1. Repealing the Bush Tax cuts and making Billionaires and Millionaires pay more in tax will kill jobs.
1) Its not just millionaires and billionaires who will pay more taxes, its EVERY INCOME BRACKET which includes small buisnesses like the one I work for that take in 6 figures a year. Make it cost more for my boss and he wont open that new shop in hyannis next year creating 3 jobs.
Targeted tax cuts are included in Obama's discussion, and small business is an area where he supports tax credits for hiring new employees. I also simply asked for evidence that raising the personal income tax of the 1% will curtail job creation. None has been offered.
They are not included in any of the democrat proposals thus far...unless I am unaware of one that does this and if I am please link me to their proposal's text.
----------------------------------------------------------
2, Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)
2) Bill Gates, Steve Jobs. How many people work for the companies those 2 started? Do you need more examples LOL
Gates and Jobs, H & P, and dozens of other companies started in the garage of their parents home.
Yup they did and those Billionaires created thousands of jobs and millions in wealth in the process of becoming billionaires.....those 2 people alone destroy the premise of your 2nd question.
----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Only the private sector creates jobs.
3) Let me correct your statement "only the private sector creates jobs that aren't paid for with taxes"
Really, gov't subsidy and contracts play a huge role in the success of many private companies. See any copy of "World Facts" on how much, for an obscene example, defense contractors get of our money.
Yes that is true however you are tossing a red herring at me. All government jobs are funded by taxpayer money while its only in the private sector where we have jobs that aren't paid for with taxmoney.
-----------------------------------------------------------
4. Shrinking government will jump start our economy (explain how adding thousands to the unemployment roles will benefit commerce, small business and the real estate market).
4) Shrinking the govt will shrink the debt. The interest on the debt is draining the wealth out of our nation to the foriegn nations that hold our debt. By cutting govt to create a surplus to pay down the debt we will stop bleeding wealth as a nation, making everyone richer in the LONG RUN. However neither cutting nor expanding govt will "jump start" the economy...the latter was proven by the stimulus.
I'm not opposed to shrinking the federal government; I'm simply opposed to doing so in an ideological manner and eschewing the pragmatic. Reduce the size of government by attrition, not by mass firings. Yes, the debt is obscene and we spend way too much of tax payer dollars to service the debt. Have you watched the news today to see how many millions of our tax dollars were approved by the House under Boehner (we even gave aid to China)?
The evidence suggests the stimulus had limited success, suggesting otherwise isn't accurate. It was too small and done in the heat of the crisis Obama inherited, had there been time for a full vetting I suspect we would be out of the woods today.
I suspect if we let big corporations fail instead of giving them coroporate welfare we would have unemployment back under 5% and obama would have much better approval numbers. The evidence suggests the stimulus failed hence the unemployment not coming down during the time it was spent...now that its gone all of a sudden the economy is starting to work itself out.
----------------------------------------------------
5. Gay & Lesbian Marriage threatens traditional marriage.
5) It does? I didn't know that
The far right believes it does, never heard of the DOMA?
I've heard of DOMA but I don't think gay and lesbian marriage threatens traditional marriage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Citizens United v. FEC is good for America.
6) Because it allows the unions to be protected by the first ammendment too even though it goes against mccain-feingold? Or are you upset that it also allows corporations and not just unions to have this voice? Without it unions could not run political ads...just so you know....which is fine with me

.[/QUOTE]
CU v. FEC has allowed for the creation of the Super PAC's. Do a little research on who these people who fund them are and you'll see the problem (because you'll never know, the source might be Hugo Chavez or a Saudi Prince).
Yes they have allowed for that and I don't like those however without the law groups such as unions and community groups would not be allowed to have any voice (ads) either.
I say get rid of all of them but thats another topic.