• 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:
Need? Want? who decides which is which? By what standard?

I call for us to cut spending and raise taxes. How much and what of each is something that needs to be hammered out, but that should be our focus. BVut I will give you one thing, you can't be serious about cutitng spending unless you discuss SS and Medicare/medicaid, but I would add the military. As for the founding fathers, I'm not sure any of us actually know what they would support if they were here today. ;)
Click to expand...

I will never support raising taxes until the size of the Federal govt. is cut to the level where it only provides the services required by our Founders. There is no evidence that when you send more money to D.C. that it is spent responsibly. the more they get, the more they spend. If they are going to waste our money then I believe the American people deserve to keep more of their own money.

I have a pretty good idea what our Founders would think today by the way they acted when the drafted the Constitution. They knew that power corrupts and thus supported a small central Govt. That says it all.
 
Conservative said:
I will never support raising taxes until the size of the Federal govt. is cut to the level where it only provides the services required by our Founders. There is no evidence that when you send more money to D.C. that it is spent responsibly. the more they get, the more they spend. If they are going to waste our money then I believe the American people deserve to keep more of their own money.

I have a pretty good idea what our Founders would think today by the way they acted when the drafted the Constitution. They knew that power corrupts and thus supported a small central Govt. That says it all.
Click to expand...

We don't live in that century. The founding fathers allowed for change and growth. It is ahrdly as clear as you think that they would not have grown with us, and done exactly the same or even more.
 
Boo Radley said:
We don't live in that century. The founding fathers allowed for change and growth. It is ahrdly as clear as you think that they would not have grown with us, and done exactly the same or even more.
Click to expand...

The logic and common sense of the Founders is something missing today. For some reason you and others seem to believe that social issues can be handled by a large central govt. instead of the states. For some reason you seem to be more concerned about how much money goes to the federal govt. than how they spend that money. It isn't logical to believe that a bureacrat in Washington D.C. can solve a social problem in Midland, TX but that a bureacrat in Austin, TX can and should.

That is the logic of our founders and they were right on.
 
ricksfolly said:
Most states are worse off than the government, and cutting back on Fed help will make it worse. Not only simple, fact.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Then that is a state issue, it is called taking responsibility for their own actions and poor management. Why is it in the liberal world there is no such thing as failure. let them go bankrupt and rebuild.
 
Conservative said:
Then that is a state issue, it is called taking responsibility for their own actions and poor management. Why is it in the liberal world there is no such thing as failure. let them go bankrupt and rebuild.
Click to expand...

That's it really. The whole damn principle of republic is based on the philosophical idea of free market theory. States compete for constituents as much as Wal Mart does for shoppers.


Tim-
 
ricksfolly said:
What's done is done. Regurgitating it over and over again is like locking the barn door after the horse is stolen...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Then declare bankruptcy and start over. There is no reason to bail out unions when it is more important to put people back to work. The horse not only has been stolen, it is at another farm running in a stakes race making money for someone else. If you are losing money at what you do, who bails you out?
 
Conservative said:
The logic and common sense of the Founders is something missing today. For some reason you and others seem to believe that social issues can be handled by a large central govt. instead of the states. For some reason you seem to be more concerned about how much money goes to the federal govt. than how they spend that money. It isn't logical to believe that a bureacrat in Washington D.C. can solve a social problem in Midland, TX but that a bureacrat in Austin, TX can and should.

That is the logic of our founders and they were right on.
Click to expand...

If the founding fathers thought that all the problems could be handled by the states, why did they bother with a central government? They could have just left all power in the individual states and let them form militias for their local defense.

I'm thinking that, if you want to know what the founding fathers untented when they wrote the Constitution, it is more enlightening to read what they wrote rather than to try to divine their intent based on ones own biases.

The founding fathers were split on how much power the federal government should have, much as we are split today. This dichotomy is written into the Constitution.

Since the Bill of Rights is often considered to reflect the mind of the Founding Fathers (although written by the First Congress) it is informative to note that they left out the word "expressly" from the 10th.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are expressly reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Leaving out that word makes this sufficiently ambiguous that the federal government could expand its powers if it was "necessary and proper" or if it seemed to interfere with the use of the commerce clause.
 
zip98053 said:
If the founding fathers thought that all the problems could be handled by the states, why did they bother with a central government? They could have just left all power in the individual states and let them form militias for their local defense.

I'm thinking that, if you want to know what the founding fathers untented when they wrote the Constitution, it is more enlightening to read what they wrote rather than to try to divine their intent based on ones own biases.

The founding fathers were split on how much power the federal government should have, much as we are split today. This dichotomy is written into the Constitution.

Since the Bill of Rights is often considered to reflect the mind of the Founding Fathers (although written by the First Congress) it is informative to note that they left out the word "expressly" from the 10th.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are expressly reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Leaving out that word makes this sufficiently ambiguous that the federal government could expand its powers if it was "necessary and proper" or if it seemed to interfere with the use of the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

I am really concerned about how leftwing the West Coast has become as it doesn't matter what the results are the people there will keep smoking or drinking the "strange" stuff. Anyone that would insinuate that the Founding Fathers were split on how much power the Central Govt. should have doesn't really know much about history and our Founding Fathers. There were a FEW who believed in a large Central Govt. but that wasn't in the original Constitution which by its words stated the kind of govt. they were creating. Using the words in the Preamble "Provide" and "Promote" as they did says it all. PROVIDE for the Common Defense and PROMOTE the Domestic Wefare answers your question as to the role of the Central Govt. and what our Founders envisioned.

States united for the common defense and a govt. promoting through policy domestic welfare tells it all. Do you really want a bureaucrat in D.C. telling the people of Washington what to do about a welfare issue. Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the people of Washington? The problem is power corrupts and Congressional Representatives have the power and have expanded the role of the govt. way beyond its original intent.

Seems you run when challenged, still waiting for a response on the Clinton surplus and a response to the facts about the U.S. Debt.
 
Conservative said:
I am really concerned about how leftwing the West Coast has become as it doesn't matter what the results are the people there will keep smoking or drinking the "strange" stuff. Anyone that would insinuate that the Founding Fathers were split on how much power the Central Govt. should have doesn't really know much about history and our Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...

Well, I live on the West Coast and I can tell you a few things: As for me, I personally agree with many Republican economic policies, and 7-8 of the 10 request in the Tea Party "contract", however the problem is they come wrapped in a package of xenophobia, jingoism, ultra-agressive neo-conservative foreign policy, dogmatic Christian principles, and a desire to still keep gays as second class citizens. Those things are equally as contradictory to the ideas are founding fathers had about the future of this country (at least the Northern ones). I think that is why a lot of "liberals" support democratic economic policies. Its the same reason why rural, poor whites support the Republican party even though their tax cuts and other policies only favor people who make over $250k a year. The poor whites don't give sh*t about the rich having tax cuts, they want gays kept as second class citizens, abortion made illegal again, marijuana to remain illegal, aggressive military policy, and hope to put someone in office who will put greater restriction on Muslims.

Now I"m not saying every Lefty on the West Coast feels the way I do. I know a lot of people who believe in the Democratic economic model. It tends to be more consumer friendly while the Republican model is business friendly. Obama has made student loans more affordable, has put restrictions on credit card companies, banks, and health insurance companies that are very friendly to consumers. Personally I like the fact that my child can't be denied coverage for a preexisting condition and that my grandmother can't be dropped from her coverage if she gets cancer. What kind of a person would oppose those measures, even it cost more? I like the fact that mortgage companies can't swindle people into subprime loans, and credit card companies can't jack up interest rates anymore without informing people. I'm sure CEOS and investors in these industries are very upset about Obama's policies, but I don't see how an average consumer can be.
 
Last edited:
Johnny DooWop;1059069007]Well, I live on the West Coast and I can tell you a few things: As for me, I personally agree with many Republican economic policies, and 7-8 of the 10 request in the Tea Party "contract", however the problem is they come wrapped in a package of xenophobia, jingoism, ultra-agressive neo-conservative foreign policy, dogmatic Christian principles, and a desire to still keep gays as second class citizens. Those things are equally as contradictory to the ideas are founding fathers had about the future of this country (at least the Northern ones). I think that is why a lot of "liberals" support democratic economic policies. Its the same reason why rural, poor whites support the Republican party even though their tax cuts and other policies only favor people who make over $250k a year. The poor whites don't give sh*t about the rich having tax cuts, they want gays kept as second class citizens, abortion made illegal again, marijuana to remain illegal, aggressive military policy, and hope to put someone in office who will put greater restriction on Muslims.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the GOP that rejected the left coast policy on gays, it was the majority of the people on the west coast. What bothers me is the stereotyping of liberals of the conservative movement and you do that based upon what you read and not what you see or only if you thought. Please tell me how tax rate cuts only affect those making over 250,000 a year? Tax rate cuts benefit EVERYONE who pays taxes. Since the rich pay most of the taxes any cuts are going to be higher but the percentage is the same. The rich are paying a lot more now in actual dollars than they where prior to the tax cut and that goes unnoticed or unreported.

What I see from you is a desire for more freedom without the responsibility that goes with it. You want the right to an abortion, the right for gays to marry, the right to use drugs, etc but then you want the govt. to guarantee you a living or to bail you out when you make a mistake. it doesn't work that way. With freedom comes responsibility. If you want all those things then accept the responsibility when you fail.

Now I"m not saying every Lefty on the West Coast feels the way I do. I know a lot of people who believe in the Democratic economic model. It tends to be more consumer friendly while the Republican model is business friendly. Obama has made student loans more affordable, has put restrictions on credit card companies, banks, and health insurance companies that are very friendly to consumers. Personally I like the fact that my child can't be denied coverage for a preexisting condition and that my grandmother can't be dropped from her coverage if she gets cancer. What kind of a person would oppose those measures, even it cost more? I like the fact that mortgage companies can't swindle people into subprime loans, and credit card companies can't jack up interest rates anymore without informing people. I'm sure CEOS and investors in these industries are very upset about Obama's policies, but I don't see how an average consumer can be.
Click to expand...

The Democratic economic model ignores incentive and human behavior. It is consumer friendly but ignores that someone has to make the product and get compensation for it. Making student loans affordable should be a state or local issues since Universities are state controlled and operated. Putting restrictions on credit card companies ignore the responsibility of individuals with their spending habits or actions. As for the health coverage issue, the issue of pre existing conditions could have been handled without this monstrosity being created that creates another massive federal bureaucracy. Healthcare is a personal responsibility not a Federal responsibility, if anything it should be handled by the states and local communities.

In reading your post where does personal responsibility lie in anything you posted. Mortgage companies didn't swindle anyone. Do you honestly believe that someone held a gun to the head of someone who signed an adjustable rate mortgage? Did someone force you or your parents to sign on the bottomline? Do you believe that those who signed adjustable rate mortgages didn't know that rates would adjust?

Again, I ask where does personal responsibility lie in your world?
 
$5316 per year for a couple making 80K, $13,404 for a family earning 240

If Congress fails to act, income tax rates will revert to higher levels dating from June 2001.

For a married couple with an income of $80,000, that would drain an extra $221.48 in withholding from a semi-monthly paycheck, according to calculations by the Tax Institute at H&R Block. Married individuals earning $240,000 a year would lose an additional $557.78 to withholding in a single semi-monthly paycheck. The Tax Institute at H&R Block calculated federal tax rates for single-income earners and married taxpayers without children.
Click to expand...

Employers in U.S. Start Bracing for Higher Tax Withholding - Bloomberg

why did the party punt?
 
Conservative said:
It wasn't the GOP that rejected the left coast policy on gays, it was the majority of the people on the west coast.
Click to expand...

What? Those Californians were apart of the GOP silly! And it was actually the Mormon church in Utah that funded most of the campaign for prop 8. Weeks before the election every conservative pastor in the state was giving guilt trip sermons to their congregations to go vote for it. Polls show more Californians believe gays should be able to marry, than those who do not believe. The Christian GOP boys simply got more of their people out to the polls. Are you really trying to deny that the GOP doesn't want gays to marry and doesn't want them to be in openly gay in the military? The worst thing that happened to the GOP is they let the social conservatives take over.

As for taxes, the notion that tax cuts for the rich while increasing them for the poor somehow fixes the economy is not currently a fact, it is an opinion. I don't want to get into another big debate with you about your bea.gov facts and all of your other redundant talking points because me as well as many others on this forum have provided equally credible figures that cutting taxes for the rich does nothing for the economy. If you want to look up figures, look up one that shows the average salary of middle class people under Republican presidents vs Democratic presidents, then tell me Republicans are better for the middle class.

Conservative said:
What I see from you is a desire for more freedom without the responsibility that goes with it. You want the right to an abortion, the right for gays to marry, the right to use drugs, etc but then you want the govt. to guarantee you a living or to bail you out when you make a mistake. it doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Bailouts for abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana? ???



Conservative said:
The Democratic economic model ignores incentive and human behavior. It is consumer friendly but ignores that someone has to make the product and get compensation for it.
Click to expand...

Many industries face this problem, when something that is vital to our citizens is hard to produce at a profit and it is usually solved through government subsidies. Doesn't the oil industry recieve more government subsidies than any other? Why not provide subsidies to the health care industry? And as for your "personal responsbility", the whole purpose of organizations is to achieve what can't be done individually. You, supposedly being a former business man, should know that is why all organizations are formed. Getting major coroporations to adopt more consumer friendly policies can't be done by an individual, which is why people must sometimes depend on or put responisbilty in the government to get these things done.

You complain about the Obama policies but have offered no better solutions. Your only answer is "let the states control it". What are your suggestions for the credit card industries, student loans, mortgage loans, pre existing conditions and the ability of companies to drop their patience if they get cancer?
 
Johnny DooWop;1059069093]What? Those Californians were apart of the GOP silly! And it was actually the Mormon church in Utah that funded most of the campaign for prop 8. Weeks before the election every conservative pastor in the state was giving guilt trip sermons to their congregations to go vote for it. Polls show more Californians believe gays should be able to marry, than those who do not believe. The Christian GOP boys simply got more of their people out to the polls. Are you really trying to deny that the GOP doesn't want gays to marry and doesn't want them to be in openly gay in the military? The worst thing that happened to the GOP is they let the social conservatives take over.
Click to expand...

Good Lord, man, does it matter who funded the operation? The people voted. Again, I ask you where does personal responsibility lie in your world? It doesn't matter who funds any particular program because those funding don't pull the ballot lever. Do you ever take responsibility for anything or do you just want to whine and complain when you don't get your way?

As for taxes, the notion that tax cuts for the rich while increasing them for the poor somehow fixes the economy is not currently a fact, it is an opinion. I don't want to get into another big debate with you about your bea.gov facts and all of your other redundant talking points because me as well as many others on this forum have provided equally credible figures that cutting taxes for the rich does nothing for the economy. If you want to look up figures, look up one that shows the average salary of middle class people under Republican presidents vs Democratic presidents, then tell me Republicans are better for the middle class.
Click to expand...

LOL, increasing taxes on the poor? where do you get this stuff? After the Bush tax cuts 47% of the working people didn't pay any Federal Income taxes! Where were the tax increase on people who don't pay taxes?

What continues to amaze me is the liberal rhetoric about how unfair this country is. The only thing preventing you from becoming one of those evil rich people that you seem to hate is your attitude. You want all the freedom in the world but not the responsibility that goes along with that freedom. This country was built on EQUAL Opportunity NOT EQUAL Outcome. Do you know the difference?

What the hell are you talking about? Bailouts for abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana? ???
Click to expand...

I am talking about you expecting someone else to protect you from the poor choices you make. You want abortions on demand, the right to marry whoever you want, and the legal use of drugs but when you fail financially you want someone to bail you out. You want utopia and what you got is the leftwing disaster that progressives have made of this economy.

Many industries face this problem, when something that is vital to our citizens is hard to produce at a profit and it is usually solved through government subsidies. Doesn't the oil industry recieve more government subsidies than any other? Why not provide subsidies to the health care industry? And as for your "personal responsbility", the whole purpose of organizations is to achieve what can't be done individually. You, supposedly being a former business man, should know that is why all organizations are formed. Getting major coroporations to adopt more consumer friendly policies can't be done by an individual, which is why people must sometimes depend on or put responisbilty in the government to get these things done.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a subsidy really is? It is business keeping the money that they already earn instead of sending it to the govt. first. Any idea how much Federal taxes you pay on a gallon of gasoline vs. how much an oil company makes on a gallon of gasoline? Look it up

Why should a taxpayer in TX fund the healthcare of someone in Delaware?

Getting business to adopt a more consumer friendly policies is up to the business. Who forces you to buy from those businesses?

You complain about the Obama policies but have offered no better solutions. Your only answer is "let the states control it". What are your suggestions for the credit card industries, student loans, mortgage loans, pre existing conditions and the ability of companies to drop their patience if they get cancer?
Click to expand...

I have offered many solutions but they all start with something you never will support, personal responsibility. Cut the massive size of govt. and put the power back to where it belongs, at the state level. My advice for you regarding Credit cards is don't use them or if you do use them responsibility and pay off your debt monthly. As for student loans, let the states decide not Federal Tax payer dollars to fund state student loans, mortgage loans are a personal responsibility, don't sign for a long with rates that you cannot afford. Pre existing conditions, since states control insurance companies it is up to the states to solve that issue, and the same holds true on dropping coverage.

This country wasn't built on the principles you support and until you and others understand that you will never accept personal responsibility for anything.
 
Conservative said:
The logic and common sense of the Founders is something missing today. For some reason you and others seem to believe that social issues can be handled by a large central govt. instead of the states. For some reason you seem to be more concerned about how much money goes to the federal govt. than how they spend that money. It isn't logical to believe that a bureacrat in Washington D.C. can solve a social problem in Midland, TX but that a bureacrat in Austin, TX can and should.

That is the logic of our founders and they were right on.
Click to expand...

Little common about good sense, and I don't see much good sense in much of what you present. If you spend, you ahve to pay for it. And when you have a high debt, you both seek to cut expenses and bring in more income. That's how we would handle it our lives, and it is how the government should handle it. Cut spending and raise taxes.
 
Conservative said:
Good Lord, man, does it matter who funded the operation? The people voted.
Click to expand...

What? Stay on the issue guy. I originally said that the GOP wants to prevent gays from marrying and you tried to deny that. Now you're saying it doesn't matter? Maybe its still too early in the morning for you to be debating.


Conservative said:
LOL, increasing taxes on the poor? where do you get this stuff?
Click to expand...
This is the only point you've actually made some sense on. I worded that wrong. Mccain simply wanted to middle class taxes to revert back to what they were before Bush cut them, but wanted to keep the tax cuts in for the wealthy.

Conservative said:
What continues to amaze me is the liberal rhetoric about how unfair this country is.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me?!! Conservatives whine more than a new born baby!! "I pay too much taxes! Government is too big! Obama is a socialist! Muslims are taking over!" Blah blah blah whine whine whine is all I ever hear from the right.


Conservative said:
I am talking about you expecting someone else to protect you from the poor choices you make. You want abortions on demand, the right to marry whoever you want, and the legal use of drugs but when you fail financially you want someone to bail you out. You want utopia and what you got is the leftwing disaster that progressives have made of this economy.
Click to expand...

WTF?? When did I ever fail financially? When did anyone ever bail me out?? And even your fantasies were true, what the hell would that have to do with abortions and gay rights!! This is crazy talk. You're starting to scare me.




Conservative said:
I have offered many solutions but they all start with something you never will support, personal responsibility. Cut the massive size of govt. and put the power back to where it belongs, at the state level. My advice for you regarding Credit cards is don't use them or if you do use them responsibility and pay off your debt monthly. As for student loans, let the states decide not Federal Tax payer dollars to fund state student loans, mortgage loans are a personal responsibility, don't sign for a long with rates that you cannot afford. Pre existing conditions, since states control insurance companies it is up to the states to solve that issue, and the same holds true on dropping coverage.
Click to expand...

Still not ONE solution. "Put in the hands of states and let them resolve the issue" is not a solution. Offer solutions or quit your whiny complaining.
 
Boo Radley said:
Little common about good sense, and I don't see much good sense in much of what you present. If you spend, you ahve to pay for it. And when you have a high debt, you both seek to cut expenses and bring in more income. That's how we would handle it our lives, and it is how the government should handle it. Cut spending and raise taxes.
Click to expand...

What you ignore as usual, is this is about personal income and thus personal choice. My claim is it is better for the individual to keep more of what they earn and when they have more take home pay they have the choice what to do with it. Too much has been given to the govt for them to use what they deem necessary and has been shown fiscally irresponsible.

We have 16 million unemployed Americans today, cut spending is a given, but lower taxes to get these 16 million back to the workforce paying taxes. One thing for sure is you are never going to get politicians to stop spending as that is the source of their power.
 
Johnny DooWop;1059069180]What? Stay on the issue guy. I originally said that the GOP wants to prevent gays from marrying and you tried to deny that. Now you're saying it doesn't matter? Maybe its still too early in the morning for you to be debating.
Click to expand...

So what is your problem? so what, the GOP wants the states to control the issue and in California the people voted supporting traditional marriage. I happen to agree, it is a state issue. I don't agree with gays marrying and would vote against it. I believe in the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed.


This is the only point you've actually made some sense on. I worded that wrong. Mccain simply wanted to middle class taxes to revert back to what they were before Bush cut them, but wanted to keep the tax cuts in for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

It is more of an issue than that, it is about control of the money. Who is better to control the money, the individual or a bureaucrat in D.C.? The fact that liberals continue to ignore is that govt. revenue went up AFTER the Bush tax rate cuts according to the Treasury Dept. so what is your problem? Why are you so concerned about how much money individuals pay in taxes?


Are you kidding me?!! Conservatives whine more than a new born baby!! "I pay too much taxes! Government is too big! Obama is a socialist! Muslims are taking over!" Blah blah blah whine whine whine is all I ever hear from the right.
Click to expand...

Facts always trump liberal rhetoric. "Your" President's record says it all.



WTF?? When did I ever fail financially? When did anyone ever bail me out?? And even your fantasies were true, what the hell would that have to do with abortions and gay rights!! This is crazy talk. You're starting to scare me.
Click to expand...

I make mistakes every day and pay for those mistakes. Everything you point out is a state issue, not a Federal issue and thus should be handled locally. If you cannot get your own state to vote for the issues then it is you looking for the Federal Govt. to overturn what the citizens of the state have done.



Still not ONE solution. "Put in the hands of states and let them resolve the issue" is not a solution. Offer solutions or quit your whiny complaining
Click to expand...

It indeed is a solution, you just don't like it. You don't like majority rule on anything especially when it doesn't support your point of view. The people of California voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage so the proponents went to the courts for relief. That is what liberals do when the votes of the majority are contrary to what they want. Don't give me this song and dance about freedom because the only time freedom is an issue is when it is something you support.
 
Conservative said:
What you ignore as usual, is this is about personal income and thus personal choice. My claim is it is better for the individual to keep more of what they earn and when they have more take home pay they have the choice what to do with it. Too much has been given to the govt for them to use what they deem necessary and has been shown fiscally irresponsible.

We have 16 million unemployed Americans today, cut spending is a given, but lower taxes to get these 16 million back to the workforce paying taxes. One thing for sure is you are never going to get politicians to stop spending as that is the source of their power.
Click to expand...

And I keep showing you there is no evidence cutting taxes will put people back to work. None. We ahve and it has bene linked for you, evidence that taxes will not effect employment at all. So, you can't argue cut taxes to get jobs, as cutting taxes won't do that.
 
Boo Radley said:
And I keep showing you there is no evidence cutting taxes will put people back to work. None. We ahve and it has bene linked for you, evidence that taxes will not effect employment at all. So, you can't argue cut taxes to get jobs, as cutting taxes won't do that.
Click to expand...

And what I showed you was that after tax rate cuts employment grew. Sorry we are at an empass. Guess we have to agree to disagree. I just don't see the value of the govt. of raising taxes and reducing incentive.
 
Conservative said:
And what I showed you was that after tax rate cuts employment grew. Sorry we are at an empass. Guess we have to agree to disagree. I just don't see the value of the govt. of raising taxes and reducing incentive.
Click to expand...

No, you showed one point and time, and could not show that tax cuts were the reason. And when faced with the reality that the tax cuts are in place today, and those millions are out of work, you admit other factors are involved, just as they were when jobs were created. And if you expand your search, you will find, as I have shown you, that during other times, tax cuts had noticeable effect ont he economy. You continue to focus on one set of numbers that don't actually answer the question, ignoring the rebuttal.
 
@Neo-Con

You still haven't provided one solution. You complain about Obama's policies to fix health insurance, the mortgage crisis, controversial bank practices but still haven't offered one single solution to the problems. How would states correct these problems? Let me guess, you have no clue.

As for gay marraige, you fell totally off the issue we were originally debating. I was saying many libs agree with some conservative financial policies but don't vote for conservatives because of the socially conservative policies they back such as gay marraige. You tried to defend the GOP by saying that it wasn't the GOP who voted prop 8 in california, it was californians, as if there aren't any Republicans in California! HAHA! This is where you fell off the deep end. Then I said those Californians who voted for it were GOP, and you say "what does it matter?" You completely lost that debate, horribly. I think you argue numbers much more better than you do political science.

As for personal responsibility, you call this personal responsibility?

GWB-signing75.jpg


Just in case you don't know, that is your hero signing the BAILOUT in 2008. What kind of fiscally conservative, personal responsibility is that? Now lets hear you go off the deep end trying to defend that. This should be interesting, I'm going to get some popcorn.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you showed one point and time, and could not show that tax cuts were the reason. And when faced with the reality that the tax cuts are in place today, and those millions are out of work, you admit other factors are involved, just as they were when jobs were created. And if you expand your search, you will find, as I have shown you, that during other times, tax cuts had noticeable effect ont he economy. You continue to focus on one set of numbers that don't actually answer the question, ignoring the rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Keep up this game, we agree to disagree. I will never accept that people keeping more of their money doesn't stimulate spending and thus demand for goods and services thus jobs. Nor will I ever accept that the Federal govt. will be responsible with getting more revenue and not spend it. Individuals keeping more of what they earn puts the power where it belongs with the American consumer, not the govt. bureaucrats.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
@Neo-Con

You still haven't provided one solution. You complain about Obama's policies to fix health insurance, the mortgage crisis, controversial bank practices but still haven't offered one single solution to the problems. How would states correct these problems? Let me guess, you have no clue.

As for gay marraige, you fell totally off the issue we were originally debating. I was saying many libs agree with some conservative financial policies but don't vote for conservatives because of the socially conservative policies they back such as gay marraige. You tried to defend the GOP by saying that it wasn't the GOP who voted prop 8 in california, it was californians, as if there aren't any Republicans in California! HAHA! This is where you fell off the deep end. Then I said those Californians who voted for it were GOP, and you say "what does it matter?" You completely lost that debate, horribly. I think you argue numbers much more better than you do political science.

As for personal responsibility, you call this personal responsibility?

GWB-signing75.jpg


Just in case you don't know, that is your hero signing the BAILOUT in 2008. What kind of fiscally conservative, personal responsibility is that? Now lets hear you go off the deep end trying to defend that. This should be interesting, I'm going to get some popcorn.
Click to expand...

You just destroyed my entire weekend telling me that I lost this debate, wow, the disappointment that you were the one judging the debate and claimed I lost. What am I to do! Wonder how a true debate instructor would judge this debate. There is quite a difference claiming that the GOP defeated Prop 8 rather than individual supporters of the GOP along with other political party supporters voted for Prop 8. Regardless, the people spoke and you didn't like the outcome thus you went to the courts to overturn the will of the majority. That is what liberals do.

Yes, Bush signed the 2008 bailout, I was against it, but "your" President supported it. Bush and Obama on the same side of the issue yet it was Obama that lied about the inherited deficits. Deficits aren't inherited they are yearly and thus created. What did Obama do with the payback of the TARP money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom