Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!
Started by SmartyPants, September 14, 2011, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: Duckling on September 14, 2011, 07:22:07 PMThese questions are geared towards the crushing of any statement of opinion contrary to yours, and do not provide for a balanced and two-sided debate.
Quote from: Duckling on September 15, 2011, 05:14:41 PMWhat, you don't think that 100 billion a year is plausible? Ending a war would do that...The questions look like the sort Deagonx posts about Islam.
Quote from: Duckling on September 15, 2011, 05:14:41 PMWhat, you don't think that 100 billion a year is plausible? Ending a war would do that...
Quote from: SmartyPants on September 18, 2011, 04:32:26 PMQuote from: Duckling on September 15, 2011, 05:14:41 PMWhat, you don't think that 100 billion a year is plausible? Ending a war would do that...During the deficit debate, Harry Reid tried to convince the public that the Senate cut an extra 1 trillion dollars when all he did was account for us drawing down forces in two wars.First, I thought making the speech in a joint session congress was in bad taste. The president is suppose to only make speechs in joint session of Congress during important events such as State of the Union Addresses, presidential inaugurations, and declaring war. To use congress as a prop for a his 2012 re-election campaign ads is tasteless.Many Republicans were cautiously optimistic after hearing the speech. The speech preached partisan ideas such as infrastructure spending and said the plan would would be fully paid for. Even though there some exclusively Democratic ideas such extending unemployment for a third time and having temporary payroll tax cuts, Obama's speech said he was willing to compromise. His speech conveniently left out that he wanted to fund the bill by raising taxes on the rich by not allowing them to get tax breaks for charitable contributions. By wanting to permanently raise taxes, Obama clearly doesn't expect Republicans to allow the bill to be passed and only wanted to use the bill for his reelection campaign. He is already using the bill for 2012 campaigning by promoting it in almost exclusively swing states. Obama is playing politics instead of governing.Obama promised us that if we passed the first stimulus bill that unemployment wouldn't be above 8%. That just proves that the first stimuls bill failed despite costing 1 trillion dollars. Since this is essentially another stimulus bill, I think the new stimulus bill will also spend a huge amount of money and create very few jobs.I do agree with the infrastructure spending, because infrastructure is one of the tasks that government actually should spend money on. When the housing bubble burst, construction was one of the hardest hit industries because there weren't any new homes being built. Since infrastructure is already underfunded, it seems like a good idea to take advantage of the surplus of construction workers and repair our roads and bridges.I don't like the temporary payroll tax cuts and you guys shouldn't either. First, temporary tax cuts doesn't encourage businesses to hire. The entire business community said they won't hire workers who last more then a year because of a tax cut that only last a year. If the tax cut was permanent, then they could use the permanent savings to hire more permanent workers. Second, Social Security is already going to run out before any of us get a chance to see it. Since payroll taxes are Social Security only source of revenue, I don't like the idea of cuting it and further underfunding the already underfunded entitlement program.I don't like how Obama tends to fund the bill, because it shows that he using the bill to use class-warfare as part of his reelection bid. First he wants to remove the "oil and gas tax loopholes". Those "loopholes" are manufacturing subsidies that oil companies get for turning raw materials such as crude oil into refined materials such as gasoline. Obama thinks the highly efficient and profitable oil companies are evil for getting manufacturing subsidies, while the inefficient and unprofitable peimar solar and car manufatures should have the government pour money into them. The biggest source of money he wants to fund his new stimulus bill is from removing tax breaks people get for charitable contributions. There are tons of write offs and tax breaks the government use to try to micromanage our lives that should be removed, but tax breaks for charitable contributions isn't one of them. Tax breaks for charitable contributions allows charities to be very well funded and it allows people to pick where they want their money to go to instead of politicians and bureaucrats picking for us. I remember that FEMA couldn't be relied on during Hurricane Katrina and Rita, but the Red Cross stepped up and helped take care of alot of people. I don't understand why Obama wants FEMA to have more money one week and then suggest to defund charities such as the Red Cross the next week.Small businesses will be hurt by this bill because it mixes a temporary tax cut with a permanent tax increase.If Obama really wanted a non-partisan bill, then he would have funded the increase in temporary spending (even programs Republicans don't like such as unemployment) with permanent spending cuts.