• 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!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

Boo Radley said:
If you say so, but I said supply and demand mean more than taxes. You called me ignorant than made some silly statement about demand. In context, you are saying supply and demand are second to taxes. And that's silly.
Click to expand...

And you have the nerve to accuse me of poor comprehension. You have no clue what I posted. Like I said in an earlier post, it went right over your head.

Adios.
 
Gill said:
And you have the nerve to accuse me of poor comprehension. You have no clue what I posted. Like I said in an earlier post, it went right over your head.

Adios.
Click to expand...

Bye. :lamo
 
liblady said:
cut what, exactly? thanks.
Click to expand...

Oh, I dunno, giving $2 billion to Brazil for offshore drilling, fewer entitlements, cut spending on the study of the effect of cocaine on monkies, deer underpasses, turtle tunnels, Congress' salaries, government funded abortions, cash for clunkers.

Just a few things off the top of my head.

Where would you do some cutting?
 
apdst said:
Oh, I dunno, giving $2 billion to Brazil for offshore drilling, fewer entitlements, cut spending on the study of the effect of cocaine on monkies, deer underpasses, turtle tunnels, Congress' salaries, government funded abortions, cash for clunkers.

Just a few things off the top of my head.

Where would you do some cutting?
Click to expand...

How much will that effect the budget?
 
apdst said:
Oh, I dunno, giving $2 billion to Brazil for offshore drilling, fewer entitlements, cut spending on the study of the effect of cocaine on monkies, deer underpasses, turtle tunnels, Congress' salaries, government funded abortions, cash for clunkers.

Just a few things off the top of my head.

Where would you do some cutting?
Click to expand...

so off the top of your head, not much. i would NOT cut now, except wasteful spending. sure, i'll go with turtle tunnels, deer underpasses and cocaine on monkeys.....what's THAT come to? lol.

i'd even go for cutting funding to brazil. again, not much in the grand scheme. nothing you mentioned, except entitlements, amounts to much. specifically, what entitlements and by what percentage?
 
Gill said:
And you have the nerve to accuse me of poor comprehension. You have no clue what I posted. Like I said in an earlier post, it went right over your head.

Adios.
Click to expand...

OK, I'm feeling bad. Maybe I have been too harsh with you, but you didn't seem to understand the meat of my orginal comment. Profit from taxes is not enough to intice new jobs if there is not enough people spending to warrant it. I thought this was obvious, but you seem to skip right past it. Lower taxes don't and can't prove enough profit to ignore the realities of consumer spending.

Your snarky reply irritated me, but maybe I was too snarky in return. I'll try and give your the ebenfit of the doubt one more time. But try to respond to the argument and without being too snarky. I'll try and do the same. Or we can forget. ;)
 
liblady said:
so off the top of your head, not much. i would NOT cut now, except wasteful spending. sure, i'll go with turtle tunnels, deer underpasses and cocaine on monkeys.....what's THAT come to? lol.

i'd even go for cutting funding to brazil. again, not much in the grand scheme. nothing you mentioned, except entitlements, amounts to much. specifically, what entitlements and by what percentage?
Click to expand...

Ok, well show us the useful spending that has come out the $1 trillion+ stimulus spending. Thaaaaanks!
 
apdst said:
Ok, well show us the useful spending that has come out the $1 trillion+ stimulus spending. Thaaaaanks!
Click to expand...

i believe i asked first. but this is typical, everybody says cut spending, but NOBODY will be specific. pisses me off.
 
apdst said:
You don't think that $2 billion dollars would effect the budget?
Click to expand...

Maybe a little, but the budget is huge. Larger budget items like military spending have to be tackled to make any real difference. Even if we cut out all smaller itemas altogether.

■Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is expected to total $172 billion in 2010.
■Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers (and their eligible dependents) in December 2009. Social Security also provided survivors’ benefits to 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers and disability benefits to 9.7 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2009.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 
liblady said:
i believe i asked first. but this is typical, everybody says cut spending, but NOBODY will be specific. pisses me off.
Click to expand...

I was specific. It's your turn to be specific and show all the beneficial spending that stealfromus money has been spent on, because I think the entire trillion+ dollars has been a complete waste our our money.

I could also throw union bailouts in there, car company buyouts, bank bailouts, subsidies for the non-existent, "green industry".
 
Boo Radley said:
Maybe a little, but the budget is huge. Larger budget items like military spending have to be tackled to make any real difference. Even if we cut out all smaller itemas altogether.

■Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is expected to total $172 billion in 2010.
■Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers (and their eligible dependents) in December 2009. Social Security also provided survivors’ benefits to 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers and disability benefits to 9.7 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2009.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...

As far as SS goes, there are too many people drawing more than what they paid in. That needs to stop. People who are getting SS that never paid in a dime, needs to end, as well.
 
apdst said:
As far as SS goes, there are too many people drawing more than what they paid in. That needs to stop. People who are getting SS that never paid in a dime, needs to end, as well.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Want to bet that the first politician who makes that reality isn't elected next cycle?
 
Boo Radley said:
Good luck with that. Want to bet that the first politician who makes that reality isn't elected next cycle?
Click to expand...

that's why we really, really, really, really, need term limits for congress. too many of those ****tards in congress don't give a rat's ass about anything except getting reelected. take that out of the equation and we might get better results.
 
OscarB63 said:
that's why we really, really, really, really, need term limits for congress. too many of those ****tards in congress don't give a rat's ass about anything except getting reelected. take that out of the equation and we might get better results.
Click to expand...

term limits won't fix the fundamental problem. The people don't want this done away with. if the people are going to be ignored completely, we might as well have a dictator or system that gives no voice to the people. Because when we get down to it, the people are the problem. Our foundig fathers knew we needed a voice, but didn't allow people total say, which is why only congress represents us. But what you suggests seems like an effort to remove the people from the process altogether.
 
Boo Radley said:
Business always has overhead, which includes taxes...
Click to expand...

apdst said:
If profits are down, and you agree that increased taxes means increased overhead, then that will cause profits to go down farther, making it harder to keep salaries at their current levels and keeping people employed.
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
No, I don't agree. The increase in overhead will be marginal at worse. There would be no reason for it to effect anything at all. There will be, just as it has been in the past, no notice effect on employment either way.
Click to expand...

Now you're just arguing with yourself, so there's no point in us arguing with you.
 
Boo Radley said:
Most of that has already been addressed by the fact that they are in business right now in the first place. but it is me who is looking at the overall picture and not your side. I have not made the claim that there are no other factors other than taxes. That's your side. I say there are other factors, and offer up supply and demand as being more important than taxes by an overwhelming margin. Supply and demand determine more than taxes ever could. When people spend, someone finds a way to sell. And taxes mean little to next to nothing to that.

All evidence shows that a tax cut will not increase jobs and a tax hike will not hinder jobs. Taxes play no noticable role in business by all the avaible historical information. And that is the point. Business will adjust to a tax rate. They have to downsize or change if no one is spending.
Click to expand...

Ok. I'll bite. Since supply and demand is more important in determining job growth than taxes (which I don't necessarily disagree with), what would be your public policy plan to increase demand?
 
liblady said:
cut what, exactly? thanks.
Click to expand...

Start with all programs that pay people not to work, then take a hatchet to the federal bureaucracy and go to town. 10% across the board would be a good start.
 
Boo Radley said:
term limits won't fix the fundamental problem. The people don't want this done away with. if the people are going to be ignored completely, we might as well have a dictator or system that gives no voice to the people. Because when we get down to it, the people are the problem. Our foundig fathers knew we needed a voice, but didn't allow people total say, which is why only congress represents us. But what you suggests seems like an effort to remove the people from the process altogether.
Click to expand...

The mailbox lizards don't want this done away with. The rest of us, do. I think we're going to see a huge change in the American political change over the next five years.
 
Boo Radley said:
All evidence shows that a tax cut will not increase jobs and a tax hike will not hinder jobs. Taxes play no noticable role in business by all the avaible historical information. And that is the point. Business will adjust to a tax rate. They have to downsize or change if no one is spending.
Click to expand...

I agree, but people won't start spending again until the media stops scaring them with gloom and doom...

ricksfolly
 
Boo Radley said:
OK, I'm feeling bad. Maybe I have been too harsh with you, but you didn't seem to understand the meat of my orginal comment. Profit from taxes is not enough to intice new jobs if there is not enough people spending to warrant it. I thought this was obvious, but you seem to skip right past it. Lower taxes don't and can't prove enough profit to ignore the realities of consumer spending.

Your snarky reply irritated me, but maybe I was too snarky in return. I'll try and give your the ebenfit of the doubt one more time. But try to respond to the argument and without being too snarky. I'll try and do the same. Or we can forget. ;)
Click to expand...

First you claim that I called you ignorant, when I did not, then....

You call me an idiot.....

and I'M the one being snarky ?????

You're about as funny as Colbert.
 
Boo Radley said:
...But what you suggests seems like an effort to remove the people from the process altogether.
Click to expand...

Because he wants term limits to eliminate career politicians? I can't make the connection.:confused:
 
FederalRepublic said:
Because he wants term limits to eliminate career politicians? I can't make the connection.:confused:
Click to expand...

Say the people like a person doing a good job. People would no longer be able to choose him. but that wasn't my point.

he suggests we need term limits because people won't let politicians get rid of things like Medicare or SS. When I noted people wouldn't re-elect a politician who did this, he siad that's why we need term limits. I don't see how I can't conclude that he wants leaders who will do what people don't want, thus taking people out of the equation. Do you think I have that wrong?
 
Gill said:
First you claim that I called you ignorant, when I did not, then....

You call me an idiot.....

and I'M the one being snarky ?????

You're about as funny as Colbert.
Click to expand...

Read the first sentence of your response. Yes, you refered to the comment (made by me) and then responded as if you really didn't understand what was said. Going off on a direction that had nothing to do with the point.

Not sure AI called you an idiot, but I'd have to look back. I say it is silly to suggest tax cuts mean less, much, much less, than people buying the product or sevice.
 
ricksfolly said:
I agree, but people won't start spending again until the media stops scaring them with gloom and doom...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

There is some truth to that. Too bad scary sells.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom