Who is Santorum?

[Conservative]

The president runs the economy? Is "conservative" a synonym for "socialist"?

This President with total control of the Congress ran the govt. in 2009-2010 and today still controls the do nothing Senate. you want to ignore that reality.

Further didn't you claim that Obama cut taxes in the stimulus plan? Want the rest of the story?

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Fallacies Offered By The Left - Forbes

President Obama likes to pretend that a third of his trillion dollar stimulus involved tax cuts too. But those “tax cuts” all involved temporary tax credits which are economically no different from increased government spending. Indeed, a majority of the Obama “tax cuts” were “refundable” income tax credits, which involve sending a government check to people who do not even pay income taxes, economically indistinguishable from increased government spending. That is why even the federal government’s own official beancounters account for such refundable credits in the federal budget as spending rather than tax cuts. Such tax credits do not have the incentive effects of rate cuts explained above

 

[TheNextEra]

Yes I can and should. It is the obama economy, he has had three years to improve it and had a Democrat Congress for the first two of those years. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. That says a lot about you.

A dem congress does not mean that every Dem has or should fall in line with the president on something. No wonder this country is in such shambles because you believe Republicans should blindly support a president just because he is Republican.

Like I said, you and others like you, are out of touch with reality and the common person. Your GOP has successfully associated itself with big business and corporations instead of the American people and they will indeed pay the price come election time.

You buy into the rhetoric that ONE man has all this power when in reality that is not the case and the results show that. That says a lot about you.

 

[Conservative]

A dem congress does not mean that every Dem has or should fall in line with the president on something. No wonder this country is in such shambles because you believe Republicans should blindly support a president just because he is Republican.

Like I said, you and others like you, are out of touch with reality and the common person. Your GOP has successfully associated itself with big business and corporations instead of the American people and they will indeed pay the price come election time.

You buy into the rhetoric that ONE man has all this power when in reality that is not the case and the results show that. That says a lot about you.

What exactly did Obama want that he didn't get with that Democrat Congress that would have helped the economy more?

You really are naive about the role corporations play in the U.S. Economy because you buy what you are told. Get the facts, corporations employ about 1/3 of the labor force meaning 2/3 come from small businesses. You further ignore that many of those corporations are small businesses and that most corporations large and small support their local communities and charities. Your hatred of corporations is based upon what you have read not facts.

 

[Dittohead not!]

This President with total control of the Congress ran the govt. in 2009-2010 and today still controls the do nothing Senate. you want to ignore that reality.

Further didn't you claim that Obama cut taxes in the stimulus plan? Want the rest of the story?

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Fallacies Offered By The Left - Forbes

So, in order to be real, a tax cut has to be permanent.

Weren't the Bush tax cuts also temporary? Maybe that's why we didn't get a booming economy out of it.

As for control of Congress, not all of the Democrats fell into line, exactly, and even if they had, the president and Congress together do not control the economy. This is still a capitalist country. Did you want to change that?

 

[Conservative]

So, in order to be real, a tax cut has to be permanent.

Weren't the Bush tax cuts also temporary? Maybe that's why we didn't get a booming economy out of it.

As for control of Congress, not all of the Democrats fell into line, exactly, and even if they had, the president and Congress together do not control the economy. This is still a capitalist country. Did you want to change that?

No in order for it to be a tax cut it has to go to people who pay Federal income taxes. You seem to not understand that those so called tax cuts were actual rebates or actual checks going to people who don't pay any FIT.

Bush tax cuts put more money into the hands of the taxpayer in each paycheck.

I am still waiting for the program that Obama wanted that he didn't get?

 

[Dittohead not!]

No in order for it to be a tax cut it has to go to people who pay Federal income taxes. You seem to not understand that those so called tax cuts were actual rebates or actual checks going to people who don't pay any FIT.

Bush tax cuts put more money into the hands of the taxpayer in each paycheck.

I am still waiting for the program that Obama wanted that he didn't get?

and yet, anyone who is working pays payroll taxes, and any tax cut/rebate for lower level workers is sure to get spent on consumer goods and food.

Health care reform is the best example of what Obama wanted to accomplish and got a half way, unworkable, non cost cutting sort of hodge podge that is going to have to be revisited soon. He wanted to keep his campaign promise to close Gitmo, and that didn't happen.

I don't think he really wanted to control the economy, but the self described conservatives out there seem to think he and his formerly Democrat controlled Congress do control the economy. Personally, I don't think he wants to control the economy, and am certain that he does not.

 

[Conservative]

and yet, anyone who is working pays payroll taxes, and any tax cut/rebate for lower level workers is sure to get spent on consumer goods and food.

Health care reform is the best example of what Obama wanted to accomplish and got a half way, unworkable, non cost cutting sort of hodge podge that is going to have to be revisited soon. He wanted to keep his campaign promise to close Gitmo, and that didn't happen.

I don't think he really wanted to control the economy, but the self described conservatives out there seem to think he and his formerly Democrat controlled Congress do control the economy. Personally, I don't think he wants to control the economy, and am certain that he does not.

Yes, anyone working pays Payroll taxes which were created to fund SS/Medicare so any cuts in that tax cuts funding for SS and Medicare so how does that repay the trillions in IOU's?

Obamacare is an example of an over reaching Federal Govt. trying to take on personal responsibility issues. That is a state, local, and personal issue, not a Federal issue. You don't pay my state healthcare costs nor should you.

Closing Gitmo has nothing to do with the economy.

Obama is an example of someone in position over his head never having any leadership or management experience. It is typical liberalism to try to create equal outcome instead of equal opportunity. In Obama's world there is no such thing as consequences for failure. Tell me that is the case in the real world?

He may indeed mean well but is doing more harm than good as the economic numbers show. It isn't the role of the Federal govt. to create winners and losers. it isn't the role of the Federal Govt. to create a nanny state. Libertarians don't believe that so you need to change your leanings if you do.

 

[TheNextEra]

Obamacare is an example of an over reaching Federal Govt. trying to take on personal responsibility issues. That is a state, local, and personal issue, not a Federal issue. You don't pay my state healthcare costs nor should you.

But is an example of how Obama didn't get what he wanted and instead got a sub-par system.

Closing Gitmo has nothing to do with the economy.

There's no government cost associated with Gitmo? News to me.

Obama is an example of someone in position over his head never having any leadership or management experience. It is typical liberalism to try to create equal outcome instead of equal opportunity. In Obama's world there is no such thing as consequences for failure. Tell me that is the case in the real world?

Empty rhetoric, especially comparing government to the private sector.

it isn't the role of the Federal Govt. to create a nanny state.

That's hilarious considering that conservatives supported a Federal Ban on flag burning, federal ban on same sex marriage, federal ban on abortions, and constantly like dictating morality to others through the FCC.

Again, empty rhetoric on your part. Conservatives just want to use federal governemnt to dictate things THEY want, but they are not for smaller government. The past GOP presidents have been shown this to be a FACT.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes, anyone working pays Payroll taxes which were created to fund SS/Medicare so any cuts in that tax cuts funding for SS and Medicare so how does that repay the trillions in IOU's?

Payroll taxes have been used to fund everything from wars to welfare. They may have been created to fund SS/medicare, but they turned out to be just another tax. How does cutting that, or any other, tax repay the millions in IOUs? it doesn't, not unless you believe in the free lunch idea that cutting taxes increases revenues.

Obamacare is an example of an over reaching Federal Govt. trying to take on personal responsibility issues. That is a state, local, and personal issue, not a Federal issue. You don't pay my state healthcare costs nor should you.

even if we both live in the same state or community?

Closing Gitmo has nothing to do with the economy.

but it has to do with Obama getting what he wants out of Congress, which was the original question.

Obama is an example of someone in position over his head never having any leadership or management experience.

on that, we agree.

It is typical liberalism to try to create equal outcome instead of equal opportunity.

how does that sentence possibly follow the one preceding it?

In Obama's world there is no such thing as consequences for failure. Tell me that is the case in the real world?

How did you come to that conclusion?

He may indeed mean well but is doing more harm than good as the economic numbers show. It isn't the role of the Federal govt. to create winners and losers. it isn't the role of the Federal Govt. to create a nanny state. Libertarians don't believe that so you need to change your leanings if you do.

I don't believe I've said I support the nanny state, or that I want the government to pick winners and losers. I've consistently said that the government needs to be reined in. I just don't think that cutting taxes is going to magically accomplish smaller government.

I don't believe in magic or in a free lunch.

 

[Conservative]

TheNextEra;1060128555]But is an example of how Obama didn't get what he wanted and instead got a sub-par system.

Which Obama the, the one against the public option or the one for the public option. How does implementing Obamacare create jobs in a private sector economy?

There's no government cost associated with Gitmo? News to me.

A lot of things are news to you, in a 3.8 trillion dollar budget how much does Gitmo cost?

Empty rhetoric, especially comparing government to the private sector.

Empty rhetoric exists only to liberals who buy the Obama rhetoric. Who pays for the govt. sector?

That's hilarious considering that conservatives supported a Federal Ban on flag burning, federal ban on same sex marriage, federal ban on abortions, and constantly like dictating morality to others through the FCC.

Again, empty rhetoric on your part. Conservatives just want to use federal governemnt to dictate things THEY want, but they are not for smaller government. The past GOP presidents have been shown this to be a FACT.

You are all over the board, flag burning now, gay marriage, abortions, dictating the morals of others?

Without a strong military and strong economy none of those issue would be in existence.

 

[Conservative]

Dittohead not!;1060128572]Payroll taxes have been used to fund everything from wars to welfare. They may have been created to fund SS/medicare, but they turned out to be just another tax. How does cutting that, or any other, tax repay the millions in IOUs? it doesn't, not unless you believe in the free lunch idea that cutting taxes increases revenues.

Yes, they have due to the unified budget which has created the problems we have today. SS IOU's exist because the money has been spent and now we don't have the money to repay them. think cutting the payroll taxes is going to repay those IOU's?

even if we both live in the same state or community?

If we live in the same community we pay those expenses. Why is it the Federal taxpayers responsibility to pay for those expenses with the exception of illegal alien expenses since they cannot control the borders?



b

ut it has to do with Obama getting what he wants out of Congress, which was the original question.

That ignores the question I asked which was about the economy

on that, we agree.

the fact that you cannot refute the data I posted shows we agree on more than you are willing to admit

how does that sentence possibly follow the one preceding it?

Think about it and get back to me. I am sure it will come to you

How did you come to that conclusion?

Obama and liberal legislation

I don't believe I've said I support the nanny state, or that I want the government to pick winners and losers. I've consistently said that the government needs to be reined in. I just don't think that cutting taxes is going to magically accomplish smaller government.

What you support is irrelevant, what Obama supports says it all.

I don't believe in magic or in a free lunch.

Nor do I, thus put 24 million people back to work and get 47% of income earning households to pay FIT

 

[TheNextEra]

Which Obama the, the one against the public option or the one for the public option. How does implementing Obamacare create jobs in a private sector economy?

Again, the one Obama pushed for was not the one we got.

A lot of things are news to you, in a 3.8 trillion dollar budget how much does Gitmo cost?

It all adds up, are you saying you are for waste as long as long as it is smaller than the total debt?

Empty rhetoric exists only to liberals who buy the Obama rhetoric. Who pays for the govt. sector?

You keep comparing governemnt to private sector. They are not the same and not run the same. If Bush was in the private sector, he would have been fired.

You are all over the board, flag burning now, gay marriage, abortions, dictating the morals of others?

Without a strong military and strong economy none of those issue would be in existence.

You claimed Obama wanted a nanny state and those things I listed are things CONSERVATIVES wanted. You want a nanny state as well with those items.

A strong military doesn't equate to a blank check military. Nor does our economy negate any of those items I listed. Tell you what, if you don't think those are important than please inform your GOP to quit putting up candidates that keep WANTED those.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes, they have due to the unified budget which has created the problems we have today. SS IOU's exist because the money has been spent and now we don't have the money to repay them. think cutting the payroll taxes is going to repay those IOU's?

Nope. You're the one arguing that cutting taxes is the way to economic prosperity, remember. I'm the one saying that simply cutting taxes without corresponding spending cuts is a road to greater deficits.

If we live in the same community we pay those expenses. Why is it the Federal taxpayers responsibility to pay for those expenses with the exception of illegal alien expenses since they cannot control the borders?

So, it all depends on how broad you think the 'community is". The reality is that the individual can't pay for catastrophic medical care costs, so the expense has to be spread out among a community one way or another. Currently, we have a dukes mixture of group insurance and government medical care that is bankrupting us, and will have to be reformed soon.

That ignores the question I asked which was about the economy

OK, so scratch the example of GITMO.

the fact that you cannot refute the data I posted shows we agree on more than you are willing to admit

Oh, I think we a agree on a number of issues.

Think about it and get back to me. I am sure it will come to you

(thinking).... hmmm.. Oh, yes i see now! It was a total non sequiter!

Obama and liberal legislation

You still haven't defined "liberal". Was the definition I gave earlier correct?

What you support is irrelevant, what Obama supports says it all.

You're not discussing politics with Obama, and I don't support all (even most) of his policies.

Nor do I, thus put 24 million people back to work and get 47% of income earning households to pay FIT

Agreed, as long as we're not relying on magic or a free lunch to do it.

 

[winston53660]

Yes, they have due to the unified budget which has created the problems we have today. SS IOU's exist because the money has been spent and now we don't have the money to repay them. think cutting the payroll taxes is going to repay those IOU's?

But doesn't cutting taxes lead to economic growth?

 

[Donc]

But doesn't cutting taxes lead to economic growth?

Only with the magic republican voodoo chant.

 

[Conservative]

TheNextEra;1060128609]Again, the one Obama pushed for was not the one we got.

You miss the point, we got Federal Govt. healthcare which the American people don't want regardless. Either the current program or the public option costs small businesses and does nothing to create jobs which you say concerns you. How does increasing costs on small businesses create more jobs?

It all adds up, are you saying you are for waste as long as long as it is smaller than the total debt?

The cost of Gitmo is miniscule as to the cost of transporting those prisoners to the U.S. and taking care of them here. There would be no net savings at all unless you want to completely close the GITMO naval base which would b a mistake.

You keep comparing governemnt to private sector. They are not the same and not run the same. If Bush was in the private sector, he would have been fired.

Of course they aren't the same, govt. sector paid for by taxpayers and produces nothing, private sector not funded by the taxpayers and drives our economy.

You claimed Obama wanted a nanny state and those things I listed are things CONSERVATIVES wanted. You want a nanny state as well with those items.

A nanny state means taking on personal responsibility issues like healthcare.

A strong military doesn't equate to a blank check military. Nor does our economy negate any of those items I listed. Tell you what, if you don't think those are important than please inform your GOP to quit putting up candidates that keep WANTED those.

The Constitution requires the Federal Govt. to protect us by providing for the common defense. I don't think you have a clue as to what you want because you don't understand what we have.

 

[TheNextEra]

You miss the point, we got Federal Govt. healthcare which the American people don't want regardless. Either the current program or the public option costs small businesses and does nothing to create jobs which you say concerns you. How does increasing costs on small businesses create more jobs?

I never said Obamacare does, nor have I said I support it. It was in repsonse to YOUR question of what Obama didn't get from a Dem congress.

The cost of Gitmo is miniscule as to the cost of transporting those prisoners to the U.S. and taking care of them here. There would be no net savings at all unless you want to completely close the GITMO naval base which would b a mistake.

Again, it ALL adds up. Something the GOP nor the Dems realize.

Of course they aren't the same, govt. sector paid for by taxpayers and produces nothing, private sector not funded by the taxpayers and drives our economy.

Then quit comparing the two with Obama. Also the govt. sector DOES produce and it keeps people from being unemployed. Something you care nothing about. Corporate whores just want to give more and more to corporations sitting on cash while sending jobs overseas, not hiring, and laying off workers.

A nanny state means taking on personal responsibility issues like healthcare.

Nanny state also means taking on personal responsibility issues like morality which you seem to approve of.

The Constitution requires the Federal Govt. to protect us by providing for the common defense. I don't think you have a clue as to what you want because you don't understand what we have.

Common defense does not equate to blank check.

 

[Conservative]

Dittohead not!;1060128651]Nope. You're the one arguing that cutting taxes is the way to economic prosperity, remember. I'm the one saying that simply cutting taxes without corresponding spending cuts is a road to greater deficits.

They are separate issues that you want to link and that is nothing more than rhetoric. Simply cutting taxes puts more money into the hands of the consumer, cutting spending takes away govt. power.

So, it all depends on how broad you think the 'community is". The reality is that the individual can't pay for catastrophic medical care costs, so the expense has to be spread out among a community one way or another. Currently, we have a dukes mixture of group insurance and government medical care that is bankrupting us, and will have to be reformed soon.

The individual should take care of their own personal responsibilities including healthcare. I employed over 1200 people and offered them full healthcare coverage, never paid minimum wage and got 50% participation rates. Medical expenses and care are bankrupting us but you solve the problem not create a massive federal bureaucracy that will bankrupt us faster

OK, so scratch the example of GITMO.

Ok

Oh, I think we a agree on a number of issues.

Yes, I agree

(thinking).... hmmm.. Oh, yes i see now! It was a total non sequiter!

Naw, you can do better than that

You still haven't defined "liberal". Was the definition I gave earlier correct?

A liberal is someone who thinks with their heart instead of their brain, has no guts to solve tough issues, and always promotes spending in the name of compassion even though they never get compassionate results

You're not discussing politics with Obama, and I don't support all (even most) of his policies.

Many do support the Obama rhetoric and ignore the Obama results. It is Obama that controls the Agenda and the people who support him buy the rhetoric and ignore the results.

Agreed, as long as we're not relying on magic or a free lunch to do it.

Increasing costs does not promote job creation for the private sector.

 

[TheNextEra]

A liberal is someone who thinks with their heart instead of their brain, has no guts to solve tough issues, and always promotes spending in the name of compassion even though they never get compassionate results

And you wonder why we say all you have is rhetoric and not facts.

lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers

 

[Conservative]

And you wonder why we say all you have is rhetoric and not facts.

lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers

I used the literal definition

 

[TheNextEra]

I used the literal definition

No, you used your BS rhetoric. You are free to your own opinions, but not free to your own facts. Try again.

 

[Conservative]

No, you used your BS rhetoric. You are free to your own opinions, but not free to your own facts. Try again.

The actual facts support my definition so suggest you get the results instead of buying the opinions. You think govt. mandated healthcare maximizes individual freedom?

 

[TheNextEra]

The actual facts support my definition so suggest you get the results instead of buying the opinions. You think govt. mandated healthcare maximizes individual freedom?

No, the facts do not support your hyper-partisan definition at all. The intellectual dishonesty you are displaying is pathetic now. You really are desperate. No wonder your ilk is going to lose, all you have is pathetic hyper-partisan rhetoric.

And one subject like healthcare doesn't define an entire polticial lean. Especially considering the healthcare we got is not the ones liberals were asking for.

 

[Conservative]

No, the facts do not support your hyper-partisan definition at all. The intellectual dishonesty you are displaying is pathetic now. You really are desperate. No wonder your ilk is going to lose, all you have is pathetic hyper-partisan rhetoric.

And one subject like healthcare doesn't define an entire polticial lean. Especially considering the healthcare we got is not the ones liberals were asking for.

How does the public option maximize individual freedoms? Like all liberals you buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. headline reading is what you do best. Keep ignoring the failure of the federal govt. to control costs so continue supporting a healthcare system that is to maximize access but do nothing to control costs.

 

[Dittohead not!]

They are separate issues that you want to link and that is nothing more than rhetoric. Simply cutting taxes puts more money into the hands of the consumer, cutting spending takes away govt. power.

which is why we need to do both, but first, we have to rein in the deficit. Cutting taxes is not going to increase revenues and magically balance the budget, that's just wishful thinking.

The individual should take care of their own personal responsibilities including healthcare. I employed over 1200 people and offered them full healthcare coverage, never paid minimum wage and got 50% participation rates. Medical expenses and care are bankrupting us but you solve the problem not create a massive federal bureaucracy that will bankrupt us faster

Our inefficient medical system is bankrupting us, no question. Every other advanced nation has universal medical care of one form or another, and all of them pay significantly less than we do, no exceptions. We have the most expensive medical care system on the planet, and can't afford it. Surely you understand that if you did indeed provide medical insurance for employees. The practice of linking medical insurance to employment has to end. I've been retired for seven years now. My ex employer had an $800 cap on medical/dental/vision when I left, and it was quite possible to stay under that cap and not pay out of pocket. Currently, the cap is $1,500, and employees are picking up a bigger and bigger part of the tab. That kind of increase in costs is simply not sustainable.

A liberal is someone who thinks with their heart instead of their brain, has no guts to solve tough issues, and always promotes spending in the name of compassion even though they never get compassionate results

you mean like someone who believes that cutting taxes increases revenues because that's what they want to believe? Someone who relies on ideology rather than reason to find answers to challenges, that describes a liberal? It seems to me that someone with the guts to solve tough issues would understand that a shared sacrifice is necessary to bring the federal budget back to the world of reality and that simplistic solutions aren't going to work.

Many do support the Obama rhetoric and ignore the Obama results. It is Obama that controls the Agenda and the people who support him buy the rhetoric and ignore the results.

not as many as used to.

Increasing costs does not promote job creation for the private sector.

No, of course not. Is someone saying that it does?