• 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!

State of the Union Address

How many ways does it take government to lie, cheat, steal, scam, and con you out of your money to pay for the Kingdom of Washington's lifestyle - before you really understand what they've done to you?
 
Do you think it is my responsibility to pay for your expenses? That seems to be what you are asking or you don't have a clue where the FEderal govt. gets its money. Social problems are state and local issues, not the Federal Taxpayer's responsibilities.
Yes it is your responsibility. After all, you're an EMPLOYER.
 
Last edited:
No **** Sherlock. It's kinda hard for, say, a single mom with three kids, and working three jobs, to contribute more money than, say, a multi-billionaire.
And yet you accuse her of greed...
Could someone please explain the logic in that?

individual greed is the grease that makes everything work. the reason technology gets cheaper is we are all greedy. my problem is that some people are allowed to be greedy, while others can't.
 
then stop acting like you have class envy. How did any rich person hurt you or your family? You made a flat out lie, if you have capital gains you pay the same tax rate as Romney but no, you buy the liberal bull****. That makes you look foolish. You don't want fairness for if you did you would expect the 47% of income earning households to pay something in FIT, the 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans to be re-employed full time, and you wouldn't promote punishing producers because you don't think they pay enough when so many aren't paying anything

all income should be taxed at the same rate, period. that's my argument, and more than a few people agree with me. it's people like YOU who try to confuse the issue by claiming captial gains were already taxed once. talk about bull****...........i DO NOT CARE if low income people get a break, i care if high income people get a break, and i am not the one complaining about my rate. i happily pay my taxes, and would be even happier if romney paid the smae rate as i do. i haven't ever lied, ever, and i challenge you to provide proof that i did.
 
no, my effective income tax rate is high than romney's.

my effective property tax rate is also higher.

so is my effective consumption tax.

when you buy in volume, individual units are generally cheaper too. so frigging what? stop being jealous
 
So you believe we could operate on a 250 billion dollar military budget? And what happens if you are wrong? But let's say you are right, 500 billion cut in military still has a budget deficit of 900 billion dollars. You have no concept of consequences for failure or making a mistake because in the liberal world mistakes are never made.

A $500 billion cut in excess military spending would be 15 trillion dollars over 30 years, adding in the Bush tax cuts ($690 billion over the next 10 years) would be another $2 trillion dollars.
Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year

That's $17 trillion dollars over the next 30 years! And we would still be spending more on the military than any other country on the planet!
 
So question....

Did we enact things to expand our oil production 10 years ago, under Bush, and that's what is coming to fruition now?

OR

Is it actually possible to expand oil production currently and it come into play sooner than 10 years?

Because one or the other has to be the case if Obama's statements about Oil production is true.
Notice he didn't say much if anything at all about doing things to encourage the building of more (and more efficient) refineries. You think he may actually not know what the main problem with gasoline prices is? Could he be that ignorant......or is this simply more political maneuvering? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Well if our most wasteful spending means exactly jack **** to you then you are just another that wants his cake and wants to eat it too.

I don't believe its our most wasteful spending. Whether or not it is is entirely opinion based, which goes back to my point. You can't get out of your own hyper partisan way to accept the fact that just becuase YOU believe it to be so that doesn't make it some universal fact.

I've stated before, and I'll state again...you give me a proposal that cuts CURRENT expenditures on the Defense Spending and Entitlements by 1/3 over "X" amount of years and I'd agree with it immedietely.

By doing that, by cutting them both by 1/3, we would actually get more savings than if we eliminated every other piece of government spending including our debt payments. And they'd still, combined, make up 2/3rds of all government spending.

Entitlement spending makes up just over 1/2 of our total spending. National Defense makes up just under 1/4th roughly. If we cut Defense Spending by 3/4ths, we'd save somewhere around $500 billion. Cut Entitlements by 1/3rd and you save roughly $150 billion more than that, at nearly $650 billion. To put in perspective....a 9/12ths cut to Defense Spending saves about $150 billion less in spending than a 4/12th cut in Entitlements. Thinking you can just gut Defense with doing nothing but a magic show of "reform" with entitlement costs to have any kind of impact is foolishness, plain and simple.

Cutting them both by 1/3rd would save just under a TRILLION dollars a year in spending while leaving them both as still the majority of government spending.

Personally I'd also say do a 1% national sales tax too to be quite honest, with that money specifically earmarked in such a way that its not touchable by any government entity but rather that it goes directly to a fund that is used to pay down our debt on top of our normal debt payment. This would effectively allow us to pay double our debt payments each year, thus paying our debt off faster AND lowering the amount of payment we need to give the following year. Once we paid off our debt, whenever that would be, then the tax could either sunset or it could be set to act as a Rainy day fund. Though that is likely decades away.
 
Great, then cut the spending first then we can talk about tax increases starting with those that earn income but pay nothing in FIT

Yeah, right, same story we have gotten from the Republicans for the last 30 years!
 
A $500 billion cut in excess military spending would be 15 trillion dollars over 30 years

A 1/3rd cut to Entitlement spending would be about $150 billion more per year than your 3/4ths cut to Military spending.

You save roughly $650 billion a year making a cut that's 5/12ths of a percent less (because as we all know, liberals care about the Percentage and not the raw number ;)).

So cutting 1/3 from something that makes up just over 1/2 of the government saves you roughly $150 billion more a year than cutting 3/4ths out of something that makes up just under 1/4th of the government.

That's 19.5 Trillion over your same 30 year time period. That's 2.5 trillion more than your total when you combine your 3/4ths of a cut with the bush tax cut removal.

Ah my earlier proposal...the 1/3rd from both? That'd be 27 Trillion over 30 years...a full 10 trillion more than yours.
 
I've read most/all of the current president's SOTU speeches before.

Like any other Dem/Rep president, they're all fluff pieces and not really created to address the state of the union.
Just a campaign speech, at the cost of tax payer money.
 
I don't believe its our most wasteful spending. Whether or not it is is entirely opinion based, which goes back to my point. You can't get out of your own hyper partisan way to accept the fact that just becuase YOU believe it to be so that doesn't make it some universal fact.

I've stated before, and I'll state again...you give me a proposal that cuts CURRENT expenditures on the Defense Spending and Entitlements by 1/3 over "X" amount of years and I'd agree with it immedietely.

By doing that, by cutting them both by 1/3, we would actually get more savings than if we eliminated every other piece of government spending including our debt payments. And they'd still, combined, make up 2/3rds of all government spending.

Entitlement spending makes up just over 1/2 of our total spending. National Defense makes up just under 1/4th roughly. If we cut Defense Spending by 3/4ths, we'd save somewhere around $500 billion. Cut Entitlements by 1/3rd and you save roughly $150 billion more than that, at nearly $650 billion. To put in perspective....a 9/12ths cut to Defense Spending saves about $150 billion less in spending than a 4/12th cut in Entitlements. Thinking you can just gut Defense with doing nothing but a magic show of "reform" with entitlement costs to have any kind of impact is foolishness, plain and simple.

Cutting them both by 1/3rd would save just under a TRILLION dollars a year in spending while leaving them both as still the majority of government spending.

Personally I'd also say do a 1% national sales tax too to be quite honest, with that money specifically earmarked in such a way that its not touchable by any government entity but rather that it goes directly to a fund that is used to pay down our debt on top of our normal debt payment. This would effectively allow us to pay double our debt payments each year, thus paying our debt off faster AND lowering the amount of payment we need to give the following year. Once we paid off our debt, whenever that would be, then the tax could either sunset or it could be set to act as a Rainy day fund. Though that is likely decades away.


The only way to fix the cost of health care is to upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done. SS is not responsible for any of our debt.

We don't need another regressive tax that would even further the widest disparity of wealth in our history since the Great Depression.
 
The only way to fix the cost of health care is to upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done. SS is not responsible for any of our debt.

We don't need another regressive tax that would even further the widest disparity of wealth in our history since the Great Depression.

Seriously man, your posts are like spam.
You say the same thing in multiple threads over and over again.

Like an automated response.
It gets old and is really just a way to weasel out of addressing Zyph's response.
 
And talking points as to why we can't cut your sacred cow and instead need to spend more money...and then watching the hyper partisan who bitches about Conservatives refusing to agree to tax increases and refusing to compromise, shooting down a tax increase becuase it doesn't specifically shove it to the rich.

I'm shocked. Uttelry shocked. Really, honestly...shocked.










I'm not really shocked.
 
A 1/3rd cut to Entitlement spending would be about $150 billion more per year than your 3/4ths cut to Military spending.

You save roughly $650 billion a year making a cut that's 5/12ths of a percent less (because as we all know, liberals care about the Percentage and not the raw number ;)).

So cutting 1/3 from something that makes up just over 1/2 of the government saves you roughly $150 billion more a year than cutting 3/4ths out of something that makes up just under 1/4th of the government.

That's 19.5 Trillion over your same 30 year time period. That's 2.5 trillion more than your total when you combine your 3/4ths of a cut with the bush tax cut removal.

Ah my earlier proposal...the 1/3rd from both? That'd be 27 Trillion over 30 years...a full 10 trillion more than yours.


Cutting funding to medicare does nothing to address the highest health care cost in the world, and again SS is not responsible for any of our debt.
 
Yes it is your responsibility. After all, you're an EMPLOYER.

You live in the wrong country, Greece is more to your liking. As an employer I am obligated to treat you professionally and fairly, not pay for your expenses. You have the right to earn the income to do that until you lose that right by your actions.
 
I found the President's State of the Union to be light on substance and heavy on rhetoric. Also, his advocacy of an economic "blueprint" speaks to his authoritarian inclination towards central planning and management. Economies don't need "blueprints", they need liberty and property rights.

Brian
 
Cutting funding to medicare does nothing to address the highest health care cost in the world, and again SS is not responsible for any of our debt.

Once again, lets all thank Catawba for providing the wonderful example of "MY sacred cow can't be touched because its good because I think my opinion is fact, but YOURS needs to be cut to extreme levels".

Give him a hand folks, you couldn't ask for a better example if I was paying someone.




In all seriousness, I'm not paying him...he's ACTUALLY does function this way.
 
I found the President's State of the Union to be light on substance and heavy on rhetoric. Also, his advocacy of an economic "blueprint" speaks to his authoritarian inclination towards central planning and management. Economies don't need "blueprints", they need liberty and property rights.

Brian

Can't really blame him for that. Most SotU's, especially in the modern age, are in this fashion. We no longer have one time a year that we know everyone will definitely hear from the President. There's news conferences constantly, we always see the white house spokes person talking, we've got operatives on every station you can imagine putting out a message...and on and on. The SotU is political theater, even more so then it used to be. That's not an Obama thing but rather now an American thing it seems.
 
...and again SS is not responsible for any of our debt.

All spending is responsible for our debt, and each program's respective responsibility for the debt is directly proportional to its percentage of total expenditures. This is a simple matter of arithmetic and basic finance.

Brian
 
Last edited:
Where does investment income come from? Seems that liberals want to ignore the reality that people get investment income from their earned income which is taxed at a higher rate than the ROI on investment revenue but that has to be ignored for the liberal agenda to be promoted. Personal income is taxed then investment income is taxed again, Anyone really believe that Buffet's secretary is paying a higher tax rate than all the Buffet revenue was taxed?

Boy you had my head spinning. Lets' keep this simple..income is INCOME, new money that a person gets from salary or investment. Income is only taxed once and capital gains are only taxed if the money is not reinvested. You see in a consumer economy we need to tax the income that is not spent or reinvested. Any other source, reduces spending and growth.
 
Can't really blame him for that. Most SotU's, especially in the modern age, are in this fashion. We no longer have one time a year that we know everyone will definitely hear from the President. There's news conferences constantly, we always see the white house spokes person talking, we've got operatives on every station you can imagine putting out a message...and on and on. The SotU is political theater, even more so then it used to be. That's not an Obama thing but rather now an American thing it seems.

I would tend agree. It speaks to how hollow our political process has become.

Brian
 
Once again, lets all thank Catawba for providing the wonderful example of "MY sacred cow can't be touched because its good because I think my opinion is fact, but YOURS needs to be cut to extreme levels".

Give him a hand folks, you couldn't ask for a better example if I was paying someone.

In all seriousness, I'm not paying him...he's ACTUALLY does function this way.

I'll give him a hand for getting to the root of the issue, which is health care costs -- not who pays them. Because ultimately someone has to pay them, and that is sucking the life blood out of our economy. Or are you proposing that we just let people die?

What are you going to do when you cut Medicare by one third? ARE you going to let old people die because they can't pay the doctor or hospital? Serious question.

So you are both right. Clearly we can't right this ship until we get Medicare costs in line, and clearly we cannot get Medicare costs in line unless we address the cost of health care itself.
 
Once again, lets all thank Catawba for providing the wonderful example of "MY sacred cow can't be touched because its good because I think my opinion is fact, but YOURS needs to be cut to extreme levels".

You can call facts sacred cows if it make you happy. it still doesn't change the truth of what I am saying.

For example, How does cutting medicare do anything to reduce the high health care cost?

Now much of our National Debt is due to SS?
 
All spending is responsible for our debt, and each program's respective responsibility for the debt is directly proportional to its percentage of total expenditures. This is a simple matter of arithmetic and basic finance.

Brian

Please cite the portion of our National Debt attributable to SS. Because everything I've read is that through SS payments from payroll taxes, there is funding through 2036.
 
Back
Top Bottom