• 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

Conservative said:
not that I disagree with you but what does any of this have to do with the excessive spending and the massive expansion of govt? When will spending ever be addressed and cut with the real role of the Federal govt. resurfacing?
Click to expand...

What that has to do with is the more the economy is stimulated and fed money that could be brought back into the US the easier it will be to cut programs that assist those who are unemployed for example.
 
Tettsuo said:
Are you afraid of the answer? Is that it? Instead of facing the truth, you've doubled down on insulting and rhetoric? Honestly, that's pretty sad.

Do the facts get in the way of your rhetoric? Conservatives have tried over and over again to use the same tactics of tax cutting and regulation smashing to help the economy. For the last 50 years every Conservative that took office, ran up our deficit to higher and higher levels. This year we have Conservatives asking to once again do exactly what they did in previous years, yet telling us the results will be different this time. 100% nonsense.

If it's not clear to you yet that the Conservative view of tax cutting (without balancing the budget) and regulations smashing (without understanding the ramifications of such actions) doesn't work well, then you've been living in the cone of silence your entire life.
Click to expand...

I really am sorry if facts actually get in the way of your opinion but your statement ignores reality, EVERY PRESIDENT has added significantly to the debt not just Republican Presidents. Fact is that Congress appropriates all that spending and in case you missed it, Congress was under Democrat control from 2007-2011 and it is Congress and the President responsible for the debt.

What you seem to always ignore and that is a problem with liberals like you, people keeping more of what they earn don't need a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal govt. no matter how much money goes to the Federal Govt. they are going to spend it so given that why do you have a problem with keeping more of what you earn? What you and all liberals do is buy the rhetoric of a liberal President and ignore the results of that same President.

i am still waiting for how Govt. Federal income tax and corporate tax revenue grew after both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts? In the liberal world that would be impossible. We have 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans today and approximately 54 million income earning households paying little if any Federal Income Taxes yet liberals want to raise the taxes on the top 1% that are now paying 37% of the FIT being collected. Do you realize how dumb that is?

I know quite well how keeping more of what I earn works, I pay down debt and need less govt. I give more to charity and my church, I put money aside so I don't need you to take care of me when I get older. Too bad you don't understand the concept. Is that what the educatino system in NY has taught you?
 
Connery said:
I find it difficult to take Romney seriously.
Click to expand...

Why? He paid over 3 million dollars a year in income taxes and contributed significantly to charity. Compare that to those compassionate Obama's and Biden's as to how much they gave to charity?
 
Connery said:
What that has to do with is the more the economy is stimulated and fed money that could be brought back into the US the easier it will be to cut programs that assist those who are unemployed for example.
Click to expand...

What stimulates the economy, more take home pay or less? you do know that FIT is a reduction in take home pay, right?
 
Bottom line is that it is as it always has been. Liberals want others to pay for their stuff. And Government is the mechanism. Every argument they make fits that blueprint. One can read it over and over and over in any forum.

.......... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Better tell the IRS that their data is wrong, because 47% of all INCOME EARNING HOUSEHOLDS don't pay any Federal Income taxes with many getting a check from the taxpayers even though they don't pay any Federal income Taxes.
Click to expand...

Nobody denies the numbers on FIT, but the distortions and mistruths or just lies attached to the numbers always go unstated. Please give us a breakdown of exactly how that works that the 47% exists, Conservative?
 
Conservative said:
Why? He paid over 3 million dollars a year in income taxes and contributed significantly to charity. Compare that to those compassionate Obama's and Biden's as to how much they gave to charity?
Click to expand...

Defend the man all you wish. Vote for him for all I care. He appears to be a weakling that has a low braking point. He would not get my vote.
 
Conservative said:
What stimulates the economy, more take home pay or less? you do know that FIT is a reduction in take home pay, right?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. So what is your point? Your analogy is tantamount to a person who receives a windfall but complains that he must pay tax on it. I do not see the sense in your [position. Jobs would be provided, the unemployed would have a source of revenue, the financial government's burden and spending would be reduced.
 
Removable Mind said:
Nobody denies the numbers on FIT, but the distortions and mistruths or just lies attached to the numbers always go unstated. Please give us a breakdown of exactly how that works that the 47% exists, Conservative?
Click to expand...

What distortions and mistruths? The numbers come from the IRS and are you telling me that 47% of INCOME EARNING HOUSEHOLDS cannot pay anything in Federal Income Taxes? Do you understand what income earning households means? Where is the mistruth here? You call them lies because you don't want to believe them. check with the IRS and find out if that number is true. If you don't pay any FIT and make income it isn't too hard to exist.
 
Catawba said:
Yep, that's what I said, less than half.

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.

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

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:
Click to expand...

And you, Catawba, are a legend in your own mind.
 
Connery said:
Yes I do. So what is your point? Your analogy is tantamount to a person who receives a windfall but complains that he must pay tax on it. I do not see the sense in your [position. Jobs would be provided, the unemployed would have a source of revenue, the financial government's burden and spending would be reduced.
Click to expand...

I probably pay more in FIT than you make and those evil rich people give more to charity and their church than liberals want to acknowledge. What happens when any President compromises with Congress and promises tax increases for spending cuts? We get the tax increases and Congress spends more money. You want tax increases then cut spending first. Take the U.S. Budget back to the 2008 levels and start cutting from there. Too many politicians buy votes with their pork barrel spending to ever cut that spending. you and others need to wake up.
 
Conservative said:
i am not surprised to see that a net job loss, net employment loss, net labor force loss, net unemployment gains, a rising misery index all at a cost of 4.6 trillion added to the debt is a success to you. I get it, rhetoric trumps substance in your world.
Click to expand...

That is a lot of truth.
 
Conservative said:
I really am sorry if facts actually get in the way of your opinion but your statement ignores reality, EVERY PRESIDENT has added significantly to the debt not just Republican Presidents. Fact is that Congress appropriates all that spending and in case you missed it, Congress was under Democrat control from 2007-2011 and it is Congress and the President responsible for the debt.
Click to expand...
Deficit and debt are not the same thing. FIRST, you have to correct the deficit before you can effectively address the debt. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that Conservative ideals have increased the DEFICIT everytime they were enacted.
What you seem to always ignore and that is a problem with liberals like you, people keeping more of what they earn don't need a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal govt. no matter how much money goes to the Federal Govt. they are going to spend it so given that why do you have a problem with keeping more of what you earn? What you and all liberals do is buy the rhetoric of a liberal President and ignore the results of that same President.
Click to expand...
You've all but ignored the fact that Conservatives continue to preach to you the solution of cutting taxes will heal the broken economy. It hasn't happened. They've not changed their tune in any way, shape or form. When will you open your eyes to the fact that as soon as a Conservatives implements their plan of tax cutting and regulations smashing, the nation goes straight down the tubes? There is a cost for living into America. Pay it or get out. Conservatives don't want to pay and don't rules to regulation their bad behavior, but they want a safe society with roads and airports and all the amenities of a strong country. They just want it at the cost of Somalia or any crap hole 3rd world country. That doesn't work.
i am still waiting for how Govt. Federal income tax and corporate tax revenue grew after both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts? In the liberal world that would be impossible. We have 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans today and approximately 54 million income earning households paying little if any Federal Income Taxes yet liberals want to raise the taxes on the top 1% that are now paying 37% of the FIT being collected. Do you realize how dumb that is?
Click to expand...
Yet Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 have all increased the national DEFICIT by huge amounts. Guess what? The plan didn't work as advertised. The middle class shrunk while the rich increased their wealth. That's not progress, that's the nation devolving into a 3rd world country. So again, explain how Conservative ideals have improved the country. Explain how the current batch is any different than Bush Jr. Explain how they will avoid the same pitfalls that Bush didn't avoid. How will cutting regulations some more benefit business and how cutting taxes when we can't afford the rebuild our infrastructure will benefit the average American.
I know quite well how keeping more of what I earn works, I pay down debt and need less govt. I give more to charity and my church, I put money aside so I don't need you to take care of me when I get older. Too bad you don't understand the concept. Is that what the educatino system in NY has taught you?
Click to expand...
NYC education taught me if a particular plan doesn't work, you don't repeat that plan expecting a different result.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
I probably pay more in FIT than you make
Click to expand...

You do not know what you are talking about I assure you...:lol:

and those evil rich people give more to charity and their church than liberals want to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

You speak like an angry misinformed person. Am I to assume you are labeling me a liberal?

What happens when any President compromises with Congress and promises tax increases for spending cuts? We get the tax increases and Congress spends more money. You want tax increases then cut spending first. Take the U.S. Budget back to the 2008 levels and start cutting from there. Too many politicians buy votes with their pork barrel spending to ever cut that spending. you and others need to wake up.
Click to expand...

Kindly supply references.
 
Tettsuo;1060146742]Deficit and debt are not the same thing. FIRST, you have to correct your deficit before you can effectively address the debt. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that Conservative ideals have increased the DEFICIT everytime they were enacted.
Click to expand...

Conservative ideals aren't spending more money in the name of compassion only to get failed results? People truly in need should be helped by the state and local communities, NOT the Federal taxpayers.

You've all but ignored the fact that Conservatives continue to preach to you the solution of cutting taxes will heal the broken economy. It hasn't happened. They've not changed their tune in any way, shape or form. When will to open your eyes to the fact that as soon as a Conservatives implements their plan of tax cutting and regulations smashing, the nation doesn't straight down the tubes? There is a cost for living into America. Pay it or get out. Conservatives don't want to pay and don't rules to regulation their bad behavior, but they want a safe society with roads and airports and all the amenities of a strong country. They just want it at the cost of Somalia or any crap hole 3rd world country. That doesn't work.
Click to expand...

You say it doesn't work, facts prove differently. People with more spendable income always help the economy, whether it is paying down personal debt, investing them one, saving it, or spending it, it helps. How does you keeping more of what you earn "send the economy down the tubes?" Why don't you find out what taxes are supposed to fund and get back to me? How about finding out the true role of the Federal Govt. and getting back to me. You don't seem to have a clue what FIT funds or is supposed to fund nor what state taxes fund and are supposed to fund. Therein lies the problem with liberalism

Yet Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 have all increased the national DEFICIT by huge amounts. Guess what? The plan didn't work as advertised. The middle class shrunk while the rich increased their wealth. That's not progress, that's the nation devolving into a 3rd world country. So again, explain how Conservative ideals have improved the country. Explain how the current batch is any different than Bush Jr. Explain how they will avoid the same pitfalls that Bush didn't avoid. How will cutting regulations some more benefit business and how cutting taxes when we can't afford the rebuild our infrastructure will benefit the average American.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Yes, the deficits during the Reagan and Bush Administrations increased just like they increased during the Clinton years and now have been put on steroids by Obama. This station is evolving into Greece or any other European style economy. Conservatives believe individuals can spend their money better and get better results than a bureaucrat in D.C.

The current batch in D.C. has expanded the role of the govt. and tried to lesson the role of the states. What happens to state revenue when the govt. increases Federal taxes?

NYC education taught me if a particular plan doesn't work, you don't repeat that plan expecting a different result
Click to expand...

Looks to me like your Governor realizes that you cannot tax your way to prosperity. Doing more of what NY has done in the past led to massive leaving of business and taxpayers from your state. Better think about the effects of raising Federal Taxes on your state taxes as more and more people will leave high tax states to lower tax states to pay for the rise in Federal taxes
 
Well.

I honestly didn't think it was that bad.

I admit I don't watch/listen to Obama himself speak very often.

I usually get the information from the media afterwords, sometimes bad parts of the media.

Although Im not a fan of more government... I can see how he would believe those programs would help the problem.

Although my concern is that people will become dependent upon those programs, creating a greater dependence upon the government itself.

I also would wonder where the money is going to come from if he WERE to get congress to draft legislation and pass it.

He, only in passing, mentioned shrinking the budget by anything. But coupled with all the spending he mentioned, it amounts to nothing.


I'm not going to sit up here and say **** like, "HES A WINDBAG!" "HES A SOCIALIST TERRORIST MUSLIM NON-AMERICAN BLAH BLAH BLAH"

I'm just going to say, although his plans sound great, I think its time for less government programs to hook the people on the government teat, not more.
 
Connery;1060146749]You do not know what you are talking about I assure you...:lol:
Click to expand...

I have been told that by a lot of the liberals here

You speak like an angry misinformed person. Am I to assume you are labeling me a liberal?
Click to expand...

I made a statement, unless you are a liberal that doesn't relate to you.



Kindly supply references.
Click to expand...

Reagan and GHW Bush agreed to raise taxes in a deal to cut spending, we got the tax increases but not the spending cuts. Bush's agreement was 3 for 1. Did Congress ever cut the budget?
 
Conservative said:
Why? He paid over 3 million dollars a year in income taxes and contributed significantly to charity. Compare that to those compassionate Obama's and Biden's as to how much they gave to charity?
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's compare. In '09 the Obama's had a bit over $5 million in income and contributed about $400k PLUS the entire $1.4 million from the Nobel Prize to charity, for a total of about $1.8 million. Thus the Obama's gave about 1/3 of their income to charity, versus Mitt's 12%. Ouch.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Did you read your article before you decided to start laughing about it....

Are food stamps at a record setting high? Yes (Now, personally...I don't actually care about this statement in a way similar I don't care about Obama's "oil production" statement because in both cases every year or two there's typically a new "record setting high" because its continually growing).

It points out that more people were put on food stamps under Bush than undre Obama....14.7 to 14.2 million. HOWEVER, it ALSO points out that its comparing Bush's 8 years to Obama's 3 years. So in 3 years Obama has seen .5 less millison.

So as your article points out, the RATE of growht is substantially higher with Obama. Bush added an average of roughly 1.8 million a year during his term. Thus far the rate of increaes for Obama is 4.7 million. Could that go down over time? Absolutely...but if you're FORCING us, as the website is doing, of taking a snapshot then you have to rightfully look at the fact they're taking 8 years of numbers and comparing it to 3.

So while you may be able to laugh that on a technicality Newt's statement wasn't correct, the generalized message behind his statement is actually shown pretty clearly from your own link. Increasing food stamp recipients at a pace of nearly 4 Million more a year than Bush is hardly something to :lamo at
Click to expand...
wanted to point out the kernel of truth in your post
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, let's compare. In '09 the Obama's had a bit over $5 million and income and contributed about $400k PLUS the entire $1.4 million from the Nobel Prize to charity, for a total of about $1.8 million. Thus the Obama's gave about 1/3 of their income to charity, versus Mitt's 12%. Ouch.
Click to expand...

So you want to compare giving his Nobel Peace Prize money to charity as an example of him being more charitable than Romney? Ouch is right, stop playing the game, you aren't that good at it.
 
Conservative said:
So you want to compare giving his Nobel Peace Prize money to charity as an example of him being more charitable than Romney? Ouch is right, stop playing the game, you aren't that good at it.
Click to expand...

Did he not have the option of keeping the prize money? Of course he did. How is that any different than Mitt's interest and dividend income?
 
AdamT said:
Did he not have the option of keeping the prize money? Of course he did. How is that any different than Mitt's interest and dividend income?
Click to expand...

He was given the Nobel Peace prize, the question is did he earn it? Did he risk his own money to get it? Romney gave away money that he earned through risk taking. it was his money that was invested to make that return and it was then income that he earned that he paid to charities
 
Conservative said:
He was given the Nobel Peace prize, the question is did he earn it? Did he risk his own money to get it? Romney gave away money that he earned through risk taking. it was his money that was invested to make that return and it was then income that he earned that he paid to charities
Click to expand...

You're just trying to wriggle out of the bear trap you set for yourself and stepped in. Bottom line is that the Obama's gave a significantly bigger chunk of their income to charity than the Romneys.
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, let's compare. In '09 the Obama's had a bit over $5 million in income and contributed about $400k PLUS the entire $1.4 million from the Nobel Prize to charity, for a total of about $1.8 million. Thus the Obama's gave about 1/3 of their income to charity, versus Mitt's 12%. Ouch.
Click to expand...

Who cares?

And you may or may not be the person who brought this up in the first place..... but who cares how much each candidate gave to charity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom