The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@mysteryman,

That's where you change the game, and it becomes a "what if" scenario.

Unfortunately, what the GOP has stated was "no increase in taxes." That's an unrealistic demand when the country is facing a crisis.

There are plenty of "what if" scenarios that can be played at, but in reality, that's not what the GOP is demanding.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Not that it makes him look any better, but he now regrets his vote he made in 2006 and bascially an admission that he protested the policies in the wrong way.

Obama Regrets Vote Against Raising Debt Limit

To be honest I don't see any difference in the two situations and both were /are wrong.

We do need to get our country in order though. Closing out the tax loopholes for oil and big corporations who have been racking in the profits while the rest of us have been going broke would help a long way. And before anyone says that would mean less jobs, that's a bunch of huey. They haven't been hiring or even spending in this country anyway. But no, much better to take away medicare from senior citizens and money from education, bunch of freeloaders anyway.

2 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Closing out the tax loopholes for oil and big corporations...would help a long way.

Not really. The number I see for oil is a mere $4Bn in loopholes in 2011 and $77Bn over 10 years.
There are couple of games where you are shown the deficit for a given year and can make adjustments to spending and taxing. You can go after the usual targets and see, for example, the effect of reducing pay of federal workers, eliminating EPA and Amtrak subsidies etc. Punch the button at the end to see how much of the deficit you have cut in dollar terms or as a % of GDP.
It is amazing how people might say that if we just eliminated the Dept of Education or if we just raised taxes on the super rich...
I found one really good version of this game but I can't find it now. I ran across several others but they are for budget years 2008 or something.
It would be an amusing game to play here.

1 Reply

Herman Cain In Person

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If I'm not mistaken Senator Obama voted against an earlier increase in the debt ceiling, ostensably becausee he opposed funding for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

You are not mistaken. In 2006, Obama did vote against raising the debt ceiling. This year in April, he issued a press statement regretting that vote. Karma is a bitch.

georgeob1 wrote:

Was he also a manipulative "hostage taker" ?

Yes he was. But even if Obama is a hypocrite, that does not make manipulative hostage-taking a good thing.

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Not that it makes him look any better, but he now regrets his vote he made in 2006 and bascially an admission that he protested the policies in the wrong way.

Obama Regrets Vote Against Raising Debt Limit

To be honest I don't see any difference in the two situations and both were /are wrong.

We do need to get our country in order though. Closing out the tax loopholes for oil and big corporations who have been racking in the profits while the rest of us have been going broke would help a long way. And before anyone says that would mean less jobs, that's a bunch of huey. They haven't been hiring or even spending in this country anyway. But no, much better to take away medicare from senior citizens and money from education, bunch of freeloaders anyway.

Let's just say it dilutes the criticism he and his Democrat cohort are levelling against the Republicans for exactly the same thing.

More significantly, the facts that (1) Both the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled Congress in 2010 failed to even attempt budget legislation for the current government fiscal year (which started Oct 1 2010), even though it was their duty to do so (they were apparently trying to evade political issues in the November election). (2) Then, after the election, Obama submitted a budget for the year (already underway) that reflected zero spending cuts, more giveaways, and an increased deficit. (3) Following the passage of draft budget legislation in the Republican House, Obama sneeringly criticized both its content and assumed intent in his State of the Union speech. (4) Weeks later, after a surge in public concern and criticism, Obama announced his commiittment to reduce the deficits (surprise, surprise !), but provided no details at all about what reductions in spending he might make - instead it was only more rhetoric about class warfare and taxing the rich. (5) All of this occurred after the report of a special commission appointed by President Obama to address our growing deficits. The Commission has reported its findings, including specific recommendations. However Obama has done nothing with them and made no definitive comments about them.

All this paints the picture of a President who is either utterly cynical, seriously incompetent, or interested only in short term political maneuvering. Perhaps a combination of all three.

Closing presumed tax loopholes for oil and other corporations will only raise their domestic prices and persuade more of them to invest their capital in other places. We already have much higher corporate taxes than do the countries that are our most serious economic competitors.

1 Reply

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Let's just say it dilutes the criticism he and his Democrat cohort are levelling against the Republicans for exactly the same thing.

No, it doesn't. The fact that you accuse someone else of hostage taking doesn't justify your support for hostage taking.

We also were in a quite different situation then - it's one thing to vote against something (mostly symbolically), and another to threaten to push the country into default - and to even say that it would be HEALTHY for the country to default! - as the Republicans are currently doing.

You then go on to be wrong about a whole host of things in the next paragraph, notably:

Quote:

Then, after the election, Obama submitted a budget for the year (already underway) that reflected zero spending cuts, more giveaways, and an increased deficit.

This is untrue - the budget submitted for last year by Obama DID include spending cuts. It was filibustered in the Senate by the Republicans. You're factually wrong.

Quote:

All of this occurred after the report of a special commission appointed by President Obama to address our growing deficits. The Commission has reported its findings,

Again untrue. The commission broke up without producing any findings or a report. You are mistaking the comments of Bowles and Simpson (the chairman of the commission) for the entire thing. Get your facts straight.

Quote:

All this paints the picture of a President who is either utterly cynical, seriously incompetent, or interested only in short term political maneuvering. Perhaps a combination of all three.

How do your repeated factual errors on these matters paint you, George? As 'seriously incompetent?' You're quick to throw stones but slow to admit when you screw up.

Quote:

We already have much higher corporate taxes than do the countries that are our most serious economic competitors.

This is also untrue. Our effective corporate tax rate is the lowest out of almost any of our economic competitors.

---

All of that non-withstanding, nothing you wrote has anything to do with the necessity of raising the debt limit. At all. It's a big distraction from the fact that the limit will have to be raised just to cover LAST YEAR'S budget, which was just passed.... let alone ANY new spending going forward in the future.

Let's get to the real heart of the matter: do you, George, believe that if the Dems won't agree to spending cuts without tax raises involved in this hypothetical deal, that the Republicans should refuse to pass a debt limit expansion?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let's get to the real heart of the matter: do you, George, believe that if the Dems won't agree to spending cuts without tax raises involved in this hypothetical deal, that the Republicans should refuse to pass a debt limit expansion?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, and I think they will do so.

What is an "effective" tax rate??? Please provide some supporting data for your rather strange and incredible assertion.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let's get to the real heart of the matter: do you, George, believe that if the Dems won't agree to spending cuts without tax raises involved in this hypothetical deal, that the Republicans should refuse to pass a debt limit expansion?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, and I think they will do so.

Well, all I can say to that is that your position on this matter is extremely - extremely - foolish. You're basically saying that you are hoping and cheering for an economic crisis if you don't get your way on spending.

And for someone who has bitched and moaned for years about the Democrats causing 'uncertainty' with their politics and policies, you are revealing yourself to be a real hypocrite here.

No mention whatsoever of your factual errors in the last post? Maybe nobody will notice if you just don't respond. Right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

For anyone interested, I set up a new thread devoted to the debate about the debt ceiling/budget deficit thing. We seem to be talking about that on several threads. I thought it may be better to put that in its own place. See "Tick, Tick...."

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I don't know that i'd even list his father John Adams among the "founding fathers." That would hinge on how one defines founding fathers. While his views were influential, Adams was not a participant in the constitutional convention.

Neither was Jefferson. Are you unsure about Jefferson, too?

Pretty much--although, actually, i'm more certain that Jefferson does not deserve to be considered a founder than i am Adams. Adams, after all, had a significant influence on men who were framers of the constitution, both in private correspondence and in his published statements on governance. Despite the 200 year+ Jefferson fan club, i know of nothing which he said or wrote which had any profound influence on the formation of the United States which was also his original work. His draft for the Declaration of Independence was a patchwork of ideas taken from published authors and from the man (name escapes me at the moment) who taught him law, and whose words are preserved in correspondence. That draft was then heavily edited by a committee before the Continental Congress published it.

Despite claims to the contrary, he did not write the "Virginia plan" which was the only constitutional plan presented to the convention (and pretty much edited out of existence). That was the work of George Mason and James Madison. Jefferson cheerleaders make all sorts of extraordinary claims about his ideas and what he wrote which simply cannot stand historical examination. It was Geoge Mason who wrote a declaration of rights in 1776, which, when revised by him and James Madison, became the proposed amendments sent to the states by the First Congress, and which became the bill of rights. Jefferson had nothing to do with it.

Jefferson supporters (especially conservatives) love to quote his "tree of liberty watered with the blood of patriots" bullshit--but the conservatives aren't so quick to quote his "wall of separation" between church and state passage from his letter to the Danbury Baptists. They also ignore his deceit and disruption in Washington's cabinet when he worked to undermine Hamilton's financial plan, and lied to Washington's face about, as well as publicly lieing to the entire cabinet in session. They ignore a great deal about Jefferson.

I really despise the man. No, i don't consider him a founder.

0 Replies

Interesting. Jumping ahead a couple hundred years, it seems to me that Bachmann is looking strong at the moment in the Iowa caucus. Romney seems unlikely to contest her there. A few days later, in the NH primary, Romney is ahead of her by some 25 points. He has a home there and is a neighboring governor. Romney looks strong in the next primary: Nevada. South Carolina could be more contentious.
The battleground for the GOP, right now, comes down to Florida's primary. Complicating things is the Repub governor who seems to be alienating just about everyone. His approval ratings are sinking.
Anyone here know anything about Rick Scott in that key state?

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

That sounds interesting, rjb.

Just looked anew at your sig line.
Thinking - you're not little!
(what's a git?)

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I don't know much about Finn, Osso. I don't recall what I may have said that ticked him off. It is not my style to deliberately be offensive.
The best definition of "git" I find in the urban dictionary would come out claiming that Johnboy is "a pompous, completely ignorant, childish person with no manners, feeling confident in his callow behavior."

2 Replies

How old is Barry's oldest daughter?

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

So, pompous git would be a redundancy.

It's British, not American.

0 Replies

I read somewhere a while back that the Iowa caucuses are becoming irrelevant on the Republican side. Some candidates are skipping them altogether because the Iowa Reps are so far out there that it's not worth it to anyone but the far right to show up. I think I posted something about it earlier in this thread.

1 Reply

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know