• 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: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

Johnsa said,"Explain to me the marxist doctrine that Obama and the dems support. Collectivism is at the core of your economy and of your government. It does not predominate, but its an integral part."

To which I replied,
"Been there. Done that. Here is the abbreviated version:
From each...to each. Marxist, Canadian (based on your words) and Democratic Party doctrine.
Steeply progressive taxes. Marxist, Canadian (based on your words) and Democratic Party doctrine.
You are not entitled to your success. Statist and Democratic Party doctrine."

And then you said this instead of considering my answer,
I see you can't reply to a simple question and remain semantically challenged.
If you want the longer versions they are available to anyone with a search engine. Perhaps the problem is with you.
 
I said, "It is accurate. About half of those who work either pay no federal income tax or they get back more than they paid in as direct payments from the government. If you want to argue that it is not 47% it is only 41% I will shrug my shoulders."

To which you replied,
Those that work and pay no federal income tax but pay federal payroll taxes as well as state sales and property taxes represent 32% of the 47%, so now we are talking about 15% or so of the population. Seems you don't have a handle on what is actually going on when it comes to income tax credits.

The bottom line is that we agree. About 47% of the American work force pay no federal income taxes or get back from the government more than they pay in. Thank you for that agreement in the midst of your attempted obfuscation.
 
I said, "the takers are not the ones who serve in the military. Of course, you already know that. Senior citizens might be takers. Some, no doubt are. Some may have been takers for much of their lives. Others have been makers of wealth during their economically productive years."

To which you replied,

Not sure what you are saying since on the one hand you say that the Romney's characterization of america includes nearly half the population are takers, not taking responsibility for their own lives is correct or thereabouts on here you are now saying wait a minute some of these aren't lazy irresponsible people. I think you are confusing yourself trying to defend the indefensible.
I know you are intentionally acting as if you are stupid. I also know that you are not stupid. So why play this silly game?

Romney's characterization was correct. There are people, the 47%, who are not going to vote for Romney no matter what. Obama voters, for the most part are Takers, blacks, guilty whites or a combination. People who serve in the armed forces and who support the armed forces are not takers. They receive far less from the government than the value of the service they provide.

What part of this do you feel obligated to pretend confuses you? Why not just come clean?
 
I said, "What built America was small, Constitutionally-limited government with citizens who worked. That America no longer exists."

Oh yes the good old days.

Considering that government spending for the last 65 years or so has hovered between 18 and 24% of gdp, when did government become too big?
For much of the nation's history it "hovered" way closer to 18% of GDP. In my opinion that was probably already too big.

If part of the federal government is unconstitutional, then why haven't its protectors (SCOTUS) not deemed said government expansion to be unconstitutional.
The obvious answer is that the Supreme Court long ago stopped protecting the people from their political errors. They do not protect the people from an avaricious government. In my opinion when the future histories are written this change will be one of the seminal reasons for the demise of the United States. The second change is that the US government became an extension of the Democratic Party. The third is that the government preferred to create a trustworthy voting bloc out of the Takers and created today's situation where nearly half of the people are takes who do not pay their way.

You remind me of Joe Biden.
 
Johnsa said,"Explain to me the marxist doctrine that Obama and the dems support. Collectivism is at the core of your economy and of your government. It does not predominate, but its an integral part."

To which I replied,
"Been there. Done that. Here is the abbreviated version:
From each...to each. Marxist, Canadian (based on your words) and Democratic Party doctrine.
Steeply progressive taxes. Marxist, Canadian (based on your words) and Democratic Party doctrine.
You are not entitled to your success. Statist and Democratic Party doctrine."

And then you said this instead of considering my answer,

If you want the longer versions they are available to anyone with a search engine. Perhaps the problem is with you.

I considered you answer and you remain semantically challenged, because Obama never said you aren't entitled to your success. Republicans seem to be able to create totally different meanings of speeches and positions by merely taking words out of context, or interpreting comments as something they are not, such as Obama apologizing of America - which he has never done.

But that's okay. I don't expect hard righties to recognize their own weaknesses.
 
I said, "It is accurate. About half of those who work either pay no federal income tax or they get back more than they paid in as direct payments from the government. If you want to argue that it is not 47% it is only 41% I will shrug my shoulders."

To which you replied,


The bottom line is that we agree. About 47% of the American work force pay no federal income taxes or get back from the government more than they pay in. Thank you for that agreement in the midst of your attempted obfuscation.

Firstly, its not the fault of the people who pay no federal tax, congress has done that and guess what both dems and reps have supported the threshold.

Second, not paying federal tax is not taking money in anyway shape or form

Look up obfuscation in the dictionary. I do not attempt to hide or confuse anything, I am attempting to explain what should be obvious to anyone that looks past the sloganeering and bumpersticker memes.

Many of the 47% who pay no taxes, are not taking money from the government. Of the 48% of households receiving some sort of government assistance, the government assistance in question also include things like TANF, subsidized housing, child tax credits etc.

here's an interesting set of stats from the most recent census wrt households and assistance.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0543.pdf

And then, if you have such a hard time with citizens getting more federal benefit than they supposedly contribute, what about the states that have been perennial takers of fed transfer payments exceeding fed revenues generated? Whole states are "takers", leeching off the wealthy states, too lazy to build up their own economies. Wow, citizens and states are lazy lowlifes, what a cess pool you must live in.
 
I said, "What built America was small, Constitutionally-limited government with citizens who worked. That America no longer exists."


For much of the nation's history it "hovered" way closer to 18% of GDP. In my opinion that was probably already too big.

Before WW1 you are correct. After its above that.



The obvious answer is that the Supreme Court long ago stopped protecting the people from their political errors. They do not protect the people from an avaricious government. In my opinion when the future histories are written this change will be one of the seminal reasons for the demise of the United States. The second change is that the US government became an extension of the Democratic Party. The third is that the government preferred to create a trustworthy voting bloc out of the Takers and created today's situation where nearly half of the people are takes who do not pay their way.

You remind me of Joe Biden.

And yet SCOTUS is mandated with preserving the constitution and adjudicating challenges to it. So what you are saying is that SCOTUS is corrupt and working solely on behalf of democrats to essentially enslave the populace so they'll vote democratic. Right you remind me of a fascist with fantasies.
 
Back
Top Bottom