More conservative ideas from the Obama camp.

[Andy]

first what did I "Deflect"? I pointed out that this tax cut is the same tax cut he talked about for a year, and now all the sudden your calling it conservative, after all the cries about him being a socialist. And you now act like its some new idea.

Tax cuts are always a conservative policy. It's the basic idea that a

2nd I stated I don't know if I agree with a tax cut right now, it depends on if its a short term one, or its a long term one, and also how the bill addresses spending to make up for it. But He is not in office yet, and there is no Bill so I cant say yes or no .

Funny how it didn't seem to matter if Bush's tax cut was long-term or short-term. Remember that it's set to expire, right? Did that stop you, anyone on the left from attacking him over it?

But now that it is Overspend-Obama, now well it might be ok if it's short-term or long-term or something or other. Why the double standard?

I don't think with the debt we have right now, long term tax cuts are a good idea, as we need to pay down this debt ...thanks in large part to Bush. But fact is the econ is Horrible and needs something to get it going because at its current pace we are taking in even less taxes due to the poor econ while spending is going up still. something needs to spark growth, but also we need to cut spending. getting out of Iraq is a good place to start on cutting some costs, and maybe a tax cut can spark something, though personally I doubt any tax cut we can do , will be large enough to make much of a dent in this econ. Personally those one time checks Bush put out would help me the most, but only due to the fact I am a commission salesperson in a area where the average sale is 1000 or more, so those would spark my company, and thus my paycheck...But I also know most of those just went to CC debt and did not help thing long term.

Nothing needs to spark growth. Growth happens naturally without any government intervention. Let me ask you, does someone from the government need to tell you to sell stuff? No, you do it on your own. Does anyone need to tell people to earn money and buy things? No, they do it on their own.

The only thing government can do, is get out of the way. By cutting taxes, everyone will have more money in their pockets. If they have more money in their pockets, what will they do with it? Likely buy something, or pay bills. Either way, that's going to grow the economy.

And as for Bush cutting taxes while in a state of war...Bush tax cuts went during the major fighting of the war in Iraq, with Afganistan still going as well...These go with Iraq comeing to a end one way or another, and afganistan while heating up again, being a far less costly war. But also Bush did not have a econ that was this bad, he had not screwed up enough yet, and did not need tax cuts...now its to the point where we may have to cut them just to get the econ on any type of a track.

So let's get this straight. The first year of the Iraq war, we spent less than $50 Billion on it. Now, we're spending $150 Billion on it, and Obama doesn't plan to end the war, just move all those troops and equipment to Afghanistan.

So there won't be a reduction in cost, just a change in where it's spent. Yet, Bush is horrible for passing a tax cut when we were spending $50 Billion or less, but Obama is brilliant for passing a tax cut when we're spending three times that.

Double standard anyone?

Also I did not support hte bail out of the banks, and am weary of the auto bail out as well. I dont support Obama or Bush on those issues.

Amazing. We agree on one issue. Maybe you could get the leftists here to agree to that.

 

[Andy]

Well the Republican were in FULL AND TOTAL CONTROL as this train wreck was steadily building so yes... Republicans can't be trusted with our economy. As a fact historically Republicans a worse stewards of our economy.

Actually the democrats have controlled the Senate since 2006. Ironically, the economic crash really didn't start till 2008. So, once again, many claims, zero support.

Clinton ran a GREAT economy... anybody with half a brain that was around at the time and also has any current events knowledge at all given the choice between ANY YEAR of the Clinton economy and THE BUSH/REPUBLICAN TODAY ECONOMY... picks Clinton's without even batting an eye!!!!!!!!!!!

Clinton's last year was a recession. Clinton also passed NAFTA which helped the economy. (free-trade capitalism, remember?)

I think the goal of our new President is definitely to get us back there. He has a lot of the old Clinton team onboard to help him. President Obama is more impressive every single day... and he hasn't even been sworn in yet!

Yup, 'hope & change' is to go back to the old ways and hope the change works. Obama is supporting the exact policies you attacked Bush over. lol

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Tax cuts are always a conservative policy. It's the basic idea that a



Funny how it didn't seem to matter if Bush's tax cut was long-term or short-term. Remember that it's set to expire, right? Did that stop you, anyone on the left from attacking him over it?

But now that it is Overspend-Obama, now well it might be ok if it's short-term or long-term or something or other. Why the double standard?



Nothing needs to spark growth. Growth happens naturally without any government intervention. Let me ask you, does someone from the government need to tell you to sell stuff? No, you do it on your own. Does anyone need to tell people to earn money and buy things? No, they do it on their own.

The only thing government can do, is get out of the way. By cutting taxes, everyone will have more money in their pockets. If they have more money in their pockets, what will they do with it? Likely buy something, or pay bills. Either way, that's going to grow the economy.



So let's get this straight. The first year of the Iraq war, we spent less than $50 Billion on it. Now, we're spending $150 Billion on it, and Obama doesn't plan to end the war, just move all those troops and equipment to Afghanistan.

So there won't be a reduction in cost, just a change in where it's spent. Yet, Bush is horrible for passing a tax cut when we were spending $50 Billion or less, but Obama is brilliant for passing a tax cut when we're spending three times that.

Double standard anyone?



Amazing. We agree on one issue. Maybe you could get the leftists here to agree to that.

funny you dont know what I said about the bush tax cuts at the time, but you act like you know.

and no Iraq is not afganistan, even with more troops there, they are not moving 140,000 troops to afganistan, but nice staw man. since the amount of troops said to be needed in afganistan is far far far less then that.

and can growth happen without the government? yes, of course it can, but the government can also help it happen, just like when it happens to fast it can slow it down to get the econ stable. Trust me I see the effects of this ****ty econ evry day at work , and its killing not only my company, but me and also the major companies that make our products ( 2 of the biggest almost went under not long ago)

 

[Andy]

funny you dont know what I said about the bush tax cuts at the time, but you act like you know.

The thread, and subsequent posts all were directed at those that opposed the Bush tax cuts on the grounds that we were at war, and had massive deficit spending.

If the comments do not apply to you, then you shouldn't act as if they do. If you choose to respond as if they do, don't be surprised when your treated like they do.

The whole point is about the vast hypocrisy of the left. If have remained consistent, then it doesn't apply to you. If you have not, then the shoe fits, and you should ware it.

and no Iraq is not afganistan, even with more troops there, they are not moving 140,000 troops to afganistan, but nice staw man. since the amount of troops said to be needed in afganistan is far far far less then that.

That is not what Obama stated. According to his own statements, he plans on moving the forces in Iraq to Afghanistan. I'm not going to assume otherwise simply because a guy on the net posts hearsay, as opposed to the directly stated words of the very guy who will be in charge.

and can growth happen without the government? yes, of course it can, but the government can also help it happen, just like when it happens to fast it can slow it down to get the econ stable. Trust me I see the effects of this ****ty econ evry day at work , and its killing not only my company, but me and also the major companies that make our products ( 2 of the biggest almost went under not long ago)

Right, and what do you think government can do to "help it happen"?

 

[top gun]

Actually the democrats have controlled the Senate since 2006. Ironically, the economic crash really didn't start till 2008. So, once again, many claims, zero support.

That's just total smoke and mirrors and you know it because we've discussed it several times. Dems haven't had a filibuster proof majority and the President tells everyone in advance what he'll veto... the Dems also don't have a veto override majority.

So your Party the "OBSTRUCTIONIST PARTY" has done it's good job of stopping progress.

But that's about to change in 11 days! YEA!!!!!

Clinton's last year was a recession. Clinton also passed NAFTA which helped the economy. (free-trade capitalism, remember?)

Any year Andy. Pick any year that the Clinton administration didn't have an economy light years better than Bush today... won't take long... EVERY SINGLE YEAR WAY WAY BETTER UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON... and President Clinton even left old borrow & spend Bush a surplus!

Yup, 'hope & change' is to go back to the old ways and hope the change works. Obama is supporting the exact policies you attacked Bush over.

Dude Bush couldn't carry Obama's jock strap... or even spell it.

The main thing is for America to do better than the last 8 years... and my friend that bar is set so low by Bush and the Pubbies you have to reach up to kiss a snakes belly.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The thread, and subsequent posts all were directed at those that opposed the Bush tax cuts on the grounds that we were at war, and had massive deficit spending.

If the comments do not apply to you, then you shouldn't act as if they do. If you choose to respond as if they do, don't be surprised when your treated like they do.

The whole point is about the vast hypocrisy of the left. If have remained consistent, then it doesn't apply to you. If you have not, then the shoe fits, and you should ware it.



That is not what Obama stated. According to his own statements, he plans on moving the forces in Iraq to Afghanistan. I'm not going to assume otherwise simply because a guy on the net posts hearsay, as opposed to the directly stated words of the very guy who will be in charge.



Right, and what do you think government can do to "help it happen"?

one, my point is that you asume and never bothered to ask why I as againts the Bush tax cuts, but yes the fact we where in 2 wars was one reason, but just one of them. And again I am not in full support of the current tax cuts as well, but some very specific ones may be needed, however tax cuts are not going to = a major stimulation of the econ to get it going.

Show me where Obama stated that all troops in Iraq will be in Afganistan, where he said we will move 150,000 more troops there. Please I would like to see this. numbers I have heard range in the 15-20,000 range max.

and as someone on the left, I know many many who view these things the same way, and my point is that you are painting a wide brush over views based on some. Look at the recent news and it seems that the left is not fully all for these tax cuts as well in the sentate and house. Unlike Bush republicans, maybe the Dems will actuly hold there own leader to account and not rubber stamp evrything.

 

[Andy]

one, my point is that you asume and never bothered to ask why I as againts the Bush tax cuts, but yes the fact we where in 2 wars was one reason, but just one of them. And again I am not in full support of the current tax cuts as well, but some very specific ones may be needed, however tax cuts are not going to = a major stimulation of the econ to get it going.

Show me where Obama stated that all troops in Iraq will be in Afganistan, where he said we will move 150,000 more troops there. Please I would like to see this. numbers I have heard range in the 15-20,000 range max.

and as someone on the left, I know many many who view these things the same way, and my point is that you are painting a wide brush over views based on some. Look at the recent news and it seems that the left is not fully all for these tax cuts as well in the sentate and house. Unlike Bush republicans, maybe the Dems will actuly hold there own leader to account and not rubber stamp evrything.

Well, first off there are a dozen different versions of his plan. One can be found on one of the political sites, perhaps the DNC site, or his campaign site. But then when you look at all the statements he's made, they don't correspond to his supposed plan.

That said, the story I read, simply stated plans to redeploy troops from Iraq, into Afghanistan. There was no specific number attached. However, Obama did claim he knew of a way to reduce our forces....

"If we have more NATO troops in Afghanistan, then that's potentially fewer American troops over the long term," he said, "which means we're spending fewer billions of dollars, which means we can invest those billions of dollars in making sure we're providing tax cuts to middle-class families who are struggling with higher gas prices ... that will have an impact on our economy."

First I like the qualifier "potentially". In other words it might not, because obviously we're in NATO, and we're the majority of NATO, and we could be saving troops in the right hand, to send troops in the left. Big whoop.

It also had the brilliant effect of alienating our allies, like Germany who gave the quick response....

“Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S.” -Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel

Oh I thought everyone around the world supported Obama. I guess there's one lone anti-messiah in Germany. I wonder how many other NATO nations will be interested in spending more money and troops on Afghanistan so we can have a tax cut from Obama? Another brilliant Obama policy.

But it doesn't even end there....

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

Straight from www.barackobama.com. Whatever for? I thought he was going to end wars and cause universal peace!

But it still gets better. Obama also plans to spend $3 billion a month for:

fund reconstruction, police and army training, embassy operations, and local projects including efforts to impact the lives of ordinary Afghans and to give farmers alternatives to growing opium poppies. The aid would also be tied to better performance by the Afghan national government, including anti-corruption initiatives and effort to extend the rule of law across the country.

Now doesn't that sound a bit interesting? Why I could have sworn that an out-going president was bitterly criticized for "nation-building". Yet what is his proposal now?

Flat answer is, I don't know. Do you know? If you do, how do you know your version is the correct one? My theory is, Obama doesn't even know what he's going to do. This is the guy the proposed inflating your tires as a national energy policy, so if you think you know what his plan is, by all means tell us. So far, every version has either been what republicans have planned, or crap like NATO will pay for our tax cut, which went over so very well.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooo......how "bold" of you....being soooooooo critical of something that hasn't (even) happened.

Does it matter?

Ah, yes.....a typical Cheney-style response....similar to his time-honored "So What?"

Does it matter that nothing's (actually) been implemented...regarding taxes/spending?

Uh.....YEAH!!!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Back to the republicans are we??? LOL

Cutting taxes during a time of war, BEFORE the recession was a problem? You are right! It happened before the recession. It happened after Clintons recession of 2001! Look it up!

Wanna try...again....Skippy? ​

November 26, 2001

"The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday."​

......Better known as the Münchausen Recession​

"This economic downturn, quite simply, is the fault of President Bush.

It wasn't his tax cut, as the Democrats claim. The tax cut has not had enough time to have any positive or negative effects it will have.

What caused this economic downturn goes back to when George W. Bush was merely President-elect, waiting to take office, and continued on through his first six months in office.

Repeatedly, President-elect, and then President, Bush talked about how the economy was in trouble. Arriving in office following the longest continuous economic upturn in generations, President Bush seized on a stock market that had faltered some in the uncertainty following the 2000 Presidential election.

The "bad" economy, he talked about. Again and again. The "bad" economy.

You know what happened as a result? I can tell you from my personal experience, the CFO of the corporation I was working for called a meeting and said, "The President keeps talking about the economy being 'bad.' Now, things don't seem bad, but let's just hold off on any new hires until we see how this pans out. And, let's hold off on all non-vital purchases, just for the time being."

And you can see right there how simply the words of President George W. Bush started slamming the breaks of the economy.

This, of course, all snowballed."​

.....And, The BUSHCO tax-cuts happened before we went-to-War....you know.....'cause the 1%ers had Other priorities.. (for their ca$h) than to support any War.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Isn't it funny how quickly the left deflects the issue? You talk about having a reasonable debate of issues, but when one brings up those issues, you instantly attack them for unrelated claims about past discussions.

Oh....you mean the way you "moralists" are always turning most debates (here) into another Anti-Choice issue?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I think the goal of our new President is definitely to get us back there. He has a lot of the old Clinton team onboard to help him.

....Just one o' the benefits of putting experienced-people on-the-case!!!​

 

[Andy]

That's just total smoke and mirrors and you know it because we've discussed it several times. Dems haven't had a filibuster proof majority and the President tells everyone in advance what he'll veto... the Dems also don't have a veto override majority.

So your Party the "OBSTRUCTIONIST PARTY" has done it's good job of stopping progress.

Yes, we've discussed this many times, and each time I proved you wrong with facts and evidence against your unsupportable claims and hearsay.

You claim the republicans obstructed the democrats. So name the bills the republicans prevented? You claim they couldn't pass an override, yet they passed the Farm Bill over the veto, the medicare spending increase over a veto, the Water Development act over a veto, and a few others. All of which increased spending, and didn't help the economy.

You claim they didn't have a filibuster proof majority, then name the bills republicans filibustered?

You claim they couldn't pass anything, but then it's proven they did. You claim they couldn't stop the over spending, yet it was their bills passed over a veto that increased over spending. You claim this, you claim that, you have nothing to support it, and tons of evidence against you. You have absolutely nothing but political partisan crap. You really should give this up!

Any year Andy. Pick any year that the Clinton administration didn't have an economy light years better than Bush today... won't take long... EVERY SINGLE YEAR WAY WAY BETTER UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON... and President Clinton even left old borrow & spend Bush a surplus!

Oh really? Let's see if that's true. How about 1995 vs 2005?

GDP growth rate % per quarter.

95 Q1 3.66%
95 Q2 2.16%
95 Q3 5.15%
95 Q1 4.87%

1995 Average growth rate = 3.96%

05 Q1 6.88%
05 Q2 5.38%
05 Q3 7.17%
05 Q4 5.05%

2005 Average growth rate = 6.12%

Once again, facts and evidence disprove lame hearsay and empty claims.

BTW, simply saying there was a good economy, doesn't mean Clinton had anything to do with it. The only major economic bill Clinton passed was NAFTA, which granted conservative economic principals always work, so it doesn't surprise me that helped.

Dude Bush couldn't carry Obama's jock strap... or even spell it.

The main thing is for America to do better than the last 8 years... and my friend that bar is set so low by Bush and the Pubbies you have to reach up to kiss a snakes belly.

Oh, I'm just stunned into submission to your evidence and logical thinking. "Dude", you haven't formed a substantive argument this whole thread.

 

[Andy]

Ah, yes.....a typical Cheney-style response....similar to his time-honored "So What?"

Does it matter that nothing's (actually) been implemented...regarding taxes/spending?

Uh.....YEAH!!!!

​

It does? So the fact he hasn't done it yet, means... he won't? Basically what you are implying is that you yourself, do not believe he will actually do what he openly states and has in writing he's going to do. In other words, you saying he's a blatant untrustworthy liar.

Ok, I'll buy that. He's a complete lying bastard. Or he's going to do all those things, that you claim to be against.

I like this, not only has Obama put you in a hypocritical position, but now you yourself have put yourself in a no-win position. This is great!

Thanks Shaman, you made my night!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It does? So the fact he hasn't done it yet, means... he won't? Basically what you are implying is that you yourself, do not believe he will actually do what he openly states and has in writing he's going to do. In other words, you saying he's a blatant untrustworthy liar.

What I'm saying, is.....there're always differences between what's initially-proposed, and what's actually-implemented.

Unlike The Idiot Son, Obama's no big fan of Going It, Alone; i.e. assuming he's got all-the-answers.

Watch & learn, Skippy.

​

 

[Andy]

What I'm saying, is.....there're always differences between what's initially-proposed, and what's actually-implemented.

Unlike The Idiot Son, Obama's no big fan of Going It, Alone; i.e. assuming he's got all-the-answers.

Watch & learn, Skippy.

​

Great... we've elected a spineless coward that can't "go it alone", just like his idiot followers, that endlessly post empty opinion articles from internet bloggers, and never actually have any evidence.

We went from a president that stood up for what he believes, to a mindless coward, that doesn't even have the courage to take a specific stand on a policy as simple as tax cuts, let alone one that endangers the life of our citizens and troops... and you think this is a step up.

Why am I not surprised.