• 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!

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

he realizes we do need to have a tax base to pay bills, hence doing away with the Bush tax cuts. That's at elast one side of the equation. Had Bush been a tax cut and spending cut president, I would have said the same about him, doing at least one side of the equation. Bush was stupid and cut taxes while increasing speanding. That is far worse than what Obama is doing.

The government, let alone the president, doesn't control the economy. They simply can't control all the factors involved. Our expectation that they can is what cereates a lot of the problems we face. We want our leaders doing something, and Obama, like all presidents, would be run out of office if he didn't spend money to try and help. it doesn't, but we expect it as a nation. That's why all presidents and both parties do what Obama did.

So, the real complaint should be with us.

I think that answers both your questions.



wait, seriously, the problem is us? not Obama's policies? Seriously?
 
And ignored (or did not read) the rest. Which was the important part. Really. Who are you trying to fool here?

I guess the part about being boned regardless of any post 9/11 spending doesn't mean anything to you eh?



Still looking for an answer to my question. :shrug:
 
wait, seriously, the problem is us? not Obama's policies? Seriously?

Yes. We would be far harder on Obama if he had let the auto industry fall for example. History shows this. We want the president to do something. And blame him for things not in his control. We have done that to all presidents in my life time. We can't expect them to not have noticed.
 
Yes. We would be far harder on Obama if he had let the auto industry fall for example. History shows this. We want the president to do something. And blame him for things not in his control. We have done that to all presidents in my life time. We can't expect them to not have noticed.



kool-aid-man.jpg
 
Still looking for someone reasonable and mature to discuss the real implications of why increased taxes are coming.




You can stop with the personal attacks and address my on topic question anytime. throwin this mantrum and acting all butt hurt does not foward this discussion.
 
Well, that was a thoughtful response. Sometimes I wonder if you actually understand what I'm typing for you. Maybe we need a translator?



I actually wonder if ANYONE understands what you are typing airborne..... :pimpdaddy:
 
I actually wonder if ANYONE understands what you are typing airborne..... :pimpdaddy:

Some do. Some really do. Not you, of course. But some do. :lamo


However, you might want to consider that we get the leaders we ask for. ;)
 
If the American people asked for this, then we are all even more screwed than I thought...

Did the people elect Bush? Twice? Can't get more screwed than that. Sadly. :(
 
Did the people elect Bush? Twice? Can't get more screwed than that. Sadly. :(

how did Bush hurt you objectively? and if so, what has the Messiah done to alleviate your ache?
 
how did Bush hurt you objectively? and if so, what has the Messiah done to alleviate your ache?

You mean besides the hearing lost by my nephrew in Iraq? Or are you saying I should not be concerned about what others paid for Bush's recklessness? Can you really argue fighting two wars without paying for it did not hurt this country economically? really?

Obama hasn't been perfect. But he didn't create all of this. He did take some steps in the right direction, clearly calling torture what it is, taking a first step in healthcare reform, something that never would have happened under a republican administration, and moving forward on allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. He has a long ways to go, and has been a bit of a disappointment, But still better than we had, and likely better than McCain would have been. All of them would have bailout Walstreet and the banks and the auto industry. Why? Because we would have been more angry over the consequences if they hadn't. They know that.
 
Last edited:
You mean besides the hearing lost by my nephrew in Iraq? Or are you saying I should not be concerned about what others paid for Bush's recklessness? Can you really argue fighting two wars without paying for it did not hurt this country economically? really?

Obama hasn't been perfect. But he didn't create all of this. He did take some steps in the right direction, clearly calling torture what it is, taking a first step in healthcare reform, something that never would have happened under a republican administration, and moving forward on allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. He has a long ways to go, and has been a bit of a disappointment, But still better than we had, and likely better than McCain would have been. All of them would have bailout Walstreet and the banks and the auto industry. Why? Because we would have been more angry over the consequences if they hadn't. They know that.

1) your nephew volunteered and got hurt. My uncle was KIA in WWII-I don't blame FDR for that. Obama is running up a far bigger debt than Bush. Yet I bet you voted for Obama.

2) so again how were you objectively hurt by Bush
 
So you admit you'd like to see the president fail. Pretty disgusting if you ask me.
There is absolutely nothing wriong with hoping that a President fails to implement his agenda.

What I fond interesting is that liberals apparently find nothing wrong with The Obama continuing, if not expadning the policies of GWB.
 
There is absolutely nothing wriong with hoping that a President fails to implement his agenda.

What I fond interesting is that liberals apparently find nothing wrong with The Obama continuing, if not expadning the policies of GWB.

the pissed and moaned about Bush's spending mainly because all that pork didn't create a bunch more dem bots, but they are totally supporting obama's far more reckless spending because it does create legions of Obama Bots.
 
yeah I'd like to see him impeached tomorrow along with Pelosi, Biden and the rest of those scum. The less Obama accomplishes the better off America is. Obama's agenda is to ruin America so his failure is good for those of us who care about our once great nation.

I give that ass the same amount of respect most of the dems gave W.

It's the fact that you say "impeached" that pisses me off. You can't wait to overturn the will of people to suit your political needs. Michelle Bachmann (and her degree in BSC) has pretty much said exactly what you've said.

If Republicans dare to go after it, they will slowly tear the party down to nothing. The public - despite low approval ratings for Obama - will NEVER put up with yet another bogus impeachment attempt. If you'd like to assure yet another schizophrenic swing in the voting populous - just try it. The one thing you'd do is assure a very long-term Democratic majority.

The country is falling apart - NOT because of the current government - but because of the hangover of the most poorly run decade in American history (I'm talking about the first eight years) in which our nation was attacked (with a Republican in office), one necessary (you can argue this) war started in Afghanistan in response (and never finished), one completely unnecessary war started (still not finished, but getting closer) in Iraq, both wars unfunded as the nation its self was not asked to do a thing of sacrifice as that burden was placed solely on the soldiers families while the wealthy got massive tax breaks, and THEN the economy collapsed in unprecedented fashion beginning in December, 2007. All of this happened with Republicans largely in control and definitely in control of the White House.

Now, like an abused woman who screams, "But I love him" as she goes back for more abuse, we're going back to them because we dislike the social worker trying to help us escape the abuse.

I'll reiterate:

Nation attacked under Bush's watch and Republican Congress' watch.
Two unfunded and unfinished wars started and never finished under Bush & Republican Congress' watch.
Utter economic collapse and basically ZERO jobs created over the course of eight years with Republicans in control of the White House and Congress for most of that time.

So, Bush doesn't deserve respect at all - this is his legacy.

Now, if you argue that this is all Obama's fault. Then the horrible economy of Reagan's early term must have all been his fault, too - right? Or was Reagan to blame for that? Because you can't blame Obama for the economic collapse that occurred before he was even selected as his party's nominee unless you're willing to blame Reagan for the problems that occurred under Carter.

In fact, in Reagan's first term he inherited a jobless rate of 7.6%. By midway through his first term, unemployment was at 9.7% (ironically, the same number as it is now - and not to mention that's an increase rate a good amount higher than Obama's, which at the comparable time period, increased from 8.2% to 9.7% - Reagan saw unemployment increase 27%, Obama has seen it increase 15% - oh, and by the way, Bush saw it increase 95%).

You can hate the policies, but this is pretty simple - we were worse off thirty years ago under Reagan than we are right now under Obama. Not to mention, that we still had Glass-Steagall under Reagan - so the banks were more regulated then than they are likely to be even after Wall Street reform.

You and Glenn Beck can decry the "death of the Republic" all you like - but you do realize that if the Job Creation numbers (Gallup's Job Creation Index Hits 20-Month High) continue, 2010 alone, Obama's economy will create more jobs than Bush did in eight years. If the numbers land where they are expected to in 2011, then by the 2012 election, we'll have gotten back every job lost since this recession began under a Republican.

So, how did giving the rich tax cuts in 2005 create jobs? Considering since then, we've lost a ton of jobs, I fail to see how the tax cuts worked. And considering that the highest rate we're looking at on taxes are the Clinton rates, under which we had a pretty fine economy even with the tech bubble - I fail to see how returning to those rates will destroy the economy.

By the way, you've seen what Conservatives are doing in the UK, right? Cutting spending AND raising taxes, right? It's what HAS to be done to reduce the deficit. To think otherwise at this point is mere foolishness.
 
It's the fact that you say "impeached" that pisses me off. You can't wait to overturn the will of people to suit your political needs. Michelle Bachmann (and her degree in BSC) has pretty much said exactly what you've said.

If Republicans dare to go after it, they will slowly tear the party down to nothing. The public - despite low approval ratings for Obama - will NEVER put up with yet another bogus impeachment attempt. If you'd like to assure yet another schizophrenic swing in the voting populous - just try it. The one thing you'd do is assure a very long-term Democratic majority.

The country is falling apart - NOT because of the current government - but because of the hangover of the most poorly run decade in American history (I'm talking about the first eight years) in which our nation was attacked (with a Republican in office), one necessary (you can argue this) war started in Afghanistan in response (and never finished), one completely unnecessary war started (still not finished, but getting closer) in Iraq, both wars unfunded as the nation its self was not asked to do a thing of sacrifice as that burden was placed solely on the soldiers families while the wealthy got massive tax breaks, and THEN the economy collapsed in unprecedented fashion beginning in December, 2007. All of this happened with Republicans largely in control and definitely in control of the White House.

Now, like an abused woman who screams, "But I love him" as she goes back for more abuse, we're going back to them because we dislike the social worker trying to help us escape the abuse.

I'll reiterate:

Nation attacked under Bush's watch and Republican Congress' watch.
Two unfunded and unfinished wars started and never finished under Bush & Republican Congress' watch.
Utter economic collapse and basically ZERO jobs created over the course of eight years with Republicans in control of the White House and Congress for most of that time.

So, Bush doesn't deserve respect at all - this is his legacy.

Now, if you argue that this is all Obama's fault. Then the horrible economy of Reagan's early term must have all been his fault, too - right? Or was Reagan to blame for that? Because you can't blame Obama for the economic collapse that occurred before he was even selected as his party's nominee unless you're willing to blame Reagan for the problems that occurred under Carter.

In fact, in Reagan's first term he inherited a jobless rate of 7.6%. By midway through his first term, unemployment was at 9.7% (ironically, the same number as it is now - and not to mention that's an increase rate a good amount higher than Obama's, which at the comparable time period, increased from 8.2% to 9.7% - Reagan saw unemployment increase 27%, Obama has seen it increase 15% - oh, and by the way, Bush saw it increase 95%).

You can hate the policies, but this is pretty simple - we were worse off thirty years ago under Reagan than we are right now under Obama. Not to mention, that we still had Glass-Steagall under Reagan - so the banks were more regulated then than they are likely to be even after Wall Street reform.

You and Glenn Beck can decry the "death of the Republic" all you like - but you do realize that if the Job Creation numbers (Gallup's Job Creation Index Hits 20-Month High) continue, 2010 alone, Obama's economy will create more jobs than Bush did in eight years. If the numbers land where they are expected to in 2011, then by the 2012 election, we'll have gotten back every job lost since this recession began under a Republican.

So, how did giving the rich tax cuts in 2005 create jobs? Considering since then, we've lost a ton of jobs, I fail to see how the tax cuts worked. And considering that the highest rate we're looking at on taxes are the Clinton rates, under which we had a pretty fine economy even with the tech bubble - I fail to see how returning to those rates will destroy the economy.

By the way, you've seen what Conservatives are doing in the UK, right? Cutting spending AND raising taxes, right? It's what HAS to be done to reduce the deficit. To think otherwise at this point is mere foolishness.

I didn't realize you were in love with Obama. Obama is a scummy chicago politician who had no business being elected a senator (where he used all sorts of dirty tricks to kill of his competition) let alone president. "the will of the people" LOL-I guess you were upset when the demtards obstructed Miguel Estrada's appointment to the court of appeals?

You have a very bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome
 
I didn't realize you were in love with Obama. Obama is a scummy chicago politician who had no business being elected a senator (where he used all sorts of dirty tricks to kill of his competition) let alone president. "the will of the people" LOL-I guess you were upset when the demtards obstructed Miguel Estrada's appointment to the court of appeals?

You have a very bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome

So you can't actually refute any of his points.

Oh and if you're wondering how Obama got elected to the senate, go ask Jeri Ryan. And if you get in contact with her, could you please tell her to call me :mrgreen:
 
So you can't actually refute any of his points.

Oh and if you're wondering how Obama got elected to the senate, go ask Jeri Ryan. And if you get in contact with her, could you please tell her to call me :mrgreen:

his points are opinions that were not supported with facts-many of his claims have no basis in fact such as claiming that tax cuts must have caused the jobless rate to increase which is pure and complete crap
 
his points are opinions that were not supported with facts-many of his claims have no basis in fact such as claiming that tax cuts must have caused the jobless rate to increase which is pure and complete crap

On the money! Ever wonder how a liberal can keep a straight face when in a debate with a conservative? Not a punch-line set up, I'm seriously asking?


Tim-
 
his points are opinions that were not supported with facts-many of his claims have no basis in fact such as claiming that tax cuts must have caused the jobless rate to increase which is pure and complete crap

And your side keeps claiming that Tax Cuts magically fix the economy, but Bush's Tax Cuts did not avoid the recession and they brought Americans taxes to their lowest rates ever.
 
And your side keeps claiming that Tax Cuts magically fix the economy, but 1: Bush's Tax Cuts did not avoid the recession and 2: they brought Americans taxes to their lowest rates ever.
1: They pulled us --out-- of a recession
2: Not even close.
 
Back
Top Bottom