• 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 announces his Candidacy for 2012.

Of course they want to change the subject, would you want to discuss the truth about this disaster of a president if you voted for him?

Besides, who here is even advocating another Bush like presidency? Not I. I'd like to see a true fiscal conservative not a big spender.

For me, it's more about hypocrisy. On this thread, people on the right blame Congress for the economy during the Bush years, and Obama for the economy during the Obama years. That is pure hypocrisy and partisan hackery. I'm still waiting for someone on the right to give me a straight answer on this issue, but everyone has avoided it... not surprisingly.
 
Ah, so you are saying that both have responsibility. I think I already asked you and you responded by saying that the President is the head of his party, but I'll ask again... are you saying that both Congress and the President have fairly equal responsibility in the economy?
You need to expand your granularity because I have seen where some will blame Democrats if the Senate is Democrat even if the House is Republican. Again, the end result is the same -- if it's bad, it's because of Democrats; it's good, it's because of Republicans.
 
Of course they want to change the subject, would you want to discuss the truth about this disaster of a president if you voted for him?

Besides, who here is even advocating another Bush like presidency? Not I. I'd like to see a true fiscal conservative not a big spender.

Actually Conservative is the one who first took the thread off topic.
 
The Obama candidacy will be about economics so unless Obama is running against Bush any comparison isn't relevant. Obama will have to explain his record, not Bush's. Bush had a net job gain with two recessions, right now Obama is down over two million jobs and wants to be re-elected. When does the statute of limitations run out on blaming Bush or comparing Obama to Bush. Obama was hired to "clean up the mess" and the numbers to date don't provide a lot of support for another four years. He has a long way to go in the next 1 1/2 years to warrant re-election.

Well, remember what Reagan said. Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? Comparisons are completely valid. And... you just brought up the Bush job gain... yet you STILL haven't provided the link/data to this information. Please do so.
 
You need to expand your granularity because I have seen where some will blame Democrats if the Senate is Democrat even if the House is Republican. Again, the end result is the same -- if it's bad, it's because of Democrats; it's good, it's because of Republicans.

I know... I'm just laying the groundwork to demonstrate the hypocrisy of some folks here. Not suprisingly, most are no longer biting. I think they know their hypocrisy has been exposed and they don't want to make it worse by discussing it further.
 
Well, remember what Reagan said. Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? Comparisons are completely valid. And... you just brought up the Bush job gain... yet you STILL haven't provided the link/data to this information. Please do so.

15 million Americans will disagree with you and that is more unemployed than when Obama took office. Wonder if they care about the number that Bush had unemployed since it was less than Obama?
 
you are in error-you missed the point. no one wants to pay more taxes-some accept that as a necessary evil to get more wealth

for rich dems its better to pay 100K in more taxes if you get 300k more in income by being in power.
Then we have Conservatives like Joe the Plumber (whose name wasn't Joe and whose occupation wasn't plumbing, but anyhoo) who pretend like their taxes are going up because he feared taxes on individuals earning $200K+ would see their taxes increase, only the reality is they don't earn much at all and don't pay the taxes they owe.
 
yet they don't


your attempts to avoid the point are rather amusing

those who "support" higher taxes do so to gain in other areas. why have so many members of the Obama administration been accused of not paying taxes when their lord campaigned on sticking it to the rich?

I haven't avoided the point, I've explained the flaws in your arguments.

Your main argument is: If they wanted to pay more money, they would donate to the IRS.

This is a faulty argument because: 1. It's less about giving extra money and more about taking more of the burden off of the lower classes. 2. As CC pointed out, it's less about wanting to give and more about not having a problem with giving more.

This is not avoidance at all. This is directly addressing your argument.
 
Obama job creation-Employment Numbers from bls.gov

Jan 2009 142221
Jan 2010 138333
Mar 2011 139864

Jobs Lost 2.3 million jobs lost and all that money wasted yet Obama wants another four years and has your vote. Says a lot about the Obama supporter
Well that certainly isn't where you got your info that Bush created 6.5 million jobs. It can't be because bls.gov doesn't say that. So where did you get your information from?
 
What selective reading comprehension you have as I believe the culprit is Sheik who has BDS

Nope. Happened long before Sheik even posted on this thread. Here is the post that started the discussion on the economy under Obama:

Prove it, even some of those in the works are promises broken. How does the economy FEEL to you? He was hired to "fix" the economy. Do you think 15 million unemployed Americans and 4 trillion in debt in two plus years is fixing the economy?

Nothing about his candidacy.
 
Then we have Conservatives like Joe the Plumber (whose name wasn't Joe and whose occupation wasn't plumbing, but anyhoo) who pretend like their taxes are going up because he feared taxes on individuals earning $200K+ would see their taxes increase, only the reality is they don't earn much at all and don't pay the taxes they owe.


not relevant

sham wow wanted to jack up taxes on those who already pay far more than their share of the national income

it was pandering for votes and he is a dishonest asshole for claiming that the Rich (ie anyone making over 250K a year) weren't paying their fair share

the bottom 47% don't pay ANY income tax and obviously no death tax-can you honestly say they use NOTHING paid for by the taxes they do not contribute to?
 
I know... I'm just laying the groundwork to demonstrate the hypocrisy of some folks here. Not suprisingly, most are no longer biting. I think they know their hypocrisy has been exposed and they don't want to make it worse by discussing it further.

I am not on the right but will take your bait. My sense is that when you have a majority in the house, a veto proof senate then the President gets what he wants. Now in the HC debate he may not have gotten exactly what he wanted, but much of it. Not sure why they did not go for it before the Mass. senate race, probably because they thought they could not lose in that state.
 
15 million Americans will disagree with you and that is more unemployed than when Obama took office. Wonder if they care about the number that Bush had unemployed since it was less than Obama?

Firstly, I never said any different, so I have no idea why you would mention this. Secondly, where is that link/data that we have been asking for?
 
I haven't avoided the point, I've explained the flaws in your arguments.

Your main argument is: If they wanted to pay more money, they would donate to the IRS.

This is a faulty argument because: 1. It's less about giving extra money and more about taking more of the burden off of the lower classes. 2. As CC pointed out, it's less about wanting to give and more about not having a problem with giving more.

This is not avoidance at all. This is directly addressing your argument.


more nonsense

if rich dems really thought they should pay more taxes (vs publicly mouthing that crap in order to advance dem election success)
they would be sending more in. there is a deficit-the uber wealthy dems could help pay that down
 
Nope. Happened long before Sheik even posted on this thread. Here is the post that started the discussion on the economy under Obama:



Nothing about his candidacy.

Your kidding, right? His record is about his candidacy as that is what he has to defend.
 
Firstly, I never said any different, so I have no idea why you would mention this. Secondly, where is that link/data that we have been asking for?

My response was to the Reagan reference of whether or not you are better off than you were four years ago. Since there are more unemployed today than when Obama took office the answer for those people would be worse off and when you go to U-6 it is much worse than that. With a growing population net job losses don't bode well for incumbents.
 
I am not on the right but will take your bait. My sense is that when you have a majority in the house, a veto proof senate then the President gets what he wants. Now in the HC debate he may not have gotten exactly what he wanted, but much of it. Not sure why they did not go for it before the Mass. senate race, probably because they thought they could not lose in that state.

I agree with this for the most part, however, this was not really the point that I am trying to extrapolate. Thanks for responding, logically, though.
 
My response was to the Reagan reference of whether or not you are better off than you were four years ago. Since there are more unemployed today than when Obama took office the answer for those people would be worse off and when you go to U-6 it is much worse than that. With a growing population net job losses don't bode well for incumbents.

My point about the Reagan quote was to demonstrate why it is important to show comparisons. Reagan ran both in 1980 and 1984 on comparisons, the first to the Carter years, the second to his own adminstrations. Comparisons are valid. That was my only point.

And where are those links/data for the Bush employment numbers?
 
I agree with this for the most part, however, this was not really the point that I am trying to extrapolate. Thanks for responding, logically, though.

I think this is why many democrats are so dissapointed with Obama. I guess he feels they have no where else to go so he has those votes locked up anyway. The only way to really fix HC was a single payor system. Anything else is just papering over holes in the wall.
 
sham wow plans on running against Bush again

Yep, and he will get the brainwashed voting for him again. I keep wondering when the guy who loves being President will actually act like the President instead of someone selling Sham Wow. No leadership at all but then he had a resume that lacked leadership skills so we are getting what some elected.
 
Actually Conservative is the one who first took the thread off topic.
That happened on another thread too and when he was losing the debate, he began crying about how I was off-topic -- even though he took the forum off topic.
 
more nonsense

if rich dems really thought they should pay more taxes (vs publicly mouthing that crap in order to advance dem election success)
they would be sending more in. there is a deficit-the uber wealthy dems could help pay that down

Actually, he is right on target. I hate debating taxes with you because this is the one area that you are completely unable to see logic and reason. For example, here you are making a straw man argument. No one said that rich dems WANT to pay more taxes. People said that some who are wealthy, many who are dems, are OK with paying a higher amount of taxes for services. You are arguing against a position that does not exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom