• 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!

Bachmann Outraged Over Made Up Cost Of Obama's India Trip (VIDEO)

randel said:
your still diverting....not the question that was asked...i don't give a crap about your childhood, or that you switched sides or any of the other blather...what exactly is wrong with what he put forward...i don't want your feelings on the man, i don't care that you think he is a socialist....what about the cuts he proposed? what is wrong with them? shouldnt we as a country support certain initiatives? that is the question
Click to expand...

Here is how you cut taxes, what Obama did accomplished nothing as the results show. Tax cuts actually put more money into the hands of the taxpayer. Obama's tax cuts were one time payments that once gone remain gone .

"A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy
 
Conservative said:
Here is how you cut taxes, what Obama did accomplished nothing as the results show. Tax cuts actually put more money into the hands of the taxpayer. Obama's tax cuts were one time payments that once gone remain gone .

"A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy
Click to expand...
don't care what JFK said...i asked a question of you conservative, not a President from years past. so, you don't have a valid argument to forward, that is what i'm getting from you.
 
randel said:
don't care what JFK said...i asked a question of you conservative, not a President from years past. so, you don't have a valid argument to forward, that is what i'm getting from you.
Click to expand...

The questions were answered, the so called tax cuts offered by Obama were nothing more than a transfer of wealth from someone else and not a reduction in taxes anyone pays. There was no more spendable income in anyone's paycheck. People that bought homes got a reduction in the price of those homes but don't have any more take home pay to make the monthly payments. You don't seem to have a clue as to what a tax cut really is. No wonder Ohio switched parties on Tuesday.
 
Conservative said:
The questions were answered, the so called tax cuts offered by Obama were nothing more than a transfer of wealth from someone else and not a reduction in taxes anyone pays. There was no more spendable income in anyone's paycheck. People that bought homes got a reduction in the price of those homes but don't have any more take home pay to make the monthly payments. You don't seem to have a clue as to what a tax cut really is. No wonder Ohio switched parties on Tuesday.
Click to expand...
lol..yep, you ducked and dodged on giving an answer, and still only half ass answer the question....apparently you don't know as much about economics as you think you do. when cornered, dig out the insult playbook...gotcha
 
Conservative said:
I have no problem giving aid for education but don't call it a tax cut and tout it as a benefit to the economy. It is a transfer of payments to those who pay taxes to those that may or may not. Bush gave a real tax cut, not targeted ones that require a certain activity.
Click to expand...
Getting back to the subject of the OP, can you explain why Rep. Michelle Bachmann got it so wrong? Is she incapable of logic, just plain stupid or was she just trying to put President Obama in a bad light? $200 million per day for a trip? It's hard that anyone would believe that crap; I wonder if she buys and reads the supermarket checkout tabloids as well?
 
randel said:
lol..yep, you ducked and dodged on giving an answer, and still only half ass answer the question....apparently you don't know as much about economics as you think you do. when cornered, dig out the insult playbook...gotcha
Click to expand...

LOL, thanks for playing and showing anyone else here who is reading your posts just how confused you really are. Obama gave tax credits to people that don't pay any taxes so where did that money come from? In order to qualify for a home owner credit, you had to be a first time home owner and then have to continue making the payments with no more take home pay because there was no tax cut. I could go through each item of the Obama so called tax cuts and make you look more foolish than you do but it really would be a waste of time. One of these days you will realize what a fool the Democrats have made of you. That lightbulb will go off, it always does.
 
pbrauer said:
Getting back to the subject of the OP, can you explain why Rep. Michelle Bachmann got it so wrong? Is she incapable of logic, just plain stupid or was she just trying to put President Obama in a bad light? $200 million per day for a trip? It's hard that anyone would believe that crap; I wonder if she buys and reads the supermarket checkout tabloids as well?
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask Bachmann? In the meantime can you explain why this President was told to stop spending and still took a trip to India to see the Festival of Lights? Bet those 16 million unemployed Americans would have loved to have some of the money that they spent on this trip. By the way how much is this trip costing? You seem to know so tell us?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, thanks for playing and showing anyone else here who is reading your posts just how confused you really are. Obama gave tax credits to people that don't pay any taxes so where did that money come from? In order to qualify for a home owner credit, you had to be a first time home owner and then have to continue making the payments with no more take home pay because there was no tax cut. I could go through each item of the Obama so called tax cuts and make you look more foolish than you do but it really would be a waste of time. One of these days you will realize what a fool the Democrats have made of you. That lightbulb will go off, it always does.
Click to expand...
lol...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...............................i somehow doubt you have the ability to make anyone look foolish....
 
Conservative said:
Why don't you ask Bachmann? In the meantime can you explain why this President was told to stop spending and still took a trip to India to see the Festival of Lights? Bet those 16 million unemployed Americans would have loved to have some of the money that they spent on this trip. By the way how much is this trip costing? You seem to know so tell us?
Click to expand...
I was asking you, conservative. What is you opinion on the matter.
 
pbrauer said:
I was asking you, conservative. What is you opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the numbers are way too high but who really knows since this Administration who promised transparency has been anything but. Where is your outrage?
 
Conservative said:
Sounds like the numbers are way too high but who really knows since this Administration who promised transparency has been anything but. Where is your outrage?
Click to expand...
I'll play your little game, and ask you which president has delivered on all his promises and which president has had transparency? How about those secret meetings Cheney had with oil and gas executives? Where is the outrage?
 
pbrauer said:
I'll play your little game, and ask you which president has delivered on all his promises and which president has had transparency? How about those secret meetings Cheney had with oil and gas executives? Where is the outrage?
Click to expand...

I don't recall Bush running on that platform but I do recall that Cheney wasn't President. Keep playing your little game and attempt to defend the indefensible. It really is hard for you to admit first that you don't understand civics, don't understand our economy, and certainly don't understand how you are being made a fool of by today's Democrat Party. Results matter and instead of addressing the Obama results you divert to Bush. Bush isn't in the WH and by all standards the Obama economy is one of the worst in history and actually makes Bush look pretty good.
 
Conservative said:
It really is hard for you to admit first that you don't understand civics, don't understand our economy, and certainly don't understand how you are being made a fool of by today's Democrat Party.
Click to expand...
You have an opinion, so ****ing what? I couldn't give a **** less conservative. And there is no such thing as the Democrat Party any more than there is a Republic Party.
 
Conservative said:
No, Bush wasn't, Obama took office in January 2009, Bush couldn't have created a trillion dollar deficit from November 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009.
Click to expand...

Hypocrite. You yourself have contradicted this comment before... but then you were slamming Clinton and again defending Bush.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...reme-out-touch-reality-22.html#post1058954005

Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
Click to expand...

Obama took over in January 2009, in mid budget year put in place by Bush. Any debt/deficit from said budget is Bush's fault, not Obama. You can not have it both ways.
 
PeteEU said:
Hypocrite. You yourself have contradicted this comment before... but then you were slamming Clinton and again defending Bush.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...reme-out-touch-reality-22.html#post1058954005


Obama took over in January 2009, in mid budget year put in place by Bush. Any debt/deficit from said budget is Bush's fault, not Obama. You can not have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Budgets are in place but budgets don't have to be spent. There was no 1.3 trillion dollar deficit proposed in the 2009 Budget. Bush didn't bailout out GM/Chrysler, Bush didn't sign the 800+ billion dollar stimulus, Bush didn't prevent the repayment of TARP from reducting the deficit. I thought you were smarter than this. Deficits are yearly, not cummulative and there is no way that Obama inherited the deficit he claimed because he helped create it.
 
PeteEU said:
Hypocrite. You yourself have contradicted this comment before... but then you were slamming Clinton and again defending Bush.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...reme-out-touch-reality-22.html#post1058954005



Obama took over in January 2009, in mid budget year put in place by Bush. Any debt/deficit from said budget is Bush's fault, not Obama. You can not have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Much of the dept was caused by the deep recession that began under President Bush and that continues to be a problem while we climb out of the recession. Yeah, the recession offically ended, but the jobless still exists. The stimulus actually saved millions of jobs and without we would have been in a full fledged depression caused by the fat cats on Wall Street and President Bush looking the other way.
 
pbrauer said:
Much of the dept was caused by the deep recession that began under President Bush and that continues to be a problem while we climb out of the recession. Yeah, the recession offically ended, but the jobless still exists. The stimulus actually saved millions of jobs and without we would have been in a full fledged depression caused by the fat cats on Wall Street and President Bush looking the other way.
Click to expand...

According to NBER the recession ended in June 2009 and there is no question that the policies of Obama are not making things better thus the drubbing he took on Tuesday. You claim the stimulus "saved" jobs but there is no way to substantiate that and the majority of the voters rejected that claim. I am confident that you took a civics class in school so go back to your civics class and remember what role Congress plays in the legislative process. The ones that looked the other way were the democrats as they were more interested in regaining the WH than keeping the economy out of recession. They had total control of Congress from January 2007 yet you blame Bush, interesting.
 
Conservative said:
According to NBER the recession ended in June 2009 and there is no question that the policies of Obama are not making things better thus the drubbing he took on Tuesday. You claim the stimulus "saved" jobs but there is no way to substantiate that and the majority of the voters rejected that claim. I am confident that you took a civics class in school so go back to your civics class and remember what role Congress plays in the legislative process. The ones that looked the other way were the democrats as they were more interested in regaining the WH than keeping the economy out of recession. They had total control of Congress from January 2007 yet you blame Bush, interesting.
Click to expand...

That is questionable actually. Most likely the stimulus package did save and create jobs(almost certainly in fact), and things quite probably would have been worse without it.
 
Redress said:
That is questionable actually. Most likely the stimulus package did save and create jobs(almost certainly in fact), and things quite probably would have been worse without it.
Click to expand...

The stimulus package was for "shovel ready" projects, not bailout out teachers which is a state responsibility. There is no measurement of saved jobs because it cannot be proven. There is no evidence that the states wouldn't have saved those jobs instead of requiring a Federal bailout. That is just liberal spin that you continue to buy.
 
Conservative said:
The stimulus package was for "shovel ready" projects, not bailout out teachers which is a state responsibility. There is no measurement of saved jobs because it cannot be proven. There is no evidence that the states wouldn't have saved those jobs instead of requiring a Federal bailout. That is just liberal spin that you continue to buy.
Click to expand...

But I thought the President said there WERE no shovel ready projects after all...
 
Redress said:
That is questionable actually. Most likely the stimulus package did save and create jobs(almost certainly in fact), and things quite probably would have been worse without it.
Click to expand...
Exactly! In fact Think Progress has pointed out several cases where GOP congressmen have touted that stimulus has create jobs in their state/district.
 
Whovian said:
But I thought the President said there WERE no shovel ready projects after all...
Click to expand...

This President has yet to tell the truth on any issue so not surprising that we have the results we have. The Obama brainwashed refuse to see what a fool he has made of them.
 
Conservative said:
The stimulus package was for "shovel ready" projects, not bailout out teachers which is a state responsibility. There is no measurement of saved jobs because it cannot be proven. There is no evidence that the states wouldn't have saved those jobs instead of requiring a Federal bailout. That is just liberal spin that you continue to buy.
Click to expand...

I think I must have confused you with phrases like "most likely" and "quite probably". You also seem confused in that you think what you just said disproved anything I said. The effectiveness of the stimulus is questionable, and it is questionable whether we would be better off without Obama's efforts on behalf of the economy. You claimed it was not, and yet offered zero evidence to back it up. I simply pointed out that your claim that there was "no question" was in fact false.
 
pbrauer said:
Exactly! In fact Think Progress has pointed out several cases where GOP congressmen have touted that stimulus has create jobs in their state/district.
Click to expand...

What the Federal Govt. did was circumvent state responsibility which is what they continue to do. You bought that as a good thing? With all that good being done why did 682 state legislators change hands in Tuesday's elections? Seems that only the diehard Obama supporters see the stimulus results as positive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom