• 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!

Senate Majority Pac tattacks on Senator Rob Portman

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
are real gut busters. This Democrat super rich super pac is attacking Rob Portman for supporting NAFTA and for taking money from wall street. This is hilarious given which president passed NAFTA and given the fact that Hillary is wall street's whore. I wonder if the press will note that at all
 
are real gut busters. This Democrat super rich super pac is attacking Rob Portman for supporting NAFTA and for taking money from wall street. This is hilarious given which president passed NAFTA and given the fact that Hillary is wall street's whore. I wonder if the press will note that at all

GHW Bush signed the NAFTA agreement in Dec. 1992.

Dec. 17, 1992: Pres. Bush Signs NAFTA Video - ABC News
 
GHW Bush signed the NAFTA agreement in Dec. 1992.

Dec. 17, 1992: Pres. Bush Signs NAFTA Video - ABC News

I believe that Clinton was responsible for its implementation

from WIKI

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9]
 
While true he signed NAFTA, all the negotiations were done under Clinton.

Still doesn't change the fact that Hillary is Wall Street's favorite whore. How many millions did she get from them?

What is also a fact is that Hillary is the only candidate who wants to increase scrutiny of Wall street and Commercial banks and raise their taxes. She wants to raise the capital gains rate and add a 4% surcharge to incomes over 5 million.
Clinton has also proposed a graduated tax on banks' liabilities, which would penalize the largest institutions and counteract the advantages that they arguably receive from their size. In addition, she favors stricter requirements to force banks to rely on shareholders rather than depositors and other banks to fund their operations, so that in the event of a crisis, losses would be contained to shareholders.

Another problem with Wall Street, according to Clinton is that corporate managers and investors focus too much on immediate gains as opposed to making investments that will be profitable over the long term. She has proposed increasing the tax on capital gains so that investors get a larger break the longer they hold onto their investments.

She has also called for a 4 percent surcharge on those with incomes above $5 million a year, which is about 0.02 percent of taxpayers. She argues the increase is necessary to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/07/what-hillary-clinton-would-do-to-america/
 
I believe that Clinton was responsible for its implementation

from WIKI

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9]

Yes he allowed the Republican Congress to implement NAFTA. That does not change the fact that it was a REPUBLICAN idea that had 100% Republican Support. Democrats were far less fond of the measure and had they had the votes in Congress it would not have passed.
 
Yes he allowed the Republican Congress to implement NAFTA. That does not change the fact that it was a REPUBLICAN idea that had 100% Republican Support. Democrats were far less fond of the measure and had they had the votes in Congress it would not have passed.


Do you honestly believe that Bill and his wife opposed NAFTA? if you want to damn Portman for supporting NAFTA don't you also have to damn Billary? If Clinton had not signed the implementation provisions, it would not have happened and the GOP didn't have the votes to override a Clinton VETO.
 
What is also a fact is that Hillary is the only candidate who wants to increase scrutiny of Wall street and Commercial banks and raise their taxes. She wants to raise the capital gains rate and add a 4% surcharge to incomes over 5 million.






https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/07/what-hillary-clinton-would-do-to-america/

when Hillary claims that the rich don't pay their fair share, that is a blatant falsehood that panders to envy. The top one percent pay about 40% of the federal income tax and all the death tax
 
Yes he allowed the Republican Congress to implement NAFTA. That does not change the fact that it was a REPUBLICAN idea that had 100% Republican Support. Democrats were far less fond of the measure and had they had the votes in Congress it would not have passed.

Even with all the proof shown you so far, with more to come I'm sure, you're gonna walk that dog 'til it just falls out. I gotta give you credit for consistency, even if its wrong.
 
What is also a fact is that Hillary is the only candidate who wants to increase scrutiny of Wall street and Commercial banks and raise their taxes. She wants to raise the capital gains rate and add a 4% surcharge to incomes over 5 million.






https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/07/what-hillary-clinton-would-do-to-america/

Raising the capital gains rate and add a 4% surcharge to incomes over 5 million would be assessed against, banks? Or individuals?

Seems to me that this would be assessed against individuals, and that it's yet another government forced wealth redistribution from the successful who have earned it to the non-successful who haven't.

Why stop there? Why not raising the capital gains rate 100% and add a 100% surcharge to incomes over 5 million. It would make this government forced wealth redistribution far more effective to it's real desires, wouldn't it?
 
when Hillary claims that the rich don't pay their fair share, that is a blatant falsehood that panders to envy. The top one percent pay about 40% of the federal income tax and all the death tax

The only thing she is "envious" of is other nations that have upgraded their infrastructure to be ready for the new millennium. She will use some of the the $1.1 Trillion more she is raising to fix what the GOP has neglected for so long.
 
The only thing she is "envious" of is other nations that have upgraded their infrastructure to be ready for the new millennium. She will use some of the the $1.1 Trillion more she is raising to fix what the GOP has neglected for so long.

Hillary is a power hungry scumbag. So is Trump. But Hillary is the bigger hypocrite of the two as she whines about the rich will scheming to become rich through public office
 
Raising the capital gains rate and add a 4% surcharge to incomes over 5 million would be assessed against, banks? Or individuals?

Seems to me that this would be assessed against individuals, and that it's yet another government forced wealth redistribution from the successful who have earned it to the non-successful who haven't.

Why stop there? Why not raising the capital gains rate 100% and add a 100% surcharge to incomes over 5 million. It would make this government forced wealth redistribution far more effective to it's real desires, wouldn't it?

Even the GOP has admitted that we need to do something about our increasing wealth inequality but more importantly we need that money to upgrade our crumbling infrastructure. You can scream all you want but at least Hllary is in favor of doing SOMETHING. And it is not what Wall street fat cats would like either.
 
Do you honestly believe that Bill and his wife opposed NAFTA? if you want to damn Portman for supporting NAFTA don't you also have to damn Billary? If Clinton had not signed the implementation provisions, it would not have happened and the GOP didn't have the votes to override a Clinton VETO.

Bill Clinton initially did oppose the NAFTA agreement that Bush negotiated and signed and he forced a renegotiation before he approved it. Most Democrats still opposed it. It was primarily a Republican idea that started with Reagan.

In both the House and the Senate, more Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it — a signal that the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party was strong even then. Clinton held a signing ceremony for the implementing legislation on Dec. 3, 1993, flanked by former presidents and congressional leaders of both parties. But that’s not the same as negotiating and signing the treaty with Mexico and Canada. The trade agreement went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/09/history-lesson-more-republicans-than-democrats-supported-nafta/
 
Even the GOP has admitted that we need to do something about our increasing wealth inequality but more importantly we need that money to upgrade our crumbling infrastructure. You can scream all you want but at least Hllary is in favor of doing SOMETHING. And it is not what Wall street fat cats would like either.

I can't disagree that the crumbling infrastructure needs to be fixed. However, I disagree that the government demanding ever more in taxes is the solution.

I think that here's the problem.
Growth of mandatory spending

CBO projects that spending for Social Security, Healthcare programs and interest costs will rise relative to GDP over the 2015-2025 period, while defense and other discretionary spending will decline relative to GDP.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Over the past 40 years, mandatory spending for programs such as Medicare and Social Security has grown as a share of the budget and relative to GDP, while other discretionary categories have declined. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security grew from 4.3% of GDP in 1971 to 10.1% of GDP in 2012.[SUP][1][/SUP]
In the long-run, expenditures related to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are growing considerably faster than the economy overall as the population matures.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Social Security spending will rise from 4.8% of GDP in 2009 to 6.2% of GDP by 2035, where it will stabilize. However, CBO expects Medicare and Medicaid to continue growing, rising from 5.3% GDP in 2009 to 10.0% in 2035 and 19.0% by 2082. CBO has indicated healthcare spending per beneficiary is the primary long-term fiscal challenge.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] Further, multiple government and private sources have indicated the overall expenditure path is unsustainable.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]


800px-GAO_Slide.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expen...s_federal_budget#Growth_of_mandatory_spending

I think it traces back to once something is given to someone for free, it's incredibly difficult from a political perspective to cut back or take it away, regardless if the nation can afford it or not.

One way or another every able bodies person is going to have to start taking care of themselves and not rely on the government to do it for them.

An economic boom would go a long way to accomplishing this, as well as increasing revenues, yet the federal policies in this administration have been to exactly counter to being conducive to an economic boom, why else the pitiful 1% to 2% GDP growth? Taking ever more form the private sector doesn't seem to be a reasonable policy to nurture the needed economic boom, and does seem exactly counter to that. Hillary is just more of the same.

Trump is in support of an economic boom, and it would seem reasonable that he's got a decent chance of nurturing one into existence.
 
I can't disagree that the crumbling infrastructure needs to be fixed. However, I disagree that the government demanding ever more in taxes is the solution.

I think that here's the problem.


I think it traces back to once something is given to someone for free, it's incredibly difficult from a political perspective to cut back or take it away, regardless if the nation can afford it or not.

One way or another every able bodies person is going to have to start taking care of themselves and not rely on the government to do it for them.

An economic boom would go a long way to accomplishing this, as well as increasing revenues, yet the federal policies in this administration have been to exactly counter to being conducive to an economic boom, why else the pitiful 1% to 2% GDP growth? Taking ever more form the private sector doesn't seem to be a reasonable policy to nurture the needed economic boom, and does seem exactly counter to that. Hillary is just more of the same.

Trump is in support of an economic boom, and it would seem reasonable that he's got a decent chance of nurturing one into existence.

Since 75% of our GDP is consumer spending , slow growth is directly related to income inequality and stagnant wages. Most ecnomists expect a recession if Trump wins.

Trump has already demonstrated a great ability to make the kinds of inconsistent comments that -- if coming from the mouth of a president -- would scare investors, create a great deal of uncertainty, push up interest rates, lower employment, drive down stock market prices and cause the bottom to fall out of the value of other assets.

This kind of destabilization wouldn’t just have negative effects on investor and consumer confidence in the United States. It would spread rapidly around the world and drive up interest rates, bankrupt private-sector companies and plunge countries into a downward default-recession spiral. U.S. exports would naturally crater in this scenario because U.S. allies and trading partners would be in deep crisis and could not afford to buy American products.
Commentary: Win or lose, Trump could cause a recession | Reuters
 
So to 'stimulate' that consumer economy, a tax hike, taking ever more money from the consumers the private sector, is the right thing to do? :screwy

Yes using that extra cash for infrastructure spending will increase employment and in turn increase consumer spending. Taking a bit more from the very wealthy makes no difference in their spending or GDP. That tired and disproved meme about not raising taxes on job creators is what got us into this mess. Stop beating a dead horse.
 
Last edited:
Yes using that extra cash for infrastructure spending will increase employment and in turn increase consumer spending. Taking a bit more from the very wealthy makes no difference in their spending or GDP. That tired and disproved meme about not raising taxes on job creators is what got us into this mess. Stop beating a dead horse.

Completely side-stepping / ignoring the legitimate issue of excessive non-discretionary spending budget ballooning, I see.
Better to start curbing that now, rather than later. Later is only going to be all the more painful.

And I stand by the position that an economic boom would better position the nation to be able to afford all that spending that oh so many want.
 
Does unlimited funding from PACs buy elections?
 
Completely side-stepping / ignoring the legitimate issue of excessive non-discretionary spending budget ballooning, I see.
Better to start curbing that now, rather than later. Later is only going to be all the more painful.

And I stand by the position that an economic boom would better position the nation to be able to afford all that spending that oh so many want.

Then you sure don't want Herr Trump, his election will crash the economy which of course will benefit Trump and the others who need no benefit. Since SS does not effect our spending or deficits I see no reason to do anything but shore up the trust by raising the cap on withholding.. We can mean test benefits too if really needed. The "pain" will not be with the poor which is why you are so concerned I suppose.

This "boom" you keep talking about can only happen from the middle class getting wage boosts. Are you sure that is what you really want?
Increased costs and reduced profits for corporations does not seem to jive with your lean.
 
Last edited:
Then you sure don't want Herr Trump, his election will crash the economy which of course will benefit Trump and the others who need no benefit. Since SS does not effect our spending or deficits I see no reason to do anything but shore up the trust by raising the cap on withholding.. We can mean test benefits too if really needed. The "pain" will not be with the poor which is why you are so concerned I suppose.

This "boom" you keep talking about can only happen from the middle class getting wage boosts. Are you sure that is what you really want?
Increased costs and reduced profits for corporations does not seem to jive with your lean.

This boom wouldn't be a boom, or if it is, it'd be a small one, as middle class wage boosts would be a factional percentage increase in GDP with no reduction in federal government expenses.

A much bigger boom could be had if more people came off of government assistance and could support themselves, as it would be change from a net cost to the government (the electorate) changing over to a net contributor (potentially) or at least self sufficiency (so a reduction in government expenses).

So I question your assumption on that front.

I further question your assumption that Trump and his policies would crash the economy, and if academician economists and their rather poor accuracy track record are where this assumption comes from, I question them and those as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom