• 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!

Stephanopoulos points out Merriam-Webster definition of taxes to president

KillerAngel said:
Very good analysis. It truly is inevitable, after all. Combine a political novice like Obama, wildly inept and unpopular congressional leaders like Ried and Polosi, and an agenda (most of it, such as gitmo, healthcare, prosecute the CIA, immigration amnesty, etc) that was NEVER supported by a majority of voters...and the result was never in doubt. Failure.
Click to expand...
How were those policies, which he ran on, not supported by a majority if he won?

So they'll put the blame where it does the least harm to their cause - on the President, because he's replaceable. Let the GOP have their time from '12 to '16, then try it again.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count him out yet. We still have 3 years to see how things go.
 
Gill said:
Absolutely. Let's hope this one only gets one term too.
Click to expand...

With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
the makeout hobo said:
How were those policies, which he ran on, not supported by a majority if he won?
Click to expand...

... Is that a serious question, or are you playing devils advocate?

The question, and it's answer, was a MAJOR source of discussion both during and after the campaign. Conservative commentators picked up on it early, and kept hitting on it over and over. Polling data on all the major positions traditionally held by liberals (outlined in my last post), and by Obama himself, indicated that the general public was not in support of them. So why was he elected anyway?

I'll assume your question is not rhetorical. There are several explanations for this: 1) the beneficiary of extreme backlash against the Bush years, 2) He promised broad and sweeping "change," which appealed to many disillusioned voters, without getting in specifics to avoid drawing scrutiny to his policies. 3) He was personally likeable, charismatic and widely popular

The combination of these factors led to the election of a man based on everything EXCEPT popular support for his policies.

But invariably, these tranistory issues would fade with time, to be replaced by the policies themselves. A majority dont want a public-option or single payer system. A majority dont want amnestry for illegals. A majority dont want trillion-dollar spending bills dressed up as stimulus with no stimulative effect. Most dont want card check, and prosecution of the CIA, and the closing of prisons abroad that would put terror suspects in US prisons, and general tax increases across the board for all segments of society (health insurance taxes, cap and trade, sin and junk food taxes, etc).

So once Obama got into pushing his policies, and the fervor of the campaign passed, it was inevitable that his numbers would drop like a stone.



I wouldn't count him out yet. We still have 3 years to see how things go.
Click to expand...

His numbers are diving just because of ONE of his unpopular stances, health care..imagine what will happen when he tries to push the rest of the ones I have mentioned? None of which enjoy majority support?
 
finale23 said:
With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

Or we could just cut social spending.
 
phattonez said:
Or we could just cut social spending.
Click to expand...

Or military industrial complex spending. I'm not talking about the military I'm talking about the military industrial complex like ike talked about.
 
winston53660 said:
So you are trying to tell me people in the highest tax bracket would not be willing to pay 1.5% more in taxes if their income went up by 3%? Plese note they are 1.5% ahead and maybe some pot holes on the roads can get fixed as well.
Click to expand...

First of all a 1.5% tax increase is a 1.5% tax increase anyway you slice it. And second of all where is the evidence for income rising?
 
finale23 said:
With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

Or you know we could cut out pork, bailing out corporate fat cats who failed due to their own corruption and business mismanagement, we could cut out billions of aid to organized crime syndicates; such as, ACORN, we could stop talking about a public option which will raise the deficit by untold trillions of dollars, or we could actually start to tackle the issue of entitlements and turn non-discretionary spending which causes the vast majority of the national deficit in the first place.
 
finale23 said:
With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

winston53660 said:
Or military industrial complex spending. I'm not talking about the military I'm talking about the military industrial complex like ike talked about.
Click to expand...

The only way to actually reduce the national debt would be for some serious entitlement reform as non-discretionary spending accounts for appx. 60% of the annual budget more than interest on the debt and discretionary spending (including national defense) combined.
 
Last edited:
KillerAngel said:
Yeah, I love how during the elections people like McCain and Palin were forced to go through dozens of "hostile" interviews with the likes of CNN, NBC, ABC and MSNBC, but Obama just to ignore them entirely by ignoring Fox. It's a real disadvantage for Republicans; they must do tough interviews but democrats have plenty of safe-havens.
Click to expand...

what planet do you live on?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luA0AMP51Gc"]YouTube - Barack Obama on O'Reilly Factor 09-04-08[/ame]
 
That's a tough interview? O'Reilly is a populist. That's the easiest interview on Fox.
 
Wow, this came from Stephanopoulos? Good for him
 
phattonez said:
That's a tough interview? O'Reilly is a populist. That's the easiest interview on Fox.
Click to expand...

:confused:

A claim was made by KillerAngel that Obama ignored Fox. The video I posted was of Obama not ignoring Fox.

"tough interviews." phew, some of those questions asked by that librul media are downright hostile.

"What newspapers do you read?" etc.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Can you say maximum pwnage?
Click to expand...

When it applies, yes, but in this case Stef.....Stefinop......Stepopotomus.....Steven...was handing Obama a soft ball and Obama hit a home run with his response.
 
cmckinney said:
I really wish there was a special sarcasm font for the Internet.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

try [/sarcasm].... works for me, when I remember to use it. :3oops:
 
finale23 said:
With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

I think we would be better served if we got out of England, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc. Places where we have no National security issues anymore.
 
Crunch said:
I think we would be better served if we got out of England, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc. Places where we have no National security issues anymore.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. There are a lot of places we no longer have a strategic interest. I can think of one that would save us right in New York, the UN. There's a lot of other foreign aid we could stop too. That does not include Honduras.
 
LowRevs said:
I agree completely. There are a lot of places we no longer have a strategic interest. I can think of one that would save us right in New York, the UN. There's a lot of other foreign aid we could stop too. That does not include Honduras.
Click to expand...

Or Israel.... funny how this admin wants to cut where we DO have NS interests.... do I smell a rat?

(no racism meant against rats)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom