gets a new mortgage or a refinance of around $17.

Yep, sounds brilliant. Add to the cost of an already depressed housing market by adding permanent monthly fees that only fund this bill for 2 stinking months.
 
Gill said:
Let's see who the real knuckle draggers are....

This two month bill is paid for by placing a permanent monthly fee on everyone's house payment that gets a new mortgage or a refinance of around $17.

Yep, sounds brilliant. Add to the cost of an already depressed housing market by adding permanent monthly fees that only fund this bill for 2 stinking months.
Click to expand...

So you're saying McConnell and the majority of Senate Republicans who voted for the bill are the knuckle-draggers? :lol:

Oh, no, you're saying that $17 is going to make a few people decide not to refinance. When rates are at record lows. Sure.
 
Gill said:
Let's see who the real knuckle draggers are....

This two month bill is paid for by placing a permanent monthly fee on everyone's house payment that gets a new mortgage or a refinance of around $17.

Yep, sounds brilliant. Add to the cost of an already depressed housing market by adding permanent monthly fees that only fund this bill for 2 stinking months.
Click to expand...

People seeking to refinance their homes are looking for a smaller interest rate, and a smaller payment. 17 bucks is a drop in the bucket compared to what they will be saving by refinancing. You make it appear that those who refinance will be paying more, when such is not the case. OK, OK, tell 'ya what. Let's blame it on that evil Leebrul, Mitch McConnell. :rofl
 
danarhea said:
People seeking to refinance their homes are looking for a smaller interest rate, and a smaller payment. 17 bucks is a drop in the bucket compared to what they will be saving by refinancing. You make it appear that those who refinance will be paying more, when such is not the case. OK, OK, tell 'ya what. Let's blame it on that evil Leebrul, Mitch McConnell. :rofl
Click to expand...

They will be paying more than they would have without this bill.

And you are right. I do blame my Senator for this and you can be sure he will hear about it from me.
 
teamosil said:
Right, that's what the Democrats have proposed over and over. The Republicans won't agree to it.
Click to expand...

Question: If 12 months was the Democrats proposal, and they didn't need the Republican vote to pass the Senate, and they were fairly sure that the house would reject, then why didn't they pass the 12 month bill instead of the 2 month one?
 
jimbo said:
Question: If 12 months was the Democrats proposal, and they didn't need the Republican vote to pass the Senate, and they were fairly sure that the house would reject, then why didn't they pass the 12 month bill instead of the 2 month one?
Click to expand...

Another bigger question - if Republicans are so gung ho on tax cuts, why not propose making this one permanent? Makes the 2 months vs. 12 months thing seem kind of silly.
 
misterman said:
Another bigger question - if Republicans are so gung ho on tax cuts, why not propose making this one permanent? Makes the 2 months vs. 12 months thing seem kind of silly.
Click to expand...

Now you are talking my language. These postponements are wearing thin.
 
misterman said:
Another bigger question - if Republicans are so gung ho on tax cuts, why not propose making this one permanent? Makes the 2 months vs. 12 months thing seem kind of silly.
Click to expand...

Great idea...... let's destroy social security while we are at it. Those old folks don't need any help.
 
Gill said:
[...] you are not accustomed to reading legalese are you. Shall does not mean one has to do a certain thing if there are exceptions included. Why is that so hard to grasp??? [...]
Click to expand...
What "shall" means is really not in dispute... except by you, it seems.

shall

3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: 'The meetings of the council shall be public.'

shall. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. Shall | Define Shall at Dictionary.com (accessed: December 22, 2011).
Click to expand...
 
misterman said:
Another bigger question - if Republicans are so gung ho on tax cuts, why not propose making this one permanent? Makes the 2 months vs. 12 months thing seem kind of silly.
Click to expand...

Because the bigger answer is that this whole PR tax cut thing is a dinky gimmick BY BOTH PARTIES to try to spur demand. But the predicted demand growth will come at the expense of the stability of Social Security and Medicare. It would make more sense to reduce income tax rates, even temporarily, on whomever. Washington for the last 3 years has been pressing gimmicks to address much more serious structural and systemic issues. If this pandering to the various bases continues the economy will continue to flounder.
 
Karl said:
What "shall" means is really not in dispute... except by you, it seems.
Click to expand...

Again, if this Keystone thingy was so rancorous why did Senate Democrats pass their version with the SAME LANGUAGE?
 
Karl said:
What "shall" means is really not in dispute... except by you, it seems.
Click to expand...

Very good..... Obama SHALL approve the pipeline UNLESS he doesn't want to. Shall can always have exclusions, just as it does here.
 
Want an example ??

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
 
kamikaze483 said:
Everyone, I think, is attempting to make the system more fair.... I think the main difference is what your definition of fair is. [...]
Click to expand...
Before, you thought (argued) the GOP was not trying to raise taxes.

kamikaze483 said:
[...] what is presented to the people is that the GOP are trying to increase people's taxes. This is simply not true. [...]
Click to expand...
Now you're advocating raising taxes on the poor in order to be "more fair".

I think you just lost your argument. Perhaps, like another poster, you'd like to dispute the definition of "shall" as well. . . . .
 
Karl said:
I think you just lost your argument. Perhaps, like another poster, you'd like to dispute the definition of "shall" as well. . . . .
Click to expand...

You should look in a legal dictionary for legal terms:

shall v. 1) an imperative command as in "you shall not kill." 2) in some statutes, "shall" is a direction but does not mean mandatory, depending on the context.
Click to expand...
 
jimbo said:
Question: If 12 months was the Democrats proposal, and they didn't need the Republican vote to pass the Senate, and they were fairly sure that the house would reject, then why didn't they pass the 12 month bill instead of the 2 month one?
Click to expand...

You are dead wrong. They DID need Republican support to pass the Senate, since it takes 60 votes to beat a filibuster, and that is exactly what Senate Republicans originally did when it first came up.
 
Gill said:
Let's see who the real knuckle draggers are....

This two month bill is paid for by placing a permanent monthly fee on everyone's house payment that gets a new mortgage or a refinance of around $17.

Yep, sounds brilliant. Add to the cost of an already depressed housing market by adding permanent monthly fees that only fund this bill for 2 stinking months.
Click to expand...
The ones who refused to pay for the bill by placing a tax on millionaires.
 
jimbo said:
Question: If 12 months was the Democrats proposal, and they didn't need the Republican vote to pass the Senate [...]
Click to expand...
They do need the Republican vote to pass the Senate (e.g., filibuster). Please, no more rhetorical falsehoods.
 
Gill said:
You should look in a legal dictionary for legal terms:
Click to expand...

The legal definition of shall is no different. It is an imperative. As opposed to "should", or "may".
 
Dickieboy said:
Because the bigger answer is that this whole PR tax cut thing is a dinky gimmick BY BOTH PARTIES to try to spur demand. But the predicted demand growth will come at the expense of the stability of Social Security and Medicare. It would make more sense to reduce income tax rates, even temporarily, on whomever. Washington for the last 3 years has been pressing gimmicks to address much more serious structural and systemic issues. If this pandering to the various bases continues the economy will continue to flounder.
Click to expand...

That's your answer. I wonder what the typical Republican in the House would say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom