• 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!

Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

Conservative said:
The difference is Medicare and SS can go back to being what they were supposed to be but too many people buy your opinion that a tax is a tax and all money should go into the General Fund. If you operated that way by spending your long term obligations in the short term you would be bankrupt.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the money should go into the general fund. I said the money does go into the general fund.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I didn't say that the money should go into the general fund. I said the money does go into the general fund.
Click to expand...

Right and as long as people accept the liberal claim that tax dollars are all the same we will never get back to fiscal responsibility.
 
Conservative said:
Right and as long as people accept the liberal claim that tax dollars are all the same we will never get back to fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...


We,ll get back to fiscal responsibility when the bush tax-cuts expire.
 
Whipsnade said:
We,ll get back to fiscal responsibility when the bush tax-cuts expire.
Click to expand...

that is silly. until there are massive cuts in spending, the temporary increase in revenues won't mean squat
 
Whipsnade said:
We,ll get back to fiscal responsibility when the bush tax-cuts expire.
Click to expand...

How does taking more money from individuals put 22.7 million Americans back to work full time? In your world it is never about spending, is it?
 
Conservative said:
Now I can see and fully understand why we have a problem in this country. People like you simply cannot understand the purpose of taxes which are to fund what we need not fund what we want. The idea that FICA is put into the General Fund doesn't change the reality that it was never intended for the general fund and there is nothing but partisan bull**** preventing it from being removed from the general fund. Your argument that people pay for SS and Medicare thus put money into the General fund as an argument that the poor do pay taxes is typical liberal diversion and distortion of reality.
Click to expand...
Again, you "think" I am advocating something because I remind you that it is happening. That is not my problem, it is entirely YOUR problem. I have NEVER advocated for the spending of SS dollars and iou's put in their place...EVER. And if at any time you wish to show where I have done so, by all means, show me where I have done so.

This is nothing more than you, once again, being shown a thing you originally claim to not understand, and when it is explained to you, you then think it is something that the person who is enlightening you is in favor of the thing he is helping you to understand. We call that "blaming the messenger".

Get a clue.
 
Whipsnade said:
We,ll get back to fiscal responsibility when the bush tax-cuts expire.
Click to expand...

Laughable

Taxing the top 2% would fund the Government for a week

Obama is borrowing 46 cents for every dollar he spends

Obama is spending 5.60$ for every 1$ of real wealth generated in the private economy

Obama has trillion dollar deficits going on the 5th year in a row

Obama's failed stimulus was littered with cronyism and corruption

At least you admit you're all for taxing the Middle Class though, since you failed to clarify which "Bush Tax Cuts" you wish to keep and which ones you wish to expire

47% of Americans pay no income taxes, yet profit handsomely from Government subsidies

An American who makes 60K a year has less disposable income than an American who makes less, thanks to all of the hand outs

Obama's "budgets" are so laughable his own party consistently votes against them

Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget since before the IPAD hit the market

Thirsty?

images
 
MaggieD said:
I find that disgusting. We live in a democratic nation. If "the majority" wants the state to be Right to Work, then that's what ought to happen. That asshole should be ashamed of himself.
Click to expand...

Democrats don't believe in democracy.

Remember Wisconsin, Indiana or even prop 8 in California - the second their crap fails or something they don't agree with is voted into law they go bananas, they protest, run to courts or just run to other states to avoid voting (like we saw in Wisconsin)...

Of course the second the people vote their ideas into law they will call it a "great day for democracy."
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, you "think" I am advocating something because I remind you that it is happening. That is not my problem, it is entirely YOUR problem. I have NEVER advocated for the spending of SS dollars and iou's put in their place...EVER. And if at any time you wish to show where I have done so, by all means, show me where I have done so.

This is nothing more than you, once again, being shown a thing you originally claim to not understand, and when it is explained to you, you then think it is something that the person who is enlightening you is in favor of the thing he is helping you to understand. We call that "blaming the messenger".

Get a clue.
Click to expand...

No, it is the country's problem that you pass off as my personal problem. You don't have a problem with the govt. taking your SS/Medicare contribution, putting it on budget and spending it for everything other than SS/Medicare? Until you look at taxes as their intent, you will never change nor will you ever solve the problem. The govt. needs to collect taxes on what it needs, not what power they want.
 
Conservative said:
No, it is the country's problem that you pass off as my personal problem.
Click to expand...
It is your problem when you refuse to face that it has been happening for a long time, you continue on with charade of not accepting that the surplus in the trust fund was created to be raided, it has not been set aside for retiring boomers.
You don't have a problem with the govt. taking your SS/Medicare contribution, putting it on budget and spending it for everything other than SS/Medicare?
Click to expand...
Let me reiterate....I DO HAVE PROBLEM WITH THE RAIDING OF THE SSTF, I DO HAVE PROBLEM WITH THE GREENSPAN INCREASE THAT WAS USED FRAUDULENTLY.
Until you look at taxes as their intent, you will never change nor will you ever solve the problem. The govt. needs to collect taxes on what it needs, not what power they want.
Click to expand...
Absolutely pointless boilerplate, you still can't get the point.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is your problem when you refuse to face that it has been happening for a long time, you continue on with charade of not accepting that the surplus in the trust fund was created to be raided, it has not been set aside for retiring boomers.Let me reiterate....I DO HAVE PROBLEM WITH THE RAIDING OF THE SSTF, I DO HAVE PROBLEM WITH THE GREENSPAN INCREASE THAT WAS USED FRAUDULENTLY. Absolutely pointless boilerplate, you still can't get the point.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has been happening since the 1960's when LBJ put SS on budget to fund the Vietnam War and over time people like you have accepted the statement that all taxes are the same thus have no problem buying the Obama rhetoric which will never solve the fiscal problem we have today. Until people like you stand up and tell the govt. to spend tax money on what we need vs. what we want nothing is ever going to change. Tell the govt. to allocate the tax revenue to the areas the taxes were supposed to fund. I don't see that from you
 
Conservative said:
Yes, it has been happening since the 1960's when LBJ put SS on budget
Click to expand...
wrong, the "unified" budget was not created for SS funds to go to Vietnam war spending.
to fund the Vietnam War
Click to expand...
A surtax was created to fund the war, you need to review that history.
and over time people like you have accepted the statement that all taxes are the same thus have no problem buying the Obama rhetoric which will never solve the fiscal problem we have today. Until people like you stand up and tell the govt. to spend tax money on what we need vs. what we want nothing is ever going to change. Tell the govt. to allocate the tax revenue to the areas the taxes were supposed to fund. I don't see that from you
Click to expand...
I am not going to repeat what I said already since again it can't get through, and your corporatist perspective has distorted all of your understanding of "want" and "need". We don't need a military consuming 60% of discretionary spending, we don't need SSTF dollars funding needless wars like Iraq and AFPAK.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
wrong, the "unified" budget was not created for SS funds to go to Vietnam war spending.
A surtax was created to fund the war, you need to review that history.I am not going to repeat what I said already since again it can't get through, and your corporatist perspective has distorted all of your understanding of "want" and "need". We don't need a military consuming 60% of discretionary spending, we don't need SSTF dollars funding needless wars like Iraq and AFPAK.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that isn't the case. I was around, active in the 60's when it happened and if you ever did any research you wouldn't be making stupid statements.

I suggest not only that you do some research but that you also take a civics and history course for the role of the Federal Govt. is to PROVIDE for our security and provide means exactly what it states. 60% of discretionary spending amounts to 800 billoin dollars out of a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal spending spree. You better wake up.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
wrong, the "unified" budget was not created for SS funds to go to Vietnam war spending.
A surtax was created to fund the war, you need to review that history.I am not going to repeat what I said already since again it can't get through, and your corporatist perspective has distorted all of your understanding of "want" and "need". We don't need a military consuming 60% of discretionary spending, we don't need SSTF dollars funding needless wars like Iraq and AFPAK.
Click to expand...

You really need to educate yourself vs. listening to those leftwing sites that you want to believe

Social Security History
 
Conservative said:
Sorry, but that isn't the case. I was around, active in the 60's when it happened and if you ever did any research you wouldn't be making stupid statements.

I suggest not only that you do some research but that you also take a civics and history course for the role of the Federal Govt. is to PROVIDE for our security and provide means exactly what it states. 60% of discretionary spending amounts to 800 billoin dollars out of a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal spending spree. You better wake up.
Click to expand...
Conservative said:
You really need to educate yourself vs. listening to those leftwing sites that you want to believe
Click to expand...
"In 1968, a 10% surtax was imposed to pay for the Vietnam War, which raised revenue by about 1% of GDP. And there was conscription during both wars, which can be viewed as a kind of tax that was largely paid by the poor and middle class--young men from wealthy families largely escaped its effects through college deferments."

The Cost Of War - Forbes.com
 
Gimmesometruth said:
"In 1968, a 10% surtax was imposed to pay for the Vietnam War, which raised revenue by about 1% of GDP. And there was conscription during both wars, which can be viewed as a kind of tax that was largely paid by the poor and middle class--young men from wealthy families largely escaped its effects through college deferments."

The Cost Of War - Forbes.com
Click to expand...

Look, I understand your interest in diverting but the fact remains LBJ wanted SS on budget to fund the Vietnam War and it has been on budget as part of a unified budget since 1968. For almost 45 years people have ignored this and accepted the concept that all tax dollars are the same and until that mindset changes the fiscal problems are going to continue.

Social Security History
 
OnWisconsin said:
because ironworkers that dont join unions make far less money, therefor, why wouldnt you want to join a union if you were an ironworker... I pay 50 bucks a month in dues.. big deal. I get back far more.
Click to expand...

But the issue isnt what YOU want. No one wants to stop you from being in a union. Only from govt forcing others to be in it. And forcing employers to hire only people in it.
 
jonny5 said:
But the issue isnt what YOU want. No one wants to stop you from being in a union. Only from govt forcing others to be in it. And forcing employers to hire only people in it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this is about choice by the individual and it seems that the liberals only accept choice that supports their point of view. This is total arrogance in believing that the American people aren't smart enough to choose wisely when it comes to their employment, wage, and benefits opportunities and thus need union leadership to decide what is best for them.

Unions have outlived their usefulness as evidenced by the small percentage of the labor force now unionized. We have laws on the books now to protect workers many of which came from union efforts but those efforts are no longer needed as the laws protect the workers so enforce the laws.
 
Conservative said:
Look, I understand your interest in diverting but the fact remains LBJ wanted SS on budget to fund the Vietnam War and it has been on budget as part of a unified budget since 1968. For almost 45 years people have ignored this and accepted the concept that all tax dollars are the same and until that mindset changes the fiscal problems are going to continue.

Social Security History
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for you to show where any SSTF dollars were used to fund Vietnam, you have provided nothing.

Hint: Under the fy1969 unified budget, as you links show, the SSTF is included to minimize deficits in budgetary form. Try reading your own links.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm still waiting for you to show where any SSTF dollars were used to fund Vietnam, you have provided nothing.

Hint: Under the unified budget, as you links show, the SSTF is included to minimize deficits in budgetary form. Try reading your own links.
Click to expand...

Just goes to show that you have no concept then of the unified budget which is what funded the Vietnam War. You totally ignore the intent of LBJ but simply read what the commission recommended. Apparently you are good at telling exactly what part of the unified budget funded the Vietnam war and don't believe any SS funds did that.
 
Conservative said:
Just goes to show that you have no concept then of the unified budget which is what funded the Vietnam War. You totally ignore the intent of LBJ but simply read what the commission recommended. Apparently you are good at telling exactly what part of the unified budget funded the Vietnam war and don't believe any SS funds did that.
Click to expand...

So what was the "intent" of LBJ? And please document this.
 
Conservative said:
Exactly, this is about choice by the individual and it seems that the liberals only accept choice that supports their point of view. This is total arrogance in believing that the American people aren't smart enough to choose wisely when it comes to their employment, wage, and benefits opportunities and thus need union leadership to decide what is best for them.

Unions have outlived their usefulness as evidenced by the small percentage of the labor force now unionized. We have laws on the books now to protect workers many of which came from union efforts but those efforts are no longer needed as the laws protect the workers so enforce the laws.
Click to expand...
The corporatist viewpoint again, we have reached labor utopia!

If unions had outlived their usefulness, then there would be no need to legislatively cripple them.
 
Conservative said:
Just goes to show that you have no concept then of the unified budget which is what funded the Vietnam War. You totally ignore the intent of LBJ but simply read what the commission recommended. Apparently you are good at telling exactly what part of the unified budget funded the Vietnam war and don't believe any SS funds did that.
Click to expand...
Yap yap yap, you still have nothing to show that SSTF dollars were spent for Vietnam funding.

Show it or shut it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom