• 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

No, the data I posted shows a net private sector job loss after three years of Obamanomics not the plus gains you are showing.
Holy ****, I'm even more embarrassed for ya.

That's not what you asked for, Con. You asked for the BLS chart which upsideguy's chart referrenced.

That's what I gave you.

His chart was of monthly changes in private sector jobs. I gave you the BLS chart of monthly changes in private sector jobs.

You've been bitching and moaning ever since.

:roll::roll::roll::roll:

 
You still dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that income taxes make up less than half of federal revenues. Only 14% of the country pay no federal taxes, and they are our poor seniors and the disabled.

Just what kind of party is it that would impose greater hardship on poor seniors and the disabled to further lower the taxes for the rich?

42% of total revenue comes from individual income tax.

federal receipts.jpg

But, since you insist that Social Security is part of income tax, well, then the total is 82%. :rofl

Karma's a bitch.

Oh, and 47% of filers pay no income tax at all. As Enola says, "Calling Doctors Google, Bing and Google...."

Here's my source: Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com (one of hundreds)

Where's yours?
 
Holy ****, I'm even more embarrassed for ya.

That's not what you asked for, Con. You asked for the BLS chart which upsideguy's chart referrenced.

That's what I gave you.

His chart was of monthly changes in private sector jobs. I gave you the BLS chart of monthly changes in private sector jobs.

You've been bitching and moaning ever since.

:roll::roll::roll::roll:


Net job loss, net private sector job loss, declining labor force, more discouraged workers, higher misery index, 4.6 trillion added to the debt. Yep, those are numbers a liberal can be proud of. Obama is your kind of President.
 
Well, let's see, we had a 7.6% unemployment number and 10.6 trillion dollar debt. Today that is 8.5% with a 15.2 trillion dollar debt along with a declining labor force and more discouraged workers. That a success to you?
Better than Bush where both unemployment and the debt nearly doubled.

You called that a success. Under Obama, unemployment is up just 9% (up 86% under Bush) and debt is up 43% (up 86% under Bush).

Throw in one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, taking us into an 8 year long war over WMD which didn't exist, losing the Twin Towers, and fleeing office as the economy teetered on the brink of no return, scoring a record low JAR of 19%; and we have a president you applaud and would vote for again if he could run.

G'head, this is where you bitch and moan again about results.

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Net job loss, net private sector job loss, declining labor force, more discouraged workers, higher misery index, 4.6 trillion added to the debt. Yep, those are numbers a liberal can be proud of. Obama is your kind of President.
That's not what you asked for, Con ...


"Why don't you go to BLS and find that chart you referenced?" ~ Conservative


That chart was of monthly changes. That's what I gave you from the BLS.

Capiche?
 
Better than Bush where both unemployment and the debt nearly doubled.

You called that a success. Under Obama, unemployment is up just 9% (up 86% under Bush) and debt is up 43% (up 86% under Bush).

Throw in one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, taking us into an 8 year long war over WMD which didn't exist, losing the Twin Towers, and fleeing office as the economy teetered on the brink of no return, scoring a record low JAR of 19%; and we have a president you applaud and would vote for again if he could run.

G'head, this is where you bitch and moan again about results.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Bush isn't on the ballot and won't be running against Obama. Obama has a record of net job losses, net private sector job losses, declining labor force, net gain in unemployment, almost double the discouraged workers, and 4.6 trillion added to the debt. Sounds like your kind of President. You wouldn't vote for Bush with his record in 2004 but will for Obama in 2012. That makes you a hypocrite.
 
42% of total revenue comes from individual income tax.

View attachment 67121629

But, since you insist that Social Security is part of income tax, well, then the total is 82%. :rofl

Karma's a bitch.

Oh, and 47% of filers pay no income tax at all. As Enola says, "Calling Doctors Google, Bing and Google...."

Here's my source: Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com (one of hundreds)

Where's yours?
thanks for that
notice the current share of corporate contribution to federal revenues
now, please notice the decline of such contribution since the golden age of America:
graph corporate income tax to gdp.jpg
coincidence or correlation?
 
42% of total revenue comes from individual income tax.

View attachment 67121629

But, since you insist that Social Security is part of income tax, well, then the total is 82%. :rofl

Karma's a bitch.

Oh, and 47% of filers pay no income tax at all. As Enola says, "Calling Doctors Google, Bing and Google...."

Here's my source: Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com (one of hundreds)

Where's yours?

:rofl :rofl

I see where you get your 14%...that's the number who pay neither Federal income tax nor Social Security.

So. What does that mean? Well, it means that Catawba chooses to ignore Social Security when he chooses (your 42%) and include it as he likes. You're one piece'a work my friend. Your credibility was hanging on by a fingernail with me. I just trimmed it.
 
Bush isn't on the ballot and won't be running against Obama. Obama has a record of net job losses, net private sector job losses, declining labor force, net gain in unemployment, almost double the discouraged workers, and 4.6 trillion added to the debt. Sounds like your kind of President. You wouldn't vote for Bush with his record in 2004 but will for Obama in 2012. That makes you a hypocrite.
Nope, not a hypocrite. Unlike you, I am capable of understanding that much of Obama's first year was directly attributable to Bush's Great Recession. Just like I didn't blame Reagan in his first term for the mess he inherited from Carter, I don't blame Obama either.

Too bad you can't be that consistant.
 
Bush isn't on the ballot and won't be running against Obama. Obama has a record of net job losses, net private sector job losses, declining labor force, net gain in unemployment, almost double the discouraged workers, and 4.6 trillion added to the debt. Sounds like your kind of President. You wouldn't vote for Bush with his record in 2004 but will for Obama in 2012. That makes you a hypocrite.
What's the difference between Bush the other Conservatives running in this years election? What different plan are they coming with that would separate them from Bush?
 
What's the difference between Bush the other Conservatives running in this years election? What different plan are they coming with that would separate them from Bush?
Well for one, about 40 IQ points.
 
What's the difference between Bush the other Conservatives running in this years election? What different plan are they coming with that would separate them from Bush?

None of them have Obama's record of net unemployment loss, net labor force loss, net employment loss, record discouraged workers, higher misery index, and 4.6 trillion added to the debt. My choice of the four is Romney but will vote for whoever the Republican candidate is because of the Obama record. Romney was a governor and balanced the budget, Romney was in the private sector and created jobs, Romney turned the Olympics around and made those Olympics profitable.
 
None of them have Obama's record of net unemployment loss, net labor force loss, net employment loss, record discouraged workers, higher misery index, and 4.6 trillion added to the debt. My choice of the four is Romney but will vote for whoever the Republican candidate is because of the Obama record. Romney was a governor and balanced the budget, Romney was in the private sector and created jobs, Romney turned the Olympics around and made those Olympics profitable.
Did you not understand the questions?

Here it is again, see if you can answer the questions.

What's the difference between Bush the other Conservatives running in this years election? What different plan are they coming with that would separate them from Bush?
 
Last edited:
Did you not understand the question?

Apparently you don't understand the answer, Obama had his chance and failed. Time for real hope and real change, not an empty suit community organizer that demonizes individual wealth creation and defines fair share as someone who earns income but doesn't pay any FIT
 
Did you not understand the questions?

Here it is again, see if you can answer the questions.

What's the difference between Bush the other Conservatives running in this years election? What different plan are they coming with that would separate them from Bush?
Dude ... you can't get an answer from robospam. It's simply not available in the programming.
 
Apparently you don't understand the answer, Obama had his chance and failed. Time for real hope and real change, not an empty suit community organizer that demonizes individual wealth creation and defines fair share as someone who earns income but doesn't pay any FIT
No, I understood the answer, it just has nothing to do with questions. It appears you're trying to run from the question to avoid the fact that the Conservatives are offering up the exact same plans that have over the last 50 years, increased the national deficit.

Sorry, I don't see how doing the same things that got us into this situation, will now magically fix it.
 
No, I understood the answer, it just has nothing to do with questions. It appears you're trying to run from the question to avoid the fact that the Conservatives are offering up the exact same plans that have over the last 50 years, increased the national deficit.

Sorry, I don't see how doing the same things that got us into this situation, will now magically fix it.

Hard to explain to a liberal who doesn't have a clue how the private sector works. what caused the problems we faced was too much liberalism along with some misguided greed on the part of some unethical businesses. No one held a gun to the head of those people to take out loans that they couldn't afford.

You don't believe in capitalism and I do. I believe in personal responsibility and apparently you don't. I don't see the Bush Administration like you do because the results paint a different picture than the media or you are willing to admit. I don't think any Obama supporter should be talking about increasing the deficit when no President in modern history has ever generated as much debt in 3 years as Obama. You don't like the Bush deficit then how can you support someone who put Bush spending on steroids?

I expect the President to be a leader, not a divider. The media destroyed Bush and that gave us Obama whose record is there for all to see but he is running from it. It is time to put an adult with business experience back in the WH, not a community organizer who does nothing but destroys incentive and promotes class warfare.
 
Hard to explain to a liberal who doesn't have a clue how the private sector works. what caused the problems we faced was too much liberalism along with some misguided greed ....blah blah blah.... class warfare.
Wouldn't it be easier to just admit I'm right and the Conservatives have nothing that'll help America? Well, it'll help those in the top 2%, but the rest of us can go to hell.
 
what caused the problems we faced was too much liberalism along with some misguided greed on the part of some unethical businesses.

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

1/2001-1/2009: Republican president
1/1995-1/2007: Republican House
1/1995-6/2001: Republican Senate
1/2003-1/2007: Republican Senate
 
Last edited:
42% of total revenue comes from individual income tax.

Yep, that's what I said, less than half.


But, since you insist that Social Security is part of income tax, well, then the total is 82%. :rofl

I never said SS is part of income tax, I said it is a federal tax that goes into the general fund, just like income taxes do.

Karma's a bitch.

Yep. That's why it was so cool to prove you wrong on Romney and Buffet!


Oh, and 47% of filers pay no income tax at all. As Enola says, "Calling Doctors Google, Bing and Google...."

No one said they didn't.

But only 14% pay no federal taxes, and they are our poor seniors and the disabled.


You are a glutton for punishment! :2wave:
 
Wouldn't it be easier to just admit I'm right and the Conservatives have nothing that'll help America? Well, it'll help those in the top 2%, but the rest of us can go to hell.

Actually it is much easier stating you are wrong. Apparently you have no clue how the private sector works as it is results oriented and results matter a lot more than the rhetoric. That puts us at exact opposites. I look at results and how those results were generated and you buy the rhetoric ignoring the results.

Like most liberals you always want to divide people into classes. As a conservative it is very frustrating to be working so hard for people like you to keep more of what you earn. Not sure why or if you went to college but I went there with the idea of making a better life for myself and my family. I never cared what someone else has or what they pay in taxes. I always learned to celebrate success including successes of people like you if there ever was such a thing.

This country was built on rugged individualism and self reliance. There always were consequences for failure but apparently not in your world. The only thing preventing you or any other liberal for joining the top 2% is your attitude and probably work ethic. If I wanted the rest of you to go to hell, I would be supporting Obama and liberalism plus I would care if you joined those of us that have produced in upper income.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be easier to just admit I'm right and the Conservatives have nothing that'll help America? Well, it'll help those in the top 2%, but the rest of us can go to hell.

They are no longer even bothering to disguise it!
 
Actually it is much easier stating you are wrong. [warning: incoming ad hominem attack!!] Apparently you have no clue how the private sector works as it is results oriented and results matter a lot more than the rhetoric. That puts us at exact opposites. I look at results and how those results were generated and you buy the rhetoric ignoring the results.

[Alert! incoming ad hominem barrage!! With a side order of self parody!!!] Like most liberals you always want to divide people into classes. As a conservative it is very frustrating to be working so hard for people like you to keep more of what you earn. [AOOOGAH! Please muster to ad hominem stations immediately!!] Not sure why or if you went to college but I went there with the idea of making a better life for myself and my family. I never cared what someone else has or what they pay in taxes. I always learned to celebrate success including successes of people like you if there ever was such a thing.

This country was built on rugged individualism and self reliance. There always were consequences for failure [All hands to ad hominem stations!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL, FOLKS!!] but apparently not in your world. The only thing preventing you or any other liberal for joining the top 2% is your attitude and probably work ethic. If I wanted the rest of you to go to hell, I would be supporting Obama and liberalism plus I wouldn't care if you joined those of us that have produced in upper income..

Wow, what an insightful, not at all hyperpartisan response. :thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom