• 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!

Obama's Democrats in disarray over expiring tax cuts

j-mac said:
Common tactic Joe uses, and has for years and years. It is ofcourse a fallacy, but one that he will never admit. When I first met him online, and debated him he was much more honest in his argument than now, although I am sure he would say the same of me. Which is why I won't from this point forward, and until some time in the future when I have discerned that he is willing to get back to an honest form of discussion, and not this Allensky crap and pablum he puts out, debate him further. It is quite pointless to argue with someone who thinks that shifting goal posts, and outright about faces in position are fair when they do it. Not to mention the name calling. He is done for now in my book.

j-mac
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

You have comprehension problems and blame others?

Be well my friend.

:coffeepap
 
ptif219 said:
It is not an exaggeration just because you do not agree.
Click to expand...

If you say I never disagree or see wrong in Obama and democrats, and clear examples are given in which I do disagree and see wrong in both, as has been done, you do exaggerate. This is really too simple for you and j to be having this much trouble understanding.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you say I never disagree or see wrong in Obama and democrats, and clear examples are given in which I do disagree and see wrong in both, as has been done, you do exaggerate. This is really too simple for you and j to be having this much trouble understanding.
Click to expand...

Where did I say never. Even an apoloigist may disagree once in a great while
 
Barbbtx said:
Tea party was against raising taxes on anyone. Taxed Enough Already, but stick it to the rich? I don't think so.
That's not what they meant. The Republican did well to defend everyone's best interest to keep more of their own money.
Click to expand...

that people who don't pay taxes or don't pay near what they use want others to pay more is the sort of parasitic behavior that the dems use to win elections
 
TurtleDude said:
that people who don't pay taxes or don't pay near what they use want others to pay more is the sort of parasitic behavior that the dems use to win elections
Click to expand...

If l you repeat a lie a million times does that then confer some sort of faux integrity to the lie? People pay taxes. Everybody who buys something in this country pays taxes. Everybody who earn a paycheck pays taxes. Everybody who puts gas in their car pays taxes. There are a wide variety of taxes on a wide variety of things in this land.

It would be nice if you gave everyone hear a Christmas present and started being honest about this.
 
haymarket said:
If l you repeat a lie a million times does that then confer some sort of faux integrity to the lie? People pay taxes. Everybody who buys something in this country pays taxes. Everybody who earn a paycheck pays taxes. Everybody who puts gas in their car pays taxes. There are a wide variety of taxes on a wide variety of things in this land.

It would be nice if you gave everyone hear a Christmas present and started being honest about this.
Click to expand...

your posts prove my point. THe dems appeal to those who think others ought to pay more taxes. Many americans pay little or no FEDERAL INCOME TAXES and that is the political issue-not gasoline taxes or taxes on sporting arms
 
TurtleDude said:
your posts prove my point. THe dems appeal to those who think others ought to pay more taxes. Many americans pay little or no FEDERAL INCOME TAXES and that is the political issue-not gasoline taxes or taxes on sporting arms
Click to expand...

NO - that is the narrow issue that you and libertarian right wing conservatives wish to prop up in your scheme to deprive tens of millions of people from voting in elections. You Turtle, despite your pretend wealth, despite you proclaimed fortune, despite your boast of piles of cash in your mansion, you do NOT get to decide the issue. You do not get to take all the various taxes in this land and narrow it down to one and forget about the impact of paying all the others. No matter how hard you may try, no matter what the Cato Institute may say and no matter what right wing net pundits say. You do not get to decide that issue.
 
ptif219 said:
Where did I say never. Even an apoloigist may disagree once in a great while
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. If it were, there would be no difference between an apologist and someone who actually agrees with him or them. It is the pointless need to exaggerate to make you opponents opinion seem less valid that is the problem here. Instead of addressing the stance, the issue, you exaggerate and say that agreeing equals being an apologist. That's not only an exaggeration on your part, but illogical.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, that's not true. If it were, there would be no difference between an apologist and someone who actually agrees with him or them. It is the pointless need to exaggerate to make you opponents opinion seem less valid that is the problem here. Instead of addressing the stance, the issue, you exaggerate and say that agreeing equals being an apologist. That's not only an exaggeration on your part, but illogical.
Click to expand...

I notice you can not show where i said never.

You are wrong. Even religious apologist disagree at times on some doctrines.

No two people agree 100% of the time so yes an apologist will disagree once in a while
 
ptif219 said:
I notice you can not show where i said never.

You are wrong. Even religious apologist disagree at times on some doctrines.

No two people agree 100% of the time so yes an apologist will disagree once in a while
Click to expand...

I didn't think that was necessary, but I'll break down your words for you:

ptif219 said:
And Obama who can do no wrong in Boo's eyes
Click to expand...

No, none, never.

But let's look at more hyperbole:

[QUOTE'ptif219]You are an Obama apologist and good liberal who want to destroy this country and its economic system.[/QUOTE]


Yes, people who disagree merely want to destroy this country. No exaggeration there. :roll:

BTW, it was in answering that post that I first called you on being hyperbolic and exaggerating.

BR said:
Please, wild hyperbolic exaggeration is never a good argument. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

We then went on about it being a exaggeration, and you then came up with this:

ptif219 said:
No its not you just won't believe anything negative about the dems or Obama
Click to expand...

Not believe ANYTHING. That's what you said. Would you really argue that doesn't mean I never find fault?

Again, I didn't think this should be necessary. You should know what you have written, and what those words mean. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
I didn't think that was necessary, but I'll break down your words for you:



No, none, never.

But let's look at more hyperbole:

[QUOTE'ptif219]You are an Obama apologist and good liberal who want to destroy this country and its economic system.
Click to expand...


Yes, people who disagree merely want to destroy this country. No exaggeration there. :roll:

BTW, it was in answering that post that I first called you on being hyperbolic and exaggerating.



We then went on about it being a exaggeration, and you then came up with this:



Not believe ANYTHING. That's what you said. Would you really argue that doesn't mean I never find fault?

Again, I didn't think this should be necessary. You should know what you have written, and what those words mean. :coffeepap[/QUOTE]

You make my point. You say you disagree with Obama on Afghanistan but you still support his effort there. Your disagreements never condemn Obamas policy but you think he should do more so you justify what he has done but you think he should do more.

Taxes on the rich in a bad economic time can destroy this country. Dream act will hurt us. Obama care will destroy healthcare as we know it. Not an exaggeration but an opinion. You disagree but that is because you support and agenda that is bad for this country
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
You make my point. You say you disagree with Obama on Afghanistan but you still support his effort there. Your disagreements never condemn Obamas policy but you think he should do more so you justify what he has done but you think he should do more.

Taxes on the rich in a bad economic time can destroy this country. Dream act will hurt us. Obama care will destroy healthcare as we know it. Not an exaggeration but an opinion. You disagree but that is because you support and agenda that is bad for this country
Click to expand...

No, I never said I support his actions there, in fact I have said just the opposite. Pay attention, Afghanistan is the right place to focus our attention, not Iraq. However, the Afghan surge is the wrong move and does not win the day. In the end, we will have to back up and deal with as we should have from the begininig, with a pared down and more focused effort. You try to turn this into being a apologist while ignoreing the actual position. This is not only an exaggeration on your part, but dishonest.

And no, there is no evidence that taxes on the rich destroy the economy. You are again exaggerating when you say that. There's even been a study posted ont hsi forum that showed taxes on the rich would not effect jobs at all. And that not taxing them or giving them a tax cut also would not effect jobs. When you ignore evidence to the contrary and make a wild declarative statement like you do here, you are exaggerating.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I never said I support his actions there, in fact I have said just the opposite. Pay attention, Afghanistan is the right place to focus our attention, not Iraq. However, the Afghan surge is the wrong move and does not win the day. In the end, we will have to back up and deal with as we should have from the begininig, with a pared down and more focused effort. You try to turn this into being a apologist while ignoreing the actual position. This is not only an exaggeration on your part, but dishonest.

And no, there is no evidence that taxes on the rich destroy the economy. You are again exaggerating when you say that. There's even been a study posted ont hsi forum that showed taxes on the rich would not effect jobs at all. And that not taxing them or giving them a tax cut also would not effect jobs. When you ignore evidence to the contrary and make a wild declarative statement like you do here, you are exaggerating.
Click to expand...

Yet you support Obamma being in Afghanistan you just disagree with his tactics.

Obama says it will create jobs. Is he lying.
 
ptif219 said:
Yet you support Obamma being in Afghanistan you just disagree with his tactics.

Obama says it will create jobs. Is he lying.
Click to expand...

Just as I supported bush being in Afghanistan, yes. As I have said from day one, Afghanistan made made sense. Iraq didn't.

And lying? As much as any politiican. I've said repeatedly, with both presidents, no president creates jobs or controls the economy. This is my viewer and I wasn't apologizing for Bush when I said during his presidency and it is not apologising for Obama now.

Again, try to side step disagreement by calling it being an apologist. this means you don't have to deal with the actual view. your exaggeration is not good form.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just as I supported bush being in Afghanistan, yes. As I have said from day one, Afghanistan made made sense. Iraq didn't.

And lying? As much as any politiican. I've said repeatedly, with both presidents, no president creates jobs or controls the economy. This is my viewer and I wasn't apologizing for Bush when I said during his presidency and it is not apologising for Obama now.

Again, try to side step disagreement by calling it being an apologist. this means you don't have to deal with the actual view. your exaggeration is not good form.
Click to expand...

afghanistan makes no sense now.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just as I supported bush being in Afghanistan, yes. As I have said from day one, Afghanistan made made sense. Iraq didn't.

And lying? As much as any politiican. I've said repeatedly, with both presidents, no president creates jobs or controls the economy. This is my viewer and I wasn't apologizing for Bush when I said during his presidency and it is not apologising for Obama now.

Again, try to side step disagreement by calling it being an apologist. this means you don't have to deal with the actual view. your exaggeration is not good form.
Click to expand...

Again Obama said keeping the tax cuts will create millions of jobs. Are you saying he is lying?

Obama Says Tax Compromise Will Help Create Jobs - BusinessWeek

President Barack Obama said the compromise tax plan he’s agree to with congressional Republicans will give businesses incentives to grow and hire and help create “millions of jobs.”
 
liblady said:
afghanistan makes no sense now.
Click to expand...

What about the thought that if the Taliban succeed in Afghanistan, they then can combine with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan to topple the Pakistani government, putting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the hands of these nutjobs ? Not to mention what happens to the poor women and girls of both countries, being under the guns of these looney misogynists.
 
ptif219 said:
Again Obama said keeping the tax cuts will create millions of jobs. Are you saying he is lying?

Obama Says Tax Compromise Will Help Create Jobs - BusinessWeek

President Barack Obama said the compromise tax plan he’s agree to with congressional Republicans will give businesses incentives to grow and hire and help create “millions of jobs.”
Click to expand...

What's wrong with not extending the tax cuts for the rich, with an exception for small businessmen who meet specific criteria (hiring new employees, expanding, etc) ? Plus, taxes on employees and non-reinvesting businessmen with incomes over $250,000/year could be raised on a sliding scale. Those with incomes of over a Billion/year (yes there are some) could be taxed at 99%. So someone whose income is, for example, $ 1.5 Billion/year, would still rake in $ 15 Million/year. Not too many coal miners, cops, firefighters, troops in Afghanistan, etc, would feel too sorry for him with his cool $ 15 Million, you think ?
 
Protectionist said:
What about the thought that if the Taliban succeed in Afghanistan, they then can combine with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan to topple the Pakistani government, putting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the hands of these nutjobs ? Not to mention what happens to the poor women and girls of both countries, being under the guns of these looney misogynists.
Click to expand...

i have come to the conclusion that we can't save the world, as awful as it sounds. afghanistan BROKE the soviet union. we've now been there longer, and the progess stalled a long time ago. we didn't learn from history. no way can have the effect we want to have in afghansitan without a much larger commitment than we currently have. it would take too mcuh money, time and troops to see any real change there.

we can certainly use our wealth and nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. it's up to the pakistanis to run their own country, if they can't figure it out, it's not our problem.
 
ptif219 said:
Again Obama said keeping the tax cuts will create millions of jobs. Are you saying he is lying?

Obama Says Tax Compromise Will Help Create Jobs - BusinessWeek

President Barack Obama said the compromise tax plan he’s agree to with congressional Republicans will give businesses incentives to grow and hire and help create “millions of jobs.”
Click to expand...

I'm saying what I have always said, the only jobs the president can claim are those where the government hired someone or funded money to pay for those employees. No matter what Obama or any politician claims, there is no actual evidence that tax cuts or tax increases create jobs. Politicians, all of them, are in the happen of putting a positive spin and taking credit they don't deserve. Obama is no exception.
 
liblady said:
afghanistan makes no sense now.
Click to expand...

What makes no sense is in how it has been handled. First it was abandoned, and they the mission became too concerntrated on nation building. We should have a simple mission, one related directly to addressing al Qeada type training camps and helping Pakistan keep their nukes safe. The surge simply was illadvised.
 
Protectionist said:
What's wrong with not extending the tax cuts for the rich, with an exception for small businessmen who meet specific criteria (hiring new employees, expanding, etc) ? Plus, taxes on employees and non-reinvesting businessmen with incomes over $250,000/year could be raised on a sliding scale. Those with incomes of over a Billion/year (yes there are some) could be taxed at 99%. So someone whose income is, for example, $ 1.5 Billion/year, would still rake in $ 15 Million/year. Not too many coal miners, cops, firefighters, troops in Afghanistan, etc, would feel too sorry for him with his cool $ 15 Million, you think ?
Click to expand...

Whats wrong it means more pork. Reid is loading Obama's tax cut extension bill as we speak. The debt does not matter to Democrats

Senate Tax Cut Package Filled With Sweeteners, Obama Predicts Passage - FoxNews.com

Among the extra provisions are a tax credit for biodiesel, a tax credit for ethanol, extensions of tax credits for energy-efficient homes and appliances, and credits for training mine rescue teams.

It would allow millions of dollars worth of expensing for film and production companies doing work in the United States, give breaks for the rum trade in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, provide incentives for investment in the District of Columbia and provide other benefits for the battered Gulf coast.

The 45-cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy alone, extended through 2011, was estimated to cost about $5 billion. The issue is of particular interest to lawmakers from Midwestern states with grain crops.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm saying what I have always said, the only jobs the president can claim are those where the government hired someone or funded money to pay for those employees. No matter what Obama or any politician claims, there is no actual evidence that tax cuts or tax increases create jobs. Politicians, all of them, are in the happen of putting a positive spin and taking credit they don't deserve. Obama is no exception.
Click to expand...


Nice way to avoid calling Obama a liar a true tactic of an apologist
 
liblady said:
i have come to the conclusion that we can't save the world, as awful as it sounds. afghanistan BROKE the soviet union. we've now been there longer, and the progess stalled a long time ago. we didn't learn from history. no way can have the effect we want to have in afghansitan without a much larger commitment than we currently have. it would take too mcuh money, time and troops to see any real change there.

we can certainly use our wealth and nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. it's up to the pakistanis to run their own country, if they can't figure it out, it's not our problem.
Click to expand...

I am really torn on Afghanistan these days....I'd love to agree with you liblady, largely because I don't think that 'nation building' is what anyone signed up for. And I also know that ending our involvement in that country would save us billions of dollars that we could sorely use here considering the pace at which demo, and repub progressives are burning through it. But there is a 'face' argument to be made is there not? "Cutting and running" would invite further attack, and project weakness would it not?


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom