• 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!

Poll: 71% shun GOP handling of debt crisis

Um, President didn't create all that debt, much of it is due to the lost jobs (and tax revenue) that started in the Bush administration.

Oh you mean the job loss that continued to grow under him, even with the stimulus spending? And the tax revenue that he and a democratic controlled congress and senate extended ?? Is that what you mean?
 
As have the majority of Democrats, unlike the majority of Republicans. :sun

chuckles .... well it seems she is only concerned with her own ... remember the raise in min. wage .... seems she didn't like that for people in her area ...

January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.

Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an 'economic development credit in American Samoa '.
 
chuckles .... well it seems she is only concerned with her own ... remember the raise in min. wage .... seems she didn't like that for people in her area ...

January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.

Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an 'economic development credit in American Samoa '.

And this proves the majority of Democrats have not voted against continuing tax cuts for the rich how exactly? :sun

If you want to change the discussion to earmarks, you are going to be disappointed as well because there is very little difference in earmark amounts from the two parties.

Btw, why no avatar? Are you keeping the spot blank until my selection for you is made in a few months per our wager?
 
Last edited:
What do you mean? Pelosi has been fighting to raise taxes on the rich including herself for decades. As loud as she possibly can...

Amazing she was ineffective when the Dems controlled both houses. Ever think she says those things because her supporters want to hear it even knowing it will never happen. Politics.
 
Amazing she was ineffective when the Dems controlled both houses. Ever think she says those things because her supporters want to hear it even knowing it will never happen. Politics.

A majority of Democrats opposed the tax cuts for the wealthy while a majority of Republicans supported them. And the American public has become acutely aware of which side is representing the working class and which is side is not. :sun
 
A majority of Democrats opposed the tax cuts for the wealthy while a majority of Republicans supported them. And the American public has become acutely aware of which side is representing the working class and which is side is not. :sun

explain why when the dems where in controll they did not repeal the Bush tax rates?
 
And this proves the majority of Democrats have not voted against continuing tax cuts for the rich how exactly? :sun

If you want to change the discussion to earmarks, you are going to be disappointed as well because there is very little difference in earmark amounts from the two parties.

Btw, why no avatar? Are you keeping the spot blank until my selection for you is made in a few months per our wager?

I'' hit you right back with who was it again that passed the extention of the Bush tax cuts ?? Was it the Democrats that controlled all of government when they passed that ??
 
explain why when the dems where in controll they did not repeal the Bush tax rates?

They hate that question, because they didn't need a single Republican to do that .. there was "NO" vote needed .. those cuts would have ended as per the deadline on them. But the Democrats passed the extention because they wanted to.
 
explain why when the dems where in controll they did not repeal the Bush tax rates?

Because it has become impossible to pass bills in Congress with a simple majority.
 
Still no plan from Obama the Communist Bozo.
 
Still no plan from Obama the Communist Bozo.
ElCid I keep asking you this and you haven't answered so maybe you just can't but I'll ask again: give me specific polices from Obama that show him trying to institute communism.
 
A majority of Democrats opposed the tax cuts for the wealthy while a majority of Republicans supported them. And the American public has become acutely aware of which side is representing the working class and which is side is not. :sun

yep they sure do ... and the American public spoke once again in 2010 .. what do you think they were saying ?
 
Because it has become impossible to pass bills in Congress with a simple majority.

oh man the excuses you use .. . they didn't need to even vote on it .. if they did nothing .. the tax cuts expired .. no vote needed
 
oh man the excuses you use .. . they didn't need to even vote on it .. if they did nothing .. the tax cuts expired .. no vote needed

As usual, I see you are right on top of things:

"Congress approved the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade late Thursday, overcoming liberal resistance to continue for two more years tax breaks enacted under president George W. Bush and to provide a fresh boost of federal support to the tepid economic recovery.

The package, brokered by President Obama and Republican leaders in the wake of the November elections, angered many Democrats, who have long argued that the Bush tax cuts were skewed to benefit the wealthy. But their last-minute campaign to scale back the bill's benefits for taxpayers at the highest income levels failed, and the House passed the measure 277 to 148, with 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting "no."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606672.html

Now, you were saying????
 
I gotta say, it is starting to look more and more likely that the GOP actually will intentionally destroy the economy. It would be unimaginably insane, and even a week ago I would have bet any amount of money that despite their idiotic rhetoric, they were not actually that stupid. But now I'm really not so sure... It is starting to look like they really might do it. The Republican party is in shambles. They appear to be completely incapable of doing their jobs at all. They're mired in this ridiculous infighting between the right wing and the barking-mad-flat-out-too-dumb-for-a-job-with-that-level-of-responsibility ultra right wing and they are no longer even able to put forward an agenda at all. They can't come up with a bill the majority of them support, they can't support anybody else's bill... They are literally a failed party and we are facing the very real danger that in a two party system when one of the parties collapses it can bring the whole system down with it.
 
As usual, I see you are right on top of things:

"Congress approved the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade late Thursday, overcoming liberal resistance to continue for two more years tax breaks enacted under president George W. Bush and to provide a fresh boost of federal support to the tepid economic recovery.

The package, brokered by President Obama and Republican leaders in the wake of the November elections, angered many Democrats, who have long argued that the Bush tax cuts were skewed to benefit the wealthy. But their last-minute campaign to scale back the bill's benefits for taxpayers at the highest income levels failed, and the House passed the measure 277 to 148, with 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting "no."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606672.html

Now, you were saying????

Exactly what I'm still saying .. the democrats controlled the house .. the senate .. and the white house .. nothing at all needed to be done for the Bush tax cuts to expire .. they in fact would have expired .. without a vote .. the vote was to extend them .. not to let them expire ... that would have happened without a vote. Seeing the house, senate, and the white house were controled by Demcorats at the time of the vote .. "they passed the extention" What part of that don't you understand ??

Go back and read your own site reference ... .it's dated Friday, December 17, 2010 ... do you even know who was in power then ?
 
Last edited:
I gotta say, it is starting to look more and more likely that the GOP actually will intentionally destroy the economy. It would be unimaginably insane, and even a week ago I would have bet any amount of money that despite their idiotic rhetoric, they were not actually that stupid. But now I'm really not so sure... It is starting to look like they really might do it. The Republican party is in shambles. They appear to be completely incapable of doing their jobs at all. They're mired in this ridiculous infighting between the right wing and the barking-mad-flat-out-too-dumb-for-a-job-with-that-level-of-responsibility ultra right wing and they are no longer even able to put forward an agenda at all. They can't come up with a bill the majority of them support, they can't support anybody else's bill... They are literally a failed party and we are facing the very real danger that in a two party system when one of the parties collapses it can bring the whole system down with it.

What a total load of crap, the house (controled by the Repubicans) have already passed the cut cap and balance bill, the senate (controlled by the democrats) won't even allow the bill on the floor for discussion. this is just as much democrats as republicans. Show me one bill that has passed from the democrats .... when they put the cut cap and balance bill up for discussion, made admendments and add on eough qualifications to please liberals, and then send that back to the house .... you might have something to tald about .. until them .. both parties are to blame
 
What a total load of crap, the house (controled by the Repubicans) have already passed the cut cap and balance bill, the senate (controlled by the democrats) won't even allow the bill on the floor for discussion. this is just as much democrats as republicans. Show me one bill that has passed from the democrats .... when they put the cut cap and balance bill up for discussion, made admendments and add on eough qualifications to please liberals, and then send that back to the house .... you might have something to tald about .. until them .. both parties are to blame

Cut, cap and balance was obviously just a political stunt. Nobody actually meant for it to become law. It would be a total disaster. Government spending automatically increases in recessions because people go on welfare, etc, and taxes automatically go down because people are making less money. The opposite happens during booms. That has a massive evening out effect on the economy. It moves money from the booms to the busts. Cut, cap and balance would force us to do the opposite- cutting spending during recessions and allowing us to increase it only during booms. Not only would it remove the biggest stabilizing factor in our economy, but it would actually make the economy MORE eratic by forcing the government to exagerate the cycles. It's totally crazy. Virtually no economist in the world supported the idea and many, many, of them opposed it in the most strident way... It would have ruined the country permenantly and everybody knows it. It wasn't ever a serious proposal. They just wanted to score some points with voters for pretending to support it.

Even putting aside the economic devestation it would have brought, a supermajority to close a tax loophole, but not to cut somebody's social security benefits? Written into the constitution itself? That's totally indefensible on any level. Plus there were a ton of little things that were obviously just overlooked. For example, social security has $2 trillion saved up, but the way the bill was written they would not be allowed to touch it. That would bring the much hyped up day when the social security system runs out of money up 40 some years for no reason... They didn't intentionally do that, the just didn't bother working out the details because they knew it would never actually become law.
 
Exactly what I'm still saying .. the democrats controlled the house .. the senate .. and the white house .. nothing at all needed to be done for the Bush tax cuts to expire .. they in fact would have expired .. without a vote .. the vote was to extend them .. not to let them expire ... that would have happened without a vote. Seeing the house, senate, and the white house were controled by Demcorats at the time of the vote .. "they passed the extention" What part of that don't you understand ??

Go back and read your own site reference ... .it's dated Friday, December 17, 2010 ... do you even know who was in power then ?

The point I was making Barbarian, is way more Democrats than Republicans then and now, oppose the tax cuts for the wealthy. That is the platform each will be running on in 2012.

Now continue your spin that was already in progress. :sun
 
The point I was making Barbarian, is way more Democrats than Republicans then and now, oppose the tax cuts for the wealthy. That is the platform each will be running on in 2012.

Now continue your spin that was already in progress. :sun

and they could have let that tax cut for the wealthy just expire .... and didn't .. . going to be hard to run on a platform of higher taxes on the rich .. when you wrote the bill that extended those same tax cuts because in december of 2010 .. .republicans could "not" write a bill ... only the democrats could do that .. ..... the 2012 elections .. I predict you lose the senate .... not because of policy of either side ... its just sheer numbers ... democrats have twice as many seats up for re-election as do republicans
 
Cut, cap and balance was obviously just a political stunt. Nobody actually meant for it to become law. It would be a total disaster. Government spending automatically increases in recessions because people go on welfare, etc, and taxes automatically go down because people are making less money. The opposite happens during booms. That has a massive evening out effect on the economy. It moves money from the booms to the busts. Cut, cap and balance would force us to do the opposite- cutting spending during recessions and allowing us to increase it only during booms. Not only would it remove the biggest stabilizing factor in our economy, but it would actually make the economy MORE eratic by forcing the government to exagerate the cycles. It's totally crazy. Virtually no economist in the world supported the idea and many, many, of them opposed it in the most strident way... It would have ruined the country permenantly and everybody knows it. It wasn't ever a serious proposal. They just wanted to score some points with voters for pretending to support it.

Even putting aside the economic devestation it would have brought, a supermajority to close a tax loophole, but not to cut somebody's social security benefits? Written into the constitution itself? That's totally indefensible on any level. Plus there were a ton of little things that were obviously just overlooked. For example, social security has $2 trillion saved up, but the way the bill was written they would not be allowed to touch it. That would bring the much hyped up day when the social security system runs out of money up 40 some years for no reason... They didn't intentionally do that, the just didn't bother working out the details because they knew it would never actually become law.

Fine ... then put the only bill that has been passed by either house ... on the floor ... and fix it .. then send it back to the house .. if it's turned down .. then you have a talking point, right now .. there isn't another plan out that .. that either side can get enough votes to even think about passing. Parden me for thinking .. that when you have but one plan out there, that it shouldn't be tossed to the side without discussion . ..... I don't see how the democrats refusal to even open the floor for discussion about this bill ... is any different then republicans refusal to even discuss any bill presented by democrats

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just blaming democrats, I'm blaming the last 20 years of politics that have gotten us to this point ... where quite frankly ... we just don't have the money to spend anymore
 
and they could have let that tax cut for the wealthy just expire .... and didn't .. . going to be hard to run on a platform of higher taxes on the rich .. when you wrote the bill that extended those same tax cuts because in december of 2010 .. .republicans could "not" write a bill ... only the democrats could do that .. ..... the 2012 elections .. I predict you lose the senate .... not because of policy of either side ... its just sheer numbers ... democrats have twice as many seats up for re-election as do republicans


But what you keep missing is that a majority of Dems voted against the tax cuts for the rich, while a majority of Reps voted for and continue to vote for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of our seniors.

The majority of the country is clearly saying stop the tax breaks for the rich and GOP continue to ignore it at their peril. So continue on brave soldier in defense of the tax cuts for the rich on the backs of our seniors! :sun
 
But what you keep missing is that a majority of Dems voted against the tax cuts for the rich, while a majority of Reps voted for and continue to vote for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of our seniors.

The majority of the country is clearly saying stop the tax breaks for the rich and GOP continue to ignore it at their peril. So continue on brave soldier in defense of the tax cuts for the rich on the backs of our seniors! :sun

I'm not continuing on at all ... I was all in favor of letting the tax cuts expire .. . but just so I have this clear in my mind .. according to you, because more democrats voted against a bill that extended the tax cuts, a bill that they themselves wrote .... a bill that if it hadn't been written at all .. and voted on .... would have allowed those tax cuts to expired and caused this tax increase to the rich ...... it's the republicans fault that those tax cuts are still in place ??? Is that your position ?
 
Last edited:
But what you keep missing is that a majority of Dems voted against the tax cuts for the rich, while a majority of Reps voted for and continue to vote for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of our seniors.

The majority of the country is clearly saying stop the tax breaks for the rich and GOP continue to ignore it at their peril. So continue on brave soldier in defense of the tax cuts for the rich on the backs of our seniors! :sun


Oh .. and you …. continue on brave soldier in defense of the wild sprending spree on the backs of our seniors..... their children and grand children and even their great grand children.
 
What I don't understand about the debt crisis right now is this: Why are we having such a fight over the budget ceiling when it was raised 17 times under Reagan, 4 times under Clinton, 5 under Bush. I may have gotten the numbers for Bush and Clinton mixed up, but my point is it has never been this big of an issue in the past. If they are that worried about the national debt, then raise the debt ceiling now, and then let's talk about a way to reduce the debt when we don't have to worry about an financial collapse.
 
Back
Top Bottom