Romney says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with big gifts.

[longhornfan1234]

Doug Sovern ‏@SovernNation
Romney says he "hadn't anticipated" losing, says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with "big gifts": http://nyti.ms/QepNTM

Quote:
In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the

[oh the horror]

The man continues to insert his foot into his mouth from beyond the political grave.

[DonDadda59]

Throw Bobby in the 'socialist' pile with Chris Christie :D

[INDENT]Jindal slams Romney for 'gifts' comment about minorities, young voters

Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough and Kevin Bohn

(CNN)

[B-Low]

So waitwaitwait...you mean Obama won the election by promising people things that would help them????

That cheating, scheming rat bastard...

[oh the horror]

It's comments like this that the republican party has to steer clear of.

[GreatGreg]

It's a new age, and unless the GOP gets with the times, they are one and done. Adapt or get adapted, there is no in between and there is no way to succeed without doing so.

[DonDadda59]

It's comments like this that the republican party has to steer clear of.

Notice how quick Governor Jindal jumped up to disown Mittens' bullshit. They realize it's stuff like this that got their asses handed to them in the recent election. Willard's vag still has sand stuck in it after Barack ran the board on the swing states and now he might have to start paying some real taxes. He'll be less sour with time, all part of the healing process.

[bladefd]

But Jindal, when asked about Romney’s remarks, said in order for the GOP to be “competitive,” it has to “go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.”

Jindal’s criticism seemed to take latent swipes at Romney’s “47%” comments that were secretly recorded earlier this year. At a May fund-raiser, Romney argued that nearly half of Americans were “victims” who were “dependent” on the government. Those voters, he argued, sided with Obama.

...

Romney's remarks come after top Republicans in recent days have pushed for a bigger tent party, saying the GOP learned this election that it has work to do in terms of demographic changes.

"We've got to be a lot more inclusive and open and energetic and wanting people to join our team by expressing why these conservative values are good for people of all races, creeds, colors, and national origin," Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, previously a top surrogate for Romney, said last week on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/reports-romney-says-obama-won-by-offering-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/?hpt=hp_t1[/INDENT]

That's the issue. Conservatives cannot accept change and are unwilling to include people that may be different than they are. They don't accept the fact that different people have different opinions; you don't have to agree with anyone but at least respect the differences in opinion.

Until that happens, it will be a blame game for them like Romney here. Guy lost the election and must come up with a reason or some groups of people to blame. Does he not understand that blacks/latinos are both minorities, and they combined do not even come close to outnumbering whites? If every white went with Romney and every black/latino went with Obama, Romney would have won the election by a huge blowout margin. It clearly wasn't the case.

As for students - what the hell is Romney mumbling about? forgiveness of college loan interest? What? Students still have to pay their loans and still have interest rates from previous college bills. Isn't it frozen at 3.4%? 3.4% is not the same as no interest rates on college bills. As a college student, I feel insulted with the blatant lie here by Romney.

You lost, Romney. Get over it.

[oh the horror]

Notice how quick Governor Jindal jumped up to disown Mittens' bullshit. They realize it's stuff like this that got their asses handed to them in the recent election. Willard's vag still has sand stuck in it after Barack ran the board on the swing states and now he might have to start paying some real taxes. He'll be less sour with time, all part of the healing process.


He was probably ordered to disown those comments too. I guarantee you over the course of the next several years you're going to see the republican party doing some serious overhauling of their party and their image. The shit isnt flying anymore, and public perception of them is in the all time crapper. Romney certainly isnt helping with BS like this here.

[IGOTGAME]

President was going to consult Romney on some policy crap. Prob won't happen until he admits that he lost by a huge margin

[stallionaire]

lmfao romney is killing his own party with this continuous quotes

Does he not care about the future welfare of the GOP?

This isn't helping, Romney. I assure you that your republican friends will agree with me.

Stop creating a rift between the rightwing and minorities and now even young voters. This quote is COMPLETELY INSANE. Why keep pushing people out of your party?

[IGOTGAME]

GOP is done. 12 more years of Dems coming up.

[stallionaire]

GOP is done. 12 more years of Dems coming up.

We can only pray...

Gotta control senate and congress. Hopefully we can get all those conservatives out of the supreme court as well.

Forward.

[oh the horror]

GOP isnt done. They just have some serious damage control, and need to overhaul their image as of late. Comments like this are EXACTLY wtf people are talking about though.

[Myth]

And if Romney won, it would have been by showering rich people with gifts.

[joe]

Umm, he's right. Romney won most demographics except the ones he talked about, the groups that Obama is showering free money on.


So waitwaitwait...you mean Obama won the election by promising people things that would help them????

That cheating, scheming rat bastard...

That's a nice way to say it. I prefer, Obama won the election by promising to steal more money from the minority and redistribute it to the majority than Romney did.

[Myth]

President was going to consult Romney on some policy crap. Prob won't happen until he admits that he lost by a huge margin

Obama should still reach out to Romney. Not because Romney is deserving of it, but because the GOP will say that the Dems didn't try to work with them in the next election. If Romney refuses to work with Obama after months of saying how good he is at working with Dems, it will further may the GOP look bad.

[flipogb]

I feel like Mr Burns from the Simpsons is more in touch with the poor masses than Romney. this guy is living in another world and doesn't have windows to look into the one most people are living in

[Patrick Chewing]

The gift Obama promised was Hope and Change and caring more about the Middle Class than his opponent.


How you can care more about the middle class than your opponent does just by saying you do is beyond me.

[KevinNYC]

Romney says a lot of stupid shit, lot of bullshit too.

Luckily we are never going to have to pay any attention to the shit he says anymore

Here's a better way to spend your time (http://www.petshaming.net/) than listening to Romney

[General]

Remember when Obama promised he would fix the economy? :roll: I can't believe these people fell for his bullshit again. He is a divider, yet people bought his bipartisanship myth again because of a pretty speech. We just have to admit that a large portion of the population really wants free stuff. Like O'reilly said, a lot of people feel like the system is stacked against them. It isn't, it's just an excuse for the weak and lazy to not try harder to succeed.

We now live in a country where people think that punishing success is a good thing. They think this is Robin Hood in real life. When they look at a rich person they think that person has too much! Take some away and give it to the rest of us! Instead of aspiring to be like them and working their asses off to make that happen.

[joe]

Remember when Obama promised he would fix the economy? :roll: I can't believe these people fell for his bullshit again. He is a divider, yet people bought his bipartisanship myth again because of a pretty speech. We just have to admit that a large portion of the population really wants free stuff. Like O'reilly said, a lot of people feel like the system is stacked against them. It isn't, it's just an excuse for the weak and lazy to not try harder to succeed.

.

They feel like the system is stacked against them, because the system is stacked against them. But just not in the way they think. It's not capitalism and free markets that are hurting them, it's government. Government obstruction of capitalism, not letting markets function that is hurting the poor the most. It feels good in the short-term when government gives you something for free, but over time this wealth redistribution will rot your economy from the inside out. Massive debts financed by an inflationary central bank will rot your economy from the inside out.

What the poor need is more CAPITALISM. You don't hear that too often on CNN. But unfortunately it won't be easy. A return to capitalism would cause massive pain in our economy at first, as we allow all the government-induced mal-investments to be purged from the system. It could take a year, 2 years, I'd guess even more. But that pain is coming ANYWAY, people. The only question is, what's waiting on the other side? A free economy and prosperity? Or an even more fascistic economy, with even more government controls, and the end of America's golden age? That's the choice we are facing. That's the precipice we are approaching.

And by the way, if the Republicans had any balls, THIS is what they'd be saying to the American people. Truth and honesty about the economy instead of trying to be a lighter version of the Democrats.

[LA Lakers]

As long as Republicans keep fooling themselves into thinking they can go back to some mystical time and every year is the 1950s they are gonna lose Americas vote.

[joe]

As long as Republicans keep fooling themselves into thinking they can go back to some mystical time and every year is the 1950s they are gonna lose Americas vote.

The Democrats want to go back in time too. They want to go back to post world war 2 days, where they believe high tax rates on the rich and lots of government projects like the space program created a golden age. So what's your point?

[red1]

romney just mad obama didn't give him a golden shower

[jbot]

typical sore loser.

[Jailblazers7]

They feel like the system is stacked against them, because the system is stacked against them. But just not in the way they think. It's not capitalism and free markets that are hurting them, it's government. Government obstruction of capitalism, not letting markets function that is hurting the poor the most. It feels good in the short-term when government gives you something for free, but over time this wealth redistribution will rot your economy from the inside out. Massive debts financed by an inflationary central bank will rot your economy from the inside out.

What the poor need is more CAPITALISM. You don't hear that too often on CNN. But unfortunately it won't be easy. A return to capitalism would cause massive pain in our economy at first, as we allow all the government-induced mal-investments to be purged from the system. It could take a year, 2 years, I'd guess even more. But that pain is coming ANYWAY, people. The only question is, what's waiting on the other side? A free economy and prosperity? Or an even more fascistic economy, with even more government controls, and the end of America's golden age? That's the choice we are facing. That's the precipice we are approaching.

And by the way, if the Republicans had any balls, THIS is what they'd be saying to the American people. Truth and honesty about the economy instead of trying to be a lighter version of the Democrats.

Best way to help the poor would be to deregulate professional liscensing and other barriers to entry for possible small business entreprenuers. It is probably the most harmful regulation for the poor and lower middle class but its hardly ever talked about or reported on because its an issue of state law for the most part.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Why do people still care what this guy thinks?
They feel like the system is stacked against them, because the system is stacked against them. But just not in the way they think. It's not capitalism and free markets that are hurting them, it's government. Government obstruction of capitalism, not letting markets function that is hurting the poor the most. It feels good in the short-term when government gives you something for free, but over time this wealth redistribution will rot your economy from the inside out. Massive debts financed by an inflationary central bank will rot your economy from the inside out.

What the poor need is more CAPITALISM. You don't hear that too often on CNN. But unfortunately it won't be easy. A return to capitalism would cause massive pain in our economy at first, as we allow all the government-induced mal-investments to be purged from the system. It could take a year, 2 years, I'd guess even more. But that pain is coming ANYWAY, people. The only question is, what's waiting on the other side? A free economy and prosperity? Or an even more fascistic economy, with even more government controls, and the end of America's golden age? That's the choice we are facing. That's the precipice we are approaching.

And by the way, if the Republicans had any balls, THIS is what they'd be saying to the American people. Truth and honesty about the economy instead of trying to be a lighter version of the Democrats.
Right or wrong, what the Republicans need is this kind of approach. Start talking to all of these people Romney ignores and alienates, make the case as to why your ideas are better for them. Don't just use Reagan's old welfare queen hinted racism to secure the white male vote and count your majority to win elections. The demographics of the country have shifted and will continue to do so. The old tricks won't work.

[rufuspaul]

Romney stuck his foot in his mouth? What a shocker!


I'm not surprised when you consider he said these things during a conference call with people who had given him millions of dollars to defeat Obama. These are donors the next Republican candidate is going to need to pony up again. I don't think they would be placated if he simply said "hey, I fukced up".

[longhornfan1234]

They feel like the system is stacked against them, because the system is stacked against them. But just not in the way they think. It's not capitalism and free markets that are hurting them, it's government. Government obstruction of capitalism, not letting markets function that is hurting the poor the most. It feels good in the short-term when government gives you something for free, but over time this wealth redistribution will rot your economy from the inside out. Massive debts financed by an inflationary central bank will rot your economy from the inside out.

What the poor need is more CAPITALISM. You don't hear that too often on CNN. But unfortunately it won't be easy. A return to capitalism would cause massive pain in our economy at first, as we allow all the government-induced mal-investments to be purged from the system. It could take a year, 2 years, I'd guess even more. But that pain is coming ANYWAY, people. The only question is, what's waiting on the other side? A free economy and prosperity? Or an even more fascistic economy, with even more government controls, and the end of America's golden age? That's the choice we are facing. That's the precipice we are approaching.

And by the way, if the Republicans had any balls, THIS is what they'd be saying to the American people. Truth and honesty about the economy instead of trying to be a lighter version of the Democrats.

Beautiful. :bowdown: :bowdown:

[JtotheIzzo]

[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]Doug Sovern ‏@SovernNation
Romney says he "hadn't anticipated" losing, says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with "big gifts": http://nyti.ms/QepNTM

Quote:
In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the

[Godzuki]

its just unbelievable to me how often Republicans are going to spin 'welfare', 'socialism', and now 'gifts'. even after they lost and the election is over they still try to spin it like its something new and so awful, when its the same exact thing as promising rich people they won't have to pay higher taxes, or big business to be deregulated. those are 'gifts' too.

its just constantly so dumb with the way they distort and spin the same shit over and over again :facepalm

[rufuspaul]

its just unbelievable to me how often Republicans are going to spin 'welfare', 'socialism', and now 'gifts'. even after they lost and the election is over they still try to spin it like its something new and so awful, when its the same exact thing as promising rich people they won't have to pay higher taxes, or big business to be deregulated. those are 'gifts' too.

its just constantly so dumb with the way they distort and spin the same shit over and over again :facepalm


Both sides pander. You've just drunk too much leftist koolaid to notice.

[Godzuki]

Both sides pander. You've just drunk too much leftist koolaid to notice.

considering i'm more critical of the left than you ever seem to be the right i don't think i'm the one thats drinking the Kool Aid :rolleyes:

and i'm pretty sure this article is about Republicans making a big deal out of Romney's 'gifts' comment when its the same thing as him catering to people like you and others making way more, as well as the Wall Streets, etc. where are the Dem's making similar statements right now again? quote them.

you just love to obfuscate.

[rufuspaul]

considering i'm more critical of the left than you ever seem to be the right


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Oh that was good. According to you Obama is the 2nd coming of Jebus while anyone who doesn't walk the Democratic party line must be a cold hearted idiot. You should really be a spokesperson for the party because you spew it out verbatim.

[Godzuki]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Oh that was good. According to you Obama is the 2nd coming of Jebus while anyone who doesn't walk the Democratic party line must be a cold hearted idiot. You should really be a spokesperson for the party because you spew it out verbatim.


no more like you front being in the middle constantly while always attacking the left due to your personal agenda/issue with being taxed higher because you make more.

and you always seem to obfuscate how both sides are at fault equally for everything when thats not the case, and you're rarely specific on it if ever....

i've been pretty critical of some far left stuff, and even taken some stances that were right especially regarding our foreign policy. i'm definitely not far left on that.

[Nanners]

That's a nice way to say it. I prefer, Obama won the election by promising to steal more money from the minority and redistribute it to the majority than Romney did.

Romney was promising to steal from the majority and redistribute it to the minority, the same thing George W Bush did when he was in office.

[QUIZZLE]

butthurt butthurt butthurt

[Bucket_Nakedz]

ooh dat snake still got some venom. i like it

[ShaqAttack3234]

One things that clear is that Obama's terrible immigration law was a political move to get more votes....and it worked, sadly. Obama never should have been a serious presidential candidate in the first place 4 years ago, the guy did not have the credentials. Now, 4 years later, it's complete domestic and foreign failure, yet the majority want 4 more years like the last? Amazingly, the TERRIBLE economy wasn't as big of an issue as it should have been for voters. 4 years later, it's still all blame Bush, absolutely no accountability. And of course, with the Benghazi situation, Obama dodges the criticism he rightfully deserved because for some reason, the media still likes him. The guy is in WAY over his head, and a product of hype, but at least he's a good magician. Distracts people with his mouth so they're not looking at what he's doing with his hands.

[Droid101]

One things that clear is that Obama's terrible immigration law was a political move to get more votes....and it worked, sadly. Obama never should have been a serious presidential candidate in the first place 4 years ago, the guy did not have the credentials. Now, 4 years later, it's complete domestic and foreign failure, yet the majority want 4 more years like the last? Amazingly, the TERRIBLE economy wasn't as big of an issue as it should have been for voters. 4 years later, it's still all blame Bush, absolutely no accountability. And of course, with the Benghazi situation, Obama dodges the criticism he rightfully deserved because for some reason, the media still likes him. The guy is in WAY over his head, and a product of hype, but at least he's a good magician. Distracts people with his mouth so they're not looking at what he's doing with his hands.
Not you too... jesus christ. You're usually pretty smart in basketball threads.

[Rasheed1]

One things that clear is that Obama's terrible immigration law was a political move to get more votes....and it worked, sadly. Obama never should have been a serious presidential candidate in the first place 4 years ago, the guy did not have the credentials. Now, 4 years later, it's complete domestic and foreign failure, yet the majority want 4 more years like the last? Amazingly, the TERRIBLE economy wasn't as big of an issue as it should have been for voters. 4 years later, it's still all blame Bush, absolutely no accountability. And of course, with the Benghazi situation, Obama dodges the criticism he rightfully deserved because for some reason, the media still likes him. The guy is in WAY over his head, and a product of hype, but at least he's a good magician. Distracts people with his mouth so they're not looking at what he's doing with his hands.


and with all that baggage, he still was a better choice than Romney/Ryan or Palin/McCain by a mile..


Says more about the current GOP than anything else.

[ShaqAttack3234]

and with all that baggage, he still was a better choice than Romney/Ryan or Palin/McCain by a mile..


Says more about the current GOP than anything else.

I don't think we've had many good presidential candidates for years, and I do think it's a sad commentary. With that being said, I did like Romney and McCain and voted for both(didn't like either Ryan or Palin, though), then again, I think Joe Biden is terrible himself.

[bagelred]

The rich have been getting gifts for many years......George Bush tax breaks.

And the Military Industrial Complex gifts of made up wars........to the tune of trillions.

And the $700 billion bailout money..........

And subsidies for the Oil Companies........


But these poor people want "free healthcare". Moochers!!!!!

[rufuspaul]

and with all that baggage, he still was a better choice than Romney/Ryan or Palin/McCain by a mile..


Says more about the current GOP than anything else.



Good point. The Republican's inability to put forth a worthy candidate is embarrassing.

[General]

I don't think we've had many good presidential candidates for years, and I do think it's a sad commentary. With that being said, I did like Romney and McCain and voted for both(didn't like either Ryan or Palin, though), then again, I think Joe Biden is terrible himself.
You are a great American, not a brainwashed left wing loon like the rest of the posters on ISH.

[General]

and with all that baggage, he still was a better choice than Romney/Ryan or Palin/McCain by a mile..


Says more about the current GOP than anything else.
Not true. The reason Obama won is because he promised a lot more things than Romney did just like he stated. Romney's pitch was I'll bring back the America where if you work hard and follow the rules you will be a success story. You won't need government from craddle to grave to be a success. Obama was out there preaching how it's so unfair that the rich don't pay more, we need their money for you to be a success. Free college for everyone, free healthcare, free contraception..

Americans chose free stuff over hard work. It's that simple.

[Godzuki]

One things that clear is that Obama's terrible immigration law was a political move to get more votes....and it worked, sadly. Obama never should have been a serious presidential candidate in the first place 4 years ago, the guy did not have the credentials. Now, 4 years later, it's complete domestic and foreign failure, yet the majority want 4 more years like the last? Amazingly, the TERRIBLE economy wasn't as big of an issue as it should have been for voters. 4 years later, it's still all blame Bush, absolutely no accountability. And of course, with the Benghazi situation, Obama dodges the criticism he rightfully deserved because for some reason, the media still likes him. The guy is in WAY over his head, and a product of hype, but at least he's a good magician. Distracts people with his mouth so they're not looking at what he's doing with his hands.

you listen to Rush Limbaugh don't you? i swear almost everything you said is straight out of a right wing talking point spinners mouth :rolleyes:

even tho its beating a dead horse you do know where our economy was at when Obama took office? on the verge of a depression, thats where...you know where our economy has been headed recently? Obama graduated from Harvard, spent years in the Senate, what exactly doesn't qualify him to be President? especially when he ran a campaign better than his opponents as well as carried himself much better than Bush or really any Republican running for Prez in recent memory ever has...and i thought Hillary was the Republican target for Bengzhai? she's stepping down you know....

its just laughable to me how so many of you morons keep trying to call the rest of us sheep or idiots :facepalm

[Droid101]

Not true. The reason Obama won is because he promised a lot more things than Romney did just like he stated. Romney's pitch was I'll bring back the America where if you work hard and follow the rules you will be a success story.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Another idiot who thinks Romney hit a triple when in reality he was born on third base.

Romney didn't do an honest day's work in his life.

Saw this on another site, it is appropriate:

"So is Romney's very low tax rate (compared with mine), for example, not a gift from the government? Are all the net federal transfers of wealth to red states not also, by that logic, a gift? What would Romney call getting offered a job with zero risk (Bain Capital), and a promise that if the investments did not work out, he could go back to his old job with no penalty, and retroactively get all his previous salary paid? Was that a gift as well? Or was that thriving, striving, Deseret?"

[boozehound]

We can only pray...

Gotta control senate and congress. Hopefully we can get all those conservatives out of the supreme court as well.

Forward.
This is one reason why the GOP will remain an important political force over the next decade. You should see what they did in tx to break up the dem-leaning urban centers into small parts of large GOP-leaning rural areas. Very unethical IMO
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/republicans-gerrymandering-house-representatives-election-chart

[Droid101]

You are a great American, not a brainwashed left wing loon like the rest of the posters on ISH.
http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/11/509bedacdc6e5.jpeg

You know what they say, dumber people are much easier to brainwash.

[Godzuki]

Not true. The reason Obama won is because he promised a lot more things than Romney did just like he stated. Romney's pitch was I'll bring back the America where if you work hard and follow the rules you will be a success story. You won't need government from craddle to grave to be a success. Obama was out there preaching how it's so unfair that the rich don't pay more, we need their money for you to be a success. Free college for everyone, free healthcare, free contraception..

Americans chose free stuff over hard work. It's that simple.


how many rich people do you think work 2 jobs in this country? how many poor people do you think do? what exactly is 'hard work' to you? sitting in a office overseeing workers or being out there in the snow, heat, and rain busting their ass?

No, Romney catered to the rich, and the rich spent a ton of money to influence a ton of people towards their agendas some of who aren't rich of which are the biggest sheep to vote for their propaganda'd causes. you can crow about 'American values' or 'built on Capitalism' all you want, thats just propaganda he fed you to vote for those who are rich agendas. its funny when people use ideals like that acting like political candidates really mean it when the bottom line to most of them is they don't want to pay higher taxes period. they could care less on what America was built on idealogicially.

and the most laughable and insulting guilt trip thats consistently played by Republicans is this idea that if the rich have to pay more taxes we're somehow killing the incentive to earn and become successful in this country :facepalm: i mean think about that, just because rich people will be taxed higher do you really think everyone is going to want to be poor now? are you sitting there saying right now "i'd better go apply for a job at McDonalds since if i get a college degree and a high paying job i'll be taxed higher"? that incentive is there regardless.

[rufuspaul]

http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/11/509bedacdc6e5.jpeg

You know what they say, dumber people are much easier to brainwash.


Because all people who don't have a college degree are stupid. :rolleyes:

[Rasheed1]

Not true. The reason Obama won is because he promised a lot more things than Romney did just like he stated. Romney's pitch was I'll bring back the America where if you work hard and follow the rules you will be a success story. You won't need government from craddle to grave to be a success. Obama was out there preaching how it's so unfair that the rich don't pay more, we need their money for you to be a success. Free college for everyone, free healthcare, free contraception..

Americans chose free stuff over hard work. It's that simple.

:facepalm Romney's pitch was that he was going lower tax rates for his buddies..

He made a cynical bet against the intelligence of the public and he lost that bet.

He thought he appeal to nutbag rightwing in primary and then "etch a sketch" his way to the middle in the general, but his lies were too many and vision was too weakly defined

Funny how Romney can be basically running for president since 2007 and yet nobody knows what he really stands for in 2012...still

Republicans are their own worst enemies...

you think Im wrong?

look at this
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/11/14/politics/gop-chairman-charlie-webster-to-investigate-black-people-voting-as-potential-fraud/?ref=lates

^this is what Im talking about... "Dozens, DOZENS"

Republicans just now realized that they cant get their greedy little hands on the nation's levers of power while disrespecting wide swaths of the public anymore.

I dont believe GOP will learn its lesson, but its been alot of fun watching their world crumble.

Couldnt have happened to a better group of people :cheers:

[Droid101]

Because all people who don't have a college degree are stupid. :rolleyes:
So, are you saying that people from West Virginia (aka Appalachian Americans) are smarter on average than those from Massachusetts? It sure sounds like that's what you're saying.

But since I know you're smarter than that, I'll just link a study (it's not fit into one neat little picture so it's not as "reader friendly"). Guess what? Red states have lower average IQ's.

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/red-blue-states-summary.htm

Sorry, it is what it is. Republican voters are dumber than Democratic voters, period.

[Droid101]

Known RINO Bobby Jindal doesn't seem to agree with you idiots (or Romney):


“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said at a press conference that opened the RGA’s post-election meeting here. “Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.
“And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American Dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”


“I don’t think that represents where we are as a party and where we’re going as a party,” he said. “That has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election: If we’re going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly: One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the votes, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream. Period. No exceptions.”


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83892.html?hp=r2

[Derka]

We can only pray...

Gotta control senate and congress. Hopefully we can get all those conservatives out of the supreme court as well.

Forward.

Sounds like a one-party state to me. No thanks.

Neither one of these parties should control all branches of the government. It would be nothing but bad for us.

[ShaqAttack3234]

you listen to Rush Limbaugh don't you? i swear almost everything you said is straight out of a right wing talking point spinners mouth :rolleyes:

Actually, no, I think Rush Limbaugh is an asshole and a hypocrite. I could care less what he has to say.


even tho its beating a dead horse you do know where our economy was at when Obama took office? on the verge of a depression, thats where...you know where our economy has been headed recently? Obama graduated from Harvard, spent years in the Senate, what exactly doesn't qualify him to be President? especially when he ran a campaign better than his opponents as well as carried himself much better than Bush or really any Republican running for Prez in recent memory ever has...and i thought Hillary was the Republican target for Bengzhai? she's stepping down you know....

Check the unemployment % when Obama took office, and look now, plus, consider that as bad as it is, it's deceptively low considering how many gave up looking for jobs this summer because of how bad the economy had been for 4 years.

Obama was a US senator from '05-'08, and a good part of that was spent campaigning. That's just ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. He simply didn't have the track record then, and 4 years later, well, he does, but I can't see anyway to call it a good track record.

Obama's handling of Benghazi was disgraceful, both his administration's non-action in private, and his embarrassing public response. Oh, but wait....it was a youtube video. :facepalm


its just laughable to me how so many of you morons keep trying to call the rest of us sheep or idiots :facepalm

I never insulted anyone because their opinion is different than mine, but if you look, your now the second person to insult me for my opinion.

[Droid101]

Check the unemployment % when Obama took office, and look now, plus, consider that as bad as it is, it's deceptively low considering how many gave up looking for jobs this summer because of how bad the economy had been for 4 years.

Oh, this lie again?

Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation between President Bush and President Obama.

Bush
01/20/2001: 4.2%
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 85.71% increase

Obama
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Currently: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.00% increase

Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation when their budgets first took place

Bush
01/01/2002: 5.7%
12/31/2009: 9.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 73.68% increase

Obama
01/01/2010: 9.9%
Currently: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 21.21% decrease



GDP performance during the Obama Administration has gone into positive growth.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=20080701&d2=20120731

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 70.88%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 80.81%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 116.01%


US stock markets performance since hitting the bottom on March 9th of 2009...
DOW in 03/09/2009: 6,547.05
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 107.48%

S&P 500 in 03/09/2009: 676.53
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 115.20%

NASDAQ in 03/09/2009: 1,268.64
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 145.30%


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8449/8070918361_885df4cccc_b.jpg

[boozehound]

Actually, no, I think Rush Limbaugh is an asshole and a hypocrite. I could care less what he has to say.



Check the unemployment % when Obama took office, and look now, plus, consider that as bad as it is, it's deceptively low considering how many gave up looking for jobs this summer because of how bad the economy had been for 4 years.

Obama was a US senator from '05-'08, and a good part of that was spent campaigning. That's just ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. He simply didn't have the track record then, and 4 years later, well, he does, but I can't see anyway to call it a good track record.

Obama's handling of Benghazi was disgraceful, both his administration's non-action in private, and his embarrassing public response. Oh, but wait....it was a youtube video. :facepalm



I never insulted anyone because their opinion is different than mine, but if you look, your now the second person to insult me for my opinion.
well, first of all, the number of people who are counted in the labor force has been going up fairly significantly during the fall.

As far as the attack on the embassy, how many embassies were attacked under bush? How many americans died during those attacks? As usual, its only important when it is the people you dont agree with. SMFH.


Besides, its hard to argue that obama has done nothing (hes done quite a bit if you bother looking into it), when the GOP controlled house has basically ceded any responsibility for the governance of this country.

[Math2]

So waitwaitwait...you mean Obama won the election by promising people things that would help them????

That cheating, scheming rat bastard...

He doesn't "care" about them. He cares about the votes. He absolutely bought the latino vote with his immigration executive order (what, he doesn't do anything until a few months before the election? There's the guy who supports latinos....).

[Droid101]

As far as the attack on the embassy, how many embassies were attacked under bush? How many americans died during those attacks? As usual, its only important when it is the people you dont agree with. SMFH.

This times a million.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b139/JSO2897/BenGazi.jpg

[Rasheed1]

He doesn't "care" about them. He cares about the votes. He absolutely bought the latino vote with his immigration executive order (what, he doesn't do anything until a few months before the election? There's the guy who supports latinos....).


He obviously "cares" more than Mitt Romney and the GOP... They were so dumb they spent that period of time bashing latinos and pushing them into Obama's camp

[Math2]

It's a new age, and unless the GOP gets with the times, they are one and done. Adapt or get adapted, there is no in between and there is no way to succeed without doing so.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."


This is the new age. Dependence.

[Droid101]

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."


This is the new age. Dependence.
Lets ask the guy who literally wrote the book on Capitalism what HE thinks about progressive taxes:


"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/AdamSmith.jpg/402px-AdamSmith.jpg

[KevinNYC]

Check the unemployment % when Obama took office, and look now, plus, consider that as bad as it is, it's deceptively low considering how many gave up looking for jobs this summer because of how bad the economy had been for 4 years.

The BLS has a stat that tracks that. It's the u6 unemployment number and it tells the same story as the general u3 figure: Obama took office at the very height of job losses, job losses rose for another year and then have slowly tapered down to about where they were when he took office, but not where they were when the recession began
http://i50.tinypic.com/2dsoin4.png

To me people who hold this against Obama simply don't understand the nature and magnitude of the 2007-2009 crisis. No one on ISH has lived through a crisis like this, not even Jlauber. (I think a very valid criticism of Obama is he didn't undertstand this and communicate this.)

So ShaqAttack, please tell me what would have been different under a different president? What would another president have been able to do to affect the demand side of the economy after a massive housing & credit bubble have popped?

[johndeeregreen]

B-Low ended this thread. Regardless of your thoughts on Obama's plans, you don't get people's votes just by asking nicely, you get them by promising them something in return. This isn't even newsworthy.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Oh, this lie again?

Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation between President Bush and President Obama.

Bush
01/20/2001: 4.2%
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 85.71% increase

Obama
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Currently: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.00% increase

Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation when their budgets first took place

Bush
01/01/2002: 5.7%
12/31/2009: 9.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 73.68% increase

Obama
01/01/2010: 9.9%
Currently: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 21.21% decrease



GDP performance during the Obama Administration has gone into positive growth.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=20080701&d2=20120731

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 70.88%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 80.81%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 116.01%


US stock markets performance since hitting the bottom on March 9th of 2009...
DOW in 03/09/2009: 6,547.05
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 107.48%

S&P 500 in 03/09/2009: 676.53
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 115.20%

NASDAQ in 03/09/2009: 1,268.64
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 145.30%


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8449/8070918361_885df4cccc_b.jpg

Beyond all your smoke and mirrors, it's at 7.8% just as it was when he took office, that's terrible. And again, it's deceptively low. Just go out in the real world and ask people how the economy is.


well, first of all, the number of people who are counted in the labor force has been going up fairly significantly during the fall.

As far as the attack on the embassy, how many embassies were attacked under bush? How many americans died during those attacks? As usual, its only important when it is the people you dont agree with. SMFH.


Besides, its hard to argue that obama has done nothing (hes done quite a bit if you bother looking into it), when the GOP controlled house has basically ceded any responsibility for the governance of this country.

Terrorist attacks will happen, you can't prevent them all, but Obama's response was disgraceful. Sickening, actually. That reassured to me that I don't want this man leading the country.

By the way, for all of the criticism Bush takes, when it got really bad, it was his last 2 years when Democrats controlled the Senate and the House, and he couldn't really do anything himself, yet he gets all the blame, but when it's Obama, he gets a pass. I'm not saying I liked Bush, I could list many things I disagreed with him about, but the double standard is hilarious.

[Rasheed1]

Beyond all your smoke and mirrors, it's at 7.8% just as it was when he took office, that's terrible. And again, it's deceptively low. Just go out in the real world and ask people how the economy is.

:facepalm

We're not losing 780,000 jobs a month like we were in early 09.. You forgot to mention that

[Rasheed1]

Terrorist attacks will happen, you can't prevent them all, but Obama's response was disgraceful. Sickening, actually. That reassured to me that I don't want this man leading the country.

By the way, for all of the criticism Bush takes, when it got really bad, it was his last 2 years when Democrats controlled the Senate and the House, and he couldn't really do anything himself, yet he gets all the blame, but when it's Obama, he gets a pass. I'm not saying I liked Bush, I could list many things I disagreed with him about, but the double standard is hilarious.

there is no double standard...


you sound like you think Obama started 2 wars of his own and blew a surplus also....


I think people rightly understand who put us in this terrible position

[Droid101]

Beyond all your smoke and mirrors, it's at 7.8% just as it was when he took office, that's terrible. And again, it's deceptively low. Just go out in the real world and ask people how the economy is.

The stock market is at an all time high.

[rufuspaul]

The stock market is at an all time high.

No it's not.

[Droid101]

No it's not.
You're being deliberately obtuse. It was just a short time ago and the trajectory is still positive.

I'm disappointed that I have to re-post what I just posted three posts up:

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 70.88%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 80.81%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 116.01%


US stock markets performance since hitting the bottom on March 9th of 2009...
DOW in 03/09/2009: 6,547.05
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 107.48%

S&P 500 in 03/09/2009: 676.53
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 115.20%

NASDAQ in 03/09/2009: 1,268.64
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 145.30%

[Droid101]

From another site:

There is no way to fairly tax people because there is no way to clearly define what "fair" is.
Is it fair to ask everyone to contribute the exact same amount? Is it fair to ask everyone to contribute the exact same percentage? Is it fairer to tax based on income or spending? Is it fair to ask single people to pay taxes for schools? Is it fair to tax Capital Gains? Is it fair to tax companies? Is it fair to tax Churches? Is it fair to tax Non-Profit Organizations?
This debate is a waste. We will never come to a consensus. There will ALWAYS be some people who are treated unfairly by taxing. So rather than sit here and waste our time trying to determine what is truly fair, why don't we just try to come up with a tax policy that shifts the burden away from those who are struggling to get by and onto those who will not have to change their lifestyle?

[TheMan]

As a Hispanic, I find it insulting that Romney thinks I want free stuff. Fvck you, I'm not asking for handouts, I run my own small enterprise. All I'm asking is for the rich to kick in like the rest of us and for the GOP to stop using minorities as the boogeyman to gin up your ignorant racist base.

As long as the GOP continues this path, I will never ever vote for them...and I will make sure my friends and family do the same.

[Math2]

He obviously "cares" more than Mitt Romney and the GOP... They were so dumb they spent that period of time bashing latinos and pushing them into Obama's camp

Bashing latinos? How so?

[Math2]

From another site:

There is no way to fairly tax people because there is no way to clearly define what "fair" is.
Is it fair to ask everyone to contribute the exact same amount? Is it fair to ask everyone to contribute the exact same percentage? Is it fairer to tax based on income or spending? Is it fair to ask single people to pay taxes for schools? Is it fair to tax Capital Gains? Is it fair to tax companies? Is it fair to tax Churches? Is it fair to tax Non-Profit Organizations?
This debate is a waste. We will never come to a consensus. There will ALWAYS be some people who are treated unfairly by taxing. So rather than sit here and waste our time trying to determine what is truly fair, why don't we just try to come up with a tax policy that shifts the burden away from those who are struggling to get by and onto those who will not have to change their lifestyle?


Same percentage. Why is that not fair, and how can anyone say that it's not?

[Math2]

As a Hispanic, I find it insulting that Romney thinks I want free stuff. Fvck you, I'm not asking for handouts, I run my own small enterprise. All I'm asking is for the rich to kick in like the rest of us and for the GOP to stop using minorities as the boogeyman to gin up your ignorant racist base.

As long as the GOP continues this path, I will never ever vote for them...and I will make sure my friends and family do the same.

Maybe not that you specifically want free stuff, but that your race is unfairly singled out for benefits by the liberals. It's how Obama won the election: free stuff to minorities

[Droid101]

Same percentage. Why is that not fair, and how can anyone say that it's not?
:oldlol:

Why not same amount then? Everyone has to give $5000 per year. That's the only fair way.

[TheMan]

Bashing latinos? How so?
I don't know if Rasheed is Hispanic, I am though so I'll answer your question.

I was born in Chicago, my parents were immigrants from Mexico. My grandmother was a Texan, actually her lineage is from the original Tejanos, those that became US citizens because the US border crossed them due to the bogus landgrab called the Mexican/American War (probably there before any Anglo too), so we were never in the country illegally but living in a largely latino area, I've come to know many illegal immigrants from many parts of Latin America and they are hard working honest people. Of course there are some bad apples but what demographic doesn't have any?

People come from their homelands to the US to make a better life for their families, they take jobs most Americans don't want, they pay into Social Security without ever expecting to see the benefits, and contrary to popular right wing belief, they don't ask for welfare. You need to show documentation to collect welfare and believe me, illegal immigrants stay clear of government offices for fear of being deported.

The GOP always try to blame illegal immigrants for the country's woes, "They are taking your jobs!" "They are lazy SOBs on welfare!" "They don't assimilate and are turning our country into the third word shit hole they came from!":facepalm

This comes from the Right, Democrats don't talk like this, that's why Latinos reject the GOP. The Hispanics who are fortunate enough to be citizens of this great country can be sympathetic to those who aren't, we know they come from a tough situation and calling them criminals won't do the Republicans any good if you want our vote.

[Rasheed1]

Bashing latinos? How so?

Self deport..

Build an electrified fence

Build a moat


Im sure you watched the republican primary..... Latinos did

[TheMan]

Self deport..

Build an electrified fence

Build a moat


Im sure you watched the republican primary..... Latinos did
This

simple and to the point:applause:

[bagelred]

And Romney only wanted to give his friends $5 Trillion in tax cuts.....


But keep blaming poor people. :cheers:

[ShaqAttack3234]

So ShaqAttack, please tell me what would have been different under a different president? What would another president have been able to do to affect the demand side of the economy after a massive housing & credit bubble have popped?

For one, it would have been nice to have a president who focused more on the economy instead of health care reform. It's clear that he hasn't done enough, and been focused enough on the economy. Based on what he puts out there, it seems like he's still not living in reality when it comes to the economy. I don't know what other presidents would have done, you never know, but I know this president has not done a good job the last 4 years. I don't think the problem was just Obama's failure to communicate the severity of the economy, but even with some of the unknowns, I think he himself underestimated by more than what I'd call a reasonable margin for error.


:facepalm

We're not losing 780,000 jobs a month like we were in early 09.. You forgot to mention that

You expected it to continue at that rate? That simply wasn't going to happen. The bottom line is through almost 4 years, unemployment is what it was when he took office.

Oh, and by the way? Who gave me this anonymous rep?


you know that feeling when you find out that someone you look up to is a complete toolbag fvcking braindead idiot? feels bad man =(

It's funny to me that people can't keep it civil, and it's funnier that this person apparently "looked up to me", despite never meeting me and knowing nothing about me. Who looks up to someone on the internet?

[Rasheed1]

You expected it to continue at that rate? That simply wasn't going to happen. The bottom line is through almost 4 years, unemployment is what it was when he took office.

:facepalm so no credit for stopping the bleeding?

but I see you dole out the criticism quite freely....

I think the country can do do better than Obama also... The problem is that the Republicans cant find this candidate for some reason.

My problems with Obama lay more in his foreign policy and willingness to be alot like the neo cons who were in office before him.

But when it comes to his economics? He has done about as much as could be expected considering the opposition he faced... Republicans who criticize him make me laugh because they dont have a politician in their party who could have done any better.

If Mitt Romney was their best? That means they have alot of work to do on alot of different levels


Oh, and by the way? Who gave me this anonymous rep?



It's funny to me that people can't keep it civil, and it's funnier that this person apparently "looked up to me", despite never meeting me and knowing nothing about me. Who looks up to someone on the internet?


wasnt me...

[ShaqAttack3234]

:facepalm so no credit for stopping the bleeding?

but I see you dole out the criticism quite freely....

I think the country can do do better than Obama also... The problem is that the Republicans cant find this candidate for some reason.

My problems with Obama lay more in his foreign policy and willingness to be alot like the neo cons who were in office before him.

But when it comes to his economics? He has done about as much as could be expected considering the opposition he faced... Republicans who criticize him make me laugh because they dont have a politician in their party who could have done any better.

If Mitt Romney was their best? That means they have alot of work to do on alot of different levels

I can't give him much credit because it's not good, and hasn't gotten better from where he started, yes, it's better than the low points, but with unemployment still at 7.8%, everyone I know is struggling(and I'm not referring to myself, because my lack of success to this point has very little to do with Obama or Bush), but I mean people who work as hard as anyone, and it's still terrible. I don't think he's treated it with the severity it deserves, and made it as much of the priority as it needs to be.

For the record, I've never registered for one party, and never considered myself a Republican.


wasnt me...

I didn't mean to direct that at you because I never suspected you, and unless I forgot something, you've been civil.

[boozehound]

For one, it would have been nice to have a president who focused more on the economy instead of health care reform. It's clear that he hasn't done enough, and been focused enough on the economy. Based on what he puts out there, it seems like he's still not living in reality when it comes to the economy. I don't know what other presidents would have done, you never know, but I know this president has not done a good job the last 4 years. I don't think the problem was just Obama's failure to communicate the severity of the economy, but even with some of the unknowns, I think he himself underestimated by more than what I'd call a reasonable margin for error.



You expected it to continue at that rate? That simply wasn't going to happen. The bottom line is through almost 4 years, unemployment is what it was when he took office.

Oh, and by the way? Who gave me this anonymous rep?



It's funny to me that people can't keep it civil, and it's funnier that this person apparently "looked up to me", despite never meeting me and knowing nothing about me. Who looks up to someone on the internet?
Healthcare is something like 20% of our economy. and a huge portion of it is wasted on insurance oversight, etc. There is a reason why many other countries are able to provide a better average standard of service than the US at a significantly lower cost. True health care reform would have a massive impact on the economy. Besides, why do you want the gub'ment meddling in your awesome "free" market economy? Shouldnt the market correct itself?

[General]

People come from their homelands to the US to make a better life for their families, they take jobs most Americans don't want, they pay into Social Security without ever expecting to see the benefits, and contrary to popular right wing belief, they don't ask for welfare. You need to show documentation to collect welfare and believe me, illegal immigrants stay clear of government offices for fear of being deported.

The GOP always try to blame illegal immigrants for the country's woes, "They are taking your jobs!" "They are lazy SOBs on welfare!" "They don't assimilate and are turning our country into the third word shit hole they came from!":facepalm
I agree. It's time for our party to stop housing all the xenophobes. All the Latinos I've known were hard workers. They came here to work and earn a decent living...BUT new census data shows that 28% of Hispanics are living in poverty. They are heading down the same path as African Americans. The Democrats smell blood in the water and they are rushing to brainwash them into thinking government can solve all their problems and offering them freebies like food stamps.

Look at this story of a great American. He is a first generation immigrant that chose hard work over free stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNHywGefNnQ&feature=plcp

[Math2]

I don't know if Rasheed is Hispanic, I am though so I'll answer your question.

I was born in Chicago, my parents were immigrants from Mexico. My grandmother was a Texan, actually her lineage is from the original Tejanos, those that became US citizens because the US border crossed them due to the bogus landgrab called the Mexican/American War (probably there before any Anglo too), so we were never in the country illegally but living in a largely latino area, I've come to know many illegal immigrants from many parts of Latin America and they are hard working honest people. Of course there are some bad apples but what demographic doesn't have any?

People come from their homelands to the US to make a better life for their families, they take jobs most Americans don't want, they pay into Social Security without ever expecting to see the benefits, and contrary to popular right wing belief, they don't ask for welfare. You need to show documentation to collect welfare and believe me, illegal immigrants stay clear of government offices for fear of being deported.

The GOP always try to blame illegal immigrants for the country's woes, "They are taking your jobs!" "They are lazy SOBs on welfare!" "They don't assimilate and are turning our country into the third word shit hole they came from!":facepalm

This comes from the Right, Democrats don't talk like this, that's why Latinos reject the GOP. The Hispanics who are fortunate enough to be citizens of this great country can be sympathetic to those who aren't, we know they come from a tough situation and calling them criminals won't do the Republicans any good if you want our vote.

My only personal problem with illegal immigrants is just what the name implies. They're here illegally. Why should they expect NOT to be deported if they came here against the law? Why is that different than stealing something? You're basically taking for free something that someone has to work for. I understand that they have kids and all, but that's something they should have thought of/dealt with before they came here.

I have nothing about immigration. My grandparents came from Germany during Hitler's time. I just care that they do it illegally.

I think that the reason Obama wants to lax on illegal immigrants is that he wants votes.

[General]

Obama gets no credit for this supposed recovery because he made it worse with his stimulus package. Not only did it not create any jobs, we added 5 trillion dollars to the national debt during his tenure. The economy bottomed out on its own like it would have either way. I've been saying this many times here and no one can refute it. The only reason unemployment is not at 10-12% is because the labor force is in a 30 year low.
http://i45.tinypic.com/1624t8p.png

[Math2]

I agree. It's time for our party to stop housing all the xenophobes. All the Latinos I've known were hard workers. They came here to work and earn a decent living...BUT new census data shows that 28% of Hispanics are living in poverty. They are heading down the same path as African Americans. The Democrats smell blood in the water and they are rushing to brainwash them into thinking government can solve all their problems and offering them freebies like food stamps.

Look at this story of a great American. He is a first generation immigrant that chose hard work over free stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNHywGefNnQ&feature=plcp

Good post.

[Droid101]

Obama gets no credit for this supposed recovery because he made it worse with his stimulus package.
You know how I know that you don't know how austerity works is?

[Math2]

You know how I know that you don't know how austerity works is?

I can hear the European mobs coming to your house.

[Sarcastic]

YES!YES!!YES!!!

Every millionaire will be taxed into the poor house over the next 4 years, and free DVD players and Escalades for every po' person.

[General]

You know how I know that you don't know how austerity works is?
All the free loaders would have revolted Greece style if we had opted for austerity. It was never an option though. Even Republicans were for a stimulus package. Their package was heavily focused on infrastructure and lowering taxes for struggling families. Obama's package was full of pork and programs that did not create jobs like funds for green energy projects:rolleyes: Here is a draft of the Republican optionhttp://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/RealStimulus.pdf

[jbot]

my wife is a black voter and she didn't get a gift. what the hell?

[rufuspaul]

The election clearly shows that Americans want the country to be like France, a socialist republic. Problem is we're gonna end up more like Greece. Enjoy.

[rufuspaul]

my wife is a black voter and she didn't get a gift. what the hell?


:lol

That reminds me of Chris Rock way back in the day when OJ was acquitted, he kept saying "where's my OJ prize?".

[ALBballer]

B-Low ended this thread. Regardless of your thoughts on Obama's plans, you don't get people's votes just by asking nicely, you get them by promising them something in return. This isn't even newsworthy.

Maybe there's something wrong with me but I wish the government would stop promising and get the fck out of these matters.

:confusedshrug:

I wonder when a politician will say he will end grants to college kids and get the government out of student loans all together, remove taxholes that subsidize poeple's lifestyles (ie the mortgage interest deduction), cut the army down and get out of countries America shouldn't be in. Instead each group panders to their group and promises things we simply can not afford.

[DonDadda59]

The election clearly shows that Americans want the country to be like France, a socialist republic. Problem is we're gonna end up more like Greece. Enjoy.

Where's the white text? :confusedshrug:

The election clearly showed that the American voting public sees that the Republican model of economics championed by Grover Norquist has been PROVEN to be an utter failure. Deregulation and tax cuts for the top 2% of the population nearly dragged us into another great depression. Those institutions simply and clearly do not work. It's not arguable at this point, we saw the experiment play out before our eyes, and it failed. It's time for the Republicans to come to terms with this and get out of the way of progress. No more roadblocks, hopefully they will be reasonable during tomorrow mornings meetings.

[ALBballer]

Rasheed, I remember you being a Ron Paul activist a few years ago. If this is correct, how does one go from a Ron Paul supporter to a Barack Obamaa supporter? Their ideologies are night and day.

[Rasheed1]

Rasheed, I remember you being a Ron Paul activist a few years ago. If this is correct, how does one go from a Ron Paul supporter to a Barack Obamaa supporter? Their ideologies are night and day.



great question


I see this as two tracks...

I still like Ron Paul because he has integrity (thats the biggest key with me when it comes to selecting politicians) and he would get us outside of a monetary system that I hate.. We get outside of the FED, and we could give all that money back to the people. You cant just cut everything off and be draconian, (and Paul acknowledges this) but we could be a better nation if we work together and get off the Keynesian monetary system.

But the problem is that the GOP froze Ron Paul out because they know he isnt bullsh*ttin. They love handouts more anyone else in the country, thats why they project onto to poor and middle class people.

If we are trapped in Keynesian economics? Then I have to side with the people who would regulate it, because greed is the biggest problem here.. Greed in a system that will cripple everyone but the people who have the money to buy the politicians...Thats what we'd have.

All we did was buy ourselves some more time to get ourselves in order as a country..

Obama isnt great.. But Mitt Romney and the GOP are crazy..

[G-Funk]

PPl who wanted Romney to win should just hand their tax money to the Rich, that would make them happy. But you know they won't.

[rufuspaul]

Maybe there's something wrong with me but I wish the government would stop promising and get the fck out of these matters.

:confusedshrug:

I wonder when a politician will say he will end grants to college kids and get the government out of student loans all together, remove taxholes that subsidize poeple's lifestyles (ie the mortgage interest deduction), cut the army down and get out of countries America shouldn't be in. Instead each group panders to their group and promises things we simply can not afford.



:applause:

[rufuspaul]

Where's the white text? :confusedshrug:

The election clearly showed that the American voting public sees that the Republican model of economics championed by Grover Norquist has been PROVEN to be an utter failure. Deregulation and tax cuts for the top 2% of the population nearly dragged us into another great depression. Those institutions simply and clearly do not work. It's not arguable at this point, we saw the experiment play out before our eyes, and it failed. It's time for the Republicans to come to terms with this and get out of the way of progress. No more roadblocks, hopefully they will be reasonable during tomorrow mornings meetings.

Here's some text for you: Let's see if we can tax ourselves out of this. That should work. More governmental control of everything is always a great idea.

Be careful what you ask for

[Bandito]

Doug Sovern ‏@SovernNation
Romney says he "hadn't anticipated" losing, says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with "big gifts": http://nyti.ms/QepNTM

Quote:
In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the “old playbook” of wooing specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Mr. Romney explained — with targeted gifts and initiatives.

“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.
Quote:
“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...?smid=tw-sharehttp://www.thesupercars.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/black-lamborghini-gallardo.jpg
Thanks Obama:pimp:

[DonDadda59]

Here's some text for you: Let's see if we can tax ourselves out of this. That should work. More governmental control of everything is always a great idea.

Be careful what you ask for

Let's continue the Bush tax cuts and let's give the big banks and lenders the green light to gamble us into a depression. That worked wonders for the country recently.

Again, this isn't a question of theory. We've seen the experiment play out in front of our eyes. It simply does not work. There's no way around it. The Republican fundamentals of economy were put to the test- we were supposed to see our economy boom due to the 'trickle down' of the rich getting richer and the financial sector being free to do as they please. Instead we got a recession that we only recently began to climb out of, that could've turned into a depression had someone like Mitt Romney been in power and allowed the financial and automobile sectors to go under as he wanted.

This is not a topic of debate. The Norquist plan is a complete and utter failure. The House Republicans need to cut ties with his failed philosophies and work with the President to undo the damage he caused and to start living in reality starting tomorrow morning

[joe]

Best way to help the poor would be to deregulate professional liscensing and other barriers to entry for possible small business entreprenuers. It is probably the most harmful regulation for the poor and lower middle class but its hardly ever talked about or reported on because its an issue of state law for the most part.

Is that a state law issue for the most part? Never got down and dirty with the specifics of government licensing. But yes sir, you are right, professional licensing is a huge barrier to entry that hurts the poor more than anyone else. The rich guy can afford the license, the poor guy can hardly afford to start his business.. the license is just the last straw on his finances.

[Droid101]

great question


I see this as two tracks...

I still like Ron Paul because he has integrity (thats the biggest key with me when it comes to selecting politicians) and he would get us outside of a monetary system that I hate.. We get outside of the FED, and we could give all that money back to the people. You cant just cut everything off and be draconian, (and Paul acknowledges this) but we could be a better nation if we work together and get off the Keynesian monetary system.

But the problem is that the GOP froze Ron Paul out because they know he isnt bullsh*ttin. They love handouts more anyone else in the country, thats why they project onto to poor and middle class people.

If we are trapped in Keynesian economics? Then I have to side with the people who would regulate it, because greed is the biggest problem here.. Greed in a system that will cripple everyone but the people who have the money to buy the politicians...Thats what we'd have.

All we did was buy ourselves some more time to get ourselves in order as a country..

Obama isnt great.. But Mitt Romney and the GOP are crazy..
:applause:

[joe]

Let's continue the Bush tax cuts and let's give the big banks and lenders the green light to gamble us into a depression. That worked wonders for the country recently.

Again, this isn't a question of theory. We've seen the experiment play out in front of our eyes. It simply does not work. There's no way around it. The Republican fundamentals of economy were put to the test- we were supposed to see our economy boom due to the 'trickle down' of the rich getting richer and the financial sector being free to do as they please. Instead we got a recession that we only recently began to climb out of, that could've turned into a depression had someone like Mitt Romney been in power and allowed the financial and automobile sectors to go under as he wanted.

This is not a topic of debate. The Norquist plan is a complete and utter failure. The House Republicans need to cut ties with his failed philosophies and work with the President to undo the damage he caused and to start living in reality starting tomorrow morning


I am assuming by "Republican fundamentals of economy," you are referring to capitalism- even though the Republicans themselves don't actually understand capitalism either. But in any event, we have a central bank, we have a highly regulated economy, we have an income tax, we have an entitlement system, we have perpetual military action. All of these things are antithetical to capitalism.

If America is going to get past our struggles, everyone needs to start being honest with themselves. Left Right Libertarian Independent.. everyone needs to face facts, or else any solutions we come up with will be based on bad information. And it's just not factually correct to imply we've had free market capitalism over the last 10 years. I'm not even saying that because I support capitalism, which I do. But to say we've been operating under capitalism is like saying the sky is red and the grass is purple. It's just not correct, no matter if you support capitalism or not.

We have a mixed economy. There's a large element of capitalism, but don't get it twisted- major major elements of the economy are government controlled. And loads more are distorted by government policy, in my opinion negatively. I'm especially referring to the money, but the banking sector is not even recognizable from a free market standpoint, it's been so transformed by government intervention. We have regulation agencies for medicine, pills, the environment. Mostly everyone in the country is educated in government schools- not private schools. Anyone looking to start a business in almost any sector must deal with government licensing and regulation- why do you think businesses have compliance departments? Government hands out college loans and health insurance- both distorting the market and raising prices.

I think most anti-capitalism people look over these things, because they assume that without them... capitalism would perform even worse. So it's almost like they're doing capitalism a favor by not bringing them up. But pro-capitalism people have the exact opposite opinion- it's precisely these things that are causing the most harm to our economy.

If you want to argue that we still need less capitalism, or that our problems would be made worse by introducing more freedom into the economy.. fine. But when you imply "free market capitalism has been put to the test for the last 10 years," that is just wrong. And whoever told you that is either dishonest, or doesn't know what he's talking about.

[DonDadda59]

I am assuming by "Republican fundamentals of economy," you are referring to capitalism- even though the Republicans themselves don't actually understand capitalism either. But in any event, we have a central bank, we have a highly regulated economy, we have an income tax, we have an entitlement system, we have perpetual military action. All of these things are antithetical to capitalism.

If America is going to get past our struggles, everyone needs to start being honest with themselves. Left Right Libertarian Independent.. everyone needs to face facts, or else any solutions we come up with will be based on bad information. And it's just not factually correct to imply we've had free market capitalism over the last 10 years. I'm not even saying that because I support capitalism, which I do. But to say we've been operating under capitalism is like saying the sky is red and the grass is purple. It's just not correct, no matter if you support capitalism or not.

We have a mixed economy. There's a large element of capitalism, but don't get it twisted- major major elements of the economy are government controlled. And loads more are distorted by government policy, in my opinion negatively. I'm especially referring to the money, but the banking sector is not even recognizable from a free market standpoint, it's been so transformed by government intervention. We have regulation agencies for medicine, pills, the environment. Mostly everyone in the country is educated in government schools- not private schools. Anyone looking to start a business in almost any sector must deal with government licensing and regulation- why do you think businesses have compliance departments? Government hands out college loans and health insurance- both distorting the market and raising prices.

I think most anti-capitalism people look over these things, because they assume that without them... capitalism would perform even worse. So it's almost like they're doing capitalism a favor by not bringing them up. But pro-capitalism people have the exact opposite opinion- it's precisely these things that are causing the most harm to our economy.

If you want to argue that we still need less capitalism, or that our problems would be made worse by introducing more freedom into the economy.. fine. But when you imply "free market capitalism has been put to the test for the last 10 years," that is just wrong. And whoever told you that is either dishonest, or doesn't know what he's talking about.

Man you went off on a tangent that had absolutely nothing to do with my post :lol

But I'd like to just address the bold- nowhere did I attack free market capitalism, just specifically the deregulation and Reagonomics 'trickle down' theory. I don't know of any historical or present economy that was purely laissez-faire and I don't think anyone in their right mind would even want to see that, it'd be like a Dickens' novel on crack. What I was arguing is that the two aforementioned institutions, which many on the right are calling for a redux of, has been proven to be a failure. I don't know how you can look at the events of '08, and economic barometers of the past 10 years or so and conclude otherwise.

We were all there. We saw it play out in real time. Yet people want to double down on another recession and/or possible depression? :biggums:

[bmulls]

Man you went off on a tangent that had absolutely nothing to do with my post :lol

But I'd like to just address the bold- nowhere did I attack free market capitalism, just specifically the deregulation and Reagonomics 'trickle down' theory. I don't know of any historical or present economy that was purely laissez-faire and I don't think anyone in their right mind would even want to see that, it'd be like a Dickens' novel on crack. What I was arguing is that the two aforementioned institutions, which many on the right are calling for a redux of, has been proven to be a failure. I don't know how you can look at the events of '08, and economic barometers of the past 10 years or so and conclude otherwise.

We were all there. We saw it play out in real time. Yet people want to double down on another recession and/or possible depression? :biggums:

The economy was booming before the recession. The recession was due to banks writing subprime mortgages. It wasn't an issue of "republican economic policy" not working, it was a very specific problem.

[DonDadda59]

The economy was booming before the recession. The recession was due to banks writing subprime mortgages. It wasn't an issue of "republican economic policy" not working, it was a very specific problem.

The banks were allowed to issue the subprime mortgages and engage in other shady financial transactions because of a lack of regulation, a lack of oversight due in very large part to the Republican created Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill and other initiatives that repealed the protections offered by Glass-Steagall (Bill Clinton bares a lot of the blame for going along with this). So you are correct, it was a very specific problem, caused by a very specific series of actions... that many Republicans want to double down on.

[bmulls]

The banks were allowed to issue the subprime mortgages and engage in other shady financial transactions because of a lack of regulation, a lack of oversight due in very large part to the Republican created Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill and other initiatives that repealed the protections offered by Glass-Steagall (Bill Clinton bares a lot of the blame for going along with this). So you are correct, it was a very specific problem, caused by a very specific series of actions... that many Republicans want to double down on.

The aim of deregulation is to grow the economy, not create market bubbles. Do you think republicans secretly wanted the recession to happen or something?

You should be arguing for better oversight and stiffer penalties (criminal penalties) for people who take advantage of the rules, not arguing against the rules themselves.

[DonDadda59]

The aim of deregulation is to grow the economy, not create market bubbles. Do you think republicans secretly wanted the recession to happen or something?

You should be arguing for better oversight and stiffer penalties (criminal penalties) for people who take advantage of the rules, not arguing against the rules themselves.

Obviously the Republicans didn't want a recession or a depression when they created the bills effectively destroying Glass-Steagall. They were just acting on behalf of the big banks who wanted to free themselves of the regulations that were put in place to avert the sort of calamity we ultimately experienced in '07-'08. 'Better oversight' is what was in place before Senator Phil Gramm (who was McCain's economic advisor during his campaign and denied we were experiencing a recession mind you) took it upon himself to undo all of that and give white collar criminals the green light to gamble with our economy.

Again, as far as I know there has never been an economy that was 100% lassiez-faire, and there's a reason for that. We have seen the result of even a taste of deregulation- financial calamity and recession/depression. Why are some on the right still calling for a redo?

You get a pass for a mistake as long as you learn from it. But like the old saying goes- fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Willard continues to p!ss on the 47%.

[joe]

Man you went off on a tangent that had absolutely nothing to do with my post :lol

But I'd like to just address the bold- nowhere did I attack free market capitalism, just specifically the deregulation and Reagonomics 'trickle down' theory. I don't know of any historical or present economy that was purely laissez-faire and I don't think anyone in their right mind would even want to see that, it'd be like a Dickens' novel on crack. What I was arguing is that the two aforementioned institutions, which many on the right are calling for a redux of, has been proven to be a failure. I don't know how you can look at the events of '08, and economic barometers of the past 10 years or so and conclude otherwise.

We were all there. We saw it play out in real time. Yet people want to double down on another recession and/or possible depression? :biggums:

Well first of all, going off on tangents is my superpower. I thought I've made that clear but I'll keep driving that point home until you people get it. Superman, Spiderman, Joe from Ish.. we are just higher beings who have been given amazing gifts. I try to use it for good as much as possible.

When you said "Republican theories of economics" were put to the test, my assumption is that you were referring to free market capitalism. So my mistake if you were referring strictly to tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.

Even in just those two cases, I would argue against your points. First, it's true that we had tax cuts for the rich, and then a few years later we had a housing bubble burst and a recession. But this is just a correlation argument. The Nintendo Gamecube came out around the same time as the Bush tax cuts, how do we know the Gamecube isn't to blame for the recession? Obviously I'm being facetious, but it just goes to my point that you can't infer causation from correlation. There were a lot of things going on in the economy besides the Bush tax cuts, so what exactly makes them so special that they caused all these problems? I for one believe tax cuts for the rich (and everyone) is good for the economy, so I don't buy that argument at all. How can letting people keep more of their own money be bad for the economy? Why is it better if the government spends the money rather than the people who earned it? I think the problem wasn't the tax cuts, it was that the government never slashed spending in line with the tax cuts. Instead it just used the central bank to print money for them to spend- which acts as a hidden tax on the people anyway, due to rising prices. And then we're stuck with a huge deficit too.

As far as the deregulation argument, even the people I listen to think deregulation had something to do with the housing bubble. But the problem wasn't too much deregulation, it was too little. The government removed one regulation whose entire purpose was to combat a SEPARATE regulation, but they still kept that other regulation on the books. In other words, the government removed the safeguard for a problem they themselves caused- the famous "glass steagel."

But even so, this is such an insignificant factor of the housing bubble/recession that it's hardly worth talking about. What do you think had a greater effect, removing a few select regulations? Or having a central bank pumping money into the banking system for years and years, while at the same time you have the government removing all the risk of selling homes through guaranteed mortgage repayment? The fact that neither Republicans or Democrats bring any of that up is shocking to me. Both should be anti-fed ideologically, and the fact that they aren't shows you how corrupt the whole system is.

Anyway, if you got this far down my post I might as well sneak this in. You should really google "Peter Schiff Housing Bubble" and just click on some of the links. If you're interested in the subject it can't hurt to hear an opposing viewpoint to yours, especially from a guy who had been predicting that real estate was in a bubble for YEARS, while everyone else was calling him an idiot for not jumping into the frenzy. If you want to recommend me something to check out for your point of view definitely do that too.

[DonDadda59]

If everyone had listened to Byron Dorgan (D- North Dakota) back in '99, we wouldn't be in the mess we're just now starting to recover from:

Part I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnO_SH-4WU)

Part II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=veAOoQEy0PI&feature=endscreen)

The man called the play immaculately from beginning to end. It's almost like he Quantum Leaped from our time to '99 to tell them exactly what would happen if deregulation happened. Yet people are STILL saying, **** it... let's try it one more time... after we've seen the result. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of insanity. Are people's memories really that short or are they just self destructive? :wtf:

[Droid101]

The economy was booming before the recession. The recession was due to banks writing subprime mortgages. It wasn't an issue of "republican economic policy" not working, it was a very specific problem.
Please watch this movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/InsideJob2010Poster.jpg

[DonDadda59]

I for one believe tax cuts for the rich (and everyone) is good for the economy, so I don't buy that argument at all.

I'm going to sleep now, so I won't get into the rest of your post until possibly tomorrow, but please make sure to watch the short vid I just posted above.

Just wanted to get some explanation for your statement I quoted. Please show me any data that says tax cuts for the rich is 'good for the economy'. Everything I've seen in terms of hard data and facts shows that high GDP, job creation, and overall economic growth correlates positively to times when the top tax rate was higher. I'm not interested in theory (which we've seen fail over the last decade). Show me evidence.

I'll be looking forward seeing that in the morning. Have a great night :cheers:

[bmulls]

Please watch this movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/InsideJob2010Poster.jpg

I have a degree in Economics bud. I've sat through dozens of lectures on the housing bubble and I know the theory inside and out. I probably won't watch it.

[Droid101]

I have a degree in Economics bud. I've sat through dozens of lectures on the housing bubble and I know the theory inside and out. I probably won't watch it.
Me too.

Please, just watch it. Seriously. It's a good movie and completely non-partisan. Only about the facts.

[joe]

I'm going to sleep now, so I won't get into the rest of your post until possibly tomorrow, but please make sure to watch the short vid I just posted above.

Just wanted to get some explanation for your statement I quoted. Please show me any data that says tax cuts for the rich is 'good for the economy'. Everything I've seen in terms of hard data and facts shows that high GDP, job creation, and overall economic growth correlates positively to times when the top tax rate was higher. I'm not interested in theory (which we've seen fail over the last decade). Show me evidence.

I'll be looking forward seeing that in the morning. Have a great night :cheers:

An explanation for what I said requires theory to understand. There is evidence to back it up, but evidence can be very misleading. That's something I've learned 1,000 times over on this site alone. I see the Great Depression as evidence of central banking failure, government stimulus failure, and I see the wonderful year we had in 1946 (when government finally cut spending) as great evidence that the government needs to cut spending today.

But do other people see that? No. If they're predisposed to economic beliefs like yours, they see the exact opposite. The Great Depression is evidence that the free market inevitably causes economic chaos, and that government stimulus of all kinds is good for the economy. What the hell is up with that? Two entirely opposite conclusions drawn from the same evidence.

So how can you know which of these two viewpoints is correct? You need theory. You need a solid theory first, and then you re-examine the facts through the prism of your theory. Your theory is your flashlight in the dark hallways of "evidence."

I'll give you what I consider good evidence for why lower taxes is good for the economy. America in the 19th century. America became an economic superpower in the 19th century, with zero income taxes for most of the century (some income taxes were levied to fund war, but much less than today and not for as long a period). The 19th century saw tremendous rises in living standards for Americans, as we transformed our economy from agricultural to industrial. It was this century that saw the invention of the Steamboat, the price of steel drop tremendously, Railroads enabled country-wide travel, the invention of the sewing machine, and the telegraph. Gas stoves become more common than ever.

What spurred on these inventions was the low amount of regulations and taxes, which enabled entrepreneurs to easily start new businesses. This created the first batch of "retail workers" in America. Instead of farming, you could work the payment booth for the Railroad. You could get a job as a clerk for a local grocery store. This new division of workers is what created the American middle class. Instead of either being born into royalty or being a sustenance farmer, there was something inbetween. And instead of being born a farmer and dying a farmer, there were chances for promotion. If you worked hard, you could become a manager. You could earn a pay raise.

We take these things for granted today, but prior to the 18th-19th century, that simply was not how the world worked. 99% of the people were born poor, they worked their asses off just to survive, and then they died.

Now clearly, 19th century Americans lived much less luxuriously than we do today. They worked in sometimes dangerous conditions, with low pay compared to today's standards. But compared to prior centuries, the truly relevant measure, life had never been better. People moved to the cities, industry boomed, and immigrants flooded our borders in droves- searching for economic freedom that they could only find in the US. Unlike the rest of the world, anyone could become rich here. The governments role wasn't to expropriate and control the people, but to protect them, and otherwise leave them alone.

I have watched the first video you posted, I may get to the second one later but I need to rest my brain a little. I took some notes so I won't forget my thoughts so far.

Now, I've given you what I believe is evidence for lower taxes creating prosperity. In return, explain to me theoretically why higher taxes on the rich would work?

[joe]

For those who think the repeal of Glass-Steagall caused the financial crisis!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGl6D1H8qMQ

There were two parts of Glass-Steagall that were meant to work together.

1- The government guarantees bank deposits up to 250,000 dollars
2- the government separates banks into different groups to stop them from taking excessive risk.

The infamous "repeal" of Glass-Steagall only repealed the second item. If the government had simply repealed the entire Glass-Steagall, or better yet never even passed it to begin with, we would have been fine. But you cannot have one without the other! These acts were meant to counter balance each other.

But you're wondering, what kind of problems were caused by repealing only the 2nd part of the act, but keeping the first?

First of all, since bank deposits were backed up by the government, the banks had NO REASON to be safe with your deposits. Just think about it, the bank has 200GRAND in the vault. It can put that entire 200GRAND in the stock market. If the stock goes up, the bank gets PAID! If the stock goes down? The government subsidizes the losses. It's a win win for the banks! Of course they're going to take huge gambles with peoples money.

But banks weren't the only one whose behavior was affected by this regulation. The customers, you, me, the regular guy on the street.. ceased caring about how safe banks were with our money. Think about it, when's the last time you read a consumer report on your bank? When's the last time anyone researched which banks were safest with peoples money? NEVER! We all do plenty of research when we buy a Plasma TV, but we don't even care to read one sentence about the banks we trust with our money! Why? Because we know the government is backing up our deposits! So because of this government deposit insurance, the market, aka US, you and me, the consumers, do not check the banks. We do not care what they do. This gives the banks carte-blanche to act reckless, all because of just one simple regulation. This is what we pro-capitalism people mean when we say that government regulation DISTORTS the market.

And furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the housing collapse in 2008 really had nothing to do with what Glass-Steagall was supposed to regulate. From the Washington Post, not exactly a crazy libertarian source:


Facts such as that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch — three institutions at the heart of the crisis — were pure investment banks that had never crossed the old line into commercial banking. The same goes for Goldman Sachs, another favorite villain of the left.

The infamous AIG? An insurance firm. New Century Financial? A real estate investment trust. No Glass-Steagall there.

Two of the biggest banks that went under, Wachovia and Washington Mutual, got into trouble the old-fashioned way – largely by making risky loans to homeowners. Bank of America nearly met the same fate, not because it had bought an investment bank but because it had bought Countrywide Financial, a vanilla-variety mortgage lender.

Meanwhile, J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo — two large banks with big investment banking arms — resisted taking government capital and arguably could have weathered the crisis without it.

The partial repeal of glass-steagall legitimately had something to do with the crisis, but not because it was repealed.. because it was only PARTIALLY repealed. And even with that said, it really had very little to do with the crisis. The overwhelming bulk of blame for the housing boom and subsequent crash rests on the Federal Reserve, coupled with government guarantees provided to the banks.

[embersyc]

1- The government guarantees bank deposits up to 250,000 dollars


How well do you know history? Why the **** would anybody use a bank if not for this guarantee? The entire banking industry would be history if not for the FDIC.

[97 bulls]

How well do you know history? Why the **** would anybody use a bank if not for this guarantee? The entire banking industry would be history if not for the FDIC.
Exactly. Wasn't that what happened during the great depression? The stock market ccrashed and as one of the side effects, people either loss their money or pulled it out of the banks. Banks take peoples money and invest it.

Then people were weary about putting money bank into banks and thus why the government had to step in and insure a portion of the money americans put into banks.



That 250000 is insurance for Americans not banks. If we have another crash, banks don't get to keep your money.

[DonDadda59]

An explanation for what I said requires theory to understand. There is evidence to back it up, but evidence can be very misleading. That's something I've learned 1,000 times over on this site alone. I see the Great Depression as evidence of central banking failure, government stimulus failure, and I see the wonderful year we had in 1946 (when government finally cut spending) as great evidence that the government needs to cut spending today.

But do other people see that? No. If they're predisposed to economic beliefs like yours, they see the exact opposite. The Great Depression is evidence that the free market inevitably causes economic chaos, and that government stimulus of all kinds is good for the economy. What the hell is up with that? Two entirely opposite conclusions drawn from the same evidence.

So how can you know which of these two viewpoints is correct? You need theory. You need a solid theory first, and then you re-examine the facts through the prism of your theory. Your theory is your flashlight in the dark hallways of "evidence."

I'll give you what I consider good evidence for why lower taxes is good for the economy. America in the 19th century. America became an economic superpower in the 19th century, with zero income taxes for most of the century (some income taxes were levied to fund war, but much less than today and not for as long a period). The 19th century saw tremendous rises in living standards for Americans, as we transformed our economy from agricultural to industrial. It was this century that saw the invention of the Steamboat, the price of steel drop tremendously, Railroads enabled country-wide travel, the invention of the sewing machine, and the telegraph. Gas stoves become more common than ever.

What spurred on these inventions was the low amount of regulations and taxes, which enabled entrepreneurs to easily start new businesses. This created the first batch of "retail workers" in America. Instead of farming, you could work the payment booth for the Railroad. You could get a job as a clerk for a local grocery store. This new division of workers is what created the American middle class. Instead of either being born into royalty or being a sustenance farmer, there was something inbetween. And instead of being born a farmer and dying a farmer, there were chances for promotion. If you worked hard, you could become a manager. You could earn a pay raise.

We take these things for granted today, but prior to the 18th-19th century, that simply was not how the world worked. 99% of the people were born poor, they worked their asses off just to survive, and then they died.

Now clearly, 19th century Americans lived much less luxuriously than we do today. They worked in sometimes dangerous conditions, with low pay compared to today's standards. But compared to prior centuries, the truly relevant measure, life had never been better. People moved to the cities, industry boomed, and immigrants flooded our borders in droves- searching for economic freedom that they could only find in the US. Unlike the rest of the world, anyone could become rich here. The governments role wasn't to expropriate and control the people, but to protect them, and otherwise leave them alone.

I have watched the first video you posted, I may get to the second one later but I need to rest my brain a little. I took some notes so I won't forget my thoughts so far.

So you took the long way to say what anyone with common sense already knew- there is no factual basis to back up the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy is beneficial to our whole economy. The only place where that works is in theory, which was put into action by Dubya... and failed miserably.


Now, I've given you what I believe is evidence for lower taxes creating prosperity. In return, explain to me theoretically why higher taxes on the rich would work?

No need for theory. Here are some proven facts:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Employment_growth_by_top_tax_rate.jpg

http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/taxratesandeconomicgrowthcap.jpg

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/505c50e6eab8eaa51a000024-525-746/tax-rates-and-growth.png

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/505c53b4eab8ea6e27000000-770-602/share-of-income.png


BOMBSHELL: New Study Destroys Theory That Tax Cuts Spur Growth

One economic theory has been repeated so often for so long in this country that it has become an accepted fact:

Tax cuts spur growth.

Most Americans have gotten so used to hearing this theory that they don't even question it anymore.

One of our two Presidential candidates is so convinced of the theory that he has built his entire economic plan around it--despite the huge negative impact additional tax cuts would likely have on our debt and deficit.
But is the theory true? Do tax cuts really spur growth?

The answer appears to be "no."

According to a new study by the Congressional Research Service (non-partisan), there's no evidence that tax cuts spur growth.

In fact, although correlation is not causation, when you compare economic growth in periods with declining tax rates versus periods with high tax rates, there seems to be evidence that tax cuts might hurt growth. But we'll leave that possibility for another day.

One thing that tax cuts do unequivocally do--at least tax cuts for the highest earners--is increase economic inequality. Given that economic inequality is one of the biggest problems we face in this country right now, this conclusion is very important.

Before we go to the charts, a few observations.

First, this topic has become highly politicized, so it's impossible to discuss it without people howling that you're just rooting for a particular political team. Second, no one likes paying taxes. Third, everyone would like a tax cut, including me.

So I think we can all agree that everyone would prefer that tax cuts actually did spur economic growth.

...

Well, the bottom line appears to be that low taxes do not spur economic growth and DO cause greater economic inequality.

So, although it sounds like heresy, presidents and Congress-people who actually want to fix the economy might want to consider raising taxes rather than cutting them. Or, at the very least, keeping them the same.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9#ixzz2CP2lsjny

Rachel Maddow provides facts about 'Trickle Down' leading to the ever-increasing wealth gap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Df5SH1PrU)

So in summary, as you can clearly see- the theory that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth and everyone reaps the benefits of 'trickle down' wealth is a lie. The facts show that the times of highest job creation, highest gross domestic product (gdp), wealth parity, etc coincide with the times of the highest top tax rate.

[joe]

How well do you know history? Why the **** would anybody use a bank if not for this guarantee? The entire banking industry would be history if not for the FDIC.

No it wouldn't! Banks would have to be more careful with what they do with peoples money, and people would have to be more vigilant with the banks they choose. The banking industry would be MUCH stronger without government guarantees. It's the guarantees that create the moral hazard and allow the banks to behave in ridiculous fashions with our money, you know, the type of things liberals blame on deregulation! Well no, it's regulation that causes that problem.

[joe]

Exactly. Wasn't that what happened during the great depression? The stock market ccrashed and as one of the side effects, people either loss their money or pulled it out of the banks. Banks take peoples money and invest it.

Then people were weary about putting money bank into banks and thus why the government had to step in and insure a portion of the money americans put into banks.



That 250000 is insurance for Americans not banks. If we have another crash, banks don't get to keep your money.

During the Great Depression, very few people lost their money due to bank failures. It was propaganda back then and it's propaganda now. It was only 2-3% of deposits that were lost.

[joe]

So you took the long way to say what anyone with common sense already knew- there is no factual basis to back up the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy is beneficial to our whole economy. The only place where that works is in theory, which was put into action by Dubya... and failed miserably.



No need for theory. Here are some proven facts:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Employment_growth_by_top_tax_rate.jpg

http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/taxratesandeconomicgrowthcap.jpg

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/505c50e6eab8eaa51a000024-525-746/tax-rates-and-growth.png

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/505c53b4eab8ea6e27000000-770-602/share-of-income.png


BOMBSHELL: New Study Destroys Theory That Tax Cuts Spur Growth

One economic theory has been repeated so often for so long in this country that it has become an accepted fact:

Tax cuts spur growth.

Most Americans have gotten so used to hearing this theory that they don't even question it anymore.

One of our two Presidential candidates is so convinced of the theory that he has built his entire economic plan around it--despite the huge negative impact additional tax cuts would likely have on our debt and deficit.
But is the theory true? Do tax cuts really spur growth?

The answer appears to be "no."

According to a new study by the Congressional Research Service (non-partisan), there's no evidence that tax cuts spur growth.

In fact, although correlation is not causation, when you compare economic growth in periods with declining tax rates versus periods with high tax rates, there seems to be evidence that tax cuts might hurt growth. But we'll leave that possibility for another day.

One thing that tax cuts do unequivocally do--at least tax cuts for the highest earners--is increase economic inequality. Given that economic inequality is one of the biggest problems we face in this country right now, this conclusion is very important.

Before we go to the charts, a few observations.

First, this topic has become highly politicized, so it's impossible to discuss it without people howling that you're just rooting for a particular political team. Second, no one likes paying taxes. Third, everyone would like a tax cut, including me.

So I think we can all agree that everyone would prefer that tax cuts actually did spur economic growth.

...

Well, the bottom line appears to be that low taxes do not spur economic growth and DO cause greater economic inequality.

So, although it sounds like heresy, presidents and Congress-people who actually want to fix the economy might want to consider raising taxes rather than cutting them. Or, at the very least, keeping them the same.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9#ixzz2CP2lsjny

Rachel Maddow provides facts about 'Trickle Down' leading to the ever-increasing wealth gap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Df5SH1PrU)

So in summary, as you can clearly see- the theory that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth and everyone reaps the benefits of 'trickle down' wealth is a lie. The facts show that the times of highest job creation, highest gross domestic product (gdp), wealth parity, etc coincide with the times of the highest top tax rate.

Will respond later.. work calls.

Very quickly I'll say, why the hell is income inequality a problem? That's one of the things that are just assumed to be a problem, but really aren't. Why does it matter how much richer the rich are than the poor? The only thing that's important is how rich the POOR are. If the poor are living like Kings, does it matter if the rich are 100x richer than them? No. Would you rather a system where we have equality..... with everyone being equally broke?

Anyway, wish I could get into it more right now but AHHH, gotta go.

[Droid101]

Why does it matter how much richer the rich are than the poor? The only thing that's important is how rich the POOR are. If the poor are living like Kings, does it matter if the rich are 100x richer than them? No.
Well, they aren't. Which is why we need to funnel some money down there so maybe they can live, period.

Anyway, income disparity IS a big deal if the poor can't eat. If it gets too big, this happens:

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/robes.jpg

[Math2]

Let's continue the Bush tax cuts and let's give the big banks and lenders the green light to gamble us into a depression. That worked wonders for the country recently.

Again, this isn't a question of theory. We've seen the experiment play out in front of our eyes. It simply does not work. There's no way around it. The Republican fundamentals of economy were put to the test- we were supposed to see our economy boom due to the 'trickle down' of the rich getting richer and the financial sector being free to do as they please. Instead we got a recession that we only recently began to climb out of, that could've turned into a depression had someone like Mitt Romney been in power and allowed the financial and automobile sectors to go under as he wanted.

This is not a topic of debate. The Norquist plan is a complete and utter failure. The House Republicans need to cut ties with his failed philosophies and work with the President to undo the damage he caused and to start living in reality starting tomorrow morning


You want a system that simply does not work? Communism, socialism, austerity. It DOES NOT WORK. It hasn't worked anywhere else before, and it's not going to work here.

[Droid101]

You want a system that simply does not work? Communism, socialism, austerity. It DOES NOT WORK. It hasn't worked anywhere else before, and it's not going to work here.
You know what else does not work? Straight up Capitalism.

Guess what does work? A mixture of capitalism and socialism... you know, kind of like what we have had here in America for quite a long time.

[Math2]

You know what else does not work? Straight up Capitalism.

Guess what does work? A mixture of capitalism and socialism... you know, kind of like what we have had here in America for quite a long time.

It's done a lot of good as of late. Massive debt, and unsustainable welfare systems. I'm sure that's what we set out to do when we adopted our system.

[Droid101]

It's done a lot of good as of late. Massive debt, and unsustainable welfare systems. I'm sure that's what we set out to do when we adopted our system.
I'm done with you. You don't back anything you say up with facts, just mindless talking points from Rush or Beck. It's maddening.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TmvmkcZWruk/TfqCPGXhzQI/AAAAAAAAAHE/fNSMsbyeGco/s400/Hate%2BTaxes%2BGovernment%2BRegulations%252C%2BLov e%2BGuns%2B-%2BIt%2527s%2Bbetter%2Bin%2BSomalia.jpg

[DonDadda59]

You want a system that simply does not work? Communism, socialism, austerity. It DOES NOT WORK. It hasn't worked anywhere else before, and it's not going to work here.

Ah, when all else fails and you have no real response to the truth, bust out the Faux News bullshit talking points :lol

http://usahitman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ObamaCommieDictator.jpg

Facts are facts, homie. It's time to come to terms with reality, Boehner and his minions made it seem like they are ready to face facts and get off the Norquist leash after this morning's meeting. Hopefully they will be sensible and follow through so we can continue on the right path and right the wrongs of failed theories.

[bdreason]

So Obama won the election by pandering to the minority? :confusedshrug:

[Loneshot]

Past: Bring african slaves over for free labor. Free them, destroy their communities via terrorism/drugs.
Result: D'oh!

Past: Rape, vilify, and steal from Mexicans, and then let them into the country to exploit them in the workforce.
Result: D'oh!

[Jailblazers7]

Really good article by Paul Volcker about the future of the country for anyone interested in a serious non-partisan opinion.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/dec/06/what-new-president-should-consider/?pagination=false

[joe]

So in summary, as you can clearly see- the theory that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth and everyone reaps the benefits of 'trickle down' wealth is a lie. The facts show that the times of highest job creation, highest gross domestic product (gdp), wealth parity, etc coincide with the times of the highest top tax rate.

No, I can't clearly see that. All I've seen is a bunch of statistics thrown out. Statistics don't prove anything definitively. I'm not anti-statistic, but statistics can only be used to buffer your argument, they can't be the entire basis of your argument. I can just as easily say all of those economies would have been doing EVEN BETTER with lower tax rates, and at that point it's just my word against yours. There's no substance to anything you posted. There's plenty of statistics that show the 19th century in America was the greatest century EVER in terms of improving the living standards of humans, and this occurred with a zero percent income tax and a gold standard! So are you going to change your position to be pro-gold standard now? According to the way you argue your case, you should.

Please explain why raising taxes on the rich would improve the economy, without using any statistics. Explain why! Why does that make any sense? Why would taking money from some people who earned it, and then giving it to the government, create a better economy? Just explain how that makes any sense. Please. I'm not saying a good argument can't be made, but I haven't seen it yet in this thread.

And to say Romney has "built his entire economic plan" around lower taxes is ridiculous. Romney supports barely lower taxes than Obama. I support ZERO income tax. Romney is hardly better than Obama on taxes...he's a marginal difference.

[joe]

Well, they aren't. Which is why we need to funnel some money down there so maybe they can live, period.

Anyway, income disparity IS a big deal if the poor can't eat. If it gets too big, this happens:

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/robes.jpg

Having an income disparity in itself is not a big deal if the poor can't eat.... the big deal is that the poor can't eat. The fact that other people are rich is irrelevant to the problem of the poor not having food.

The only scenario in which the income disparity would truly matter is in a world with a fixed amount of goods. So there's a fixed amount of food, a fixed amount of blankets, a fixed amount of medicine, etc. In that case sure, if the rich have all the resources... that has a direct effect on the poor.

But we obviously do not live in a world like that. The supply of goods can be raised or lowered. We can produce more food, more blankets, more medicine. So the question we must be asking ourselves is, how do we raise the supply? How do we make it so everyone, even the poor, have an abundance of goods? Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor does not grow the amount of goods in the world, it just redistributes the ones we already have.

Contrary to your beliefs, the rich are the last people we want to tax if the mission is to help the poor. It's the rich who supply all of us with the material goods we've come to take for granted. Xbox, television, laptops, kerosene, cigarettes, grocery stores.... those things all made people rich. And it was the human drive to become rich that propelled their creation in the first place. The higher you tax the rich, the less attractive it will be for people to create things like this in the future. And then the poor will be really in trouble.

[Droid101]

To add insult to injury, the taxation you levy on the rich decreases the overall incentive to be rich in the first place, and it's often the rich people and their businesses which are creating the material goods in the economy.
I know! It's so hard being rich, right!? It's so much easier being poor and living on free food stamps from the government!

http://sperraul.mnsi.net/images/comics/lucky_ducky.png

[Lakers Legend#32]

Romney's strategy was to win by giving gifts to millionaires and billionaires.

[DonDadda59]

No, I can't clearly see that. All I've seen is a bunch of statistics thrown out. Statistics don't prove anything definitively. I'm not anti-statistic, but statistics can only be used to buffer your argument, they can't be the entire basis of your argument. I can just as easily say all of those economies would have been doing EVEN BETTER with lower tax rates, and at that point it's just my word against yours. There's no substance to anything you posted. There's plenty of statistics that show the 19th century in America was the greatest century EVER in terms of improving the living standards of humans, and this occurred with a zero percent income tax and a gold standard! So are you going to change your position to be pro-gold standard now? According to the way you argue your case, you should.

Those are the quantifiable results of a comprehensive study done that covered about 70 years in this country in regards to top tax rate and its correlation to economic barometers. The findings clearly show that the times of highest growth, highest gdp, wealth parity, etc coincide with times of the highest top tax rate. These are facts. What you posted, or rather didn't, lacks substance. I asked you to provide facts or anything that can back up the claim that lower taxes leads to a better economy. You gave me nothing, because there is nothing tangible to support that claim.


Please explain why raising taxes on the rich would improve the economy, without using any statistics. Explain why! Why does that make any sense? Why would taking money from some people who earned it, and then giving it to the government, create a better economy? Just explain how that makes any sense. Please. I'm not saying a good argument can't be made, but I haven't seen it yet in this thread.

With more tax revenue, the government can invest in more infrastructure projects which creates more jobs. The increased revenue could (and will) be used to help reduce the deficit. larger deficits coincide with high interest rates which can lead to inflation and lower consumer/investor confidence which in turn affects the stock market (a taste of what we saw on wall street in the days after the election, the fear of the country going over the fiscal cliff being one of the main catalysts of the decline). With a higher deficit, we have less national savings which decreases the funds we have to invest in new business. So having more tax revenue on hand (coupled with lower spending) would cut into the deficit, thereby reversing the damage caused to our economy as a whole in addition with providing national savings for investments.

Again, look at the facts- they tell the whole story. An in depth study on how increased taxes affects the economy:

RECENT STUDIES FIND RAISING TAXES ON HIGH-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS WOULD NOT HARM THE ECONOMY:
Policy Should Be Included in Balanced Deficit-Reduction Effort (http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-24-12tax.pdf)

[joe]

I know! It's so hard being rich, right!? It's so much easier being poor and living on free food stamps from the government!


I didn't say it's easy to be poor, and I do not villify the poor. I for one grew up in a lower income family. I do not trivialize the difficult of growing up without a lot of money.

I am just talking about the reality of the situation. If all income above $250,000 is taxed at 50%, less people will strive to earn $250,000 than if the tax was 0%. If you raise the tax to 60%, even less people will strive for $250,000. Why put all the time and effort into building a business if the government is just going to tax half your income?

"Yeah but rich people only pay like 2 cents in taxes in America!"

Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.

[joe]

Do some rich people get their millions by leeching off of government? Do they get rich by screwing over the people, by using the government to fix the laws in their favor? Yes. But those aren't the people I'm talking defending. The rich people we should praise are the ones who make their money honestly, through voluntary market exchange. The guys who create a product or service we all love. Sure they get rich off of it, but why shouldn't they? Things like handheld foot massagers, recliner chairs, chess boards... why shouldn't the people who manufacture these things get rich? They provide us with great products at great prices. I don't see why I'm supposed to hate these guys, or why I'm supposed to prefer the government to be spending their profits rather than them.

[Scoooter]

Why does progressive taxation = hatred? You're too emotional about other people's money joe.

[joe]

Why does progressive taxation = hatred? You're too emotional about other people's money joe.

Nahhh that's not what I'm saying. It's hard to read tone over the internet. I was just saying like, "Man, I love all of these products I'm provided by businesses. Why am I supposed to hate these guys??" Not sure the word I'm looking for, I wasn't being vile though. My tone was nice in my head, you just can't read it the way I am saying it :D

[rufuspaul]

Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.


So true. If you're like me and actually saving for retirement instead of expecting to freeload off the government, most of your retirement income will be taxed (for the 2nd time) at the capital gains rate. Raising this rate punishes people who worked hard and saved and invested.

[Math2]

Romney's strategy was to win by giving gifts to millionaires and billionaires.

Of course, if you believe the crap Obama says.

[Math2]

Do some rich people get their millions by leeching off of government? Do they get rich by screwing over the people, by using the government to fix the laws in their favor? Yes. But those aren't the people I'm talking defending. The rich people we should praise are the ones who make their money honestly, through voluntary market exchange. The guys who create a product or service we all love. Sure they get rich off of it, but why shouldn't they? Things like handheld foot massagers, recliner chairs, chess boards... why shouldn't the people who manufacture these things get rich? They provide us with great products at great prices. I don't see why I'm supposed to hate these guys, or why I'm supposed to prefer the government to be spending their profits rather than them.

Yes, and this is the same defense the liberals use for welfare, but they will no doubt denounce this.

[Rose]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A758sqzCcAEAPLh.jpg:large

[Rasheed1]

Of course, if you believe the crap Obama says.

:facepalm

Obama wasnt the guy speaking on the conference call with Romney's DONORS.

This is how delusional Romney and GOP are.. Romney is on a call explaining to his billionaire donors what went wrong. Romney's excuse is to say that Obama won because he gave people "gifts"


WTF were his donors expecting from him? :roll: nothing?

yet none of this strikes Mitt as totally absurd while he was rattling off excuses...

Thank God he lost

[rufuspaul]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A758sqzCcAEAPLh.jpg:large


:lol


Is that McKayla's mom in the blue? :banana:

[97 bulls]

No, I can't clearly see that. All I've seen is a bunch of statistics thrown out. Statistics don't prove anything definitively. I'm not anti-statistic, but statistics can only be used to buffer your argument, they can't be the entire basis of your argument. I can just as easily say all of those economies would have been doing EVEN BETTER with lower tax rates, and at that point it's just my word against yours. There's no substance to anything you posted. There's plenty of statistics that show the 19th century in America was the greatest century EVER in terms of improving the living standards of humans, and this occurred with a zero percent income tax and a gold standard! So are you going to change your position to be pro-gold standard now? According to the way you argue your case, you should.

Please explain why raising taxes on the rich would improve the economy, without using any statistics. Explain why! Why does that make any sense? Why would taking money from some people who earned it, and then giving it to the government, create a better economy? Just explain how that makes any sense. Please. I'm not saying a good argument can't be made, but I haven't seen it yet in this thread.

And to say Romney has "built his entire economic plan" around lower taxes is ridiculous. Romney supports barely lower taxes than Obama. I support ZERO income tax. Romney is hardly better than Obama on taxes...he's a marginal difference.
But if we didn't tax income, how would we be able to fund our Military? Our Police force? Our fire DPT? To name a few?

[97 bulls]

I didn't say it's easy to be poor, and I do not villify the poor. I for one grew up in a lower income family. I do not trivialize the difficult of growing up without a lot of money.

I am just talking about the reality of the situation. If all income above $250,000 is taxed at 50%, less people will strive to earn $250,000 than if the tax was 0%. If you raise the tax to 60%, even less people will strive for $250,000. Why put all the time and effort into building a business if the government is just going to tax half your income?

"Yeah but rich people only pay like 2 cents in taxes in America!"

Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.
Rich people more than get their fair share of tax breaks bro



http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-deductions-favor-rich-1.aspx

[kentatm]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533827_10151273396981749_1876991773_n.jpg

yea I think thats her mother.

I was only half paying attention when they did a quick clip on TV though.

[bladefd]

I didn't say it's easy to be poor, and I do not villify the poor. I for one grew up in a lower income family. I do not trivialize the difficult of growing up without a lot of money.

I am just talking about the reality of the situation. If all income above $250,000 is taxed at 50%, less people will strive to earn $250,000 than if the tax was 0%. If you raise the tax to 60%, even less people will strive for $250,000. Why put all the time and effort into building a business if the government is just going to tax half your income?

"Yeah but rich people only pay like 2 cents in taxes in America!"

Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.

Apparently, you're forgetting that ~75% of USA's net worth is in 10% of the country (top 1% has 35% of the total wealth). You can bitch all you want about taxes being unfair to the top 1% or top 5%, but you will NEVER be able to refute the fact that the rich continue to get much richer while the rest of us are where we have been for past 30 years (or in many cases, rest of us are getting worse off).

You can complain about how we have a socialistic government or how the rich's wealth is unfairly being redistributed to the poor. The redistribution was already done and it was to the rich through policies the last 30+ years; what you're complaining about is a reredistribution to make sure nobody is unfairly treated. But here's the kicker: the rich continue to garner more and more wealth. Can you explain how if they are taxed more than half of their income? You're making it seem as if anyone making more than $250,000 is worse off than those making less. Perhaps you're forgetting the fact that a lot of them use loopholes (some legal, some illegal) to put a lot of their money in Cayman Islands or Switzerland or someplace where they can avoid paying a big chunk of their tax. What many of them are being taxed is AFTER the loopholes have been applied..

The average American making $60,000 cannot legally transfer money to Switzerland or someplace to bypass taxes that a corporate entity may be able to with legal loopholes. It would be too obvious to do it illegally if you only make $60,000 to begin with and parts of it disappear (if you're making millions, a couple $50,000 here and another $50,000 there disappearing won't be as noticeable), and it's also not cheap to run an overseas bank account. They probably cannot afford to store money overseas if most of their income is used up to pay mortgages, pay creditcard/electricity/etc bills while make a living.

You can jump up and down, scream at top of your lungs, cry or punch a wall somewhere. You will never be able to refute that fact. That's the reality.

[bladefd]

oh and don't forget about capital gains. They are taxed at 15% for those with money to invest or create bonds. I almost forgot about that. I just remembered the whole 'Buffett is taxed lower rate than his secretary' case. There are a lot of other ways/loopholes that can be used and are used.

[Math2]

:facepalm

Obama wasnt the guy speaking on the conference call with Romney's DONORS.

This is how delusional Romney and GOP are.. Romney is on a call explaining to his billionaire donors what went wrong. Romney's excuse is to say that Obama won because he gave people "gifts"


WTF were his donors expecting from him? :roll: nothing?

yet none of this strikes Mitt as totally absurd while he was rattling off excuses...

Thank God he lost

What were Obama's millionaire donors expecting from him?

[Rasheed1]

What were Obama's millionaire donors expecting from him?

They were expecting hope and change :confusedshrug: They were expecting something in return as do all constituents..

Romney is talking like his donors werent expecting a 5 trillion tax cut, more subsidies from the government they hate, and less regulations if he got into office


if healthcare and the dream act are gifts? then so are tax cuts and policy changes to the benefit of the 1%

[Lakers Legend#32]

Mitt, don't go away mad
Mitt, just go away

[joe]

what you're complaining about is a reredistribution to make sure nobody is unfairly treated. But here's the kicker: the rich continue to garner more and more wealth. Can you explain how if they are taxed more than half of their income?

Not all rich are taxed at 50%, but some are. If you own a business, or earn your money through income, that's where the truly high tax rates are. I'll explain how. The corporate tax can vary from 15-35%, so for some they are paying 35% off the bat. Throw in medicare/medicaid, another 3-4%. And then if you live in say California, they have a 14% state income tax. Many states have 7-8% income tax. So you're up to about 45%, maybe more in some states. Throw in sales tax on everything you buy, or dividend taxes on your investments.. and you're in that 50% ballpark. Likely more for some people.

Other rich people who make all of their money through stocks are only taxed at about 12%. That's what Warren Buffet was referring to with his whole "I pay lower taxes than my secretary" bit. But in fact that's very misleading. Warren Buffet may only pay 12% on his dividends, but the corporation that pays his dividends was already taxed once, shrinking the amount of money he is able to earn from them. If they are taxed at 35%, you can really just consider that a 35% tax on Warren Buffet's dividends. Warren Buffet isn't being directly taxed, but the corporations pass those taxes on down to stockholders.


You can complain about how we have a socialistic government or how the rich's wealth is unfairly being redistributed to the poor. The redistribution was already done and it was to the rich through policies the last 30+ years;

I honestly don't disagree with you. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor/middle class to the rich. But this isn't happening through free market capitalism, it's happening through government channels. When the federal reserve prints money, it lowers the value of the dollar. This affects the poor the most, since they're less likely to be holding non-dollar assets. The rich guy owns a business, he owns real estate, he owns stocks, precious metals. The poor person just has dollars, and if those are devalued, he has nothing else to fall back on. Corporations use the government to give them special powers, and pass laws that put their competitors out of business, etc, another blow to poor/middle class. The poor have been systematically attacked in this country, but the answer to that isn't to give the government more power, to pass more laws, more regulation agencies, etc. The answer is to introduce more freedom into the economy, get the government out of the way, and allow society to build itself up through market exchange. That's what I think is the best thing for the poor.

[bladefd]

I honestly don't disagree with you. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor/middle class to the rich. But this isn't happening through free market capitalism, it's happening through government channels. When the federal reserve prints money, it lowers the value of the dollar. This affects the poor the most, since they're less likely to be holding non-dollar assets. The rich guy owns a business, he owns real estate, he owns stocks, precious metals. The poor person just has dollars, and if those are devalued, he has nothing else to fall back on. Corporations use the government to give them special powers, and pass laws that put their competitors out of business, etc, another blow to poor/middle class. The poor have been systematically attacked in this country, but the answer to that isn't to give the government more power, to pass more laws, more regulation agencies, etc. The answer is to introduce more freedom into the economy, get the government out of the way, and allow society to build itself up through market exchange. That's what I think is the best thing for the poor.

That is what we already had through the 80s and 90s. Look at the corruption wallstreet has had, and they were getting away with it since there was no real watchdog. The private sector was booming sure, but at what cost? CEOs and other top administrators were getting multi-million bonuses on top of the millions they were already making.

I don't know about you but I come from the train of thought that the private and public sector are DIRECTLY connected. You can't be completely hands-off and let the private sector do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want, the way they see fit within their own law guidelines. Somebody has to ensure that they follow the law like the rest of us. For decades now, they were getting away with murder. I'm not saying to go back to the FDR days during the whole black depression days when the government basically took complete control to shimmer down the depression and get things to normalcy. I am simply saying you just need a watchdog to ensure they follow the law like the rest of us.

Who else would you be willing to be the watchdog? We have been letting the inmates run the asylum for some time now, and we have seen that rampant corruption. While it was rolling and profits were rolling in, there were little or no complaints. When things started to fell apart in mid-2000s, they come to the public sector and federal/state governments begging to be let off the hook. You tell me. Who watches over them? Let them watch over themselves again or does somebody else? If somebody else does, how do you want them to? How do they get appointed?

anyways, gotta get going. more discussion tomorrow

[bagelred]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A758sqzCcAEAPLh.jpg:large

After you win your 2nd term election and can't get reelected anymore, you get to take pictures like that.......:lol

[Blue&Orange]

But this isn't happening through free market capitalism, it's happening through government channels.
lol how incredible ridiculous and dumb.
This is you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdQUseNQM0c


http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/04/apple_taxes_profits.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227878/Apple-paid-1-9-tax-earnings-outside-U-S--66-times-LESS-general-corp-tax-rates.html

lol



Other rich people who make all of their money through stocks are only taxed at about 12%. That's what Warren Buffet was referring to with his whole "I pay lower taxes than my secretary" bit. But in fact that's very misleading. Warren Buffet may only pay 12% on his dividends, but the corporation that pays his dividends was already taxed once, shrinking the amount of money he is able to earn from them. If they are taxed at 35%, you can really just consider that a 35% tax on Warren Buffet's dividends. Warren Buffet isn't being directly taxed, but the corporations pass those taxes on down to stockholders.

So by your incredibly dumb example, if i work for that corporation, i'm really being taxed 25%+35%, still more than Warren Buffet, because i would had a high salary if my employer wouldn't had already being taxed!

You do realize that Warren Buffet and the corporation he is getting dividends are two separate entities, and there's no rational explanation, other than stupidity, to lump them together?

Warren Buffet is dumb, you're smart. I wonder why it's you that are posting on Ish and not him.



Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint.

Reading this i can only wonder how did humanity survived before the "rich people" started to gobbling up all the money? I really don't understand... are you telling me that instead of working for the minimal wage, people had their own businesses? Nuts!

Investment? What investment? Money is going all to to off-shore accounts, investments have been hitting all time lows in every developed country.


You're so out of touch of reality it isn't funny, and the fact that you keep coming we your backwards rhetoric after being present already with so many facts and data, is a testament to your intelligence.

The only thing you get right is that lower taxes are better, but that even a kindergarten kid could be able to figure it out.


http://ansonalex.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Apple-Tax-Evasion-Statistics-Infographic.jpg

[LA Lakers]

For one, it would have been nice to have a president who focused more on the economy instead of health care reform. It's clear that he hasn't done enough, and been focused enough on the economy. Based on what he puts out there, it seems like he's still not living in reality when it comes to the economy. I don't know what other presidents would have done, you never know, but I know this president has not done a good job the last 4 years. I don't think the problem was just Obama's failure to communicate the severity of the economy, but even with some of the unknowns, I think he himself underestimated by more than what I'd call a reasonable margin for error.



Y
You do know healthcare and the economy are tied together? As in a large number of Americans, myself included, dont have private insurance and cant afford it. Medical bills are expensive and they hurt peoples checkbooks. People gonna be less likley to buy things if they have bills they are struggling to pay...

[LA Lakers]

Anyways, I dont think the GOP are gonna have a President for a long time coming unless they change their stance on women and gays and people who arent white. Im still amazed that he beat white men twice and there is still widespread racism in the US. It shows we are still moving forward. Republicans are on the wrong side of history.

[Math2]

You do know healthcare and the economy are tied together? As in a large number of Americans, myself included, dont have private insurance and cant afford it. Medical bills are expensive and they hurt peoples checkbooks. People gonna be less likley to buy things if they have bills they are struggling to pay...

Yes, they are tied together in that when you have government run health care and mandates, health care costs go up for all, and hurts the economy, resulting in more unemployment

[Math2]

Anyways, I dont think the GOP are gonna have a President for a long time coming unless they change their stance on women and gays and people who arent white. Im still amazed that he beat white men twice and there is still widespread racism in the US. It shows we are still moving forward. Republicans are on the wrong side of history.
:oldlol:

What exactly is their stance on "people who aren't white"?

[Balla_Status]

Anyways, I dont think the GOP are gonna have a President for a long time coming unless they change their stance on women and gays and people who arent white. Im still amazed that he beat white men twice and there is still widespread racism in the US. It shows we are still moving forward. Republicans are on the wrong side of history.

This shit is pretty bogus. You fell for the fear tactics that democrats/Obama used to campaign against Romney.

[Blue&Orange]

Like always joe the plummer is nowhere to be seen...


Thank god for free market capitalism, otherwise this guy come have made money and been successful of his hard work and intellect,

http://abcnews.go.com/US/MadeInAmerica/wrench-inventor-claims-sears-stole-idea-china/story?id=17720122#.UKRRpofm7mh

Hey Dan Brow just shut up! and go work for Sears for the minimal wage, kay? Stop badmouthing rich people, listen to Joe, they give you jobs!!

[rufuspaul]

:oldlol:

What exactly is their stance on "people who aren't white"?


Concentration camps.

[longhornfan1234]

Blacks are worst off in the country from a socioeconomic perspective and thus receive the most welfare. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more welfare or less welfare ideas......which do you think that voter base would vote for? It's an extremely tough sell for Republicans right now to convince this voter block that they have a better path forward by reducing the size of government, welfare, getting off the government's tit and becoming self reliant and accountable for your path and prosperty in life. Those are conservative ideas. They can apply to people regardless of race or gender.

Are blacks any better off today from an economic perspective than they were 4 years ago? No. Actually worse off. Blacks as a socioeconomic group continue the trend towards full reliance from the federal government for meeting daily needs. This is not good. But the trend of voting for continued dependecy continues.

Hispanics are the largest growing voter base by race due to immigration (legal or illegal) and the economic opportunity immigration to the US offers. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more "concessions" as an immigrant group or less "concessions" as an immigrant group......which do you think that voter base would vote for? The latinos that have immigrated here did it for a simple reason....a better life than where they came from. Thus, it's an extremely tough sell for Republicans to convince the hispanics as a whole that we must "shut down" the border asap and reduce our "concessions" to immigrants for the good of our nation and in the process prevent others in their racial group from also being able to execute the fastest path to a better life for them and their family...........illegal immigration to US. And once they are here they can continue to receive these "concessions" that the US Fed Govt offers (free healthcare, free education, more welfare, free citizenship for their children born here, and ultimately amnesty). Liberalism is destroying the black and Hispanic communities.


I'm much more upset with women :facepalm :facepalm . They were lassoed into a pool of mindless cattle that were force fed the idea that the most important thing in their life was free contraceptions and abortions. Idiot Repubs failed to
point out that under Obama 41% of women are now living in poverty. Also failed to point out that they accounted for the highest percentage of job loss. The message should have been "let Obama give you abortions, we need to give you a job".

[kNicKz]

:roll:

[Droid101]

I'm much more upset with women :facepalm :facepalm . They were lassoed into a pool of mindless cattle that were force fed the idea that the most important thing in their life was free contraceptions and abortions. Idiot Repubs failed to
point out that under Obama 41% of women are now living in poverty. Also failed to point out that they accounted for the highest percentage of job loss. The message should have been "let Obama give you abortions, we need to give you a job".
Um, that's because the "Repubs" forced a ton of spending cuts to education across the board, and women make up a majority of the teachers that were let go.

But keep on ****ing that chicken.

[Math2]

Concentration camps.
:lol

[Math2]

Um, that's because the "Repubs" forced a ton of spending cuts to education across the board, and women make up a majority of the teachers that were let go.

But keep on ****ing that chicken.

And that means they're sexist against women, right?

[Math2]

Actually white people receive the most welfare



Gee, someone is offering you more money, which would you take? It's no different than a rich guy voting for Romney because he wants to get over on his taxes.



Yes it's a tough sell to tell a suffering person that you're going to say "**** them" and they have to miraculously make their own way. The world doesn't work like that anymore. We live in a set up system that you have to navigate through. You need connections. Why do you think there are a bunch of people who have college degrees and can't find work? You've never lived in the shoes of a dirt poor n!gga with nothing around him. You really have no idea what that life is like so you can't sit here and tell me it's very easy to get to what you consider success in life. It's silly when people act like there is unlimited opportunity laying around and poor people just choose to be poor. The phrase "out of touch" really does apply here.



Again, more bullshit. There are more white people on "government assistance" than black people. You think all black people just sit around and get welfare? Do you even know how much a single person gets from welfare or food stamps? It's not even that much. Everyone on welfare who's unemployed is still poor. It's not like they're buying brand new cars and shit with an EBT card.


Actually, relative to population size, blacks receive more.

But you act as if only rich people vote for republicans, when most of them are people who actually think they should work for their money. Of course people want free stuff, but what makes everyone else want to pay for it?

It's irrelevant if they want to be poor or not, if they are poor, then why is it the fault and/or the responsibility of others to make sure they can have a job?

But they can buy almost whatever you want with food stamps, it's not like it's living very hard.

[Droid101]

But they can buy almost whatever you want with food stamps, it's not like it's living very hard.
I know, right? Poor people have it so damn easy. You've convinced me, I'm quitting my job and going on food stamps. It's not living very hard like you say, man!!

http://sperraul.mnsi.net/images/comics/lucky_ducky.png

[Rasheed1]

Actually, relative to population size, blacks receive more.

But you act as if only rich people vote for republicans, when most of them are people who actually think they should work for their money. Of course people want free stuff, but what makes everyone else want to pay for it?

It's irrelevant if they want to be poor or not, if they are poor, then why is it the fault and/or the responsibility of others to make sure they can have a job?

But they can buy almost whatever you want with food stamps, it's not like it's living very hard.


keep up the "work for their money" bs...

thats the talk that lost you clowns the election :cheers:

People of all races and ethnic groups 'work' for their money...

but you keep believing that FOX news nonsense

as long republicans believe that bullsh*t, they'll be out of the white house

thank god

[Math2]

That's really a moot point.



But here's the thing: Not every poor person is poor because they're some lazy slob who refuses to do anything. I'm not taking about giving a person thousands of dollars for nothing. I'm talking about people who just want to eat and have a bed or floor to sleep on...the basic necessities of human life. Did you ever learn about the 5 basic needs of human life while in elementary?



It's not irrelevant because the attitude from lots of conservatives is that it's every poor person's fault for being poor as if they control the job market and wages. Wealth can't trickle down if a rich guy doesn't want it to.



If you believe this then you really have no idea how the so called handouts you oppose really work. You can't buy whatever you want with foodstamps, and like I've said, it's not that much anyway. The most 1 person can get if they have zero income is $200 a month. And when you factor in rising food costs, and the fact that if they don't have any income they can't pay for anything else then you realize how little it really is.

So tell me, which would you rather have: $200 a month to spend on food only, or save $100,000 from getting a tax break from some loophole?


It's not though. It's like saying that the Rolling Stones have sold more albums than someone like Cream. Sure, the Rolling Stones have sold more albums, but you'd expect that as they released more albums.

The attitude of conservatives (at least me) is that why should I, as someone who earned my money, pay for someone who can't. If I can earn my money, why is it my responsibility to make sure you can earn money.

I realize you can't buy anything on food stamps, hence the almost before it. Again, why should I have to pay for someone else's food?

Obviously the 100,000 dollars. It isn't fair per say that they should get tax breaks, that's fine if they are eliminated.

[Rasheed1]

The attitude of conservatives (at least me) is that why should I, as someone who earned my money, pay for someone who can't. If I can earn my money, why is it my responsibility to make sure you can earn money.

I realize you can't buy anything on food stamps, hence the almost before it. Again, why should I have to pay for someone else's food?



Sad how some people have NO concept of community or human decency. I know America is based on an individualistic mindset, but republicans are flat out greedy people who only consider themselves..


America was built by people working TOGETHER, and helping their fellow countrymen when needed.

the programs that republicans deride as 'gifts' are mostly the same programs that helped build America in during the 40's and 50's (baby boom generation)

Nowadays since new people are trying to use those same programs that helped Americans in the past, to help themselves today? Now republicans have bought into this huge lie that people make it on their own


They demonize the poor, minorities, women, and whoever else they feel they can get away with

but the good news is that GOP got slapped in the face by the American public this time

The good news is that GOP now has a price to pay for being soo disrespectful to soo many people.

They used be able to race bait and demonize without it hurting them in elections.. Well those days are over and Oreilly and all the FOX sad faced clowns are crying the blues because "traditional" America is dead

thank god

[Rasheed1]

It's just silly for people to act like they've magically made their own way. This isn't 1812 where a lot of the world has yet to be discovered. Things are already set in stone. Nowadays, you need connections. You need someone who's already gotten in to give you a helping hand to get you started. Unless you are really good at music or sports there's no such thing as starting from nothing and getting to the top (whatever you consider it to be) all by yourself.


old saying goes: Nobody ever did anything all by themselves..

[Dolphin]

Gov't policies are put into place for a reason. For these policies to be retracted, there has to be evidence that not only will said retractions not be a detriment to a large portion of society, but actually benefit the people who may have benefited from the previous policies. Until someone such as Math2 can provide empirical evidence that altering certain policies will be much more beneficial to more Americans, then it's really a lost cause. They like to talk theories, but remember, a lot of these theories were put into practice long ago and yet they didn't have staying power for a reason....while other theories have never been more than that. I'd love empirical evidence that all this talk is backed by some form of hard facts that can be applied to the largest of scales, which America is.

Then again, If Math2 doesn't even care to provide such evidence because he's not concerned about the welfare of others and is truly only concerned about himself, then I'm sorry to say his only hope to live the life he wants doesn't include him living in America. lol

Many people have this myth playing in their heads of what America used to be.....it never existed. What many people are looking for may exist somewhere else in this world. I'm sure many others would be glad if those "traditionalists" went searching for it.

[DonDadda59]

Gov't policies are put into place for a reason. For these policies to be retracted, there has to be evidence that not only will said retractions not be a detriment to a large portion of society, but actually benefit the people who may have benefited from the previous policies. Until someone such as Math2 can provide empirical evidence that altering certain policies will be much more beneficial to more Americans, then it's really a lost cause. They like to talk theories, but remember, a lot of these theories were put into practice long ago and yet they didn't have staying power for a reason....while other theories have never been more than that. I'd love empirical evidence that all this talk is backed by some form of hard facts that can be applied to the largest of scales, which America is.

Then again, If Math2 doesn't even care to provide such evidence because he's not concerned about the welfare of others and is truly only concerned about himself, then I'm sorry to say his only hope to live the life he wants doesn't include him living in America. lol

AMEN :applause:

I don't know how much time I wasted in this thread trying to get any sort of empirical data or anything tangible that backs up any of the bullshit being spewed by certain people here. Only got theories that either have no basis in reality or have been debunked thoroughly already. But some still cling to these nonsensical, unproven, misguided regurgitated ramblings that are pushed by faux news glorified talk show hosts.


Many people have this myth playing in their heads of what America used to be.....it never existed. What many people are looking for may exist somewhere else in this world. I'm sure many others would be glad if those "traditionalists" went searching for it.

The 'traditional America' that some of these guys envision only existed on tv shows like Leave it to Beaver. What does that even mean, really, 'traditional America'? Where do you stop the timeline on that- before or after slavery, segregation, the suffragette movement, Indigenous genocide, etc? I know a lot of these neo-secessionists' idea of the ideal 'traditional America' includes them owning Black people and their home maker, baby factory wives not having the right to vote :lol

[Math2]

Then where is your evidence that welfare programs work, and don't just redistribute the wealth? It's not that I don't approve of helping people in need, I've given to charity before, but I shouldn't have to pay taxes that go to the poor in the form of welfare. That's what charity is for, the government isn't a charity organization.

[Dolphin]

Then where is your evidence that welfare programs work, and don't just redistribute the wealth? It's not that I don't approve of helping people in need, I've given to charity before, but I shouldn't have to pay taxes that go to the poor in the form of welfare. That's what charity is for, the government isn't a charity organization.

Ummm, what you want is closer to what the industrialized world saw before so-called welfare states became the norm. How did that turn out...that whole charity thing from the private sector? lol

I can absolutely agree that what we have now is not good enough for a lot of people, but you want certain things to be reversed and there is tons of empirical evidence that that would reduce the quality of life for many.

But again, what I am saying will fall on deaf ears when directed at people such as yourself....because you're not REALLY arguing that your "charity idea" is better for the nation, you're arguing it's better for yourself....and that really isn't something I can argue with nor would I want to argue national-scale policies with someone who is only focused on how it benefits themselves. A genuine, fact based debate can't happen.

[Math2]

Ummm, what you want is closer to what the industrialized world saw before so-called welfare states became the norm. How did that turn out...that whole charity thing from the private sector? lol

I can absolutely agree that what we have now is not good enough for a lot of people, but you want certain things to be reversed and there is tons of empirical evidence that that would reduce the quality of life for many.

But again, what I am saying will fall on deaf ears when directed at people such as yourself....because you're not REALLY arguing that your "charity idea" is better for the nation, you're arguing it's better for yourself....and that really isn't something I can argue with nor would I want to argue national-scale policies with someone who is only focused on how it benefits themselves. A genuine, fact based debate can't happen.

Obviously it would benefit myself. I should be able to choose what I can do with my money. I would choose to give any money I would donate to the poor rather than the elderly.

[Dolphin]

Obviously it would benefit myself. I should be able to choose what I can do with my money. I would choose to give any money I would donate to the poor rather than the elderly.

I bet that would reassure sooooo many Americans that you'd be soooooo kind. :oldlol:

[Sarcastic]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/248947_494339837255388_282079461_n.jpg

[Math2]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/248947_494339837255388_282079461_n.jpg

The child labor laws today are really dumb though....

[Hotlantadude81]

And if Romney won, it would have been by showering rich people with gifts.

You have a problem with a rich man showing other white men with gifts? Don't you know that white men are the only ones that matter? WTF is wrong with you???

[Hotlantadude81]

Remember when Obama promised he would fix the economy? :roll: I can't believe these people fell for his bullshit again. He is a divider, yet people bought his bipartisanship myth again because of a pretty speech. We just have to admit that a large portion of the population really wants free stuff. Like O'reilly said, a lot of people feel like the system is stacked against them. It isn't, it's just an excuse for the weak and lazy to not try harder to succeed.

We now live in a country where people think that punishing success is a good thing. They think this is Robin Hood in real life. When they look at a rich person they think that person has too much! Take some away and give it to the rest of us! Instead of aspiring to be like them and working their asses off to make that happen.

And the republicans aren't dividers?

They've made it white men vs. everyone else.

Ok... Romney got the married woman vote also apparently.

Truth is, he made a great speech after he lost the election. What did he do after that?

He acted like a bitch and basically blamed everyone other than white men for his failures. He showed that leadership would still have been very questionable under him. Can we expect that this poor loser would have been a great leader? Hard to see it from my point of view.

[Hotlantadude81]

Not true. The reason Obama won is because he promised a lot more things than Romney did just like he stated. Romney's pitch was I'll bring back the America where if you work hard and follow the rules you will be a success story. You won't need government from craddle to grave to be a success. Obama was out there preaching how it's so unfair that the rich don't pay more, we need their money for you to be a success. Free college for everyone, free healthcare, free contraception..

Americans chose free stuff over hard work. It's that simple.

Take your bullshit cliche republican talking points and shove them up your good for nothing dirty ass.

[Hotlantadude81]

you listen to Rush Limbaugh don't you? i swear almost everything you said is straight out of a right wing talking point spinners mouth :rolleyes:

even tho its beating a dead horse you do know where our economy was at when Obama took office? on the verge of a depression, thats where...you know where our economy has been headed recently? Obama graduated from Harvard, spent years in the Senate, what exactly doesn't qualify him to be President? especially when he ran a campaign better than his opponents as well as carried himself much better than Bush or really any Republican running for Prez in recent memory ever has...and i thought Hillary was the Republican target for Bengzhai? she's stepping down you know....

its just laughable to me how so many of you morons keep trying to call the rest of us sheep or idiots :facepalm

Rush Limbaugh didn't even think Romney was worth the nomination a year ago....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rush-on-romneys-global-warming-comments-bye-bye-nomination/

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rick-perry-gop-debate-video-oops1.jpg

[Hotlantadude81]

Actually, relative to population size, blacks receive more.

But you act as if only rich people vote for republicans, when most of them are people who actually think they should work for their money. Of course people want free stuff, but what makes everyone else want to pay for it?

It's irrelevant if they want to be poor or not, if they are poor, then why is it the fault and/or the responsibility of others to make sure they can have a job?

But they can buy almost whatever you want with food stamps, it's not like it's living very hard.


There are 4 or 5 people I know that backed Romney... People that have or do currently do use entitlements. My niece is on food stamps and she voted for Romney hoping he will crack down on those that aren't responsible and are on welfare... Of course what she really means is that she dislikes the fact that black people can get welfare.

[Hotlantadude81]

Sad how some people have NO concept of community or human decency. I know America is based on an individualistic mindset, but republicans are flat out greedy people who only consider themselves..


America was built by people working TOGETHER, and helping their fellow countrymen when needed.

the programs that republicans deride as 'gifts' are mostly the same programs that helped build America in during the 40's and 50's (baby boom generation)

Nowadays since new people are trying to use those same programs that helped Americans in the past, to help themselves today? Now republicans have bought into this huge lie that people make it on their own


They demonize the poor, minorities, women, and whoever else they feel they can get away with

but the good news is that GOP got slapped in the face by the American public this time

The good news is that GOP now has a price to pay for being soo disrespectful to soo many people.

They used be able to race bait and demonize without it hurting them in elections.. Well those days are over and Oreilly and all the FOX sad faced clowns are crying the blues because "traditional" America is dead

thank god

Carlin nailed it years ago:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9iY8Std8nQ


Saying anything negative about anybody that is rich is now dirty talk according to republicans and some libertarians.

You see, I'm a Gary Johnson type of guy in a lot of ways. Libertarians have some nice ideals... Everybody should make on their own, we don't need no stinkin' government etc.... If we cut out welfare then the "takers" will all become hard workers and we will have a nice little Leave to the Beaver society.

Not reality.

Now... I do believe we need entitlement reform. But chances are food stamps does keep food in the mouths of some children in this country that are stuck with lazy parents who do take advantage of the system. Fact is, there are parents in this world that would put that 12 pack of beer above their childrens needs. At the end of the day, welfare puts food in peoples stomach, while wars take lives. So yeah, I'm more upset with our warmongering right now than I am cutting back on welfare.

[Math2]

And the republicans aren't dividers?

They've made it white men vs. everyone else.

Ok... Romney got the married woman vote also apparently.

Truth is, he made a great speech after he lost the election. What did he do after that?

He acted like a bitch and basically blamed everyone other than white men for his failures. He showed that leadership would still have been very questionable under him. Can we expect that this poor loser would have been a great leader? Hard to see it from my point of view.

No, the Democrats are the dividers. They don't divide white people so that they are above everyone else, they make them below. The Democrats made it whites vs. all else just because they thought it was fair.

[Droid101]

No, the Democrats are the dividers. They don't divide white people so that they are above everyone else, they make them below. The Democrats made it whites vs. all else just because they thought it was fair.
Ah, all those lib racists.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/814647/original.jpg

http://clutchmag.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/dont-re-nig-bumper-sticker-thumb-400xauto-32334.jpeg

[Math2]

Ah, all those lib racists.

Yes, the liberals are the racists in the way that they favor one race against the other.And thanks for showing some pictures of a minority in the Republican Party.

[Crystallas]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/248947_494339837255388_282079461_n.jpg


Free Market 1, Government 0

Plentiful jobs, robust industrial booms, Continuous advancement = GOOD THING.

Epic unemployment, Constant Stagnation = VERY BAD THING

[Math2]

Free Market 1, Government 0

Plentiful jobs, robust industrial booms, Continuous advancement = GOOD THING.

Epic unemployment, Constant Stagnation = VERY BAD THING

It's not only that (though child labor IN SOME CASES was a bad thing), the child labor laws today are ridiculous. Restrictions on hours worked? I believe it's 40 hours you can work before the employer has to pay you 1.5 times your normal rate overtime. So stupid.

[Blue&Orange]

Free Market 1, Government 0

Plentiful jobs, robust industrial booms, Continuous advancement = GOOD THING.

Epic unemployment, Constant Stagnation = VERY BAD THING
lol there is no such thing as free market. That's what the people that keep taking your money to the bank want you to believe. Free market lol, how sweet, do you believe in Santa Claus also?

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/04/apple_taxes_profits.jpg
http://ansonalex.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Apple-Tax-Evasion-Statistics-Infographic.jpg
http://abcnews.go.com/US/MadeInAmerica/wrench-inventor-claims-sears-stole-idea-china/story?id=17720122#.UKRRpofm7mh

[Droid101]

I voted for Obama, but I haven't received my gift yet.

Maybe I need to update my address on "ObamaPhonesandFreeStuff.gov"

[Hotlantadude81]

No, the Democrats are the dividers. They don't divide white people so that they are above everyone else, they make them below. The Democrats made it whites vs. all else just because they thought it was fair.

Republicans are basically blaming everyone but white men for losing the election. Everyone else are basically "takers" with no moral compass. Get that shit outta here. The republican party is full of shit and they have been for decades. They failed to land the women vote, the jewish vote, the black vote, latino vote...etc.... It's all the fault of those people! wah wah wah!

It's all their fault that 3 million plus conservatives failed to vote... They failed to bring in independents and they failed to convert Democrats. They lost because they didn't make a case for themselves. More democrats sat home than republicans and the republicans still lost.

Oh, and how did that landslide go that a number of republicans were projecting? The conservative media is a lying sack of shit.

[BlueCrayon]

Who cares how he won as long as he is not doing anything illegal.

[Math2]

Republicans are basically blaming everyone but white men for losing the election. Everyone else are basically "takers" with no moral compass. Get that shit outta here. The republican party is full of shit and they have been for decades. They failed to land the women vote, the jewish vote, the black vote, latino vote...etc.... It's all the fault of those people! wah wah wah!

It's all their fault that 3 million plus conservatives failed to vote... They failed to bring in independents and they failed to convert Democrats. They lost because they didn't make a case for themselves. More democrats sat home than republicans and the republicans still lost.

Oh, and how did that landslide go that a number of republicans were projecting? The conservative media is a lying sack of shit.


Please make it more clear to me where in that sentence you got that I'm blaming everyone else for Obama's win.

[DCL]

talking down about the 47% paying no taxes and being losers or putting down minorities who need gifts... why is romney so dumb? even if there were half-truths to them, dude, don't be a dumb ass and open your mouth like that. if i were running for president, i think i'd run as the people's president, not as some elite white snob mothafugga. hell, even if i were an elite white snob mothafugga, i'd hide that fact a lot better than romney. he's not too sharp with common sense. even that dumb ass george w bush gave better bullshit in pretending to give a f--k about minorities. :lol

[Math2]

talking down about the 47% paying no taxes and being losers or putting down minorities who need gifts... why is romney so dumb? even if there were half-truths to them, dude, don't be a dumb ass and open your mouth like that. if i were running for president, i think i'd run as the people's president, not as some elite white snob mothafugga. hell, even if i were an elite white snob mothafugga, i'd hide that fact a lot better than romney. he's not too sharp with common sense. even that dumb ass george w bush gave better bullshit in pretending to give a f--k about minorities. :lol

NEED gifts? :roll:

[DCL]

NEED gifts? :roll:

yup, those people know who they are. :lol

i'm not a conservative nor a liberal. i'm pretty down the middle. there are half or quarter truths to every controversial bs.

[Hotlantadude81]

Please make it more clear to me where in that sentence you got that I'm blaming everyone else for Obama's win.

I think it should be obvious that I'm point the finger mostly at the Romney's, the Bill O'Reilly's... Karl Rove.... etc...

Although, many average republicans are acting the same way.

[Nanners]

the hypocritically hilarious thing about this comment is that the exact same could be said for george bush in 2000. throughout the 2000 campaign, the surplus was one of the main topics. al gore wanted to invest the surplus in infastructure and job creation, george bush wanted to use the surplus to give tax breaks.

maybe people who vote for obama do want free healthcare as a "handout'.

most of the people who voted for george bush did it because they wanted a handout too, an he gave trillions of dollars in tax cut handouts. if obama won due to giving handouts to the poor, george bush won by showering rich people in handouts and gifts.

romney was running in the same vein as bush. romney is all about handouts, hell he was created out of handouts. the only diff is that romney wants his handouts end up in the pockets of his rich wall street buddies.

[DonDadda59]

Disheveled Mitt Romney Spotted Pumping Gas in La Jolla

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef017d3dfd2381970c-800wi

Mitt Romney was spotted pumping gas in La Jolla, California, near one of his many homes:

"Mitt Romney at my local gas station," Reddit user mkb95 wrote. "He looks tired and washed up."

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/11/disheveled-mitt-romney-spotted-pumping-gas-in-la-jolla-photo.html#ixzz2Cp9K6UvS

Must feel good to finally be able to let his hair down and unbutton that collar :oldlol:

[johndeeregreen]

Disheveled Mitt Romney Spotted Pumping Gas in La Jolla

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef017d3dfd2381970c-800wi

Mitt Romney was spotted pumping gas in La Jolla, California, near one of his many homes:

"Mitt Romney at my local gas station," Reddit user mkb95 wrote. "He looks tired and washed up."

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/11/disheveled-mitt-romney-spotted-pumping-gas-in-la-jolla-photo.html#ixzz2Cp9K6UvS

Must feel good to finally be able to let his hair down and unbutton that collar :oldlol:
Why is this newsworthy? Or even worthy of a re-post? What is wrong with you, seriously, that makes you think a guy pumping his gas is interesting to anyone except for the fact that his hair isn't immaculate? I don't know what kind of disheveled people you are used to, but that's pretty tame. You're as bad as these right wing sensationalists on this site.

[DonDadda59]

Why is this newsworthy? Or even worthy of a re-post? What is wrong with you, seriously, that makes you think a guy pumping his gas is interesting to anyone except for the fact that his hair isn't immaculate? I don't know what kind of disheveled people you are used to, but that's pretty tame. You're as bad as these right wing sensationalists on this site.

Relax buddy, just trying to lighten the mood here :lol

My post history speaks for itself.

[Hotlantadude81]

McCain Backs Away From Benghazi Conspiracies

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/20/1225461/mccain-rice-benghazi-talking-points/

[Real Men Wear Green]

Disheveled Mitt Romney Spotted Pumping Gas in La Jolla

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef017d3dfd2381970c-800wi

Mitt Romney was spotted pumping gas in La Jolla, California, near one of his many homes:

"Mitt Romney at my local gas station," Reddit user mkb95 wrote. "He looks tired and washed up."

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/11/disheveled-mitt-romney-spotted-pumping-gas-in-la-jolla-photo.html#ixzz2Cp9K6UvS

Must feel good to finally be able to let his hair down and unbutton that collar :oldlol:
This is just mean. He lost, leave him alone.

[TheMan]

I voted for Obama, but I haven't received my gift yet.

Maybe I need to update my address on "ObamaPhonesandFreeStuff.gov"
Yeah, me too, still waiting for my handout even though I'm self employed, I'm Hispanic so I WANT FREE STUFF!! COME ON O, I MEAN, WTF!! :mad:

[TheMan]

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef017d3dfd2381970c-800wi
I expect a full beard in a few months a la Gore, he done give a fakk anymore:lol

[Math2]

McCain Backs Away From Benghazi Conspiracies

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/20/1225461/mccain-rice-benghazi-talking-points/

McCain's an idiot then. It's so obviously a coverup.

[Droid101]

McCain's an idiot then. It's so obviously a coverup.

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/6975/benghazimeme.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/6975/benghazimeme.jpg






http://imageshack.us/a/img197/7159/mccainsadick.jpg

No, it's not.

[Nanners]

if obama is responsible for benghazi, then bush was responsible for 9/11

[Droid101]

if obama is responsible for benghazi, then bush was responsible for 9/11
http://i.imgur.com/Y0fZE.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b139/JSO2897/BenGazi.jpg

[Math2]

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/6975/benghazimeme.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/6975/benghazimeme.jpg






http://imageshack.us/a/img197/7159/mccainsadick.jpg

No, it's not.

Just because the MSM doesn't want to report on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Math2]

http://i.imgur.com/Y0fZE.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b139/JSO2897/BenGazi.jpg

Yes, yes they do because there was a deliberate coverup of the Benghazi consulate attack.

[Droid101]

Yes, yes they do because there was a deliberate coverup of the Benghazi consulate attack.
No, there wasn't.


The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.

Republican criticism of the talking points intensified last Friday following a closed door hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told reporters after the hearing that the original talking parts drafted by the CIA had been changed and it was unclear who was responsible.

"The original talking points were much more specific about al Qaeda involvement and yet final ones just said indications of extremists," King said.

The September 11 attack resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.

The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

Some Republican members of Congress suggested the change came from within the Obama administration - from the White House, the Justice Department, or another government agency.

Turner, the spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper, said that was not the case.

"The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback," Turner said, referring to the White House, Justice Department, State Department, Pentagon and FBI. "There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community," he said.

The House Intelligence Committee was not satisfied with Turner's statement.

"The statement released this evening by the DNI's spokesman regarding how the Intelligence Community's talking points were changed gives a new explanation that differs significantly from information provided in testimony to the Committee last week," said committee spokeswoman Susan Phalen. "Chairman Rogers looks forward to discussing this new explanation with Director Clapper as soon as possible to understand how the DNI reached this conclusion and why leaders of the Intelligence Community testified late last week that they were unaware of who changed the talking points."

The White House on Friday said it made only one change, substituting the word "mission" for "consulate."

The FBI requested a change in language which originally stated the U.S. "knew" Islamic extremists participated in the attack. According to a U.S. intelligence official the wording was changed to "there are indications" Islamic extremists participated.

The drumbeat of criticism began early on with Republicans criticizing the Obama administration for publicly saying the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest against an anti Muslim video on the web even though the Republicans claim the administration knew it was a planned terrorist attack.

The harshest criticism has focused on Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who used the talking points as the basis for comments she made on Sunday talk shows five days after the attack. During her appearances, Rice said a small number of people came to the mission in reaction to demonstrations occurring in Cairo over the anti-Muslim film, but the Benghazi protest was hijacked by armed extremists. She never mentioned terrorists.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said this isn't about parsing words. "There was some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had. That's my concern," Rogers said last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Former CIA Director Petraeus told lawmakers last Friday there were multiple streams of intelligence, some that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation. But other intelligence indicated the violence at the Benghazi mission was inspired by protests in Egypt over the anti Muslim video.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told CNN on Monday that Petraeus explained why the talking points were changed.

"Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on," Schiff said.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/?hpt=hp_t2

But please, continue ****ing that chicken, it shows how ****ing brainwashed you really are.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't blame Obama for these terrorist acts, but it's been clear that he's handled the situation terribly, and the way he's responded(or not responded) have only added fuel to the fire and made the situation worse. The demonstration claims, and the laughable video explanation were insulting to anyone with a brain. The comical defense of Susan Rice certainly didn't help, and the insult hurled at a legitimate hero John McCain was petty to say the least. There are so many questions that need to be answered, and the blame can't be directed at any one person, but that's why we need some answers. After Petraeus testified, I'm even more uncomfortable about the whole situation. I can't believe anyone is ok with it.

[Droid101]

I don't blame Obama for these terrorist acts, but it's been clear that he's handled the situation terribly, and the way he's responded(or not responded) have only added fuel to the fire and made the situation worse. The demonstration claims, and the laughable video explanation were insulting to anyone with a brain. The comical defense of Susan Rice certainly didn't help, and the insult hurled at a legitimate hero John McCain was petty to say the least. There are so many questions that need to be answered, and the blame can't be directed at any one person, but that's why we need some answers. After Petraeus testified, I'm even more uncomfortable about the whole situation. I can't believe anyone is ok with it.
Because you're a right-wing shill, and that's this week's talking point from Rush. That's why.

[Math2]

No, there wasn't.



http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/?hpt=hp_t2

But please, continue ****ing that chicken, it shows how ****ing brainwashed you really are.

I am not saying that they edited the talking points (but who knows, Obama lies about anything and everything). I am saying that even after the intelligence community says that it was a terrorist attack, Obama still promotes his false video narrative. Where did he get that, apart from the obvious "from his ass" answer? Does that not constitute a coverup, when you blame a video for an attack rather than terrorists? Or even covering up that it was preplanned?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Because you're a right-wing shill, and that's this week's talking point from Rush. That's why.

Actually, I don't lean to either side politically, and don't listen to Rush. Your statement is ironic because everything you say has been said by Alan Colmes before. There's no middle ground with you. The fact that you're ok with this shows that you lack the ability to think for yourself, and will apologize for anything that may make a Democrat look bad. This is ****ing serious, but stay in denial.

[Math2]

Because you're a right-wing shill, and that's this week's talking point from Rush. That's why.

Or maybe because the director of the CIA just testified about it.:lol

[TheMan]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b139/JSO2897/BenGazi.jpg
Rightwingers are making a fuss about Benghazi for political points, where were they when all those attacks on US Consulates/Embassies happened under W?

Benghazi was a terrible tragedy but it's far from the worst that has ever happened to any of our embassies around the world in the shittiest of shit holes. These things will happen, JUST look how many times it happened under our fearless warrior Bush. :facepalm

Your agenda is obvious to anyone with a brain, that's why the MSM and the American population in general don't see this tragedy as a "scandal". But go ahead and keep pushing yourselves further to the fringe:rockon:

[Math2]

Rightwingers are making a fuss about Benghazi for political points, where were they when all those attacks on US Consulates/Embassies under Bush happened?

Your agenda is obvious to anyone with a brain, that's why the MSM and the American population in general don't see this tragedy as a "scandal". But go ahead and keep pushing yourselves further to the fringe:rockon:

Please point to me where and how Bush covered up or lied about any of the attacks. Thanks for your time, :lol

[TheMan]

Please point to me where and how Bush covered up or lied about any of the attacks. Thanks for your time, :lol
He and his administration lied us into Iraq though:lol If you want to talk about lies, that one was a real doozy.

Nice try, thank you for playing:cheers:

[Rasheed1]

Please point to me where and how Bush covered up or lied about any of the attacks. Thanks for your time, :lol


Bush Admin claimed they had no warning and no idea Bin laden would attack..

Lie...

[TheMan]

Bush Admin claimed they had no warning and no idea Bin laden would attack..

Lie...
For Righties...Benghazi attack>>>>>9/11:facepalm

[Jasper]

:oldlol: OP thread is :D

Romney is jealous he could not afford the soft money oil companies not allowing voters to get a oil well for a vote.

My vote would of swinged if he would of given me a GIA :lol

[Math2]

Bush Admin claimed they had no warning and no idea Bin laden would attack..

Lie...

It's a lie the way you spin it. They had no advanced knowledge of exactly when and where the attack would happen, only that it was supposedly imminent. Yes, Bush should have done more to stop it.

But in Obama's case, he reduced security, and ignored DIRECT THREATS against the embassy. There was an interview (ironically, CNN decided not to show it, probably to protect their dear president) with the brother of the leader of Al-Qaidathat said the protests outside the embassy were to free the terrorists. No mention of the so-called movie.

[DonDadda59]

It's a lie the way you spin it. They had no advanced knowledge of exactly when and where the attack would happen, only that it was supposedly imminent. Yes, Bush should have done more to stop it.

But in Obama's case, he reduced security, and ignored DIRECT THREATS against the embassy. There was an interview (ironically, CNN decided not to show it, probably to protect their dear president) with the brother of the leader of Al-Qaidathat said the protests outside the embassy were to free the terrorists. No mention of the so-called movie.

So THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcrgeuLb3dQ) isn't a 'cover up' to you, but the Obama administration's handling of the Benghazi matter is... after the intelligence community made it clear they are the ones who altered the talking points? :confusedshrug:

McCain has given up his misguided crusade and admitted he was mistaken. It's time for you to follow his lead.

[Math2]

So THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcrgeuLb3dQ) isn't a 'cover up' to you, but the Obama administration's handling of the Benghazi matter is... after the intelligence community made it clear they are the ones who altered the talking points? :confusedshrug:

McCain has given up his misguided crusade and admitted he was mistaken. It's time for you to follow his lead.

It is a coverup if they mentioned a video as the source when there was absolutely no reason to believe so.

In regards to the 9/11 attacks, maybe she did lie. But the video presents mostly irrelevant information on page numbers, which doesn't really have any bearing what so ever on the debate on whether she lied or not. Even if she did, little could have been done to prevent that specific kind of attack, other than straightening airport security, which I don't believe was at all discussed as a possible attack method. Could be poor memory, because the reports did in fact talk about the history of Al-Qaida.

[DonDadda59]

It is a coverup if they mentioned a video as the source when there was absolutely no reason to believe so.

And what makes you so sure there was no reason to initially believe that?

From faux news, because we know their word is gold:


Witnesses: Libya consulate attack seemed planned, may have used anti-Islam film as cover

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/27/witnesses-libya-consulate-attack-seemed-planned-may-have-used-anti-islam-film/#ixzz2Cuams3Gi

Ambassador's Rice comments:


"When discussing he attack against our facilities in Benghazi, I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community," Rice said Wednesday evening to reporters outside the U.N. Security Council.

"I made clear that the information was preliminary, and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers," she added. "As a senior U.S. diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities, American diplomatic facilities around the world, and Iran's nuclear program."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/21/us-ambassador-rice-defends-comments-on-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2CudLGbjh

As was revealed, the intelligence community edited their reports and the investigation was still ongoing when certain preliminary statements were made. Hearings were held, officials gave their accounts, others went to the press. The matter is resolved. McCain has conceded yet another defeat against Barry.



In regards to the 9/11 attacks, maybe she did lie. But the video presents mostly irrelevant information on page numbers, which doesn't really have any bearing what so ever on the debate on whether she lied or not. Even if she did, little could have been done to prevent that specific kind of attack, other than straightening airport security, which I don't believe was at all discussed as a possible attack method. Could be poor memory, because the reports did in fact talk about the history of Al-Qaida.

There is no maybe about it.

Secretary Rice: "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States, it was historical information, based on old reporting, there was no new threat information, and it did not in fact warn of any coming attacks inside the United States".

From the PDA "Bin Laden determined to Attack in the U.S." (August 6, 2011):


Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

More:


The Deafness Before the Storm
By KURT EICHENWALD
Published: September 10, 2012


IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0


Bold. Faced. Lie... Under oath.

[Math2]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]And what makes you so sure there was no reason to initially believe that?

From faux news, because we know their word is gold:


Witnesses: Libya consulate attack seemed planned, may have used anti-Islam film as cover

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/27/witnesses-libya-consulate-attack-seemed-planned-may-have-used-anti-islam-film/#ixzz2Cuams3Gi

Ambassador's Rice comments:


"When discussing he attack against our facilities in Benghazi, I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community," Rice said Wednesday evening to reporters outside the U.N. Security Council.

"I made clear that the information was preliminary, and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers," she added. "As a senior U.S. diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities, American diplomatic facilities around the world, and Iran's nuclear program."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/21/us-ambassador-rice-defends-comments-on-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2CudLGbjh

As was revealed, the intelligence community edited their reports and the investigation was still ongoing when certain preliminary statements were made. Hearings were held, officials gave their accounts, others went to the press. The matter is resolved. McCain has conceded yet another defeat against Barry.




There is no maybe about it.

Secretary Rice: "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States, it was historical information, based on old reporting, there was no new threat information, and it did not in fact warn of any coming attacks inside the United States".

From the PDA "Bin Laden determined to Attack in the U.S." (August 6, 2011):


Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

More:

[INDENT]The Deafness Before the Storm
By KURT EICHENWALD
Published: September 10, 2012


IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning

[DonDadda59]

But the film was in no way what the organizer's claimed it to be. It was an Al-Qaida attack on the consulate aimed at freeing captured leaders. How do you explain Al-Qaida flags at the attack if it was a protest over a film?

Not bold faced lie, maybe. Is it no more a lie for Obama to change his story on Benghazi, then lie about it afterwards (with the help of Candy whatever her name is)?

You must have a very severe learning disability. Obama didn't change shit in regards to the talking points, and neither did anyone in his administration. John McCain acknowledged his error and finally gave up his wild goose chase, and he was the top dog in this waste of time politicization of a National tragedy. Again, you should take notes from him. It's over.

[Math2]

You must have a very severe learning disability. Obama didn't change shit in regards to the talking points, and neither did anyone in his administration. John McCain acknowledged his error and finally gave up his wild goose chase, and he was the top dog in this waste of time politicization of a National tragedy. Again, you should take notes from him. It's over.

I'd say it's you who fails to see what I'm saying. Let me say this for about the 10th time (I'll even make it bigger for you to see)

I DO NOT THINK THAT OBAMA CHANGED THE TALKING POINTS. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I HAVE, DESPITE YOU CONTINUOUSLY PUTTING THOSE WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I DO HOWEVER THINK THAT HE DELIBERATELY LIED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK, AND THAT HE LIED LATER THAT HE THOUGHT RIGHT FROM THE GET GO THAT IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK. HE DELIBERATELY MISLED THE US PEOPLE.

Clear enough?

[DonDadda59]

Let it go already, it's over. :oldlol:

There was no conspiracy, the investigation was launched, the pertinent parties testified or went to the media to clear up the issue. The guy who launched the witch hunt admitted his mistake and he moved on. It's done.

[Math2]

Let it go already, it's over. :oldlol:

There was no conspiracy, the investigation was launched, the pertinent parties testified or went to the media to clear up the issue. The guy who launched the witch hunt admitted his mistake and he moved on. It's done.

I wouldn't say so.