• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

General 2012 Election Results Discussion Thread

Conservative said:
CEO salaries come from private sector money, not taxpayer money. I have no problem with private sector unions as they will take care of themselves by putting the private sector businesses out of business sooner rather than later. My problem is with you and public sector unions that are parasites who buy politicians and keep their power over the taxpayers. All public sector unions should have their pay and benefits put to a vote by the electorate. Then let's see how the public feels about unions and what service they provide.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter where it comes from. And it makes no difference if it is private or public. The idea is that the worker either has a voice or he or she doesn't.
 
Boo Radley said:
Doesn't matter where it comes from. And it makes no difference if it is private or public. The idea is that the worker either has a voice or he or she doesn't.
Click to expand...

If a worker wants a say in a private company then invest their own money into the company or better yet why don't more of you liberals start your own businesses and implement the policies you believe in? Start your own business, hire whoever you want, pay them those big salaries you believe is fair and see how it works out for you
 
Conservative said:
If a worker wants a say in a private company then invest their own money into the company or better yet why don't more of you liberals start your own businesses and implement the policies you believe in? Start your own business, hire whoever you want, pay them those big salaries you believe is fair and see how it works out for you
Click to expand...

That sounds like you believe the company is the owner. Hardly. Workers can make or break a company. I may not be able to define fair with certainty, but when the top prospers as much as hey do now, and wages are as DHN points out, the country suffers as it does now.
 
Boo Radley said:
That sounds like you believe the company is the owner. Hardly. Workers can make or break a company. I may not be able to define fair with certainty, but when the top prospers as much as hey do now, and wages are as DHN points out, the country suffers as it does now.
Click to expand...

You seem to be very confused about the private sector and always want to focus on the big companies not the little ones which actually drive the economic engine of this country. In small business the owner is the company and there obviously is value to have good employees. The market will determine what to pay those employees.

I hired enough of them and unfortunately had to fire my share as well. Those that I had to fire you want to ignore as well as the cost of those employees to the business.

Liberals like you live in a dream world but in the real world you can start your own business to implement the programs and policies you want to force on others. Why haven't you done that?
 
Conservative said:
You seem to be very confused about the private sector and always want to focus on the big companies not the little ones which actually drive the economic engine of this country. In small business the owner is the company and there obviously is value to have good employees. The market will determine what to pay those employees.

I hired enough of them and unfortunately had to fire my share as well. Those that I had to fire you want to ignore as well as the cost of those employees to the business.

Liberals like you live in a dream world but in the real world you can start your own business to implement the programs and policies you want to force on others. Why haven't you done that?
Click to expand...

I think you're trying to hide again. Look up the McDonaldization of America.
 
Conservative said:
Yet Obama has added more debt in 4 years than any other President in history and you willingly ignore that. Without those moochers Obama would have been a one term President. Over 100 million Americans are on some form of taxpayer assistance and we are becoming an entitlement society. The govt. has no intention of helping anyone achieve the American dream but instead create politicians more concerned about keeping their job than doing their job.

Barack Obama never held a private sector job, believes in social justice, doesn't understand how our economy works and apparently neither do you.
Click to expand...

Yes, spending is out of control. But you didn't address the point I made at all. You said that progressive fiscal policy doesn't work and we have proof of it not working. So how do you account for the fact that Reagan inherited decreasing deficits and during his presidency they started to rise again? Why is it that Clinton inherited increasing deficits and during his presidency they started decreasing?

100 million americans are not on some form of "taxpayer assistance," it just isn't true, and if you simply google that claim, you'll find out why. I know someone on welfare, and I'll agree, she's like most of those resource-sucking oxygen wasters who should just leave America if they can't contribute to it. Can you believe she lives off of government assistance? Can't even hold a steady job. I would tell her just that in person but she is still my grandma, i suppose.
 
Boo Radley said:
I suspect some will not understand that. Nor will some understand that complaining about low wages while actively working against workers, demonizing them, and Handing all advantage to business leads to those low wages.
Click to expand...

only because they get their opinions ready made from rant radio, and don't understand just what a union is all about.
 
Conservative said:
"Your" President isn't and "Your" President said that when the GDP growth was 2.3% the economy wasn't strong enough to handle any tax increases but now that it is 2% apparently it is. You bought the Obama rhetoric and ignore the Obama results.
Click to expand...
Unless you've renounced your U.S. citizenship, he's "your" president too. You may not like that, but that is an unavoidable reality you can't escape any other way.

Conservative said:
I asked you what funds Education, SS, and Medicare and you go off on your typical rant that I am lying. What am I lying about. SS, Medicare, and Education aren't being funded by FIT
Click to expand...
How could you possibly not know what your lie was? I spelled it out for you. You asked me why it's the responsibility of the 53% who pay taxes to pay for public schools, SS, and Medicare for the 47% who don't pay taxes.

Since I don't believe it's the responsibilty of the 53%, which I've expressed numerous times by stating I want the Bush tax cuts rescinded, it's a lie for you to ask me to answer your question which assumes I do.
 
Mustachio;1061130918]Yes, spending is out of control. But you didn't address the point I made at all. You said that progressive fiscal policy doesn't work and we have proof of it not working. So how do you account for the fact that Reagan inherited decreasing deficits and during his presidency they started to rise again? Why is it that Clinton inherited increasing deficits and during his presidency they started decreasing?
Click to expand...

Reagan inherited a 900 billion dollar debt and economy going into recession which was every bit as bad as this one if not worse. The misery index was in the 20's most of the first term but he implemented an economic policy that generated a net job increase of 16 million and had 7.5% GDP growth as he ran for re-election. He did leave office with 1.7 trillion added to the debt in his entire term. Obama had 5.6 trillion in his first term and is projected to have another 5 trillion his second term. Wonder which one the people would like, 1.7 trillion debt and 16 million jobs or 10.6 trillion added to the debt and less people working today than when he took office?

100 million americans are not on some form of "taxpayer assistance," it just isn't true, and if you simply google that claim, you'll find out why. I know someone on welfare, and I'll agree, she's like most of those resource-sucking oxygen wasters who should just leave America if they can't contribute to it. Can you believe she lives off of government assistance? Can't even hold a steady job. I would tell her just that in person but she is still my grandma, i suppose.
Click to expand...

That is indeed true and came from a Congressional study. It excludes SS and Medicare but regardless the numbers on taxpayer assistance is too high and Obama was re-elected with the worst economic conditions in modern history. He is going to dance his way through attempts to hide the economic conditions he inherited from himself.
 
Sheik Yerbuti;1061132322]Unless you've renounced your U.S. citizenship, he's "your" president too. You may not like that, but that is an unavoidable reality you can't escape any other way.
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for Obama his first term because of his resume and didn't vote for him the second time because of his record. "Your" President is meant for the ones that voted for him

How could you possibly not know what your lie was? I spelled it out for you. You asked me why it's the responsibility of the 53% who pay taxes to pay for public schools, SS, and Medicare for the 47% who don't pay taxes.

Since I don't believe it's the responsibilty of the 53%, which I've expressed numerous times by stating I want the Bush tax cuts rescinded, it's a lie for you to ask me to answer your question which assumes I do.
Click to expand...

Get some help with reading comprehension. I asked you what funds education, SS, and Medicare. My point was that 53% of the people are funding the line item expenses of the Federal Govt. therefore you claiming that I lied is in itself a lie.
 
No, Obama is president of all the United States of America. This includes those who didn't vote for him.
 
Conservative said:
We are finding out who lost because in your world results don't matter. You are getting exactly the govt. you deserve.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's funny -- I recall Democrats saying the same thing in 2004. I'm confident things will turn out much better in 2016 than they did in 2008.

Conservative said:
You continue to show me that civics isn't one of your strong suits. Amazing how much hatred you have for GW Bush and yet ignorance on basic civics. How long do you think you and Obama can get away blaming Bush for the economy we have today? There are going to be a lot of unhappy Obama supporters when they see Obama unable to continue to be Santa Claus and give them their "free stuff". Quite telling that over 60% of the people in this country without a high school diploma voted for Obama. Shows the problem we really have.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Who knows how your brain translates pointing out that Democrats complained in 2004 in a similar manner like Republicans complain in 2012 into a lack of understanding of civics on my part, but I chalk that up to your knee-jerk reactionary, sour grapes induced, loser-based invective whining.

Conservative said:
Quite telling that over 60% of the people in this country without a high school diploma voted for Obama. Shows the problem we really have.
Click to expand...
Umm, according to exit polls, only 3% of the entire electorate did not have a HS diploma, many of whom are still in high school; so who knows what point you think you make with that?

Now let's compare that to 47% of the electorate has a college degree -- 50% of them voted for Obama, compared to 47.5% voted for Romney.
 
Amigo said:
Question, how are we going to pay for all of Obama's "investing in education"? I mean, we have 16 trillion in debt!
Click to expand...
By raising taxes and cutting spending.
 
The Mark said:
defense.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that when a Progressive/Liberal President wants to cut "defense spending" it's always cutting troop strength, while maintaining deployment schedules, and by reducing pay raises. I lived through this during the Clinton years. Those were a horrible eight years for the military in regards to personnel issues. Many younger troops on food stamps and having financial issues. Lots of divorces and other issues. Some of these could be attributed to youth and ignorance, but a lot of these problems could be directly tied to lessening purchasing power and deployment increases.

Of couse what hurts is when you see the military size reduced and pay not keeping up with inflation while at the same time seeing people who are not working getting more and more. That is what is going to happen during the next four years if Obama has his way. It's the Progressive way. Cut everything except social programs, increase those programs which in the end will bring the country to the status of "Welfare State".

That is their (Progressives) goal. Redistribution of wealth through social programs and universal health care (paid for by the wealthy), universal access to higher education (whether deserved or not), drastically reduced military spending (resulting in more attacks against US assets and more US citizens killed), and open borders with no restrictions on immigration (come on in terrorist and drug traffickers).
 
Conservative said:
Yet Obama has added more debt in 4 years than any other President in history...

Sheik Yerbuti; said:
Umm, which president(s) can you not say that about?

Amigo said:
All the other ones. :2wave:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wrong answer ...

Eisenhower4,456,110,258
Johnson35,865,507,169
Nixon104,421,351,471
Carter299,015,000,000
Reagan825,248,000,000
Bush1,554,057,922,952
Clinton1,001,657,128,258
Bush2,125,246,249,523
Obama5,261,768,891,841

Going back to Eisenhower (and I could have gone back further had I wanted to), you could have said that about every president except for Clinton after their first 4 years.

Funny -- I don't recall Conservatives ever complaining like this when Reagan ran up the debt more than any other president? I don't recall y'all ever complaining about either Bush either. I don't recall y'all ever giving Clinton any credit for not adding more to the debt after his first 4 years than the president before him.

All you do is prove that all the debt means to you is to use it as a tool to play partisan politics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom