• 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!

Barack Obama - the Best Republican President Since Eisenhower!

froggigger said:
We don't have a D or an R problem. We have a government problem where Ds and Rs alike spend our money to buy votes so they can maintain their privileged lifestyles. You are absolutely correct that corporate America and government are in it together.
Click to expand...

Wow you must be projecting too :roll:
 
Glen Contrarian said:
As I asked ARC, project much?
Click to expand...

that doesn't even make sense. you are obviously new, but hoj is pretty bad company to keep. If you are in agreement with that person on anything, it is best to reconsider your position.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Be that as it may, the amount of our individual (and married) income that goes to federal taxes is lower than at any time in the early 1950's. Do you see the difference between what I said and what you're saying?
Click to expand...
It was pointed out that comparisons based on GDP are fraught with errors. You refused to even acknowledge gdp was a factor.

You seem to begrudgingly admit you were wrong about GDP being a factor, while trying to save face.

Let’s address that integrity issue first. You do admit being absolutely wrong regarding GDP, yes?
 
ARealConservative said:
It was pointed out that comparisons based on GDP are fraught with errors. You refused to even acknowledge gdp was a factor.

You seem to begrudgingly admit you were wrong about GDP being a factor, while trying to save face.

Let’s address that integrity issue first. You do admit being absolutely wrong regarding GDP, yes?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Looking back at the reference, the first part of the article did refer to GDP - but that wasn't the part that I was personally referring to, which read:

"Of course, this is only looking at federal taxes, and doesn't reflect state and local taxes, but a USA Today analysis found last year that if we include everything -- federal, state, and local taxes, including income, property, sales, and other taxes -- the percentage of personal income that's paid in taxes is still at its lowest level since 1950.

As Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the Center for American Progress, said at the time, "The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts."

GDP wasn't a factor in my OP. It is the quote above that was important, the part that pointed out that our personal (and married) tax burdens are lower NOW than at any time since 1950...and Head of Joaquin provided more references showing much the same.
 
ARealConservative said:
that doesn't even make sense. you are obviously new, but hoj is pretty bad company to keep. If you are in agreement with that person on anything, it is best to reconsider your position.
Click to expand...

Well, seeing as how he apparently tends to deal with researched facts whereas I haven't seen much of that from the people on your side of the political aisle, I'll stick with him.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No, I don't. Looking back at the reference, the first part of the article did refer to GDP - but that wasn't the part that I was personally referring to, which read:

"Of course, this is only looking at federal taxes, and doesn't reflect state and local taxes, but a USA Today analysis found last year that if we include everything -- federal, state, and local taxes, including income, property, sales, and other taxes -- the percentage of personal income that's paid in taxes is still at its lowest level since 1950.

As Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the Center for American Progress, said at the time, "The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts."

GDP wasn't a factor in my OP. It is the quote above that was important, the part that pointed out that our personal (and married) tax burdens are lower NOW than at any time since 1950...and Head of Joaquin provided more references showing much the same.
Click to expand...

You are in over your head. You don’t know what you are talking about.

When you use percentage, what do you think they refer to? A percentage of what?

In 1950 individuals contributed 15,755,000,000 in income taxes.

We have never contributed so little tax again. What you are doing is comparing the amount of tax we contributed in relation to GDP. Using the comparison related to GDP, we have never paid such a low percentage.

You are still using GDP, but you are just to ignorant to even realize it. This is why you agree with hoj. Peas in a pod.
 
ARealConservative said:
You are in over your head. You don’t know what you are talking about.

When you use percentage, what do you think they refer to? A percentage of what?

In 1950 individuals contributed 15,755,000,000 in income taxes.

We have never contributed so little tax again. What you are doing is comparing the amount of tax we contributed in relation to GDP. Using the comparison related to GDP, we have never paid such a low percentage.

You are still using GDP, but you are just to ignorant to even realize it. This is why you agree with hoj. Peas in a pod.
Click to expand...

Come now, ARC - read this VERY CAREFULLY:

"if we include everything -- federal, state, and local taxes, including income, property, sales, and other taxes -- the percentage of personal income that's paid in taxes is still at its lowest level since 1950."


Does it say "the percentage of our GDP from our personal income that's paid in taxes"? No. It doesn't refer to the GDP at all. It's that little world 'personal'. Not 'overall GDP', but 'personal'.

But you and blax will likely never admit it, for to do so would be to admit error.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Come now, ARC - read this VERY CAREFULLY:

"if we include everything -- federal, state, and local taxes, including income, property, sales, and other taxes -- the percentage of personal income that's paid in taxes is still at its lowest level since 1950."


Does it say "the percentage of our GDP from our personal income that's paid in taxes"? No. It doesn't refer to the GDP at all. It's that little world 'personal'. Not 'overall GDP', but 'personal'.

But you and blax will likely never admit it, for to do so would be to admit error.
Click to expand...

Historically (Since we are talking GDP) revenue has ALWAYS been around 18 - 20% and that is right where we are today, but spending is now 24% when it used to be in line with GDP. Spending is the problem. So what if you are right and revenue is at its lowest since 1950. That is the best news I heard all day, now cut your spending to match your revenue.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Come now, ARC - read this VERY CAREFULLY:

"if we include everything -- federal, state, and local taxes, including income, property, sales, and other taxes -- the percentage of personal income that's paid in taxes is still at its lowest level since 1950."


Does it say "the percentage of our GDP from our personal income that's paid in taxes"? No. It doesn't refer to the GDP at all. It's that little world 'personal'. Not 'overall GDP', but 'personal'.

But you and blax will likely never admit it, for to do so would be to admit error.
Click to expand...

I guess we just have to take the USA Today’s word for it?

Fine. Obama is the best conservative since Eisenhower because state and city taxes are lower now.

You see how absurd this is getting for you? what does he have to do with state taxes?
 
froggigger said:
A devastating, thoroughly researched rebuttal. :roll:
Click to expand...

I am not here to prove a ton of negatives. Your post was so full of ****, it made little sense to rebut it in its entirety.
 
blaxshep said:
Historically (Since we are talking GDP) revenue has ALWAYS been around 18 - 20% and that is right where we are today, but spending is now 24% when it used to be in line with GDP. Spending is the problem. So what if you are right and revenue is at its lowest since 1950. That is the best news I heard all day, now cut your spending to match your revenue.
Click to expand...

Because taxes that are too low is BAD for an economy. The taxes need to be higher, and those taxes used to improve our national infrastructure, which would put people to work and get our economy back on track. This is PRECISELY how we did it in the 1950's....and it works.

BTW - if high government spending is SO bad for an economy, then how is it we didn't go into a Weimar Republic-style Depression after what was (after adjusted for inflation) quite literally the greatest taxpayer-funded economic stimulus in our nation's history? You may have heard of it - it was called World War II. Why is it that after we sunk so much into our fully-taxpayer-funded war effort, we didn't go deeper into the Depression, but instead had a lasting economic boom? I mean, according to consevative dogma which Shall Not Be Questioned, government spending is always Bad Thing for an economy. So how did WWII bring us out of the Depression, since it was COMPLETELY taxpayer-funded?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Because taxes that are too low is BAD for an economy. The taxes need to be higher, and those taxes used to improve our national infrastructure, which would put people to work and get our economy back on track. This is PRECISELY how we did it in the 1950's....and it works.

BTW - if high government spending is SO bad for an economy, then how is it we didn't go into a Weimar Republic-style Depression after what was (after adjusted for inflation) quite literally the greatest taxpayer-funded economic stimulus in our nation's history? You may have heard of it - it was called World War II. Why is it that after we sunk so much into our fully-taxpayer-funded war effort, we didn't go deeper into the Depression, but instead had a lasting economic boom? I mean, according to consevative dogma which Shall Not Be Questioned, government spending is always Bad Thing for an economy. So how did WWII bring us out of the Depression, since it was COMPLETELY taxpayer-funded?
Click to expand...

This is brilliant.

So the liberal position on economic solutions is

1) Be the last major party into a world war
2) Ration goods and services, forcing Americans to save rather than spend
3) Kill off a rather large chunk of the younger workforce by putting them in the line of fire
4) profit


ps, we did go into an economic depression immediately after ww2. this depression resulted in the baby boomers.
 
ARealConservative said:
This is brilliant.

So the liberal position on economic solutions is

1) Be the last major party into a world war
2) Ration goods and services, forcing Americans to save rather than spend
3) Kill off a rather large chunk of the younger workforce by putting them in the line of fire
4) profit
Click to expand...

A rather weak strawman. Keynesianism protects market economies from realizing consistent and persistent economic crisis.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
If Obama were 'liberal through and through' as you claim,

we would have been out of both Iraq and Afghanistan within a couple of years of his first term;

I will give him credit for understanding and accepting the Bush blueprint and timeline regarding these two places...once he got into office. Before then, he idealistically campaigned on getting out...today.

he would not have considered that Republican idea called the 'Individual Mandate';

He wouldn't have considered that...except it was the only way his own Party would be a part of his "health care reform". He much more preferred the liberal government paid system.

he would not have sent military forces into Pakistan to get bin Laden;

Oh...so you are saying that a liberal President wouldn't have gotten bin Laden? LOL!!

he would not have sent drones over Yemen and Sudan and Pakistan to hunt terrorists;

See my comments on Obama's realization about the realities of the War on Terror above.

he would not prosecute Snowden, much less Manning;

LOL!! Again, you imply that liberals would not prosecute treason...that is too funny!.

he would not have deported a record number of illegal immigrants;

He would not have also allowed many more illegal aliens to stay. /sarcasm

he would have slashed the military budget.

He wanted to. This is one of those things he found that he had to be "pragmatic" about.

Need I go on?

No, you don't need to go on. You are going to start pissing off the other liberals on this forum.

Obama's never been anything more than centrist.

He's done some things that were quite liberal - like the Lilly Ledbetter Act to fight for equal pay for women, and getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - but he's done just as many things that were quite conservative.

Guy, can you imagine what your boys on the Right would have said if he'd, say, sold arms to Iran in order to finance a military rebellion in another country? You guys would go apecrap over that! But since it was Reagan and Bush the Elder who did that, well, THAT made it all okay!
Click to expand...

Give it up, dude...as I said, there is no way you can possibly paint Obama as a centrist, except to give credit to the Republican House in their efforts to blunt his real agenda. And the thought of him as a conservative is positively laughable.
 
Last edited:
Bush is the best liberal since, well, since forever.

why? I had a dog during the Bush presidency that liked to hump peoples legs. Animal control did nothing to stop it.

I know, I know. what does that have to do with Bush? beats the hell out of me. but we now learned the "contrarian" that started this thread is crediting Obama for lowering state taxes.

so if it works for him, Bush gets credit for the liberal allowances of my dog. got to fight fire with fire
 
ARealConservative said:
Bush is the best liberal since, well, since forever.

why? I had a dog during the Bush presidency that liked to hump peoples legs. Animal control did nothing to stop it.

I know, I know. what does that have to do with Bush? beats the hell out of me. but we now learned the "contrarian" that started this thread is crediting Obama for lowering state taxes.

so if it works for him, Bush gets credit for the liberal allowances of my dog. got to fight fire with fire
Click to expand...

ARC -

Where did I say that Obama lowered state taxes? I never said that, so please stop claiming I did. I said that under Obama, our tax burden is lower than at any time since the early 1950's. If he had had his way, the wealthy - and only the wealthy - would have higher taxes. That was all he ever pushed for. And if you'll recall, ONE-THIRD of the stimulus was tax cuts - but those were included only because Obama wanted to get Republican votes.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
ARC -

Where did I say that Obama lowered state taxes? I never said that, so please stop claiming I did. I said that under Obama, our tax burden is lower than at any time since the early 1950's. If he had had his way, the wealthy - and only the wealthy - would have higher taxes. That was all he ever pushed for. And if you'll recall, ONE-THIRD of the stimulus was tax cuts - but those were included only because Obama wanted to get Republican votes.
Click to expand...

you said it when you showed your true character and refused to admit your mistake regarding item 1 and GDP.

instead of saying my bad, you tried to claim the relevant portion was actually later in the article discussing property taxes, state taxes, local taxes, and "other taxes". All things Obama had zilch to do with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom