• 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 flip deep-red Missouri state House seat, signal problems for GOP

GDViking said:
Nope that was not how it was done. All off expenditures were done through a process where the Iraq war was funded outside of the budget. Obama put both wars on the budget, which was one of his campaign promises.
Click to expand...

Inside or outside of the budget is irrelevant when it comes to the deficit and the debt. Your ignorance on this subject is staggering. How were the expenses paid and reported at the time? Budgets are guidelines supplemental expenses are still part of the yearly deficits just like the 100 billion dollar Afghanistan supplemental signed by Obama in 2009
 
Conservative said:
And the results are there for all to see except for the blind liberals in the Austin Area. TX remains an economic model for the nation with a part time legislature and personal responsibility a key component. Tell us exactly what part of the TX economy bothers you the most, the strong growth, strong job creation, low cost of living, part time legislature, required balanced budget, term limits?
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to repeat to YOU that I don't live in Austin,Travis County? I live in a nearby county that is among the most conservative in the State.

"The Economist", citing data from an American Political Science Review study, posted a chart mapping the political persuasions of large American cities. The study considered policy preferences of populations larger than 250,000 people, resulting in a graph that shows a decidedly leftward tilt for the nation’s biggest municipalities. Of the cities represented on the chart, Austin lands in the 14th most liberal spot, behind names like New York, Chicago and Boston. (The cities furthest to the left? San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.)

Dallas and Houston were the next most-liberal locales behind Austin. The only big city considered conservative was Arlington. Of the 67 cities listed on the national chart, seven of the eight Texas cities rated as either split on the conservative/liberal spectrum or on the liberal side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

FYI, The Economist is conservative lean publication.

You have Liberalitius. You reek of political philosophy conservative nonsense.

One can only post 5000 characters per post. If you were to take a guess at many times "BS" can be type on a post page - how many times would you guess?
 
Removable Mind said:
How many times do I have to repeat to YOU that I don't live in Austin,Travis County? I live in a nearby county that is among the most conservative in the State.



FYI, The Economist is conservative lean publication.

You have Liberalitius. You reek of political philosophy conservative nonsense.

One can only post 5000 characters per post. If you were to take a guess at many times "BS" can be type on a post page - how many times would you guess?
Click to expand...

So because you live in a Conservative county that makes you conservative? Don't think so, your posts speak volumes, still waiting for you or anyone else to tell us what results in 2017 bother you the most, and oh by the way I live north of Houston as well and probably the most conservative area in the state and YES I am a Conservative, not because of the area but because of the results! So either tell me what problems you have with the actual results or simply stop posting and making a fool of yourself.
 
Conservative said:
So because you live in a Conservative county that makes you conservative? Don't think so, your posts speak volumes, still waiting for you or anyone else to tell us what results in 2017 bother you the most, and oh by the way I live north of Houston as well and probably the most conservative area in the state and YES I am a Conservative, not because of the area but because of the results! So either tell me what problems you have with the actual results or simply stop posting and making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so you say. I'm wowed by your belief that you're a genuine conservative. :roll:

I implore you not to tell me what to do. I don't answer foolish questions.
 
Removable Mind said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, so you say. I'm wowed by your belief that you're a genuine conservative. :roll:

I implore you not to tell me what to do. I don't answer foolish questions.
Click to expand...

No, all you do is bash President Trump while ignoring the actual results. Not sure you have a clue what being a conservative actually means but I guarantee there is nothing in today's Democratic Party that I support as it is run by radicals. I was a JFK Democrat and grew up a staunch Democrat until I learned that spending in the name of compassion only lined the pockets of bureaucrats. the Results Trump has Generated in 2017 are closer to Conservative principles and I will never vote for a third party at the top preferring to work from within the party closest to my point of view the current Republican Party.

I know that no party is perfect and there are problems with both but the radical leftwing Democratic Party poses a greater risk to this country than anything Trump has done or can do
 
Conservative said:
Not a lower limit but a time limit on the benefits. The Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003, 15 years ago, costs continue to rise and those tax cuts weren't as effective over time. I would have expected someone of your intelligence to understand that but more importantly to research what you are told before spouting DNC talking points.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so tax cuts only provide temporary benefit.

So when will these tax cuts become less effective and require a new set of tax cuts?

Tell me at which point do tax cuts start reducing revenue.

Since you're so educated on this subject, surely you can identify the proper value.
 
Deuce said:
Ahh, so tax cuts only provide temporary benefit.

So when will these tax cuts become less effective and require a new set of tax cuts?

Tell me at which point do tax cuts start reducing revenue.

Since you're so educated on this subject, surely you can identify the proper value.
Click to expand...

LOL, temporary isn't 10 years later or 15 years later. Why don't you check Treasury data to find out what actually happened to Federal Income Tax revenue? What are you afraid of?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, temporary isn't 10 years later or 15 years later. Why don't you check Treasury data to find out what actually happened to Federal Income Tax revenue? What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

If something isn't permanent, it's temporary. That's how words work.

How long are these tax cuts going to be "effective" for? Should we cut taxes again at that time? Is there a reason you keep dodging these questions?
 
Deuce said:
If something isn't permanent, it's temporary. That's how words work.

How long are these tax cuts going to be "effective" for? Should we cut taxes again at that time? Is there a reason you keep dodging these questions?
Click to expand...

So when you get a tax cut would you call that a pay raise in your take home? what happens years from now when you still have that original tax cut and expenses has risen? Why do you have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn?? Seems like the American way of taking care of oneself with one's own income vs. having the federal bureaucrats do it for you?

You want a permanent tax cut and not one that expires 8-10 years down the road? Ask the Democrats why they wouldn't support that and give the Senate the 60 votes required. You seem very easy to manipulate by the left
 
Conservative said:
So when you get a tax cut would you call that a pay raise in your take home? what happens years from now when you still have that original tax cut and expenses has risen? Why do you have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn?? Seems like the American way of taking care of oneself with one's own income vs. having the federal bureaucrats do it for you?

You want a permanent tax cut and not one that expires 8-10 years down the road? Ask the Democrats why they wouldn't support that and give the Senate the 60 votes required. You seem very easy to manipulate by the left
Click to expand...

Your premise seems to be founded on the idea that people have stagnant pay and the tax cut is the only thing increase absolute dollar takehome.

Ok, so in ten years my expenses require another tax cut.

And ten years after that, inflation continues and we cut tax rates again?

And ten years after that?

And again? Isn't your logic eventually leading to absurdly low tax rates that couldn't possibly fund a government? After all, PEOPLE KEEPING MORE OF WHAT THEY EARN is always good. We can always just borrow ten trillion a year, right?

You're still dodging the revenue question. Is there a level of taxes that you cut to and tax revenue goes down? Because I want to cut all tax rates to 1%. Do you have a PROBLEM with WE THE PEOPLE of AMURCA keeping more of what we EARN? *exploding fireworks, eagle cries*
 
Deuce said:
Your premise seems to be founded on the idea that people have stagnant pay and the tax cut is the only thing increase absolute dollar takehome.

Ok, so in ten years my expenses require another tax cut.

And ten years after that, inflation continues and we cut tax rates again?

And ten years after that?

And again? Isn't your logic eventually leading to absurdly low tax rates that couldn't possibly fund a government? After all, PEOPLE KEEPING MORE OF WHAT THEY EARN is always good. We can always just borrow ten trillion a year, right?

You're still dodging the revenue question. Is there a level of taxes that you cut to and tax revenue goes down? Because I want to cut all tax rates to 1%. Do you have a PROBLEM with WE THE PEOPLE of AMURCA keeping more of what we EARN? *exploding fireworks, eagle cries*
Click to expand...

so again you have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn? Got it, we're done. Send your tax cut back
 
MSgt said:
Partisan hack. Why you refuse to own that is beyond me. My "opinions" are the facts.

The sun is yellow. Hey look...another "opinion."



I believe you have this backwards. I have presented you with facts and a wide variety of complimentary links. And you have immersed yourself in partisan opinion, providing outdated early facts, largely from opinionated pieces.

You have made yourself look bad. And you have done so because you follow blind allegiance and declare shallow things. You can't hide from your posts.
Click to expand...

Again per your article how are you coming on finding that 2009 Bush signed and Congress approved budget?

we really ought to credit the economic performance during the first year of any president's term to his predecessor — after all, it's mostly that other guy's budgets and policies directly influencing the economy. So for instance, George W. Bush's economy wasn't from 2001 through the end of 2008 — it was 2002 through the end of 2009. And so on.
Click to expand...

Let's see if I have this correct, Obama is responsible for the 2017 economic growth by leaving office in January 2017 but it is the Trump deficit and debt for 2017? Is that accurate? In 2009 according to you because of the Bush budget which I am still waiting to see Bush is responsible for both the economy and the deficit in 2009? Does that sum up your argument?
 
Deuce said:
Your premise seems to be founded on the idea that people have stagnant pay and the tax cut is the only thing increase absolute dollar takehome.

Ok, so in ten years my expenses require another tax cut.

And ten years after that, inflation continues and we cut tax rates again?

And ten years after that?

And again? Isn't your logic eventually leading to absurdly low tax rates that couldn't possibly fund a government? After all, PEOPLE KEEPING MORE OF WHAT THEY EARN is always good. We can always just borrow ten trillion a year, right?

You're still dodging the revenue question. Is there a level of taxes that you cut to and tax revenue goes down? Because I want to cut all tax rates to 1%. Do you have a PROBLEM with WE THE PEOPLE of AMURCA keeping more of what we EARN? *exploding fireworks, eagle cries*
Click to expand...

So sorry that you believed I dodged your question, there is indeed a level of taxes required to run our Govt. it is about 1.6 trillion dollars per year with all other taxes being used for their intended purpose such as Payroll taxes for SS and Medicare and Excise taxes for infrastructure. The Constitution has been abused by both parties as we don't need a 4 trillion dollar federal govt. HOWEVER you and the liberal base believe it is the role of the Federal Govt. to provide for welfare and all social programs for the American people whereas I believe that is a state and local responsibility.

The true role of the Federal Govt. is to PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE Domestic Welfare. In the liberal world PROVIDE AND PROMOTE mean the same thing. Income taxes should be used as created to fund the OPERATING expenses of the Federal Govt. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn means less of a need for those federal bureaucrats which is something that apparently you have no problem with for it is all about taxes to you never actual spending.
 
Conservative said:
so again you have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn? Got it, we're done. Send your tax cut back
Click to expand...
By your argument federal taxes should be zero. The problem is -- and one that you choose to ignore, is that the government either has to tax to pay for what it wants -- like that expanded military that Republicans voted for, or borrow. They chose to borrow money and hand it out as tax-cuts, of which 81% will go to the top 1%.

Laugh the next time Republicans claim to be this fiscally responsible party.

But please try to stay on topic. This thread is about the flipping of a Republican seat to the Democrats -- not your one-track-issues.
 
MTAtech said:
By your argument federal taxes should be zero. The problem is -- and one that you choose to ignore, is that the government either has to tax to pay for what it wants -- like that expanded military that Republicans voted for, or borrow. They chose to borrow money and hand it out as tax-cuts, of which 81% will go to the top 1%.

Laugh the next time Republicans claim to be this fiscally responsible party.

But please try to stay on topic. This thread is about the flipping of a Republican seat to the Democrats -- not your one-track-issues.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? Is reading comprehension a problem for you. I don't support a 4 trillion dollar federal govt. funded by FIT which should be about 1.6 trillion. Use taxes such as Payroll(FICA) and Excise fund their intent which you don't seem to understand

Again the argument that tax cuts have to be funded gives you zero credibility which apparently doesn't bother you. Anyone who pays FIT is going to get a FIT tax cut so stop with the lies and diversions.

Yes, the thread is about flipping seats which affects you how?? Do the Republicans still control the Congress?? My one track issue is due to responses from people like you who don't seem to understand the true role of the Federal Govt nor any understanding of the taxes you pay.

You posted a link showing Reagan raising taxes 11 times but none of those were FIT which is what his stimulus cut and yet Federal revenue grew. You want to ignore that because you are nothing more than a very poorly informed big govt. liberal
 
MTAtech said:
By your argument federal taxes should be zero. The problem is -- and one that you choose to ignore, is that the government either has to tax to pay for what it wants -- like that expanded military that Republicans voted for, or borrow. They chose to borrow money and hand it out as tax-cuts, of which 81% will go to the top 1%.

Laugh the next time Republicans claim to be this fiscally responsible party.

But please try to stay on topic. This thread is about the flipping of a Republican seat to the Democrats -- not your one-track-issues.
Click to expand...

Interesting article today regarding the topic of the Midterms and all that hatred you claim is against Republicans

Democrats ought to worry about the midterm elections | Fox News
 
shrubnose said:
.
What are you talking about? I see the stock market is down and North Korea is still a threat.

:lol:
Click to expand...

I suggest getting the real news instead of buying what you are told by media sources you want to believe. Stock market up from 19.2 on January 21, 2017 and North Korea is at the Olympics
 
Conservative said:
I suggest getting the real news instead of buying what you are told by media sources you want to believe. Stock market up from 19.2 on January 21, 2017 and North Korea is at the Olympics
Click to expand...
etter


"Better days are coming." ~ But not fortoday's out of touch,running out of time, GOP>

Just sayin'.
 
shrubnose said:
etter


"Better days are coming." ~ But not fortoday's out of touch,running out of time, GOP>

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


Better days are here regardless of the negativity promoted by the radical left. The silent majority see it in their paychecks and that doesn't bode well for you radicals in November
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom