• 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!

We have a Spending Problem, NOT a tax revenue problem

Conservative said:
The Obama record is Obama's fault

0bama record, 14.7 officially unemployed with 15.8% total unemployment, 4 trillion added to the debt, double digit misery index, 1.8% GDP growth, record budgets, no leadership skills at all, 29 fund raisers, 76 rounds of golf. Yes, that is leadership and a record to be proud of.

U-6 Unemployment

January 2001-December 2007 7.1% to 8.8%
January 2008-December 2008 8.8% to 13.6
January 2009-May 201114.1-15.8%
Click to expand...

If you like, I can fix you up with my Mom. She has Alzheimers' so she wont say anything about your mindless repitions if you don't say anything about yours
 
Conservative said:
spouting the same lies over and over again don't make those lies true. You don't understand budget surpluses at all. Where was the surplus that you claim Bush inherited and spent?
Click to expand...

Now, now. Maybe you should take a nap. You sound cranky
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hey, TurtleDude, did I miss your evidence to any of this ...

... let's see your evidence that 9.11 caused tax revenue to drop for 3 straight years. Let's see your evidence that 9.11, which occurred with little over 3.5 months left in 2001, caused tax revenue to drop in 2001? Let's see your evidence that "Clinton "jacked up" the luxury tax? Let's see your evidence that tax revenue fell after Clinton did that? Let's see your evidence that imposing a luxury tax (which occurred under Bush in 1990) led to a drop in tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Sheik, fiscal year of the U.S.

Fiscal year 2001 October 2000-September 2001
Fiscal year 2002 October 2001-September 2002
Fiscal year 2003 October 2002-September 2003


Figured out the revenue numbers yet? FIT revenue

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3
 
Thunder said:
yes, we spend too much..and we tax the rich too little.

the Democrats have a plan to deal with this problem. the Republicans do not.
Click to expand...

wrong-the people not taxed enough are the ones who clamor for more spending. when one percent of the population pays 40% of the income tax and all the death tax one has to be a bald faced liar to say they aren't taxed enough especially in light of the fact that they make about 22 percent of the income and certainly do not own all the "estate" wealth
 
sangha said:
Now, now. Maybe you should take a nap. You sound cranky
Click to expand...

Naw, just think of the education you are receiving here that contradicts with facts, what you have been told and have learned in school. You can get the facts from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury websites. Those are non partisan and report actual data, not projections or pedictions. It would help your credibility and stop you from looking foolish. Just trying to help
 
sangha said:
That's why Cantor and the republicans are working so hard to destroy the economy
Click to expand...

Another complete load of steaming BS
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hey, TurtleDude, did I miss your evidence to any of this ...

... let's see your evidence that 9.11 caused tax revenue to drop for 3 straight years. Let's see your evidence that 9.11, which occurred with little over 3.5 months left in 2001, caused tax revenue to drop in 2001? Let's see your evidence that "Clinton "jacked up" the luxury tax? Let's see your evidence that tax revenue fell after Clinton did that? Let's see your evidence that imposing a luxury tax (which occurred under Bush in 1990) led to a drop in tax revenue.
Click to expand...
remember, turtle feels he is above providing evidence, his word should be good enough.....:roll:
 
sangha said:
Ummm,

Medicare D
Socialistic subsidies to Big Oil, Big Agriculture, Big Pharma, doubling the debt, TARP, etc
Click to expand...

Really? What was the Obama and Democrat proposal for Medicare Part D? Again more liberal talking points without understanding the alternative presented
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong-the people not taxed enough are the ones who clamor for more spending.
Click to expand...

you mean like George Bush, who spent trillions of dollars on Iraq & Afghanistan while cutting taxes?

...and was re-elected by supposed Conservatives. those people?
 
Thunder said:
we wouldn't have as much of a spending problem if Bush followed his fiscal-Conservative roots and didn't lower taxes while spending on two unfunded wars.

Bush made the mess and Obama is trying to get us out of it....WITHOUT any help from the GOP.
Click to expand...
do you really believe that--what obama has done since day one was to engage in overheated demogaugery, class warfare and most of all is to run for reelection
 
Conservative said:
spouting the same lies over and over again don't make those lies true. You don't understand budget surpluses at all. Where was the surplus that you claim Bush inherited and spent?
Click to expand...
seriously? YOU are accusing someone of doing this? YOU??:lamo:lamo absolute comedy gold:lamo
 
Conservative said:
Really? What was the Obama and Democrat proposal for Medicare Part D? Again more liberal talking points without understanding the alternative presented
Click to expand...

Ummm, I guess you can't argue that bush*'s policies saddled Obama with runaway spending, so you'll pretend that Medicare D was a democrat proposal
 
Thunder said:
you mean like George Bush, who spent trillions of dollars on Iraq & Afghanistan while cutting taxes?

...and was re-elected by supposed Conservatives. those people?
Click to expand...


Bush sucked, the alternatives sucked worse. and Bush gave us two great justices-kerry would have put someone like Kagan on the court. Given the fact Kerry would have been as bad as bush on spending and far far worse on judges, gun rights, national defense and labor issues there was no better alternative
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threadbanned at this time: Conservative, Sangha, Sheik Yerbuti. Thread ban means you may not post further in this thread; infractions may be 5 points each as Mod discretion.

Most of the rest of you are also on thin ice. Watch it.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hey, TurtleDude, did I miss your evidence to any of this ...

... let's see your evidence that 9.11 caused tax revenue to drop for 3 straight years. Let's see your evidence that 9.11, which occurred with little over 3.5 months left in 2001, caused tax revenue to drop in 2001? Let's see your evidence that "Clinton "jacked up" the luxury tax? Let's see your evidence that tax revenue fell after Clinton did that? Let's see your evidence that imposing a luxury tax (which occurred under Bush in 1990) led to a drop in tax revenue.
Click to expand...


Uh that is completely irrelevant to the question I asked. I asked what was Reagan's net affect upon tax rates.

Never mind, I see you cannot answer it on this thread. maybe someone else can answer my question
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
regardless of your other views in other threads, I am proud of you for being able to acknowledge this.
Click to expand...

I was always unhappy with his idiotic spending. I was unhappy with nation building after we took out saddam and i was ambivalent about the war in Iraq to start with. I detested the prescription drug nonsense and the NCLB collaboration with Kennedy. I voted for Bush for several reasons

1) Judges. As an attorney who mainly practices in federal courts as a GENERAL TREND GOP judges tend to be better from MY perspective and GOP Supreme COurt Justices tend to be better as well especially since I knew the gun rights issue was coming up. Kerry or Gore appointed justices would most likely have lead to a vote against gun rights-the sort of vote we got from Bader Ginsburg or Sotomayor

2) taxes-No need to restate this

3) Labor relations. The Supreme Court Beck decision (use of dues for political activity) was IGNORED by Clinton. Meaning if a union member believed his BECK rights were violated he could no longer file a complaint with the Department of Labor and have a Labor department investigator and a Federal attorney prosecute on behalf of his rights. He would have to hire an attorney which is often difficult due to costs and the roadblocks unions throw up. I believed Gore would continue that disrespect for workers rights and I knew Kerry would based on his comments.

4) I opposed Bush on abortion and gay rights but those rights did not rank as high as the ones to ME that I believed Bush was better on
 
TurtleDude said:
Now that has to be one of the most stupid statements I have seen here. The claim that it was either FDR or the tax rate. FDR wasn't president until 33 and the tax rate was not the problem either
Click to expand...
The low tax rate caused wide spread margin buying on Wall Street, the very wealthy used their money to gamble rather than put it into their businesses. The exact same reason we have this severe downturn NOW. Low taxes on the rich lead to bad things. Speculation, speculation, speculation are baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
 
pbrauer said:
The low tax rate caused wide spread margin buying on Wall Street, the very wealthy used their money to gamble rather than put it into their businesses. The exact same reason we have this severe downturn NOW. Low taxes on the rich lead to bad things. Speculation, speculation, speculation are baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
Click to expand...

tellme PB what was the historic tax rate up to that time?
 
pbrauer said:
The low tax rate caused wide spread margin buying on Wall Street, the very wealthy used their money to gamble rather than put it into their businesses. The exact same reason we have this severe downturn NOW. Low taxes on the rich lead to bad things. Speculation, speculation, speculation are baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
Click to expand...

And NOW, instead of investing in jobs, corporate america is investing in speculation in oil and food, causing the prices of those to rise.

Different day, same rightwing BS
 
Is the futures market something some want to see banned?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom