• 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 to call for middle class tax cut extension

What the hell is Obama doing calling for a tax cut in the middle of a recession. :lol:

Lets see now - the mantra of the right is expressed above. And in good economic times the mantra changes to "everything is going well - lets not mess this up with a tax increase."

So you got it covered on both ends.

And we still have a nearly 16 trillion dollar debt to pay off. Perhaps your grandchildren and children will thank you.
 
Few important distinctions to make, You have absolutely no way of knowing said individuals educational background or area of expertise, secondly what "great expense to the taxpayer?" Has there been an increase in the tax burden on the average American over the past few years in response to the usage of publicly funded collegiate entities?

Vague mutterings per usual.
Since the one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama nationalized the student loan industry the taxpayer is on the hook for more than a trillion dollars in student loans. The default rates for student loans has always been very high.

Taxpayers are on the hook to fund government schools. Is it different in your state?

If you are an engineer, say a mechanical or electrical, or a physicist, mathematician or anyone who knows how to solve problems, you are likely employed. If you got a worthless degree in mass communications, 18th century English literature or some other soft and squishy degree chance are you don't have a job.
 
Surprising how many keep falling over and over again for the same policies, as offered by Romney, tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation, like it is somehow going to magically produce different results than it has for the last decade.
Cat, it seems to me that you believe all wealth belongs to the government. That explains why you believe that someone keeping their wealth is a bad thing. It seems to me that you are a statist. You seem to believe that the government is essential and the people exist to support the government.

The one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama's policies have resulted in enormous pain and misery for millions of people. His policies have damaged the private sector and we do not need him. The Marxist has never been successful at creating wealth. He consumes wealth.

We could use a leader who has demonstrated success over a long period of time. Given the choices between the one term Marxist and a successful businessman the choice is obvious. If you are a taker, one who believes in plunder, who believes that theft by government action is preferable to having a job and being a wealth maker, then you will vote for the one term Marxist.

Otherwise you will vote for Romney.
 
So if I vote for Obama he will send me your trust fund payments?

You are going to vote for Obama even if he was convicted of a crime similar to the Aurora massacre. There is no doubt that obama's main argument is

VOTE FOR ME AND I WILL TAKE STUFF AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE SMARTER AND MORE INDUSTRIOUS THAN YOU ARE

and his appeal to rich elitists is


VOTE FOR ME AND I WILL GIVE YOU ACCESS TO THE WEALTH OF OTHERS
 
Cat, it seems to me that you believe all wealth belongs to the government.

Is that how you saw the 1990s, one of the best economies in our history?
 
The one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama's policies have resulted in enormous pain and misery for millions of people. His policies have damaged the private sector and we do not need him. The Marxist has never been successful at creating wealth. He consumes wealth.
.

"One term Marxist"- FALSE, Obama is neither Marxist or a one term president
Call him President Obama
Go ahead tell us his "policies".
Also tell us all that has been failed to be enacted thanks to the party of NO-paraphrase-"our #1 goal is for Obama to be a one term president." Notice it does not say help the american people
Tell me how Romney's appeal of Robomney care will help americans
Tell me how Cutting taxes on the rich will somehow spur the economy rather than just add to their saving accounts
Tell me how Expanding the military will lower our debt
Go ahead, tell me?
 
Last edited:
You are going to vote for Obama even if he was convicted of a crime similar to the Aurora massacre.

ever the voice of calm and rational reason I see?
 
Is that how you saw the 1990s, one of the best economies in our history?

i saw the 1990's as the most deregulated era of american history,clinton backed it,rubin fought for it,and greenspan threw in a dash of lowered interest rates.
 
Is that how you saw the 1990s, one of the best economies in our history?
Explain please.

How much wealth did the government consume then? Was it less than one-fifth of the total annual wealth creation of the nation? And what is it today? One-quarter?

Imagine how much better we could do if the government restrained itself to performing only those tasks that are Constitutional? We could probably get by with taking about a tenth from the makers.
 
Explain please.

How much wealth did the government consume then? Was it less than one-fifth of the total annual wealth creation of the nation? And what is it today? One-quarter?

Imagine how much better we could do if the government restrained itself to performing only those tasks that are Constitutional? We could probably get by with taking about a tenth from the makers.

You think Romney is going to do something viable about this?
 
"One term Marxist"- FALSE, Obama is neither Marxist or a one term president
For the purists: he spent his formative years influenced by Marxists, Communists, socialists, progressives, radicals, terrorists, and liberals. He grew up in Muslim Indonesia. His ideas are foreign to American ideals. he is a collectivist, a "Mastermind" who, although he has no accomplishments in the private sector, believes he knows how to solve every problem through greater government action. Think of "Marxist" as a shortcut.

Call him President Obama

I do. One term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama.
Go ahead tell us his "policies".
Where should I begin? He nationalized the student loan program. He tossed out bankruptcy laws so his supporters in the auto unions were protected and enriched at taxpayer's and bond holder's expense. In essence he has nationalized about two-thirds of the American auto industry.
He pushed through, despite American opposition, legislation that will result in a takeover of the American Health Care industry. In my opinion when Roberts, the traitor, sided with the Collectivists, he determined when the American experiment in liberty and freedom will end.
Unfortunately I could go on for pages and pages. In essence the one term Marxist is using regulatory agencies to strip Americans of their property and eventually of their right to life.
Also tell us all that has been failed to be enacted thanks to the party of NO-paraphrase-"our #1 goal is for Obama to be a one term president."
That is an admirable goal. It is a shame that the Russians did not have that goal with Lenin, nor with Stalin. Despite the very reasonable opposition to the flexible president he spent two years in complete control of all of the instruments of federal power. He is a failure. He must be slowed, stopped, defeated, and relegated to the ash heap of history along side other would be tyrants.

Notice it does not say help the american people
Americans will be on the path to winning the day after the next election once the Marxist has been defeated.

Tell me how Romney's appeal of Robomney care will help americans
This statement is nonsensical. I cannot answer you while it is in its present form.

Tell me how Cutting taxes on the rich will somehow spur the economy rather than just add to their saving accounts
Who is proposing cutting taxes on the rich? What I have heard is a plan to lower everybody's tax rates by 20%. Granted about half of the population does not pay the federal income tax. They don't pay so they won't see a cut in their tax rates.

When we step away from the Marxist formulations of punishing success through confiscatory taxes, when we stop allowing untouchable regulatory agencies from stripping Americans of their right to property, when we step away from fascistic-environmentalism that is bankrupting the coal industry and increasing energy costs for all of us, when we return the presidency to the control of adults, then Americans will once again have the means to pursue happiness.

Tell me how Expanding the military will lower our debt
Go ahead, tell me?
I am not surprised that you chose one of the few constitutional requirements for cutting. The kinds of cuts the Obama regime has set into motion are always dangerous to the nation. They promote a weak foreign policy, encourage our enemies and dispirit our friends. Those conditions pave the way to wars.
 
You think Romney is going to do something viable about this?

and you think President Obama will?

The federal govt. (President and Congress) do not live within reasonalbe income limits. They continue to spend way more than they take in. Until they show spending constraint and a balance budget. Why give them more money?
 
and you think President Obama will?

The federal govt. (President and Congress) do not live within reasonalbe income limits. They continue to spend way more than they take in. Until they show spending constraint and a balance budget. Why give them more money?

The budget will not / can not be balanced for years.... even the most optimistic view of the Paul Ryan budget has us 5 years away from balance....
 
The budget will not / can not be balanced for years.... even the most optimistic view of the Paul Ryan budget has us 5 years away from balance....

Disagree, we could have a balanced budget for next fiscal year. Politicians refuse to do it. That is like saying it will take years for a private person to have a balanced budget. Many of us do live that way. It is known as living within your means.

Now paying off the national debt will take years. To continue to add to it each year is just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
Disagree, we could have a balanced budget for next fiscal year. Politicians refuse to do it.
Now paying off the debt will take years.
Only if you want to flush the economy. What you're proposing would make the Great Depression look like a boom decade.
 
Only if you want to flush the economy. What you're proposing would make the Great Depression look like a boom decade.

So a balanced budget would reck the economy? Thought Clinton had a balanced budget and the economy was not flushed.
Explain why you think so.
 
So a balanced budget would reck the economy? Thought Clinton had a balanced budget and the economy was not flushed.
Explain why you think so.
And he took all eight years getting there.
 
Only if you want to flush the economy. What you're proposing would make the Great Depression look like a boom decade.

Ok, lets go for it. If we continue supporting Liberal Policies, we are heading that way anyways, so lets get it done and over with. If that is what it takes to finally break people of the entitlement habit and rid us of all these socialistic policies and bs, I say go for it. In the end, we will be stronger and better for it.
 
And he took all eight years getting there.

ok, I won't change my mind but we can take a few years to balance the budget.
Now what has been the trend the last 4,8,12 years by Congress? Not balanced was it. Not a surplus. So when do you think our leaders will begin? Next year, two years from now?

We in the US still have a spending problem. It would be good to see some tax reform to help on the revenue side. Yet, there is so much wastefull spending, duplicate programs, that the Feds need to overhaul before asking for more money.
 
ok, I won't change my mind but we can take a few years to balance the budget.
Now what has been the trend the last 4,8,12 years by Congress? Not balanced was it. Not a surplus. So when do you think our leaders will begin? Next year, two years from now?

We in the US still have a spending problem. It would be good to see some tax reform to help on the revenue side. Yet, there is so much wastefull spending, duplicate programs, that the Feds need to overhaul before asking for more money.

They will begin it when someone takes their credit cards away and no one will give them more credit. Until then, Congress, especially dems will continue with debt spending to get the money for the programs they need to buy their offices.
 
Ok, lets go for it. If we continue supporting Liberal Policies, we are heading that way anyways, so lets get it done and over with. If that is what it takes to finally break people of the entitlement habit and rid us of all these socialistic policies and bs, I say go for it. In the end, we will be stronger and better for it.
Much of the "liberal policies" you're talking about are damage control for a failed conservative trying to fight a two-front war while lowering taxes. If you've got a problem you should fix that conservative attitude first before blaming all your problems on someone else.


As for letting it fail - that was the opinion of some people three years ago when the economy crashed. Europe took that route and reduced government spending and look at the backlash it got them. We made the right call including balling out the banks, much as I hated that decision.
 
Last edited:
ok, I won't change my mind but we can take a few years to balance the budget.
Which is exactly what the post you responded to said:
The budget will not / can not be balanced for years.... even the most optimistic view of the Paul Ryan budget has us 5 years away from balance....
:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Much of the "liberal policies" you're talking about are damage control for a failed conservative trying to fight a two-front war while lowering taxes. If you've got a problem you should fix that conservative attitude first before blaming all your problems on someone else.


As for letting it fail - that was the opinion of some people three years ago when the economy crashed. Europe took that route and reduced government spending and look at the backlash it got them. We made the right call including balling out the banks, much as I hated that decision.

You ignore reality with the bank "bailouts" for the mortgage mess, when not considering the only REAL alternmative which was that the banks would have legally USED the Freddie and Fannie backed mortgage "insurance" costing up to $5 TRILLION in tax money. The gov't PRETENDED to be bailing out the "private" banks but, in reality, was simply avoiding paying MANY TIMES more in gov't backed motgage insurance claims.

97% of All U.S. Mortgages are Backed by the Government | The Big Picture

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12032/12-23-fanniefreddie.pdf
 
You ignore reality with the bank "bailouts" for the mortgage mess, when not considering the only REAL alternmative which was that the banks would have legally USED the Freddie and Fannie backed mortgage "insurance" costing up to $5 TRILLION in tax money. The gov't PRETENDED to be bailing out the "private" banks but, in reality, was simply avoiding paying MANY TIMES more in gov't backed motgage insurance claims.

97% of All U.S. Mortgages are Backed by the Government | The Big Picture

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12032/12-23-fanniefreddie.pdf
Lacking an implicit federal guarantee, private-label issuers could not compete effectively with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for conforming mortgages. Instead, they concentrated on nonconforming mortgages—loans that generally were not eligible for guarantees by the GSEs because they were too large (jumbo mortgages) or too risky (Alt-A or subprime mortgages). By 1997, private-label securities accounted for nearly 25 percent of new MBSs issued, and by their peak, in 2005 and 2006, they made up 55 percent of new issues (see Figure 1-2).
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12032/12-23-fanniefreddie.pdf

The banks have only themselves to blame on the bubble and the poor securities they generated.
 
Last edited:
Much of the "liberal policies" you're talking about are damage control for a failed conservative trying to fight a two-front war while lowering taxes. If you've got a problem you should fix that conservative attitude first before blaming all your problems on someone else.


As for letting it fail - that was the opinion of some people three years ago when the economy crashed. Europe took that route and reduced government spending and look at the backlash it got them. We made the right call including balling out the banks, much as I hated that decision.

I am not so short sighted that I was referring to the current administration. No, policies like welfare go back to the 1960s and have their roots in the 1930s. Our failing approach to education also didn't just start, it has been going on for decades. The governments assault upon the healthcare system started somewhere around the 1970s. The policies that caused the housing bubble and failure of that bubble go back to the 1990s. Enviromental policies that have cost us jobs and industry go back to the 1960s and labor laws go back even further. Debt spending except during time of declared war goes back also to around the 1960s. Basing the economy on credit spending does have it's start during the 1980s or earlier but didn't really become common place until the 1990s. The whole economic "boom" under Clinton was based upon credit spending, not real income/spending and eventually, it had to crash.

Not doing the bailouts would of crashed the credit industry, not that we are currently experiencing is that far off of the whole house of cards coming down. Millions of Americans were hurt anyways, but if we allowed collapse, at least those running industry and scalping people with credit would of felt far more effects from it. By trying to rebuild the economy with credit spending, we are just rebuilding the same house of cards so it can callapse on us again in the future. Total crash of the credit industry would of forced people into real spending based upon what they actually had at the time, a much firmer foundation than credit.
 
Back
Top Bottom