• 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!

Talk of Wealth Gap Prods the G.O.P. to Refocus

Correct. It doesn't concern me. I find it interesting. Not many people suggest that seniors who worked their whole lives and then retired are some sort of leech on society.

Up until I think 2012, most seniors drew more out than they ever put in and that money has to come from somewhere.
 
Up until I think 2012, most seniors drew more out than they ever put in and that money has to come from somewhere.

Well, unfortunately you've lumped every single retired person into the same group. And quite a few millionaires. And everyone we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. And millions of working teenagers and college students. But hey, keep telling yourself it's 47%. The longer the GOP base clings to that sort of thinking, the longer they'll stay out of the white house.
 
Well, unfortunately you've lumped every single retired person into the same group. And quite a few millionaires. And everyone we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. And millions of working teenagers and college students. But hey, keep telling yourself it's 47%. The longer the GOP base clings to that sort of thinking, the longer they'll stay out of the white house.

Okay. Thanks for the permission slip.
 
So according to you loans only come from the rich and they control the banks?

please strawman better I don't think you are very good at it.

And no doing whatever you can to avoid paying taxes is not money laundering. It's very common to see corporate shell offices in Bermuda etc. and Swiss bank accounts have been used for decades. And if you think everybody pays their share of taxes you need to come to the real world.
I'm not there yet but I've been infirmed there are plenty of loopholes out their for the filthy rich.

I do whatever I can do to avoid paying taxes. lol
you don't have to be rich to try and avoid paying taxes.

that doesn't mean they don't pay taxes here if they have a company here. they still have to pay taxes on money made here in the US.
yes swiss accounts have been used but in order to get the money there it has to be laundered which is illegal.

they just don't pay taxes on the interest of that money in the US unless they bring it back into the US.
 
the "inability" to attack Obamacare is mainly a function of the fact that most Americans are ignorant about the difference between a federal government of limited enumerated powers and state governments

No, I think most folks would have gotten that, had it been presented. The problem stemmed from the fact that that leaves you arguing that it is good policy, just done at the wrong level of government.
 
No, I think most folks would have gotten that, had it been presented. The problem stemmed from the fact that that leaves you arguing that it is good policy, just done at the wrong level of government.

to people like me who actually really understand the constitution that actually is a strong argument

to most people, they don't understand that
 
to people like me who actually really understand the constitution that actually is a strong argument

It's a weak argument. It's strong in the sense that it is legally correct, but it's weak politically because you are forced to abandon your party's position (that Obamacare is bad policy) and argue instead that it is merely bad governance.
 
It's a weak argument. It's strong in the sense that it is legally correct, but it's weak politically because you are forced to abandon your party's position (that Obamacare is bad policy) and argue instead that it is merely bad governance.

Seems there is a key point you are missing in Turtle's argument. Perhaps it is a good idea for some states and not good for other states. The key is that it is up to states to decide what is best for them, not the Federal government. Seems like that would be a central point for a lot of things we are doing at the Federal level. It might be a good idea for a state to fix their local bridges, not sure we need the money to come from the Federal government. Same with education funding. Some states do a good job, why should those states pay for the kids in California because they underfund education spending.
 
Seems there is a key point you are missing in Turtle's argument. Perhaps it is a good idea for some states and not good for other states. The key is that it is up to states to decide what is best for them, not the Federal government. Seems like that would be a central point for a lot of things we are doing at the Federal level. It might be a good idea for a state to fix their local bridges, not sure we need the money to come from the Federal government. Same with education funding. Some states do a good job, why should those states pay for the kids in California because they underfund education spending.

No you are simply reiterating the governance argument. Everyone concurs that bridges should be safe - that's not a policy disagreement. What is a policy disagreement is whether or not the core portions of Obamacare are good policy regardless of the level of government at which they are implemented. It is the conservative position that it isn't, but that states have the right to implement that particular bad policy. Romney was in a weak position because he was forced to stand at odds with his party and base on whether or not Obamacare was good policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom