The issues for being left of center...Now...

[gator996]

Are you for...



1. Equal pay - should anyone be paid less based on birth?

Even when the historic record of salary paid shows sex bias?




2. At a time of economic national crisis, should the most "well off" contribute more to the continuation of the system we have?


Who has the greatest interest in preserving the current system?







3. If you are for everyone paying (federal income tax) into the government, then are you also for everyone of those people also having a vote?


Shouldn't 100% participation be the goal?






4. Should the "rights" afforded all American citizens be denied based on sexual preference, race, sex, or any other "demographic" if they are "full" citizens in every other sense?

Whether or not you believe in "gay" marriage...can you deny them the benefits afforded to others solely based on their sexual preference?







5. Should government (the people) try to make society better or should it only be "administrative" in its operation?

What is its "right" size?








6. Is the private sector deserving of any confidence?

Are the "scandals'" of the corporate sector any better than the failings of public sector government?

Anyone have recourse to the management of Enron, AIG, or GM ????








7. Do you believe in the 47% video?
Do you think the top 1% thinks you're scum or a equal citizen of the USA?

Do you think Romney was talking about you?

Do you want handouts?

Do you not take responsibility for your life?






8. What level of state inclusion are you comfortable with?


Patriot Act?

Immigration law?

Abortion?

Efficent markets?

Civil rights?










.

[bluelang]

your questions are weird and don't make much sense.

1) all pay should be based on merit.
2) what system?
3) 100% do participate. some just end up owing less. and i understand the question behind this, but this is an extremely nuanced question with no simple answer. if you pull the safety net out from the federal level, the states will just have to take it up. or do you prefer higher crime?
4) government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, but of course any consideration given to any must be given to all.
5) question is too broad. government serves a valuable role in "making society better," but obviously there's an ebb and flow over time of governmental powers doing too little / too much.
6) the laws in place need to be enforced. the gaps need to be addressed. financials are a complex area, and while they serve a purpose in the economy they should not be confused for the economy itself.
7) i'm part of the 1%, and i don't think of myself as scum.
8) sure, all of that to some extent. but nothing is black-and-white. by definition, the federal government has an unmatched opportunity to leverage scale.

[gator996]

your questions are weird and don't make much sense.

1) all pay should be based on merit.
2) what system?
3) 100% do participate. some just end up owing less. and i understand the question behind this, but this is an extremely nuanced question with no simple answer. if you pull the safety net out from the federal level, the states will just have to take it up. or do you prefer higher crime?
4) government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, but of course any consideration given to any must be given to all.
5) question is too broad. government serves a valuable role in "making society better," but obviously there's an ebb and flow over time of governmental powers doing too little / too much.
6) the laws in place need to be enforced. the gaps need to be addressed. financials are a complex area, and while they serve a purpose in the economy they should not be confused for the economy itself.
7) i'm part of the 1%, and i don't think of myself as scum.
8) sure, all of that to some extent. but nothing is black-and-white. by definition, the federal government has an unmatched opportunity to leverage scale.



Your answer to #1 is kinda obvious but isn't occuring...
What do you do when pay isn't based on merit but biased by sex?
(Lilly Ledbetter Act)

Question #2...the American system of government

Question #3...don't know what you are responding to...this question is there for those who believe that everyone should pay taxes..."have skin in the game"

Does paying in get you a vote?

Question #4...Your position is left of the GOP and maybe becoming more center every day that passes

Question #5..too broad? This lies at the very heart of the shrinking government/government spending debate....

Question #6...Is directed at the idea of privatization of much of what the government does. Have no understanding or comprehension what you're responding to here...

Question#7...I hope you don't think of yourself as scum but that wasn't the question asked. :laugh:

Question #8...Again, I don't understand your answer. In the case of abortion what does your "to some extent" answer mean?



.

[gatordowneast]

If our country has shifted to the left of center, we are in big trouble. Left of center means financially irresponsible in the name of fairness and being culturally hijacked by the misfits, slackers and freaks in the name of political correctness. It has absolutely zero to do with questions posed by 996. Not sure what planet he is on.

[g8orbill]

1- it is not just a black and white answer-if all things were equal(time with company and qualifications the same) then no there should not be a different pay based upon sex

2-I think EVERYONE needs to contribute to our income tax system- look at your thoughts on question 1-then it appears you want the exact opposite on question 2

3- I don't really see where any American citizen outside of convicted felons are denied the right to vote

4- I will never understand 2 men having sex- my bigger question is why are we spending so much time on an issue that affects such a small portion of our total population-give them civil unions and move on-a marriage can only be between a man and a woman

5-our guvment is totally out of control and in my view liberals want to make it even larger until it just about controls everything we do-I do not think this si what the founders envisioned

6-if there are illegalities involved then those responsible should be punished-if it is merely poor management decisions then the company has an obligation to its shareholders to fix it-I do not believe in guvment bailouts-let them fail-there will always be someone else to take their place

7-bait question

8-Patriot Act- way too much guvment
Abortion is murder-the fact that abortion is uded as a means of birth control is criminal-people need to be responsible-if you are going to have sex-put a sock on it

what civil rights are you deprived of?

[QGator2414]

Your answer to #1 is kinda obvious but isn't occuring...
What do you do when pay isn't based on merit but biased by sex?
(Lilly Ledbetter Act)

Question #2...the American system of government

Question #3...don't know what you are responding to...this question is there for those who believe that everyone should pay taxes..."have skin in the game"

Does paying in get you a vote?

Question #4...Your position is left of the GOP and maybe becoming more center every day that passes

Question #5..too broad? This lies at the very heart of the shrinking government/government spending debate....

Question #6...Is directed at the idea of privatization of much of what the government does. Have no understanding or comprehension what you're responding to here...

Question#7...I hope you don't think of yourself as scum but that wasn't the question asked. :laugh:

Question #8...Again, I don't understand your answer. In the case of abortion what does your "to some extent" answer mean?



.

I am with blue on this wrt just being odd questions.

However the bolded part just makes me shake my head every time.

You leave that employer and go get paid what your services are worth.

[JerseyGator01]

Question #4 made me think about the fetus or the unborn child (the latter the more common public term at Roe v. Wade). A fetus can be an heir so why is his/her right to life denied by the federal government?

[jimgata]

The left is becoming incapable to honestly make a decision on taxes and spending. They have lost all sense of honesty and refuse to look at facts. Their arguments are based solely on emotion, consequences of their actions be damned. Until a little common sense is used by the left, we are going to suffer even more financially.

[gator996]

I am with blue on this wrt just being odd questions.

However the bolded part just makes me shake my head every time.

You leave that employer and go get paid what your services are worth.



So if your employer discriminates against an employee there should be no legal remedy?


.

[gator996]

Question #4 made me think about the fetus or the unborn child (the latter the more common public term at Roe v. Wade). A fetus can be an heir so why is his/her right to life denied by the federal government?


A fetus can be an heir?

Is this true?


.

[MichiGator2002]

So if your employer discriminates against an employee there should be no legal remedy?

.

If they are discriminating. Your error is concluding that broad statistical assertions are proof, per se, of discrimination on specific grounds. Your making an entirely emotional argument. On the whole list, really.

[gator996]

If our country has shifted to the left of center, we are in big trouble. Left of center means financially irresponsible in the name of fairness and being culturally hijacked by the misfits, slackers and freaks in the name of political correctness. It has absolutely zero to do with questions posed by 996. Not sure what planet he is on.

Financial irresponsibility means "left of center"...really?

The left owns the irresponisbility tag exclusively?

You talk like a true partisan...well done.




.

[gator996]

1- it is not just a black and white answer-if all things were equal(time with company and qualifications the same) then no there should not be a different pay based upon sex.


Agreed.
But what should happen when an employer is shown to have discriminated against an employee?

Should there be a law...should there be a legal remedy?


2-I think EVERYONE needs to contribute to our income tax system- look at your thoughts on question 1-then it appears you want the exact opposite on question 2


2nd question has nothing to do with the 1st


3- I don't really see where any American citizen outside of convicted felons are denied the right to vote

Should income tax returns determine whether or not you have a say in this society?

What if you earn no income but pay all of the other taxes in our society (i.e. sales tax)?



4- I will never understand 2 men having sex- my bigger question is why are we spending so much time on an issue that affects such a small portion of our total population-give them civil unions and move on-a marriage can only be between a man and a woman

That definition of marriage is determined by who?
What if your religion is OK with gay marriage?

Should your religious belief be encroached upon by government?


5-our guvment is totally out of control and in my view liberals want to make it even larger until it just about controls everything we do-I do not think this si what the founders envisioned

But the answer to the question????

What is its "right" size?

In you opinion, what should it regulate?

What should be eliminated?



6-if there are illegalities involved then those responsible should be punished-if it is merely poor management decisions then the company has an obligation to its shareholders to fix it-I do not believe in guvment bailouts-let them fail-there will always be someone else to take their place


The question is more about the idea of shrinking government and privatizing some government functions. While we scream about government waste and poorly run government programs...What has private industry shown you that they would do a better job?

For every Solyndra there's a Enron...



7-bait question

What was Romney kidding when he said this?

Is this representative of right-wing thinking?

Looking at some of the responses on this thread I would say so...
Question is does the Romney portion of the GOP look at half of the country as scum?



8-Patriot Act- way too much guvment
Abortion is murder-the fact that abortion is uded as a means of birth control is criminal-people need to be responsible-if you are going to have sex-put a sock on it

what civil rights are you deprived of?

Question #8 asked where are you on government intrusion in your life.

For you bil, its easy....abortion = illegal but for those who would allow abortion in particular cases or with certain restrictions how involved should the government be?

[gator996]

If they are discriminating. Your error is concluding that broad statistical assertions are proof, per se, of discrimination on specific grounds. Your making an entirely emotional argument. On the whole list, really.

Not at all.

Discrimination cases are always difficult to prove.

The question is if you have the historical data ("proof") should there be a law to protect you as an employee.

Its your assumption only broad statistical assertations are the only thing presented as proof.

Sure does make it easy to respond if you throw out the notion of statistical data being valid proof. :grin:

.

[QGator2414]

So if your employer discriminates against an employee there should be no legal remedy?


.

Well if an employer is dumb enough to discriminate the market will handle the situation...

[RealGatorFan]

Financial irresponsibility means "left of center"...really?

The left owns the irresponisbility tag exclusively?

You talk like a true partisan...well done.




.

As of today...yes!!! $650 Billion in new taxes yet an embarrassing $15 Billion in spending cuts? That's what was signed this morning. It's no wonder republicans had a hard time being bipartisan...the democrats were wanting to be 0% bipartisan. I'm waiting for a response to why the democrats only wanted $15 Billion in spending cuts??? Will any major media outlet even ask the hard question or are they going to spin it like they always do?

[gator996]

As of today...yes!!! $650 Billion in new taxes yet an embarrassing $15 Billion in spending cuts? That's what was signed this morning. It's no wonder republicans had a hard time being bipartisan...the democrats were wanting to be 0% bipartisan. I'm waiting for a response to why the democrats only wanted $15 Billion in spending cuts??? Will any major media outlet even ask the hard question or are they going to spin it like they always do?

You do realize the democrats have already agreed to $900 billion from summer 2011 right?

This was the result of the debt ceiling debate.

The Budget Control Act of 2011...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011


So your outrage here and excuse for the GOP not being bipartisan don't really wash here...


What were the Democrats when they agreed to $900B in spending cuts without tax increases in the summer of 2011?

You can make your claims about who is and who isn't compromising for the best interests of the country...just get your "facts" straight...



.

[gatordowneast]

Financial irresponsibility means "left of center"...really?

The left owns the irresponisbility tag exclusively?

You talk like a true partisan...well done.




.

Yep. You got it. At the national level, the right will spend on the military to protect your ass and mine and the left wants to spend on everything else to buy votes. If that is partisan, call me guilty.

[gatordowneast]

You do realize the democrats have already agreed to $900 billion from summer 2011 right?

This was the result of the debt ceiling debate.

The Budget Control Act of 2011...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011


So your outrage here and excuse for the GOP not being bipartisan don't really wash here...


What were the Democrats when they agreed to $900B in spending cuts without tax increases in the summer of 2011?

You can make your claims about who is and who isn't compromising for the best interests of the country...just get your "facts" straight...



.

There are no spending cuts. They huff and puff and posture and then cut "the rate of spending growth" and call it a cut. It's nonsense and the leftys won't acknowledge it.

[gator996]

Yep. You got it. At the national level, the right will spend on the military to protect your ass and mine and the left wants to spend on everything else to buy votes. If that is partisan, call me guilty.



No, wasteful spending is a trait of both parties...


Trying to justify wasteful spending on one side while criticizing it on the other side is what smacks of partisanship...

BTW - When did medicare part D, 2 wars, and the bush tax cuts become defense spending to protect my ass? :laugh:

[Dreamliner]

Offhand, I'd venture that government needs to stop ravaging the people. No entity rings its hands about inequality more, and does more to effect it, than government.

[gatordowneast]

No, wasteful spending is a trait of both parties...


Trying to justify wasteful spending on one side while criticizing it on the other side is what smacks of partisanship...

BTW - When did medicare part D, 2 wars, and the bush tax cuts become defense spending to protect my ass? :laugh:

Medicare part D was a mistake. The Bush tax cuts were implemented following the death of 3,000 Americans and the destruction of $20 B of our property and the layoff of over 100,000 employees in the NY,NJ, CT area alone and the fear of our economy tanking. Second round was initiated to get the economy growing. It was a huge mistake to take so many off the tax rolls. They became renters rather than owners.

The wars were a result of our country being attacked. If you want to pull up the list of demo senators who voted along with the pubs, to go to war, have at it. Those privy to the information Bush was, voted to go. Iraq was a mistake for the reason given (WMD) but for the sake of the 4,000 who gave their lives and thousands of others maimed and injured and the 22 M Iraqs who are no longer ruled by a tyrant and now have a chance...maybe not.

[Dreamliner]

Good point, Afghanistan and Iraq were Obama wars.

[jimgata]

The left's idea of a cut is to say, we were going to increase speneing by 10% , now we will increase it by 8% and look at the savings.. That is their idea of a cut in spending. That is what I said earlier, they are too damn immatute to govern. They refuse to look at the problem realistically and seem to think that words and promises will solve a problem.

[gatorman_07732]

Offhand, I'd venture that government needs to stop ravaging the people. No entity rings its hands about inequality more, and does more to effect it, than government.

They have a strong interest in keeping inequality because without it the Democrats will be out of power.

[gator996]

Medicare part D was a mistake. The Bush tax cuts were implemented following the death of 3,000 Americans and the destruction of $20 B of our property and the layoff of over 100,000 employees in the NY,NJ, CT area alone and the fear of our economy tanking. Second round was initiated to get the economy growing. It was a huge mistake to take so many off the tax rolls. They became renters rather than owners.

The wars were a result of our country being attacked. If you want to pull up the list of demo senators who voted along with the pubs, to go to war, have at it. Those privy to the information Bush was, voted to go. Iraq was a mistake for the reason given (WMD) but for the sake of the 4,000 who gave their lives and thousands of others maimed and injured and the 22 M Iraqs who are no longer ruled by a tyrant and now have a chance...maybe not.


So the tax cuts were "bad"?

Trying to justify the war effort is irrelevant to this discussion...

Was it irresponsible to keep the war "off the books" or not?




.

[gator996]

Good point, Afghanistan and Iraq were Obama wars.

Yeah I suppose so since he actually accounted for it in the federal budget.


Fiscal irresponsibility by Bush or not?

[gatorman_07732]

Yeah I suppose so since he actually accounted for it in the federal budget.


Fiscal irresponsibility by Bush or not?

Wait, there is a budget?

[QGator2414]

The left's idea of a cut is to say, we were going to increase speneing by 10% , now we will increase it by 8% and look at the savings.. That is their idea of a cut in spending. That is what I said earlier, they are too damn immatute to govern. They refuse to look at the problem realistically and seem to think that words and promises will solve a problem.

Yep. Though the pubs will just increase it at 6% and say look at the savings... :)

[gator996]

What amuses me here is the inability or desire to look at those 8 questions individually and answer with your own personal belief...

You can take the discussion anywhere you like...I'm good with it

But its rather apparent that with only general statements about spending to rely on you can believe stuff like only $15B in cuts have been agreed to...when the "other" $900B is brought up then it becomes that none of those are cuts anyway.

When discussing equal pay...you can't use data

When discussing fiscal irresponsibility...only the left do it even though in your explanation medicare part d was wrong, the cuts were wrong, and somehow Obama started the 2 wars..... :crazy:

[gator996]

Wait, there is a budget?


Yes there is....

Here's 2012 & 2013 for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

[QGator2414]

What amuses me here is the inability or desire to look at those 8 questions individually and answer with your own personal belief...

You can take the discussion anywhere you like...I'm good with it

But its rather apparent that with only general statements about spending to rely on you can believe stuff like only $15B in cuts have been agreed to...when the "other" $900B is brought up then it becomes that none of those are cuts anyway.

When discussing equal pay...you can't use data

When discussing fiscal irresponsibility...only the left do it even though in your explanation medicare part d was wrong, the cuts were wrong, and somehow Obama started the 2 wars..... :crazy:

What is equal pay to you?

Is it equal pay for two people to graduate with a technical degree and get paid two vastly different salaries because one business does not offer the same compensation as the other?

We paid one of our assistants (only half way done with a technical degree) more than they would have made in our area if they had a full degree right out of school and paid to get them certified. Is it discrimination to those that come out with a technical degree who are not compensated as much?

[gatorman_07732]

Yes there is....

Here's 2012 & 2013 for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

You do know how insincere you're being right? The Senate has not passed any budget in over three years. Those were budget as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as a result of a deal the raise the debt celing.

[jimgata]

41 to one, tax increases to cuts. What a world.
Have we even thought of tax increases coming from payroll taxes and obamacare.
spin on!
Bend over and touch your toes, inept politicians will show you where failure goes.

[madgator]

Wait, there is a budget?

Incredible how hypocritical those who criticize anything regarding a Bush budget but are completely silent regarding the fact that Obama doesn't even pass a budget.


in light of this, how can they consider themselves to have any credibility?

[108]

Medicare part D was a mistake. The Bush tax cuts were implemented following the death of 3,000 Americans and the destruction of $20 B of our property and the layoff of over 100,000 employees in the NY,NJ, CT area alone and the fear of our economy tanking. Second round was initiated to get the economy growing. It was a huge mistake to take so many off the tax rolls. They became renters rather than owners.

The wars were a result of our country being attacked. If you want to pull up the list of demo senators who voted along with the pubs, to go to war, have at it. Those privy to the information Bush was, voted to go. Iraq was a mistake for the reason given (WMD) but for the sake of the 4,000 who gave their lives and thousands of others maimed and injured and the 22 M Iraqs who are no longer ruled by a tyrant and now have a chance...maybe not.

Bush tax cuts were passed in June of 2001 :wink:

And im going to take a wild guess and bet that you don't excuse the Obama stimulus following the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression :wave:

[gatordowneast]

So the tax cuts were "bad"?

Trying to justify the war effort is irrelevant to this discussion...

Was it irresponsible to keep the war "off the books" or not?




.

Did I say the tax cuts were bad? Couldn't find where I claimed that. You brought up the wars as a question of them saving your "ass" and I would say yes, the wars saved all of our asses. One suitcase nuke and our economy would have been destroyed and you may be back in class for a masters in primitive culture.

Whether the war was off the books or not is irrelevant. The costs still got added to the deficits under Bush and those deficits ran $200 B to $400 B including the war costs. Outrageously high to all of us at the time. Yet Obama runs $200 B deficits some months and $400 B is a quarterly loss for this lightweight.

[Dreamliner]

I predict worsening inequality as a result of the government's obsession with eradicating inequality.

[gator996]

Did I say the tax cuts were bad? Couldn't find where I claimed that. You brought up the wars as a question of them saving your "ass" and I would say yes, the wars saved all of our asses. One suitcase nuke and our economy would have been destroyed and you may be back in class for a masters in primitive culture.

Whether the war was off the books or not is irrelevant. The costs still got added to the deficits under Bush and those deficits ran $200 B to $400 B including the war costs. Outrageously high to all of us at the time. Yet Obama runs $200 B deficits some months and $400 B is a quarterly loss for this lightweight.


Wrong again....


Stop conducting the war off the books
Jane Harman
Published 4:00 am, Friday, January 12, 2007


http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Stop-conducting-the-war-off-the-books-2624023.php

"Bush has funded the war in Iraq and the broader "war on terror" almost entirely through "emergency supplemental" appropriations bills -- in other words, off the books. Ninety-three percent of the approximately $507 billion appropriated for the war in Iraq has come through such bills, and the president is reportedly set to ask for another $100 billion in "emergency" funds in February to cover costs.

By designating budget requests as "emergencies," the president and the former Republican-led Congresses placed them on a legislative fast-track. Congress had little opportunity to ask tough questions about how these funds were being spent, and little opportunity to strip out offending items -- including a litany of earmarks and other domestic spending that had nothing to do with the war.

Calling these funding requests "emergencies" also automatically exempts them from spending caps. The president can thus claim that more than $500 billion in recent spending is not part of the deficit. Nonsense.

By doing so, the true costs of the war are not understood in relation to the other programs that are shortchanged to pay for it -- including providing veteran's benefits to the 22,714 American servicemen and women wounded in the war, funding the chronically underfunded No Child Left Behind education law, paying for affordable housing for Hurricane Katrina victims and investing in clean energy.

[Gatoragman]

So if the Bush tax cuts were bad and gave us great deficits now that Obama has extended them twice have they magically become a necessity to the struggling ecomony?
And now they are good?

[gator996]

The Bush tax cuts were "bad" because they weren't paid for..
...not because tax cuts are bad by nature...

Get a clue....

"Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/34/enforce-pay-as-you-go-paygo-budget-rules/

President signed a PAYGO bill, but GOP House changed key Democratic rule
Updated: Thursday, December 20th, 2012 | By Louis Jacobson

Barack Obama's promise to enforce pay-as-you-go -- or "PAYGO” -- budgeting rules was significantly affected by the Republican takeover of the House during the 2010 elections.

A recap: PAYGO rules have existed in different forms, but the general principle is that they require new spending to be balanced by spending cuts, revenue increases or a combination of the two.

One complication affecting this promise is that two separate provisions go by the name PAYGO.

One is a law Obama signed on Feb. 12, 2010 -- the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. The legislation increased the public debt limit and instituted a new PAYGO statute. The Office of Management and Budget keeps track of new spending and tax law changes. At the end of the year, OMB checks whether spending increases and tax cuts have been offset by spending cuts or tax increases. If not -- and if Congress doesn't act to make offsetting cuts -- there is an automatic across-the-board spending cut

[madgator]

So if the Bush tax cuts were bad and gave us great deficits now that Obama has extended them twice have they magically become a necessity to the struggling ecomony?
And now they are good?

all it takes is a D next to the politicians name


it's just that simple

[Gatoragman]

Get a clue? A tax cut not paid for, where are the spending cuts to "pay for" the tax cuts he just did? Where was the SS cuts to pay for the last couple years of FICA deceases? Talk about get a clue!

[jimgata]

Paying for your own money? The left's mantra.
Tax cuts will cause growth and revenue will be higher than some pie in the sky promise of future cut in growth, to pay for cuts. It will not happen.
If Bush tax cuts were so bad, why did Obama run to keep the tax cuts? His increase on those making over 400,000 is punitive, appeasing those who have no clue and are spiteful of success. They will add zero to the economy
and in fact hurt it.

[bluelang]

Paying for your own money? The left's mantra.
Tax cuts will cause growth and revenue will be higher than some pie in the sky promise of future cut in growth, to pay for cuts. It will not happen.
If Bush tax cuts were so bad, why did Obama run to keep the tax cuts? His increase on those making over 400,000 is punitive, appeasing those who have no clue and are spiteful of success. They will add zero to the economy
and in fact hurt it.

If tax cuts are so good, why did the economy go so far South under Bush 2?

[jimgata]

Why does Obama want to keep the tax cuts?
If tax cuts really tank the economy, Is Obama trying to tank the economy?

[gatordowneast]

Bush tax cuts were passed in June of 2001 :wink:

And im going to take a wild guess and bet that you don't excuse the Obama stimulus following the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression :wave:

Excuse me...dot com and stock market implosion was the original reason for the Bush tax cuts.

And the Obama stimulus was a disaster...because....Obama tried to pick winners and losers. Winners were the unions (both public and private) and green energy companies (bundlers). Losers were all of us who now owe the debt. Had he attempted a stimulus by allowing taxpayers to keep even more of their money, wouldn't have had the backlash.

I do think the "cash for clunkers" program had one benefit. Removed a helluvalot of beaters with Obama-Biden stickers off the road.

[MastaG8r]

The left is becoming incapable to honestly make a decision on taxes and spending. They have lost all sense of honesty and refuse to look at facts. Their arguments are based solely on emotion, consequences of their actions be damned. Until a little common sense is used by the left, we are going to suffer even more financially.Not only that but as the OP shows, their views about the beliefs of those of us on the Right are inaccurate and based on baseless prejudices and phony stereotypes perpetuated from and within the Left and its allies in the mainstream news & entertainment media.

[gator996]

Excuse me...dot com and stock market implosion was the original reason for the Bush tax cuts.

And the Obama stimulus was a disaster...because....Obama tried to pick winners and losers. Winners were the unions (both public and private) and green energy companies (bundlers). Losers were all of us who now owe the debt. Had he attempted a stimulus by allowing taxpayers to keep even more of their money, wouldn't have had the backlash.

I do think the "cash for clunkers" program had one benefit. Removed a helluvalot of beaters with Obama-Biden stickers off the road.

1/3rd of the stimulus was tax cuts.