# Republican leader Boehner unable to explain how tax cuts will be funded!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Aug 10, 2010.

1. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,885
Republicans have been holding up legislation like extended unemployment benefits for those affected by this recession because the benefits while small were not funded.

Apparently, there is one kind of bill Republicans feel should not be subject to being funded...and it is the tax cuts for the rich.

This weekend Republican leader Boehner was asked repeatedly how he would fund tax cuts for the rich. And repeatedly he refused to give an answer. This is kind of humorous.

So spending for anything but tax cuts for the wealthy has be fully paid in the Republican view of the world.

3. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
Trickle-down from the beards of the wealthy.

5. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,885
Apparently it is even worse, next week Pelosi is calling the house back to vote on a bill to provide assistance to the states. And the bill is fully funded, but Republicans are saying they are going to vote against the bill...even though it is fully funded and is a relatively small amount.

But try to let tax cuts for the wealthy expire, even thought it has never been funded and Republicans cry bloody murder. So they have enough money to give the wealthiest Americans but not a penny for the middle class.

Last edited: Aug 10, 2010

7. ### Buffalo RoamRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
16,931
joe? what do you consider a small amount? and can we afford a small amount as the National Debt has reached 90+% of the GDP?

"It's only a small amount" ​

That has been the typical rational of the liberals since FDR, and look where we are today with all those small amounts, As of Aug 6, 2010:
$13,310,114,269,532 . Obama has added$2.6+ Trillion Dollars in 458 days and He is not even half way through His first term;

Obama's National Debt Impact

Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913 As of Aug 6, 2010:$13,310,114,269,532

Increased by: $2,683,237,220,619 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000576-503544.html "The debt now stands at$12.6 trillion. On the day Mr. Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion. President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch:$4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ld-horrify-the-Founders-1002837-99054904.html

8. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,885
You are off topic buffalo roam. This is another example of your trolling. Additionally, your comparisons above are not correct.

9. ### John T. Galtmarxism is legalized hatred!!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
617
You cannot provide proof of your statement. Additionally as usual you avoid the topic at hand, by claiming it isn't the topic at hand.

Yet, you continue to troll as defined by real people.

Keep up the good work, I am sure the party appreciates it.

10. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,885
Ah, my dear mr. galt. I assume you can read. Please then read the OP and tell me how your post or the post of mr. buffalo roam is even remotely relevant to the OP? Until then please resist your inner troll and obey the rules of the forum.

It should not be too difficult for you to understand. If you can prove that the OP was in anyway inaccurate, please do so. If you and mr. buffalo roam want to start another thread, please do so.

11. ### John T. Galtmarxism is legalized hatred!!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
617
Joe, I have totally kicked your ass in another where you obfuscated and responded as the only possible intelligence being written was by you. You took two days to respond and even then you couldn't respond directly.

Here we go:

You:
Buff:

So joe, what do you consider a small amount?

And yes, it is very relevant to the topic. Buff's point is that the money is not simply extra pocket money that an undertaxed, underregulated nation can easily pass off. Futhermore, our growing debt suggests that perhaps it would be wise to begin cutting back on expenditures not continue them. It doesn't matter what little letter you place besides the name. Debt knows no party. It only knows it exists.

You:

There you go again displaying your usual pompous arrogance that somehow you have reached the myopic conclusion that your intelligence supercedes everyone who isn't in the choir.

The problem here is that you consistently choose to ignore salient points because it messes up your agenda. Furthermore, in this case you couldn't display proper comprehension of your own post.

Buff simply responded to something you wrote, and then you couldn't even comprehend the relevance nor the subsequent points also vital to the topic.

Yet, you still troll!!

I challenge you to actually answer buffs response with pertinent statistics or facts; not simply pass it off because it doesn't jibe with your agenda. By making snide remarks concerning staying on topic, or discussing everyone else's obvious dementia. Can you meet the challenge?

I got 100-1 odds you don't!!!

12. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,885
OH, and in which one of your fantasies did that occur? I don't suppose you have any proof of claim?

In many of our discussions you have been so solidly beaten that you had to resort as you are now to tooting your own horn.
Right.
No, I won't because I have answered them many times before in many different threads. And as I previously stated, that is off topic. I challenged you and buffalo roam to show how this was in any way related to the topic of this thread. And to date, you have failed to demonstrate any relationship to the topic of this thread.

I further stated that if you wanted to engage in another topic, you should create another thread and comply with the rules of the forum...something netiher of you have done
.

The topic of this thread is Republican leader Boehner and his refusal to explain how he would cut taxes. Why is that such a hard thing for you to get through your head?

13. ### John T. Galtmarxism is legalized hatred!!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
617
Response

It isn't a hard thing to understand, it is only hard for you.

You made a statement in your OP and got a response from it that is very pertinent to the topic at hand. Though true enough the explanation of our national debt doesn't immediately respond to the post, it does however respond to the continuing problem that many see and few refuse to see. However, since it doesn't fit your agenda you simply dismiss with your usual pompous, arrgoant attitude.

You're a smart cookie, maybe the fact that Boehner didn't explain it is because it is an obvious point. Surely a man of your intelligence could possibly conclude that, right? Because a man doesn't answer a question, doesn't mean he doesn't have an answer or that there is no answer.

The Odds

There were very high odds against you, and you didn't disappoint. You even showed anger in your response.

Ass thoroughly kicked again!!!

Way to go, joe!!

14. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,885
LOL, you are gettin pretty low if you have to take that as a victory. You must lay awake nights fantasizing about the day you kick my rear. Unfrotuantely for you that day will never come. You have been told what to do if you want to engage on a different topic. But instead of doing the things necessary for that engagement to happen, you prefer to try to play little games.

Your unwillingness to follow instructions makes me conclude that you do not have the courage or intellect to do so. So you maufacture and take cheap shots instead of substance.

This tread is not about the debt Republicans left for the Democrats. It is about the Republican inability to answer questions. Republicans are running for election. And they are running claiming they are going to solve the nations debt problems. That being the case it is fair to ask how they propose to solve the nations ills. Unfortunately, Republican leader Boehner nor any of his fellow Republican leaders and Tea Party candidates have been able to tell the electors this fall how they are going to deal with the debt, deficit and economy.

There are only a few months left before the election one would think that they should have a plan together to solve the nations ills. And they should be able to answer the questions put to them regarding their solutions or lack thereof.

Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
15. ### Giambattistasssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,878
Well, I'm sure ending the war and cutting defense spending wouldn't be an option.

16. ### synthesizer-patelSweep the leg Johnny!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,262
Of course not - do you not realise there are still lots and lots of brown people out there who have oil and no hope of putting up a spirited defence that America needs to pro-actively and unilaterlally "defend itself" from.

Last edited: Aug 11, 2010

Messages:
12,061
Mod Note: When the author/initiator of a thread reminds others of the thread topic, or refines the thread topic, and requests that the discussion be thus focused, I expect for those participating in the conversation to take heed and comply. I'll intervene here as a moderator when I see participants persistently unresponsive to such reasonable requests as joepistole has made above.

18. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,885
I am sure Republiicans would not want to end the wars either or cut defense spending. However, Gates just announced a plan to close a base in Norfolk elimnating about 3k positions.

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2010/aug/10/jfco10-ar-419700/

It is good to see people looking at options and developing plans. Now if we can just get Republicans and Tea Partiers to layoff the rhetoric and develop some plans we would have something to discuss.

19. ### spidergoatVenued Serial MembershipValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,152
So, if you care so much about the debt, you should want Bush's tax cuts to expire.

20. ### John T. Galtmarxism is legalized hatred!!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
617
There is one small problem. The request joe made regarding the post he made it for is on topic. He was asked a direct question and refused to answer. Furthermore, the points made in the post are relevant to the topic.

I am sorry this might offend you, but I honestly do not see how those points aren't relevant. Additionally, I also responded to the post on topic.

So this isn't a case where joe decides what is and isn't is it? I mean if so, then why not make joe a moderator?

To joe anything that doesn't agree with him is not on topic, it is too easy to allow joe this much authority in the thread.

You know what it just hit me, never mind. I keep forgetting about the invisible rule that is hidden within these boards. That is only certain people here are allowed to say certain things and I am not one of those people. Which is cool with me, your post just confirmed it.

Thanks hype!

Messages:
12,061
You're welcome. I'll respond concerning my inaction in the Action Notes

22. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,885
NO your posts are not on topic. The issue is not the amount of debt nation faces. That is a given. And it is not like the nations debt and who is responsible or it has not been discussed several times in many differnt threads.

The issue again is that the Republican leadership has no plans for solving the nations debt issue. It seems several others have no difficulty understanding the issue. But for some reason you don't seem capable or willing to do so.

You play a shell game. When one focuses on the fact Republcians have no plans to deal with the nations debt. You bring up a red herring....oh my God did you know the nations debt was X. No duh, that was the premise the thread was based on. It is pointless to discuss the total level of the nations debt, it is a given. And then you want to take it one step further and blame the nations debt on Obama...which is a step into the twlight zone. The man has only been in office for 16 months and inerited record deficits and record national debt. Obama's first budget did not kick in until October of 2009. And of course you and mr. buffalo roam then go into a cycle in which you deny everything that runs contrary to you positions and of course you never ever have any things like a proof or evidence to support your wild ass claims.

I have seen the cycle too many times in too many threads. That is why this thread is reserved for the issue at hand. If Republicans have plans then were are they? Leader Boehner was clearly without a plan this weekend. He was speechless when asked repeatedly about Republican solutions to the nations debt problems. You would think that he and his collegues in the Congress would have developed a plan for solving the national debt they were creating as they more than doubled the national debt from 2001 to 2009. The fact is Republicans despite their rhetoric have no plans to solve the nations ills. All they have is hate and fear and a bunch of meaningless sound bites. And since they have no clue as to how they are going to solve the nations debt problems or economic problems, how can anyone belive their rhetoric?

And then you and buffalo roam want to falsely blame President Obama for the debt. Nice try, but this thread is about the fact that Republicans for all their rantings have no plans to fix the nations debt problems. And this is not about any spending Obama is doing or will do in the future. This thread is focused on the Republican solutions or more accurately lack of solutions to the nations debt and economic problems.

You are trying to sidetrack the discussion onto meaningless discourse. Like I instructed you before, if you want to discuss a different topic follow the rules and start another thread. If you want to stay in this thread, then offer some proof that Republicans leaders have some solutions. Prove that Republican Boehner was just off this weekend instead of trying to deflect the conversation onto something that has been previously discussed many times and in many threads.

Last edited: Aug 11, 2010
23. ### John T. Galtmarxism is legalized hatred!!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
617
joe here is the point from my perspective, and I am throwing out r's & d's (republicans & democrats) and I am not playing political wrestling (catch as catch can, or gotcha politics). Are you with me? Good, whether you choose to play dumb on this I know you know what I mean.

Why is it important that Boehner didn't answer the question? Again throw out the labels forget repub & dem for your answer. I'll write nothing more so as to not destroy the question focus only on the question.