LOL, Obama proposes more spending.

[longhornfan1234]

WASHINGTON — House Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/fiscal-talks-in-congress-seem-to-reach-impasse.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1354306644-950UQEcjQKgmF9psBH+HuA&

We have a spending problem.Republicans have put tax hikes on the table by reducing deductions people over certain incomes get to take. Obama has put nothing on the table in regards to spending cuts. Stand your ground GOP.

[Scoooter]

Sounds pretty good.

[longhornfan1234]

Sounds pretty good.
:facepalm

[Scoooter]

What's the problem?

[longhornfan1234]

What's the problem?
Uh..we have a spending problem, and Obama wants to spend even more.

[DonDadda59]

He proposed $50 billion in new stimulus... but $1.6 trillion in tax revenue and $400 billion in entitlement cuts. And this is even before we talk about cuts to our unnecessarily bloated military. So... what's the problem? :confusedshrug:


Republicans have put tax hikes on the table by reducing deductions people over certain incomes get to take. Obama has put nothing on the table in regards to spending cuts. Stand your ground GOP.

Only 3 sentences and yet so much fail. Only a handful of Republicans have come out saying they are willing to disobey their master Norquist and 'put tax hikes on the table'. The weeper of the House is not one of them. And like I already pointed out, Obama proposed $400 billion in entitlement cuts. If the GOP 'stands their ground' in pushing Norquist's agenda of protecting a handful of percentage points for the wealthy and we are dragged into another recession, the GOP will be standing their ground on the unemployment line. Then they will wish those entitlements were still around :lol

[HardwoodLegend]

He looks damn good shirtless and speaks very well.

Should let him do what he wants.

[Scoooter]

Uh..we have a spending problem, and Obama wants to spend even more.
Yeah, we aren't spending enough.

[Godzuki]

He looks damn good shirtless and speaks very well.

Should let him do what he wants.


he's also the only cool Prez into basketball where all of the rest are boring, old dude baseball fans :sleeping i wouldn't even doubt if Obama commish'd NFL/NBA fantasy leagues at the White House, thats how cool he is :pimp:

[Math2]

Yeah, we aren't spending enough.

Yeah, **** the debt! We can spend and do what we want and since Obama's president, we'll be fine!

[Scoooter]

Yeah, **** the debt! We can spend and do what we want and since Obama's president, we'll be fine!
Why is the debt a problem right now?

[bagelred]

Uh..we have a spending problem, and Obama wants to spend even more.

Republican presidents always worst spenders by far.

[bmulls]

Why not simply get rid of the stimulus and raise taxes by a lesser amount? There is nothing a government stimulus can do for the economy that the private sector can't do better.

Oh wait that's right, we want to punish the people who actually pay taxes and reward those who don't :facepalm

Redistribution of wealth is retarded, has consistently failed throughout history, and yet here we are.

[Math2]

Why not simply get rid of the stimulus and raise taxes by a lesser amount? There is nothing a government stimulus can do for the economy that the private sector can't do better.

Oh wait that's right, we want to punish the people who actually pay taxes and reward those who don't :facepalm

Redistribution of wealth is retarded, has consistently failed throughout history, and yet here we are.

Yes. Raise taxes. That's fine. That's not at all my objection. It's the unfairness of it, you raise them on some, but not the others.

[Math2]

Why is the debt a problem right now?

:facepalm That's just ridiculously stupid. Do you use your credit card to buy stuff that you can't afford and then wonder why it could possibly be a problem?

[Scoooter]

:facepalm That's just ridiculously stupid. Do you use your credit card to buy stuff that you can't afford and then wonder why it could possibly be a problem?
Answer the question, please.

[KevinNYC]

i wouldn't even doubt if Obama commish'd NFL/NBA fantasy leagues at the White House, thats how cool he is :pimp:

Wow, I would really hold that against the President if he did that.

[Is He Ill]

Yes. Raise taxes. That's fine. That's not at all my objection. It's the unfairness of it, you raise them on some, but not the others.

Neither is handing out ridiculous bonuses to executives. Unfair?

[Math2]

Neither is handing out ridiculous bonuses to executives. Unfair?

Sure. But did I say it wasn't?

[longhornfan1234]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]He proposed $50 billion in new stimulus... but $1.6 trillion in tax revenue and $400 billion in entitlement cuts. And this is even before we talk about cuts to our unnecessarily bloated military. So... what's the problem? :confusedshrug: [\QUOTE]

The $400 billion in entitlement cuts are bogus. Obama offered a "...goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees." In other words, tax increases now with a vague promise of spending cuts later.

We've been down this road before. Promises of future spending cuts don't materialize.

[KevinNYC]

We have a spending problem.Republicans have put tax hikes on the table by reducing deductions people over certain incomes get to take. Obama has put nothing on the table in regards to spending cuts. Stand your ground GOP.

You do realize this is a negotiating position, correct? The GOP wants Obama to be the one to name the cuts so they can blame it on Obama.

[Droid101]

LOLGOP

Fine, don't agree to it. Then we get tax hikes on everyone and the entire USA will blame you for it.

[Is He Ill]

Sure. But did I say it wasn't?

The point is, a lot of shit is unfair. Apparently to the upper class it's only unfair if it happens to them.

[Math2]

Answer the question, please.

In that it becomes a bigger problem down the road. It's irresponsible to just kick it down the road, because the problem becomes so much bigger if we continue just to spend recklessly.

[KevinNYC]

Why not simply get rid of the stimulus and raise taxes by a lesser amount? There is nothing a government stimulus can do for the economy that the private sector can't do better.

Oh wait that's right, we want to punish the people who actually pay taxes and reward those who don't :facepalm

Redistribution of wealth is retarded, has consistently failed throughout history, and yet here we are.

The bolded statement is just flat untrue. There is a reason the private sector is not taking up the slack and that is the demand is not there during this worldwide recession. If the economy was humming along, we could simply rely on the private sector, but the private sector has been sending a pretty clear message for the past several years. The International Monetary Fund has just released a study saying that the European countries that cut government spending the most are performing the worst during this worldwide recession. This is a counterintuitive thing, but the countries that worried about the debt problem first, had their economies slow down which has actually increased their debt because income fell so much that tax revenues are down.

It's not a 1 to 1 relationship of spending cuts and debt reduction, because of the economic multipliers of government spending. The IMF found those multipliers were much larger than previously though in a depressed economy and so the cuts have had reduced GDP by much more than they expected. They basically admitted that the Austerity measures they have been pushing for the past several years have been the wrong advice for this situation.

Debt is an issue, but it the current situation is much less of an issue than employment. Get people back working again and revenues will increase again and growth of the whole economy will be greater again.


As for the italicized statement, I don't know what you are talking about. Please explain how that applies to past 100 years in America.

[longhornfan1234]

You do realize this is a negotiating position, correct? The GOP wants Obama to be the one to name the cuts so they can blame it on Obama.


I'm not following.

[DonDadda59]

You do realize this is a negotiating position, correct? The GOP wants Obama to be the one to name the cuts so they can blame it on Obama.

This. They are so transparent. I'm glad someone else sees this. The GOP is pushing hard for entitlement cuts, but they realize that is a very unpopular position (as opposed to the tax hikes):


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/11/Graphic1.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/11/Graphic21.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/28/taxing-the-rich-remains-popular/

So the vast majority of the country, regardless of political party affiliation, is dead set against cuts or changes in minimum age to programs like social security, medicare, medicaid. The pubs want to cut these programs, but they know that if they say it out loud, they will be crucified by the public, and their backs are already firmly against the wall. The president is just waiting for their counter offer that includes putting those programs on the chopping block. It's just politics as usual.

[Scoooter]

In that it becomes a bigger problem down the road. It's irresponsible to just kick it down the road, because the problem becomes so much bigger if we continue just to spend recklessly.
In other words, it isn't a problem now.

[KevinNYC]

The $400 billion in entitlement cuts are bogus. Obama offered a "...goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees." In other words, tax increases now with a vague promise of spending cuts later.

We've been down this road before. Promises of future spending cuts don't materialize.

Sez the guy worried about the "temporary" Bush tax cuts expiring.

The point is the $400 billion is the target and the GOP has to stop bluffing because everyone knows they don't have the winning hand, they have to name what they want to cut as well.

Again nothing right now is policy yet.

[KevinNYC]

I'm not following.

Obama is asking the GOP to make a concrete proposal. The GOP doesn't want to do this. They want no specifics. They are going to try to say nothing so that Obama begins negotiating with himself, but he has the much strong hand, so he makes the big offer that he just did. They want a 'bipartisan' deal, but they don't want specify for the American people what their priorities are.

They want Obama to name the cuts, so they have cover. If you look at recent actions by the GOP, they approved a budget with severe Medicare cuts, but they know how unpopular that is, so they just spent the entire election campaign attacking Obama over 700 billion in Medicare savings. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/) They get telling voters Obama was cutting 700 billion in service, when actually Obama was cutting waste.

[RoseCity07]

1.6 trillion over 10 years. That's 10 years. How much did the war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost? That cost has been going on for nearly a decade. This is over a pretty decent span of time. I don't see what your problem is. Are you an economist that has some past historical trend that shows this to be a bad idea?

[bmulls]

The bolded statement is just flat untrue. There is a reason the private sector is not taking up the slack and that is the demand is not there during this worldwide recession. If the economy was humming along, we could simply rely on the private sector, but the private sector has been sending a pretty clear message for the past several years. The International Monetary Fund has just released a study saying that the European countries that cut government spending the most are performing the worst during this worldwide recession. This is a counterintuitive thing, but the countries that worried about the debt problem first, had their economies slow down which has actually increased their debt because income fell so much that tax revenues are down.

It's not a 1 to 1 relationship of spending cuts and debt reduction, because of the economic multipliers of government spending. The IMF found those multipliers were much larger than previously though in a depressed economy and so the cuts have had reduced GDP by much more than they expected. They basically admitted that the Austerity measures they have been pushing for the past several years have been the wrong advice for this situation.

Debt is an issue, but it the current situation is much less of an issue than employment. Get people back working again and revenues will increase again and growth of the whole economy will be greater again.


As for the italicized statement, I don't know what you are talking about. Please explain how that applies to past 100 years in America.


First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

[Sarcastic]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.


So true. Which is why the constant comparisons to Greece are laughable.

[DonDadda59]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

That's rich :oldlol:

Tell me, what is the Republican plan to deal with the fiscal cliff and the deficit. I'll wait.

[Droid101]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.
:facepalm
Proving once and for all you are either a paid Republican shill or just plain uninformed.

http://i.imgur.com/NcyhV.png

[bmulls]

That's rich :oldlol:

Tell me, what is the Republican plan to deal with the fiscal cliff and the deficit. I'll wait.

Massive reductions in transfer payments for starters

[bmulls]

:facepalm
Proving once and for all you are either a paid Republican shill or just plain uninformed.

http://i.imgur.com/NcyhV.png

This is semantics, you have contributed nothing to this thread, come back when you understand the issues

[RoseCity07]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

It's Bush's tax policy that got us here in the first place. So your solution is to bitch about the person who is trying to get away from that? Drastic measures have been taken in the past and worked out. Alexander Hamilton believed in running a deficit. That is an idea that I think Dick Cheney supported when he said deficits don't matter.

So why is spending the enemy here? I'm really asking. I want to know why you think this.

[KevinNYC]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

No, I think Obama made a big mistake not prioritizing employment even more. That is, the original stimulus was too small. I think he should have listened more to advisors like Christine Romer, but I think virtually every Republican idea on this was worse. Obama did help avert a Depression (along with a lot of the measures taken by the Fed and the Treasury going back to 2008). I think averting a Depression is an achievement. What Obama did not do is give a robust recovery. The great achievement of the Tea Party to make this debate about the debt and not about employment.
Tea Partiers opposed the stimulus, TARP and the auto bailouts and there overwhelming evidence that unemployment would have spike at much thatn 10% without these measures. I don't know how much it was politically possible for Obama to do more, but he didn't fight for more and often said was he got was sufficient. It wasn't.

However, the other side was pretty much a disaster. I'm pretty practical in my politics.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Redistribution of wealth is retarded, has consistently failed throughout history, and yet here we are.

Of course, because if you actually think about it objectively, it doesn't make sense. It sounds good to some who think, "man, that'd be nice, we'd have a bit extra and the damn rich would have less!" But people get fooled by this isn't gratification, which is all it is. Obama used it to rally people and create a class warfare of sorts when it simply doesn't address the problem. The taxes alone wouldn't make nearly enough of dent, and then, who employs the average person? Well, they'll be employing less of them. And it's part of a disturbing trend of diminishing the importance of hard work and rewarding those who in some cases have not only not worked as hard, but sometimes make no effort to work at all.


Yes. Raise taxes. That's fine. That's not at all my objection. It's the unfairness of it, you raise them on some, but not the others.

We're speaking of the same Obama who has no interest in rewarding hard work. "You didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen!"

[DonDadda59]

Massive reductions in transfer payments for starters

Any specifics? Would it be a change in age eligibility or straight cuts? Why won't Boehner and co. present said plan to the president? Isn't that how you start a negotiation, one side presents their offer, the other side a counter offer. The president delivered his plan. Where's the GOP's? :confusedshrug:

[bmulls]

It's Bush's tax policy that got us here in the first place. So you're solution is to bitch about the person who is trying to get away from that? Drastic measures have been taken in the past and worked out. Alexander Hamilton believed in running a deficit. That is an idea that I think Dick Cheney supported when he said deficits don't matter.

So why is spending the enemy here? I'm really asking. I want to know why you think this.

I also believe in running a deficit, and I have defended it on this site before. My issues are 1) what that money is being spent on and 2) that deficit spending be kept at a sustainable level.

[IGOTGAME]

Redistribution of wealth is retarded, has consistently failed throughout history, and yet here we are.

so you disagree with a progressive tax code?

[KevinNYC]

It's Bush's tax policy that got us here in the first place. So you're solution is to bitch about the person who is trying to get away from that? Drastic measures have been taken in the past and worked out. Alexander Hamilton believed in running a deficit. That is an idea that I think Dick Cheney supported when he said deficits don't matter.

So why is spending the enemy here? I'm really asking. I want to know why you think this.

Bush's tax policy was a very, very big cause. Some estimate it was 60% of the increase in debt. However, it's not the only cause. Also even at the time of their passing it was noted that more of their impact would be felt now, if those tax cuts were revoked.

However it was very convenient for the Tea Party folk that a Democrat took office as the worst of the economic crisis was happening because it allowed them to vent their anger AND get their partisan shots in.

[Scoooter]

Of course, because if you actually think about it objectively, it doesn't make sense. It sounds good to some who think, "man, that'd be nice, we'd have a bit extra and the damn rich would have less!" But people get fooled by this isn't gratification, which is all it is. Obama used it to rally people and create a class warfare of sorts when it simply doesn't address the problem. The taxes alone wouldn't make nearly enough of dent, and then, who employs the average person? Well, they'll be employing less of them. And it's part of a disturbing trend of diminishing the importance of hard work and rewarding those who in some cases have not only not worked as hard, but sometimes make no effort to work at all.
Why not? I think it's very intuitive.

We're speaking of the same Obama who has no interest in rewarding hard work. "You didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen!"
Why do you keep falling for this? I'm really curious to know why you think that quote - which is wholly different in meaning when placed in it's proper context - gives you some insight into what's going on.

In other words, if I own a trucking company, how did I build the highways that company operates on? Did I found the schools that educated me? Did I create the laws that protect my business from others? What did I build, and what didn't I build.

[RoseCity07]

Of course, because if you actually think about it objectively, it doesn't make sense. It sounds good to some who think, "man, that'd be nice, we'd have a bit extra and the damn rich would have less!" But people get fooled by this isn't gratification, which is all it is. Obama used it to rally people and create a class warfare of sorts when it simply doesn't address the problem. The taxes alone wouldn't make nearly enough of dent, and then, who employs the average person? Well, they'll be employing less of them. And it's part of a disturbing trend of diminishing the importance of hard work and rewarding those who in some cases have not only not worked as hard, but sometimes make no effort to work at all.



We're speaking of the same Obama who has no interest in rewarding hard work. "You didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen!"


In one part you say that giving more money to the poor does nothing. Nothing changes when the rich get taxed. The only thing in your opinion that changes is that the rich hire fewer poor people. If nothing changes, then why are they hiring fewer people? That doesn't make sense.

Andrew Mellon believed in lowering taxes on the wealthy. That was right about the time that the stock market crashed and the country went into the great depression.

I hear the same argument from people who defend the wealthy. How does one work hard for a billion dollars. How much blood and sweat did they put into earning that? I think most wealthy are born into it. If you makes more than 250,000 dollars I'm pretty sure Obama wants to only raise taxes on what you make after that. Some are saying his compromise will be to lower taxes on the first 250,000 anyway, so people that don't make much more than 250,000 aren't being hurt as bad.

The men who founded this country would be disgusted by the greed in this country. They believed that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to look out for people with less.

[Rose]

redistribution of wealth hasn't worked.:roll:

Remember medicaid? What a joke that was!
the ETIC?

Hell how about Food Stamps, Welfare (which admittedly DOES need to be more tightly regulated).

I'm sad we're keeping people alive too. :oldlol:

[RoseCity07]

I also believe in running a deficit, and I have defended it on this site before. My issues are 1) what that money is being spent on and 2) that deficit spending be kept at a sustainable level.

That's good, because Hamilton was a federalist. He wanted a strong central government. That would make you a Democrat today.:lol

[Droid101]

This is semantics, you have contributed nothing to this thread, come back when you understand the issues
These are not semantics. There is no "Liberal" party in America right now.

There are the Democrats, who are center-right. And then there are Republicans, who are tea-bagger crazy far right.




We're speaking of the same Obama who has no interest in rewarding hard work. "You didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen!"
:facepalm

I swear, how can someone with such great basketball knowledge be such a ****ing toolbag?


Why are there no pictures of Macho Man Randy Savage in this thread?

I'm disappointed in all of you.
http://www.bsideblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/macho-man-randy-savage.jpg

[bmulls]

redistribution of wealth hasn't worked.:roll:

Remember medicaid? What a joke that was!
the ETIC?

Hell how about Food Stamps, Welfare (which admittedly DOES need to be more tightly regulated).

I'm sad we're keeping people alive too. :oldlol:

The Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea. What a great group of countries :yaohappy:

[Rose]

The Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea. What a great group of countries :yaohappy:
Hmm..."communist" ideals....

Or, social redistribution of wealth like the UK. Or Spain, Switzerland, Canada, USA, and countless other not failed countries?:hammerhead:

[DonDadda59]

Hmm..."communist" ideals....

Or, social redistribution of wealth like the UK. Or Spain, Switzerland, Canada, USA, and countless other not failed countries?:hammerhead:

Yes, that one... Obama's plan to return 2% of the population's tax rates to levels they were at during the Clinton economic boom era is just one step of comrade Barack's plan to turn the US into a socialist paradise.

http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png

[Rose]

Yes, that one... Obama's plan to return 2% of the population's tax rates to levels they were at during the Clinton economic boom era is just one step of comrade Barack's plan to turn the US into a socialist paradise.

http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png
:banana:

I can't wait to see what's next? Student loan forgiveness, and then potential reform:eek:

Tea partiers are shaking in their boots right now. "We can't give them free education! Then they'll all go to college and get educated and learn about evolution!"

-fellow congressmen turns-
"Not too mention....become liberals!:mad: :mad: :mad: " "Then who will vote for us!"

[KevinNYC]

Of course, because if you actually think about it objectively, it doesn't make sense. It sounds good to some who think, "man, that'd be nice, we'd have a bit extra and the damn rich would have less!" ......
We're speaking of the same Obama who has no interest in rewarding hard work. "You didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen!"

Were you only paying attention to basketball in the 1990's. These tax rates seemed to make sense back then. Middle class did well, rich did well.

[Math2]

The bolded statement is just flat untrue. There is a reason the private sector is not taking up the slack and that is the demand is not there during this worldwide recession. If the economy was humming along, we could simply rely on the private sector, but the private sector has been sending a pretty clear message for the past several years. The International Monetary Fund has just released a study saying that the European countries that cut government spending the most are performing the worst during this worldwide recession. This is a counterintuitive thing, but the countries that worried about the debt problem first, had their economies slow down which has actually increased their debt because income fell so much that tax revenues are down.

It's not a 1 to 1 relationship of spending cuts and debt reduction, because of the economic multipliers of government spending. The IMF found those multipliers were much larger than previously though in a depressed economy and so the cuts have had reduced GDP by much more than they expected. They basically admitted that the Austerity measures they have been pushing for the past several years have been the wrong advice for this situation.

Debt is an issue, but it the current situation is much less of an issue than employment. Get people back working again and revenues will increase again and growth of the whole economy will be greater again.


As for the italicized statement, I don't know what you are talking about. Please explain how that applies to past 100 years in America.

So we should tax them to stimulate the economy?

[Math2]

:banana:

I can't wait to see what's next? Student loan forgiveness, and then potential reform:eek:

Tea partiers are shaking in their boots right now. "We can't give them free education! Then they'll all go to college and get educated and learn about evolution!"

-fellow congressmen turns-
"Not too mention....become liberals!:mad: :mad: :mad: " "Then who will vote for us!"

Obama just lowered Pell Grants. How's the young person's president working for you?

[Math2]

It's Bush's tax policy that got us here in the first place. So your solution is to bitch about the person who is trying to get away from that? Drastic measures have been taken in the past and worked out. Alexander Hamilton believed in running a deficit. That is an idea that I think Dick Cheney supported when he said deficits don't matter.

So why is spending the enemy here? I'm really asking. I want to know why you think this.

Hamilton was an idiot. Bush wasn't the best president either, and favored too much spending. Spending is an enemy because of responsibility (meaning you actually pay back your debts), and that it rewards hard work by keeping money in the hands of those that earned it.

[Droid101]

Obama just lowered Pell Grants. How's the young person's president working for you?
Oh, so you're against him doing that now?

RINO!!!!

[Math2]

Any specifics? Would it be a change in age eligibility or straight cuts? Why won't Boehner and co. present said plan to the president? Isn't that how you start a negotiation, one side presents their offer, the other side a counter offer. The president delivered his plan. Where's the GOP's? :confusedshrug:

Specifics? Where are Obama's entitlement specifics, other than setting "goals" on cutting it, when he really just wants to put it off.

[Rose]

Oh, so you're against him doing that now?

RINO!!!!
He's just spewing off nonsense. He hasn't touched pell grants since he raised them.:lol

[KevinNYC]

Why are there no pictures of Macho Man Randy Savage in this thread?

I'm disappointed in all of you.
lol


We need a picture of Randy "Macho Mao" Savage to represent the totalitarian society Obama has created.

[Jailblazers7]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

Arguing for further stimulus and pointing to a slowly improving economy is not necessarily contradictory. I know many liberals who are for defecit reduction once the medium to long term economic outlook is more stable.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Why do you keep falling for this? I'm really curious to know why you think that quote - which is wholly different in meaning when placed in it's proper context - gives you some insight into what's going on.

In other words, if I own a trucking company, how did I build the highways that company operates on? Did I found the schools that educated me? Did I create the laws that protect my business from others? What did I build, and what didn't I build.

I saw the whole quote, it's a piss poor analogy and just insulting. And given Obama's history of rewarding those who don't work as hard(or at all) it makes my blood boil. You know what I think of? I think of my father, now in his 60's who rarely ever has any free money to spend. He works his ass off busting his ass physically as well as dealing with the stress of having to live paycheck to paycheck. I mean a guy that age who has worked with a torn rotator cuff, nerve damage, has severed fingers as well as all of the wear and tear that decades of hard, physical labor, long days, 2-3 hours of sleep max each nightdue to injuries and that becomes magnified when you reach your 60's, of course, there's not the slightest hope of retiring as it looks, as well as not having a vacation in 3 decades, and probably never will again. And you know what he looks at every day? His hard work, he gives more than what even benefits him. He does a much better job with his work than he has to for financial gain, in fact, much of his extra effort will go unnoticed, yet it's what he's proud of. He can look at the job he did and what he put into it and take great pride. HE did that. For Obama to spew his bullshit and undermine the hardwork honest working class people like my father do without great rewards other than pride in their work makes me furious.

There's NO WAY to defend that quote, NO ****ING WAY. I've heard the entire thing, I don't need some Obama apologist to bend over backwards to defend that puppet's insulting words.

I also think of my great uncle, a world war 2 hero, a real tough guy, real old school, you know a generation where men were men. Anyway, he was disabled in the war, survived against odds, came back with a LEGITIMATE disability and turned down disability and went to work. If he was still alive, he'd be disgusted at what's going on now.

And I have another perspective on this. I use to live in East New York, Brooklyn, on a pretty bad block even by their standards, and had a lot of friends in Brownsville and spent a ton of my time there. I'm not going to group everyone who lives in troubled areas into this group, but I saw a ton of people there who not only abused the system with plenty of free money from the government they didn't deserve, but boasted about it, and a few didn't stop there, but encouraged me to do it. Some of these people did not work...at all, did not have kids they were involved with or any other responsibility other than themselves, yet they abused the system. And there is a lot of that. There are people who need help, but there are also many who really don't, and that's a problem.

And you know what? I haven't really accomplished anything, and don't deserve more than I have, but, some of the few things I'm proud of are the facts that I didn't take the easy routes and steal from people who have worked harder or were more responsible. I turned down food stamps, I'm not on Medicaid(I was for one year out of necessity and didn't renew it) and I'm not on disability, although I could be if I wanted to.


In one part you say that giving more money to the poor does nothing. Nothing changes when the rich get taxed. The only thing in your opinion that changes is that the rich hire fewer poor people. If nothing changes, then why are they hiring fewer people? That doesn't make sense.

Andrew Mellon believed in lowering taxes on the wealthy. That was right about the time that the stock market crashed and the country went into the great depression.

I hear the same argument from people who defend the wealthy. How does one work hard for a billion dollars. How much blood and sweat did they put into earning that? I think most wealthy are born into it. If you makes more than 250,000 dollars I'm pretty sure Obama wants to only raise taxes on what you make after that. Some are saying his compromise will be to lower taxes on the first 250,000 anyway, so people that don't make much more than 250,000 aren't being hurt as bad.

The men who founded this country would be disgusted by the greed in this country. They believed that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to look out for people with less.

Of course billionaires aren't the hardest working, but you know they didn't slack off and beyond that, they were smart with their business decisions. Either way, they deserve it. Others may be born into it, and are exceptionally lucky if that's the case, but their parents(or grandparents) worked hard to give them that wealth.

Again, these taxes will not solve the problem, or make much of a dent, plus, they'll have negative affects. People who are doing well won't continue to spend the same and expand their businesses if they have less. In fact, the opposite will happen. Plus, he's not willing to compromise at all and cut some spending. And it really doesn't make sense, if someone makes more money, they shouldn't apologize for it. Doesn't make them better people, of course, but that's not the point.

The men who founded this country would be disgusted at Obama being re-elected after a disastrous first term and be disgusted by his attitude and failed policies.



:facepalm

I swear, how can someone with such great basketball knowledge be such a ****ing toolbag?

Do you expect me to give a rat's ass what you think or respect your opinion? You have proven to be exceptionally immature. Not only did you start with the insults and fail to keep it civil in previous threads, but you also obviously gave me the anonymous neg where you admitted that you use to "look up" to me despite the fact that you only knew me from my NBA posts on an internet forum. You really expect me to respect you? I know what your opinion of me is. And I'm not going to waste any more time on you, I'll respond to anyone who is civil, and has at least some maturity.

Oh, and speaking of maturity, I got another comical neg calling me Sean Hannity(who I don't even like) and a fascist, which I'm not going to dignify with a response. Obviously, this was anonymous as well which shows how childish some are.


Were you only paying attention to basketball in the 1990's. These tax rates seemed to make sense back then. Middle class did well, rich did well.

If you want to draw parallels to the 90's, which is what Obama did by riding Clinton's coattails whenever he could, then you have to acknowledge the differences between Clinton and Obama, and there are many. Once again, I don't considered myself a Republican and have never registered as one, and when I see something positive from someone on either side, I can acknowledge it. And I always have and will acknowledge Clinton's successes. I'm not someone who thinks Clinton was terrible, i don't think he was great either, but I'd be happy to take him over Obama. And looking at the 90's, it's also worth noting that the Republicans gained control of the House and Senate.

[Droid101]

There's NO WAY to defend that quote, NO ****ING WAY. I've heard the entire thing, I don't need some Obama apologist to bend over backwards to defend that puppet's insulting words.

[quote]If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you

[Droid101]

Anecdote from someone:

I have a co-worker who's husband died in a car accident and left her with 3 kids. She gets supplemental income from the government since they could not afford life insurance. She relies on the food stamps with three growing kids (2 teen boys). We make roughly the same amount salary, around $30k/year.. I am single with no kids. How dare my taxes go to support her family since she had the audacity to start a family with a man who would later die?

Not everyone on assistance are deadbeats. In fact, I would wager the majority of those on assistance are working (or have worked, or are too young). My co-worker is no "Welfare Queen."
WELFARE QUEEN! Why can't she just pull herself up by her bootstraps! She should have just worked harder!!

[KevinNYC]

Will the economy kick out of the elbow drop Obama has landed?

We're about to the laundry and my wife just said to me. "Laundry bag's ready."

Then in a deeper voice, "Bonesaw's ready."

[Scoooter]

I saw the whole quote, it's a piss poor analogy and just insulting. And given Obama's history of rewarding those who don't work as hard(or at all) it makes my blood boil. You know what I think of? I think of my father, now in his 60's who rarely ever has any free money to spend. He works his ass off busting his ass physically as well as dealing with the stress of having to live paycheck to paycheck. I mean a guy that age who has worked with a torn rotator cuff, nerve damage, has severed fingers as well as all of the wear and tear that decades of hard, physical labor, long days, 2-3 hours of sleep max each nightdue to injuries and that becomes magnified when you reach your 60's, of course, there's not the slightest hope of retiring as it looks, as well as not having a vacation in 3 decades, and probably never will again. And you know what he looks at every day? His hard work, he gives more than what even benefits him. He does a much better job with his work than he has to for financial gain, in fact, much of his extra effort will go unnoticed, yet it's what he's proud of. He can look at the job he did and what he put into it and take great pride. HE did that. For Obama to spew his bullshit and undermine the hardwork honest working class people like my father do without great rewards other than pride in their work makes me furious.
You're obviously very emotional about this, but I don't see what your father has to do with any of it. You didn't even mention what he does. I'd don't want to get too confrontational, but here I suspect you're trying to elicit an emotional response - anger, mostly - as opposed to a real argument. I can't imagine why you think that's a good way to advance.


There's NO WAY to defend that quote, NO ****ING WAY. I've heard the entire thing, I don't need some Obama apologist to bend over backwards to defend that puppet's insulting words.
Defend it from what? Quote mining? Partisan campaign twist? It's easily defensible against stuff like that, as the truth should be. Simple logic defends that quote. Jeff Bezos didn't invent the internet.


I also think of my great uncle, a world war 2 hero, a real tough guy, real old school, you know a generation where men were men. Anyway, he was disabled in the war, survived against odds, came back with a LEGITIMATE disability and turned down disability and went to work. If he was still alive, he'd be disgusted at what's going on now.
Although I didn't know your uncle personally, it would not be unreasonable to assume that - as was common in the pathos of his era - he might also be disgusted with stem cell technology and interracial marriage. Age is not a blanket for wisdom. And frankly, I'm not exactly sure what it he'd have to be disgusted by - taxes and the national debt were much higher in his day.


And I have another perspective on this. I use to live in East New York, Brooklyn, on a pretty bad block even by their standards, and had a lot of friends in Brownsville and spent a ton of my time there. I'm not going to group everyone who lives in troubled areas into this group, but I saw a ton of people there who not only abused the system with plenty of free money from the government they didn't deserve, but boasted about it, and a few didn't stop there, but encouraged me to do it. Some of these people did not work...at all, did not have kids they were involved with or any other responsibility other than themselves, yet they abused the system. And there is a lot of that. There are people who need help, but there are also many who really don't, and that's a problem.

And you know what? I haven't really accomplished anything, and don't deserve more than I have, but, some of the few things I'm proud of are the facts that I didn't take the easy routes and steal from people who have worked harder or were more responsible. I turned down food stamps, I'm not on Medicaid(I was for one year out of necessity and didn't renew it) and I'm not on disability, although I could be if I wanted to.
You know who also doesn't need help? The people complaining about their marginal tax rate going up a few percentage points. Those tax cuts we've all been living under were always designed to expire. The idea that that and a Republican healthcare program from the 90's = socialism is completely asinine.


Of course billionaires aren't the hardest working, but you know they didn't slack off and beyond that, they were smart with their business decisions. Either way, they deserve it. Others may be born into it, and are exceptionally lucky if that's the case, but their parents(or grandparents) worked hard to give them that wealth.
You can get very rich doing things that are very detrimental to overall economic health, as we've seen. It's not practical, in the running of a country, to ignore that.


Again, these taxes will not solve the problem, or make much of a dent, plus, they'll have negative affects. People who are doing well won't continue to spend the same and expand their businesses if they have less. In fact, the opposite will happen.
They aren't doing that now (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/the-5-trillion-stash-us-corporations-money-hoard-is-bigger-than-the-gdp-of-germany/260006/#). Rich people (and corporations) have the luxury of holding onto their money ("Invest in this economy!?"). So no investment, no "job creation" (which is horseshit even in good times), no growth. Just time-biding in castles. And you need spending for the economy to function, for it to grow, for it to recover from recession. That's where the government comes in.

Plus, he's not willing to compromise at all and cut some spending.
You know this isn't true, but you keep repeating it. I don't understand this particular debate tactic.

And it really doesn't make sense, if someone makes more money, they shouldn't apologize for it. Doesn't make them better people, of course, but that's not the point.
A progressive tax code doesn't make sense?


The men who founded this country would be disgusted at Obama being re-elected after a disastrous first term and be disgusted by his attitude and failed policies.
I sincerely doubt that. But I wouldn't presume to read the minds of men who have been dead for hundreds of years to pluck the cheap strings of emotional sophistry.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Very clear what he was trying to say. In fact, Elizabeth Warren said it better.



And your little quote about your 60 year old dad working hard and never getting to retire? Yeah... that's not some welfare queen's fault. It's clear he and your grandfather have indoctrinated you. Very clear. Republican policies keep poor people poor and make rich people richer.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZVAD6UkAnrk/T47DmHoFg0I/AAAAAAAAA00/J-yNWM5f8Gs/s1600/voting-republican1.jpg

I honestly feel bad for you.

I said I wasn't going to waste any more time on you, and I'll accept any criticism for going back on my word. I'll also come off as somewhat hypocritical because at this point, I'm simply disciplined enough to stay civil with some limp-wristed, soft shoe sack of shit like you. Oh, and the image you posted shows how stupid and ignorant you are. Yes, Republicans are all greedy and/or racist and intolerant and there's nobody else to blame for poverty....yeah....that's really reasonable.

To clear up a misconception that comes from your inability to read, I never blamed anyone for my father never having a six figure income, much less better. The point was, he's not a man who has luxuries, but what makes his work worthwhile, is that he's proud of the job he does, and that he does it without asking for help. And to me, Obama's quote absolutely downplays the significance of that. Obviously, nobody does EVERYTHING ENTIRELY by themselves, that goes without saying. BUT saying "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT, SOMEBODY ELSE MADE THAT HAPPEN", is a poor choice of words, the entire thing is a bad analogy. The bottom line is, if you work hard and do well, you can take the credit for it. The other part I find disturbing is what I'm convinced is Obama rewarding those who don't work hard, and penalizing many who do. I think his quote, and his actions are damaging and set a bad example. And yes, some people do need help, and deserve it, but I think Obama takes it to extremes. Like on most issues, I think there's a middle ground.

And you know what? Your stupidity and/or deception is in fact successful in baiting me. I'll admit that, so there's a good chance I will waste more time in responding to you, but you can save us both time. We obviously don't have any respect for each other, so that should be the end of it.

As for tonight, I'm done period. I completed my work week and I'm going to enjoy my night since I've started my drinking and my Knicks are on, but I will respond tomorrow. I do respect some who I disagree with such as KevinNYC and JMT who keep it civil and come off as intelligent, and will take the time to respond to anyone who takes the time to respond to me, and does it respectfully.

[Math2]

I saw the whole quote, it's a piss poor analogy and just insulting. And given Obama's history of rewarding those who don't work as hard(or at all) it makes my blood boil. You know what I think of? I think of my father, now in his 60's who rarely ever has any free money to spend. He works his ass off busting his ass physically as well as dealing with the stress of having to live paycheck to paycheck. I mean a guy that age who has worked with a torn rotator cuff, nerve damage, has severed fingers as well as all of the wear and tear that decades of hard, physical labor, long days, 2-3 hours of sleep max each nightdue to injuries and that becomes magnified when you reach your 60's, of course, there's not the slightest hope of retiring as it looks, as well as not having a vacation in 3 decades, and probably never will again. And you know what he looks at every day? His hard work, he gives more than what even benefits him. He does a much better job with his work than he has to for financial gain, in fact, much of his extra effort will go unnoticed, yet it's what he's proud of. He can look at the job he did and what he put into it and take great pride. HE did that. For Obama to spew his bullshit and undermine the hardwork honest working class people like my father do without great rewards other than pride in their work makes me furious.

There's NO WAY to defend that quote, NO ****ING WAY. I've heard the entire thing, I don't need some Obama apologist to bend over backwards to defend that puppet's insulting words.

I also think of my great uncle, a world war 2 hero, a real tough guy, real old school, you know a generation where men were men. Anyway, he was disabled in the war, survived against odds, came back with a LEGITIMATE disability and turned down disability and went to work. If he was still alive, he'd be disgusted at what's going on now.

And I have another perspective on this. I use to live in East New York, Brooklyn, on a pretty bad block even by their standards, and had a lot of friends in Brownsville and spent a ton of my time there. I'm not going to group everyone who lives in troubled areas into this group, but I saw a ton of people there who not only abused the system with plenty of free money from the government they didn't deserve, but boasted about it, and a few didn't stop there, but encouraged me to do it. Some of these people did not work...at all, did not have kids they were involved with or any other responsibility other than themselves, yet they abused the system. And there is a lot of that. There are people who need help, but there are also many who really don't, and that's a problem.

And you know what? I haven't really accomplished anything, and don't deserve more than I have, but, some of the few things I'm proud of are the facts that I didn't take the easy routes and steal from people who have worked harder or were more responsible. I turned down food stamps, I'm not on Medicaid(I was for one year out of necessity and didn't renew it) and I'm not on disability, although I could be if I wanted to.



Of course billionaires aren't the hardest working, but you know they didn't slack off and beyond that, they were smart with their business decisions. Either way, they deserve it. Others may be born into it, and are exceptionally lucky if that's the case, but their parents(or grandparents) worked hard to give them that wealth.

Again, these taxes will not solve the problem, or make much of a dent, plus, they'll have negative affects. People who are doing well won't continue to spend the same and expand their businesses if they have less. In fact, the opposite will happen. Plus, he's not willing to compromise at all and cut some spending. And it really doesn't make sense, if someone makes more money, they shouldn't apologize for it. Doesn't make them better people, of course, but that's not the point.

The men who founded this country would be disgusted at Obama being re-elected after a disastrous first term and be disgusted by his attitude and failed policies.



Do you expect me to give a rat's ass what you think or respect your opinion? You have proven to be exceptionally immature. Not only did you start with the insults and fail to keep it civil in previous threads, but you also obviously gave me the anonymous neg where you admitted that you use to "look up" to me despite the fact that you only knew me from my NBA posts on an internet forum. You really expect me to respect you? I know what your opinion of me is. And I'm not going to waste any more time on you, I'll respond to anyone who is civil, and has at least some maturity.

Oh, and speaking of maturity, I got another comical neg calling me Sean Hannity(who I don't even like) and a fascist, which I'm not going to dignify with a response. Obviously, this was anonymous as well which shows how childish some are.



If you want to draw parallels to the 90's, which is what Obama did by riding Clinton's coattails whenever he could, then you have to acknowledge the differences between Clinton and Obama, and there are many. Once again, I don't considered myself a Republican and have never registered as one, and when I see something positive from someone on either side, I can acknowledge it. And I always have and will acknowledge Clinton's successes. I'm not someone who thinks Clinton was terrible, i don't think he was great either, but I'd be happy to take him over Obama. And looking at the 90's, it's also worth noting that the Republicans gained control of the House and Senate.


:applause:

Because that's what America is (was) all about, hard work and freedom of paving your own path

[Droid101]

More blubbering.
I don't have time for this nonsense either. You repeat every Rush Limbaugh talking point from the last six months over and over. It's not really very interesting.

[Droid101]

You're obviously very emotional about this, but I don't see what your father has to do with any of it. You didn't even mention what he does. I'd don't want to get too confrontational, but here I suspect you're trying to elicit an emotional response - anger, mostly - as opposed to a real argument. I can't imagine why you think that's a good way to advance.


Defend it from what? Quote mining? Partisan campaign twist? It's easily defensible against stuff like that, as the truth should be. Simple logic defends that quote. Jeff Bezos didn't invent the internet.


Although I didn't know your uncle personally, it would not be unreasonable to assume that - as was common in the pathos of his era - he might also be disgusted with stem cell technology and interracial marriage. Age is not a blanket for wisdom. And frankly, I'm not exactly sure what it he'd have to be disgusted by - taxes and the national debt were much higher in his day.


You know who also doesn't need help? The people complaining about their marginal tax rate going up a few percentage points. Those tax cuts we've all been living under were always designed to expire. The idea that that and a Republican healthcare program from the 90's = socialism is completely asinine.


You can get very rich doing things that are very detrimental to overall economic health, as we've seen. It's not practical, in the running of a country, to ignore that.


They aren't doing that now (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/the-5-trillion-stash-us-corporations-money-hoard-is-bigger-than-the-gdp-of-germany/260006/#). Rich people (and corporations) have the luxury of holding onto their money ("Invest in this economy!?"). So no investment, no "job creation" (which is horseshit even in good times), no growth. Just time-biding in castles. And you need spending for the economy to function, for it to grow, for it to recover from recession. That's where the government comes in.

You know this isn't true, but you keep repeating it. I don't understand this particular debate tactic.

A progressive tax code doesn't make sense?


I sincerely doubt that. But I wouldn't presume to read the minds of men who have been dead for hundreds of years to pluck the cheap strings of emotional sophistry.
http://lafinjack.net/images/random/applause_orson.gif

You've got the patience to respond to each point. I don't. :D

[KevinNYC]

You're obviously very emotional about this

This is why taking the quote out of context was so politically useful. It play upon longstanding greivances.

There's nothing in that speech that indicates that Obama has any antipathy towards working-class people. He wasn't even talking about working-class people. It was an argument against the sort of Ayn Randian fantasies that Paul Ryan believes in.

[KevinNYC]

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/30/fiscal-cliff-fictions-lets-all-agree-to-pretend-the-gop-isnt-full-of-it/#ixzz2Dl9NKwzC

[QUOTE]It

[Scoooter]

They also tried to kill the Postal Service, because it's a big government program that, you know, works.

[Math2]

They also tried to kill the Postal Service, because it's a big government program that, you know, works.

:lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/business/industries-fear-ripple-effect-of-proposed-postal-cuts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


As Congress begins work this week on legislation to shore up the finances of the debt-ridden post office, companies representing a cross-section of American business are spending millions of dollars lobbying lawmakers to oppose or support various proposals to keep the agency afloat.

[Scoooter]

Exactly, idiot.

PAEA 2006. (http://www.prc.gov/PRC-DOCS/UploadedDocuments/PL109-435PAEA.pdf)

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/26/1086631/-Postal-Accountability-and-Enhancement-Act-of-2006)


The implicit and stealth intent of this legislation is to jointly destroy the U.S. Postal Service, creating new revenues and profits for its commercial competitors, and to destroy one of the largest remaining public employee labor unions.

The Postal Service Attack by Republicans is the Canary in the Coal Mine (http://www.politicususa.com/postal-service-attack-republicans-canary-coal.html)


Without that requirement, the last 3 years would have shown a profit.

How Republicans Crippled the United States Postal Service. (http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/In-The-States/How-Republicans-Crippled-the-United-States-Postal-Service)


The only reason we keep hearing so much about the Postal Service’s impending budget shortfall is because PAEA requires that on September 30 a down payment be made on the healthcare benefits of postal workers 75 years into the future. This law has forced the Postal Service into the red for two years running.

In the end, Republicans know the Postal Service is a government agency that works well for Americans. And you know the GOP cannot have an example of good government floating around out there lest it get in the way of their political aspirations.

The Plot to Kill the Post Office...and it's Union Contracts (http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/assault-american-unions-extends-p)

:applause:

[falc39]

You know a thread has hit rock bottom when someone starts quoting Elizabeth Warren...

Businesses pay taxes. Does she not realize governments get revenue from businesses? Businesses also pay for permits. They upgrade streets, sidewalks, drainage whenever they expand. They provide products that people want and demand. They provide jobs... But apparently there is also some imaginary social contract they have to provide for too, because they sure aren't providing anything of worth to the populace, right? :oldlol:

[RoseCity07]

Of course billionaires aren't the hardest working, but you know they didn't slack off and beyond that, they were smart with their business decisions. Either way, they deserve it. Others may be born into it, and are exceptionally lucky if that's the case, but their parents(or grandparents) worked hard to give them that wealth.

Again, these taxes will not solve the problem, or make much of a dent, plus, they'll have negative affects. People who are doing well won't continue to spend the same and expand their businesses if they have less. In fact, the opposite will happen. Plus, he's not willing to compromise at all and cut some spending. And it really doesn't make sense, if someone makes more money, they shouldn't apologize for it. Doesn't make them better people, of course, but that's not the point.

The men who founded this country would be disgusted at Obama being re-elected after a disastrous first term and be disgusted by his attitude and failed policies.



I've heard the argument that the rich will just stop spending and expanding. I don't really think that's true though. How can you stop investing money in your own company because you get taxed more? We know companies won't raise prices on products because of competition. So by trying to get rid of employees in protest to tax increases they will only hurt themselves. These tax increases are cutting into profit margins. They aren't putting these "job creators" out on the streets.

Please look at this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0

The Congressional Research Service found that these tax increases on the "rich" do not affect on economic growth. The GOP called the report bias because one of the researchers once donated money to a democratic campaign. They didn't like the word "rich" being used in the report. How petty do you have to be to discredit a report over semantics? That's what the GOP did.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Dubya did not veto a single Republican House spending bill in 6 years.
Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to complaining about spending. ZERO!

[Droid101]

You know a thread has hit rock bottom when someone starts quoting Elizabeth Warren...

Businesses pay taxes. Does she not realize governments get revenue from businesses? Businesses also pay for permits. They upgrade streets, sidewalks, drainage whenever they expand. They provide products that people want and demand. They provide jobs... But apparently there is also some imaginary social contract they have to provide for too, because they sure aren't providing anything of worth to the populace, right? :oldlol:
Let me guess, you're one of the ones who agreed with Scottie-too-hottie constantly calling her PROFESSOR Warren. As if being educated is a bad thing.

Go crawl back under your rock you ignorant idiot.

Elizabeth Warren is smarter than you, and she actually wants to help the middle class according to her past actions.

[falc39]

Let me guess, you're one of the ones who agreed with Scottie-too-hottie constantly calling her PROFESSOR Warren. As if being educated is a bad thing.

Go crawl back under your rock you ignorant idiot.

Elizabeth Warren is smarter than you, and she actually wants to help the middle class according to her past actions.

LOL, no idea what you are talking about with the scottie professor thing. I live on the west coast and don't really pay attention to the east coast part of circus politics. It's really just a waste of time.

I don't care if she is "smarter" than me. I've seen those quotes posted multiple times now on facebook and message boards to argue something and they are flat-out wrong and deceptive. Since you can't refute anything I said about it and can only say "Elizabeth Warren is smarter than me", well then thanks for strengthening my position :D

[MMM]

The deficit is not a problem it is a symptom of a problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong but with borrowing cost being so low, doesn't it make sense to invest via borrowing in the short term??

Which can lower future cost if we invest in infrastructure. Spending does not always hurt future generations in fact sometimes the lack of spending will hurt in the future if costs are much higher.

Yes, deficits/debt are problems but their are other problems which are far more serious and should be addressed in the short/medium term.

Reform entitlements and try to get future cost under control while spending in areas that will lower future costs.

As for tax revenue, i think both sides are wrong on the issue. The deficit is not going to be solved by one class taking on the burden. Overall tax reform is needed and potentially new taxes replaces old in effective taxes. Those ideas are probably not political winners but are probably necessary.

Finally, I surprised nobody has called out Math2 for comparing government budgets to personal/household debt.

[DirtySanchez]

Remember when Bush and the GOP had us spending trillions of dollars to support a BS War to take down Iraq and thier weapons of mass destruction????

Remember that? And what did we find???

Obama got us out of that mess and we will be leaving Afghanastan soon as well. Let talk about all the money we are saving from just that. Oh yeah he also gave the final order to kill Bin Laden.

Win win for Obama.

[fiddy]

Remember when Bush and the GOP had us spending trillions of dollars to support a BS War to take down Iraq and thier weapons of mass destruction????

Remember that? And what did we find???

Obama got us out of that mess and we will be leaving Afghanastan soon as well. Let talk about all the money we are saving from just that. Oh yeah he also gave the final order to kill Bin Laden.

Win win for Obama.
Obama sent more troops to Afghanistan. And he gave israel 10 F-35 for free bought with your money. Spending on war/military hasnt been cut very much as far as my knowledge goes.

[TheSilentKiller]

Holy shit guys Longhornfan posted a negative thread about Obama. Who saw that one coming?

[Rasheed1]

Shaq attack played himself using the "you didnt build that" argument laced up with phony outrage :oldlol:


That was the most see-through lame argument Romney and GOP could come up with...

Remember they had the big sign at his speaking events? :lol

Ann Romney thought she was clever when she said "we DID build it!"

this is part of the reason Republicans lost... They take that phony sense of grievance waay too far.

It looks manufactured....

[DukeDelonte13]

Yes. Raise taxes. That's fine. That's not at all my objection. It's the unfairness of it, you raise them on some, but not the others.

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

You're obviously very emotional about this, but I don't see what your father has to do with any of it. You didn't even mention what he does. I'd don't want to get too confrontational, but here I suspect you're trying to elicit an emotional response - anger, mostly - as opposed to a real argument. I can't imagine why you think that's a good way to advance.

I do get angry thinking about that quote, and at the very least, it's a poor choice of words, one that I believe is damaging especially with Obama's actions. I don't believe he has promoted the importance of hard work well, and I also think he has excused those who haven't worked hard. And it's such a technicality, it's really ridiculous. Yeah, somebody else built the roads? So? Who thinks like that? Is your average person of any class thinking after a day of work "man, I'm so thankful somebody built those roads so I can get to work?" Of course not. Obama was really grasping at straws with that one, and I can't believe that people don't see why I'm offended by people saying things like "you DIDN'T build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen." That's going way overboard with the point he was trying to make. The bottom line is, if you have a business, of any size, and you worked hard at it, and/or were smart with it, take credit for it. Take pride it in.


Defend it from what? Quote mining? Partisan campaign twist? It's easily defensible against stuff like that, as the truth should be. Simple logic defends that quote. Jeff Bezos didn't invent the internet.

Again, Obama's analogy was grasping at straws, it was poorly worded, and imo, combined with his actions, sends a very bad message.


Although I didn't know your uncle personally, it would not be unreasonable to assume that - as was common in the pathos of his era - he might also be disgusted with stem cell technology and interracial marriage. Age is not a blanket for wisdom. And frankly, I'm not exactly sure what it he'd have to be disgusted by - taxes and the national debt were much higher in his day.

World War 2 era was a different time, and admittedly, not everything from that generation was right, but there are many things today's generation can learn from that generation. Not only was that generation clearly more patriotic, but they also worked harder on average and were tougher. The point was, this is a man who had every right to disability, he had served his country and gotten a legitimate disability doing so. Yet he decided to turn it down and continue working. I don't expect the average person to do that, but to see such abuse of government assistance really doesn't give me much hope for the future of the country.


You know who also doesn't need help? The people complaining about their marginal tax rate going up a few percentage points. Those tax cuts we've all been living under were always designed to expire. The idea that that and a Republican healthcare program from the 90's = socialism is completely asinine.

I'm not saying they need help. I'm not going to cry for someone who makes good money having a bit less of it. But I also don't think it's fair to penalize people for their success and give it to people who for the most part have less money because they didn't position themselves for it, or their parents/grandparents didn't vs those who did. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their own families. I believe that for the most part, you earn what you deserve. And again, I don't see this helping the economy, and if anything, making it worse. I don't think it does THAT much either way, but I definitely don't think it does anything to solve the problem.


You can get very rich doing things that are very detrimental to overall economic health, as we've seen. It's not practical, in the running of a country, to ignore that.

I don't believe over-regulation and focusing on taxing the wealthy are practical either.


They aren't doing that now (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/the-5-trillion-stash-us-corporations-money-hoard-is-bigger-than-the-gdp-of-germany/260006/#). Rich people (and corporations) have the luxury of holding onto their money ("Invest in this economy!?"). So no investment, no "job creation" (which is horseshit even in good times), no growth. Just time-biding in castles. And you need spending for the economy to function, for it to grow, for it to recover from recession. That's where the government comes in.

How exactly is taking away from the rich going to help the economy?


You know this isn't true, but you keep repeating it. I don't understand this particular debate tactic.

It is true, Obama simply isn't willing to negotiate and cut spending.


A progressive tax code doesn't make sense?

No.


I've heard the argument that the rich will just stop spending and expanding. I don't really think that's true though. How can you stop investing money in your own company because you get taxed more? We know companies won't raise prices on products because of competition. So by trying to get rid of employees in protest to tax increases they will only hurt themselves. These tax increases are cutting into profit margins. They aren't putting these "job creators" out on the streets.

You don't think businesses look to cut costs? It's extremely common, and a common and popular way to do that is to look for people to lay off.


Please look at this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0

The Congressional Research Service found that these tax increases on the "rich" do not affect on economic growth. The GOP called the report bias because one of the researchers once donated money to a democratic campaign. They didn't like the word "rich" being used in the report. How petty do you have to be to discredit a report over semantics? That's what the GOP did.

I read the article, and after reading it, my opinion hasn't changed. There's still nothing to suggest raising taxes will help, and there's still the question of why should people be penalized for being successful? I said in a previous post that I don't think it will dramatically change the overall economy either way, but I do think it will hurt. I can find sources to support that, but what will that do? It will come down to discrediting each other's sources. I primarily believe that it won't solve the problem, and can only hurt it because that's what makes sense to me. I also happen to think it's the wrong way of going about it from a moral standpoint. That's not going to change with me.


Shaq attack played himself using the "you didnt build that" argument laced up with phony outrage :oldlol:


That was the most see-through lame argument Romney and GOP could come up with...

Remember they had the big sign at his speaking events? :lol

Ann Romney thought she was clever when she said "we DID build it!"

this is part of the reason Republicans lost... They take that phony sense of grievance waay too far.

It looks manufactured....

This is ironic because much of what Obama has said and done were clearly attempts at getting votes, and not about what's right. For example, Obama's immigration policy, a shameless(though successful) attempt to get votes. And talk about playing to people's emotions, Obama's whole class warfare bullshit and mentality of "They have more than you...so it's alright to take their money" is laughable. What it does with a shocking success rate is it sounds good to people who don't think, but it doesn't solve the problem. It's instant gratification, nothing more. Obama has tried to pass himself off as a champion of sorts for the working class when in reality, that shit does nothing more than play to people's emotions, and the economic failure of the Obama administration hurts working class people more than anyone.

[Rasheed1]

I do get angry thinking about that quote, and at the very least, it's a poor choice of words, one that I believe is damaging especially with Obama's actions. I don't believe he has promoted the importance of hard work well, and I also think he has excused those who haven't worked hard.

HOW?... I need you to spell this out.... Im tired of hearing republicans make dumb vague complaints

please explain HOW Obama has discouraged the importance of working hard..





And it's such a technicality, it's really ridiculous. Yeah, somebody else built the roads? So? Who thinks like that? Is your average person of any class thinking after a day of work "man, I'm so thankful somebody built those roads so I can get to work?"

if its such an easily understood technicality....... Why do republicans insist on trying to twist it to mean something else? :hammerhead:

That makes it even more curious as to why Romney and obviously you think it is so important to dwell on...

Like I said.... Its part of the reason GOP got rejected this cycle... The sh*t comes off as phony and manufactured....

like you mis understand it on purpose.... Thats not repsectable








Of course not. Obama was really grasping at straws with that one, and I can't believe that people don't see why I'm offended by people saying things like "you DIDN'T build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen." That's going way overboard with the point he was trying to make. The bottom line is, if you have a business, of any size, and you worked hard at it, and/or were smart with it, take credit for it. Take pride it in.



Again, Obama's analogy was grasping at straws, it was poorly worded, and imo, combined with his actions, sends a very bad message.

YOU are the one grasping at straws here :oldlol:

He's talking about the responsibility that all americans have to our society... Its a very simple and American concept that isnt hard to understand.... Unless of course you willfully try to misunderstand and twist it to something insulting

thats what republicans did with "you didnt build that" and it was a flop..... and yet you still show up here citing it ...lol





World War 2 era was a different time, and admittedly, not everything from that generation was right, but there are many things today's generation can learn from that generation. Not only was that generation clearly more patriotic, but they also worked harder on average and were tougher. The point was, this is a man who had every right to disability, he had served his country and gotten a legitimate disability doing so. Yet he decided to turn it down and continue working. I don't expect the average person to do that, but to see such abuse of government assistance really doesn't give me much hope for the future of the country.


You talk about patriotism and in the next breath you wonder why some should pay more taxes for the benefit of society..... Do you not see the irony of you preaching patriotism and selfishness at the same time?

:facepalm




I'm not saying they need help. I'm not going to cry for someone who makes good money having a bit less of it. But I also don't think it's fair to penalize people for their success and give it to people who for the most part have less money because they didn't position themselves for it, or their parents/grandparents didn't vs those who did.

so its a penalty when the rich get taxed? what is it when the poor carry the burden, as they have been throughout this recession?

You know the rich have gotten richer during this recession right?

do you understand that? is it unfair to remove the burden off of the people who can east afford to shoulder it?

















This is ironic because much of what Obama has said and done were clearly attempts at getting votes, and not about what's right. For example, Obama's immigration policy, a shameless(though successful) attempt to get votes.


:roll: I love how republicans charge Obama as some sort bad guy who isnt altruistic in his moves... REALLY?

consider what that makes the GOP... lol

Obama is supposedly the conniving candidate who did all these good things FOR VOTES.....

No Sh*t!!!! Thats the name of the game!!

Meanwhile republicans whine because:
*either they werent smart enough to think of this
*Just retroactive bitternesss
*They honestly think everybody should vote against their interests like most of their base


either way... it is very absurd


And talk about playing to people's emotions, Obama's whole class warfare bullshit and mentality of "They have more than you...so it's alright to take their money" is laughable. What it does with a shocking success rate is it sounds good to people who don't think, but it doesn't solve the problem. It's instant gratification, nothing more.


You're wrong AGAIN...... :facepalm class war is real and the reason it resonates is because everyone knows its real...

I think you actually know this to be true.... If not, I can avalanche this thread with data proving it to you....

top 1% have gotten incredibly wealthy at everyone else's expense. Obama doesnt have to do much preaching on that issue because he is preaching to choir.


That the GOP doesnt understand this? its another reason they lose... They refuse to live in reality... They think they can rebut it with "you didnt build that"

you can't






Obama has tried to pass himself off as a champion of sorts for the working class when in reality, that shit does nothing more than play to people's emotions, and the economic failure of the Obama administration hurts working class people more than anyone.


I think this last statement is bullsh*t and not based in reality.....

I dont consider Obama to be a champion of the people, but what you fail to understand is that Obama at least put his out to the people and said "I'll listen to you"...

Obama has said from day 1 that this is a CHOICE election.

GOP never understood that... The choice was:

*Obama (who may have let us down in the first term, and didnt live up to his promises)

or

*Romney (empty suit, no center, won't be specific, is too close to the other kooks in the GOP looney bin)


Obama wins on default because the GOP is f*cking crazy...

Obama always knew he'd win because the GOP is unnacceptable right now...

So its funny to see you pick Obama apart but never realize that he is still better than anything the Republicans have... That is why GOP lost...

Stop pointing fingers and get act together

[ShaqAttack3234]

HOW?... I need you to spell this out.... Im tired of hearing republicans make dumb vague complaints

please explain HOW Obama has discouraged the importance of working hard..

I'm not a Republican and I've done everything short of spelling it out for you, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you want to understand my point of view on this, read my past posts.



if its such an easily understood technicality....... Why do republicans insist on trying to twist it to mean something else? :hammerhead:

That makes it even more curious as to why Romney and obviously you think it is so important to dwell on...

Like I said.... Its part of the reason GOP got rejected this cycle... The sh*t comes off as phony and manufactured....

like you mis understand it on purpose.... Thats not repsectable

Because it's a stupid thing to say, very stupid, and again, I'm not a Republican. And it's all part of Obama's backwards attitude, "hey others have been successful, and you haven't so lets take from them!"


He's talking about the responsibility that all americans have to our society... Its a very simple and American concept that isnt hard to understand.... Unless of course you willfully try to misunderstand and twist it to something insulting

No, it's taking things to extremes with a poor analogy. And the fact that you continually call me a liar because I disagree with you is funny.


thats what republicans did with "you didnt build that" and it was a flop..... and yet you still show up here citing it ...lol

No, it's because I genuinely find it insulting, the election is over, Obama is in for 4 more years, what I say isn't going to change that, not that I ever had the influence to change it in the first place.


You talk about patriotism and in the next breath you wonder why some should pay more taxes for the benefit of society..... Do you not see the irony of you preaching patriotism and selfishness at the same time?

The job of a businessman is to make money, they don't become businessmen because they're humanitarians. That's a nice fantasy, but not realistic. And I think what we should be promoting is being responsible for yourself, not relying on others who were more responsible.


so its a penalty when the rich get taxed? what is it when the poor carry the burden, as they have been throughout this recession?

You know the rich have gotten richer during this recession right?

do you understand that? is it unfair to remove the burden off of the people who can east afford to shoulder it?

Reality, a poor economy is what hurts the poor and working class. Taxing the wealthy won't change that. And I don't see how it is fair to take money from those who earned it. That money is theirs, it's not mine.


:roll: I love how republicans charge Obama as some sort bad guy who isnt altruistic in his moves... REALLY?

consider what that makes the GOP... lol

Obama is supposedly the conniving candidate who did all these good things FOR VOTES.....

No Sh*t!!!! Thats the name of the game!!

Meanwhile republicans whine because:
*either they werent smart enough to think of this
*Just retroactive bitternesss
*They honestly think everybody should vote against their interests like most of their base


either way... it is very absurd

I don't claim Obama is a bad guy, I don't claim that about any president. I think he's an incompetent president, although I will say that I don't care for him much personally because he comes off as arrogant and disrespectful to me. Who said I think all those things were good? I think the immigration policy is very poor. I think repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was idiotic. But when people think of themselves instead of the country, they're effective.


You're wrong AGAIN...... :facepalm class war is real and the reason it resonates is because everyone knows its real...

I think you actually know this to be true.... If not, I can avalanche this thread with data proving it to you....

top 1% have gotten incredibly wealthy at everyone else's expense. Obama doesnt have to do much preaching on that issue because he is preaching to choir.


That the GOP doesnt understand this? its another reason they lose... They refuse to live in reality... They think they can rebut it with "you didnt build that"

you can't

This is just laughable. Reality isn't Robin Hood. People who don't have money shouldn't point fingers at those who do. They should look at what THEY can do to be more successful. Obama's class warfare nonsense just plays to people's emotions. It's the easy way out to blame others who are successful and not hold ourselves accountable. That's the attitude of a loser.



I think this last statement is bullsh*t and not based in reality.....

I dont consider Obama to be a champion of the people, but what you fail to understand is that Obama at least put his out to the people and said "I'll listen to you"...

Obama has said from day 1 that this is a CHOICE election.

GOP never understood that... The choice was:

*Obama (who may have let us down in the first term, and didnt live up to his promises)

or

*Romney (empty suit, no center, won't be specific, is too close to the other kooks in the GOP looney bin)


Obama wins on default because the GOP is f*cking crazy...

Obama always knew he'd win because the GOP is unnacceptable right now...

So its funny to see you pick Obama apart but never realize that he is still better than anything the Republicans have... That is why GOP lost...

Stop pointing fingers and get act together

This is complete nonsense, nothing more.

First of all, if you want to discuss why Romney lost, I'm more than happy to give my two cents, however, I don't think it's necessary every time I criticize Obama.

I believe Romney hurt himself in a few ways. Mainly, he won a very weak campaign. Obama's campaign was much better, not only did Romney not attack Obama's policies and record enough, but he was not aggressive enough in dispelling some misconceptions about him that become widely believed due to an effective Obama campaign. That's his fault, and he was very careless with that 47% comment. Do I believe there was some truth in what I believe he was trying to say? Yeah, but to group in all of that 47% with the negatives is wrong, and I'd agree it's insulting. He was also too careless to know that despite being in a private fundraiser, he's a public figure in the age of technology. His father made a similar comment that hurt his run for president.

But while I'm more than willing to put blame on Romney for an extremely weak campaign, what also played into it is the media. Anyone with a brain and objectivity can see that there's a liberal bias in the media so Romney's flaws were magnified and misconceptions became widespread. Meanwhile, Obama's flaws were ignored by most of the mainstream media who also tried to spin things to make him look like a success.

What's truly laughable is how biased you come off when you say that Obama won because he's better, as if that's an established fact. It's 100% subjective, that's why there are discussions like this. The fact is that the majority of Americans thought he was the better choice, and because of that and because he easily won the Electoral College, I can't say he didn't deserve it. But I believe the majority of Americans made the wrong choice. I can't prove it, and it will be impossible to prove. Not only because Romney won't be president, but especially now since Obama hasn't even started his second term.

But anyone who calls an entire party crazy just doesn't come off as particularly credible or objective to me. And I believe you proved my point about the media(as well as Romney's tissue soft campaign) by repeating the misconception that he's a right wing nut job. In reality, he's a moderate Republican. Doesn't mean he would have been good, but I believe he would have been a pretty good president, that's part of the reason I voted for him.

But I agree that Obama let us down, I wasn't surprised because I didn't vote for him the first time either and had no expectations because I didn't have much to go on, but everyone should still hope for the best, so I was disappointed. I'm not a jackass like Rush Limbaugh, I'm not someone who is going to root for a president to fail to feed my ego. That doesn't help the country, and only hurts it. If Obama's second-term is noticeably better(and you seem to agree that the first wasn't good), then I'll admit I was wrong and that the majority made a solid choice. People may not believe that, but even if the accusations made in this thread were correct and I'm just looking for things to criticize, it'd be much tougher to do that if the country is doing well, and regardless of who you blame, it's not doing well right now, not at all. It wasn't when he took office either, so I'm not saying everything started with Obama, I'm saying that I don't think he's done the job to fix it.

But to close I'll go back to your logic that "Obama wasn't good, but Romney would be worse", I can't call that unreasonable leaving out the parts where you call Romney crazy. I obviously disagree with it, but your entitled to draw your own conclusions, and since that's the conclusion you drew, it makes sense you voted for Obama. Personally, even if I didn't think Romney would be pretty good, I'd have a hard time voting for Obama after a bad first term. As Clint Eastwood said, "In America, when somebody doesn't do the job, it's time to let them go", of course, there's some irony there, but I agree with the message.

[Rasheed1]

I'm not a Republican and I've done everything short of spelling it out for you, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you want to understand my point of view on this, read my past posts.


FAIL.... You make no sense.... Now you arent a republican? :roll:

*shakes head*


Because it's a stupid thing to say, very stupid, and again, I'm not a Republican. And it's all part of Obama's backwards attitude, "hey others have been successful, and you haven't so lets take from them!"

its not stupid to say in this environment where the rich get richer and people like YOU and Mitt romney seem to have trouble comprehending something that is very basic..

Sorry if I call you a republican... you gobble up and regurtitate their nonsense as if you are one..... I see no difference

let me guess... you're an idependent :oldlol:

& btw you brought up the "you didnt build this" nonsense.. I wanna hear someone truly explain the thought process behind that...


No, it's taking things to extremes with a poor analogy. And the fact that you continually call me a liar because I disagree with you is funny.

You're what's funny in this thread... You brought it up.... Im asking you to elaborate and for some reason you cannot... :confusedshrug:


The job of a businessman is to make money, they don't become businessmen because they're humanitarians. That's a nice fantasy, but not realistic. And I think what we should be promoting is being responsible for yourself, not relying on others who were more responsible.


I dont care what the job of a businessman is..... The rest of country is not bound to respect that anymore than you disrespect the idea of people taking responsibility for our society and paying their fair share of taxes..

Sayin "The job of a businessman is to make money, they don't become businessmen because they're humanitarians." Doesnt mean anything when we are talking about each citizen's responsibility to this nation.

A businessman's job (as a citizen of the United States) is also to pay his fair share of taxes and give back to the community that helped make it possible for him to become such a good businessman...

he didnt do it in vacuum al by himself......

I dont wanna hear this whining from a group that been cruising throughout this recession while other pay for the mistakes they made...

then you talk about people being responsible :oldlol: (as if the economy crashed itself without the help of alot of these same businessmen.)

GTOH


Reality, a poor economy is what hurts the poor and working class. Taxing the wealthy won't change that. And I don't see how it is fair to take money from those who earned it. That money is theirs, it's not mine.


Taxing the wealthy will change that .... And I dont see how you figure they EARNED it....

When Corporate 'businessmen' (read: criminals) on wall street crashed the economy? we all lost alot and they gained by getting bailed out by the American public and the FED...

thats not EARNING it...


another thing...... Your philosophy of "mine is mine" is really clashing with the patriotic talk you was doing earlier....

j/s



I don't claim Obama is a bad guy, I don't claim that about any president. I think he's an incompetent president, although I will say that I don't care for him much personally because he comes off as arrogant and disrespectful to me. Who said I think all those things were good? I think the immigration policy is very poor. I think repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was idiotic. But when people think of themselves instead of the country, they're effective.


I hear that he is incompetent alot, but he seems alot more competent than the republican party....

You DO know there are 2 parties? right?

I hear alot of empty insults when I dont see anything better coming from the right (I know you arent a republican.. lol)



This is just laughable. Reality isn't Robin Hood. People who don't have money shouldn't point fingers at those who do. They should look at what THEY can do to be more successful. Obama's class warfare nonsense just plays to people's emotions. It's the easy way out to blame others who are successful and not hold ourselves accountable. That's the attitude of a loser.

You obviously dont get it.. :oldlol:

its not robin hood to try and run a society... Taxes = robin hood now?

class war is real... regardless of you pretending its funny or somehow made up by Obama :confusedshrug:

Obama didnt create a class war, he just acknowledged it... You (& the GOP) still dont :confusedshrug: but Obama is the one who is incompetent ..... w/e



This is complete nonsense, nothing more.

First of all, if you want to discuss why Romney lost, I'm more than happy to give my two cents, however, I don't think it's necessary every time I criticize Obama.

Well I do because you highlight alot of those missteps in your posts


I believe Romney hurt himself in a few ways. Mainly, he won a very weak campaign. Obama's campaign was much better, not only did Romney not attack Obama's policies and record enough, but he was not aggressive enough in dispelling some misconceptions about him that become widely believed due to an effective Obama campaign. That's his fault, and he was very careless with that 47% comment. Do I believe there was some truth in what I believe he was trying to say? Yeah, but to group in all of that 47% with the negatives is wrong, and I'd agree it's insulting. He was also too careless to know that despite being in a private fundraiser, he's a public figure in the age of technology. His father made a similar comment that hurt his run for president.

But while I'm more than willing to put blame on Romney for an extremely weak campaign, what also played into it is the media. Anyone with a brain and objectivity can see that there's a liberal bias in the media so Romney's flaws were magnified and misconceptions became widespread. Meanwhile, Obama's flaws were ignored by most of the mainstream media who also tried to spin things to make him look like a success.

bolded part is BS.... The same old lame excuse that repub... (my bad you arent one of those..lol) people use when candidates lose.


What's truly laughable is how biased you come off when you say that Obama won because he's better, as if that's an established fact. It's 100% subjective, that's why there are discussions like this.

what laughable is you daring to dispute it.. :oldlol: but still doing a poor job of disputing it...

According to the voting public? Obama is light years better than any of those clowns in the GOP...




But anyone who calls an entire party crazy just doesn't come off as particularly credible or objective to me. And I believe you proved my point about the media(as well as Romney's tissue soft campaign) by repeating the misconception that he's a right wing nut job. In reality, he's a moderate Republican. Doesn't mean he would have been good, but I believe he would have been a pretty good president, that's part of the reason I voted for him.

Imma say it straight up right here.... The REPUBLICANS ARE CRAZY!!!

If they arent talking building electrified fences, and legitimate rape? then they are proposing voter suppression and trans-******l utlrasounds to women against their will...

They got Rush, and hannity, Trump..... Newt, Bachmann, Palin, Louie Gomert...


Need I continue? :oldlol:

The GOP is crazy and Obama is the only choice under this circumstance..

The GOP has been getting away with this type of stuff for 30 years since Reagan was lying about welfare queens and bush was using willy horton to win his election...

Now? the well is dried up... Too much crazy and not enough electorate willing to buy it anymore...Now there is a price to pay at the voting booth for being CRAZY and the GOP needs to pay up from now on.

Mitt Romney thought he could do right wing crazy and then etch a sktech his way to other positions in the general (which is an insulting idea to think the public has that short of a memory span)...

Mitt was wrong and he couldnt run from the crazysh*t he was saying in the primary to win over his crazy ass party..

[Rasheed1]

GOP circus..... :lol Dont forget karl Rove, and Reince Preibus, Paul (ayn Rand) Ryan, Alan West, Joe Walsh, Murdoch....

Yeah, crazy might not be a strong enough word for this group :lol

[Math2]

its not robin hood to try and run a society... Taxes = robin hood now?


what laughable is you daring to dispute it.. :oldlol: but still doing a poor job of disputing it...

According to the voting public? Obama is light years better than any of those clowns in the GOP...





Your points are laughable. You fail to read in addition. He has said in almost every other post that he isn't a Republican. Every post.

Taxes do mean Robin Hood when you take from one group and redistribute to another. Unless you have no idea who Robin Hood is....

So if I say that Obama is a lying, incompetent president, then it's laughable that I try to dispute your word that he is God?

Yes, the voting public. The voting public in Philadelphia, where Obama got 100% of the votes in 59 districts. The 50 precincts in Cuyahoga Country, Ohio in which Romney got 2 or less votes. The 8,000 extra voters in Wood County Ohio.

[Rasheed1]

Your points are laughable. You fail to read in addition. He has said in almost every other post that he isn't a Republican. Every post.

Taxes do mean Robin Hood when you take from one group and redistribute to another. Unless you have no idea who Robin Hood is....



Taxes are robin hood now? :roll: Has this always been the case or only since Obama began proposing them?

how do you run a society with no taxes?


So if I say that Obama is a lying, incompetent president, then it's laughable that I try to dispute your word that he is God?

didnt say he was God.... Just that he might as well be when compared against GOP :oldlol:


Yes, the voting public. The voting public in Philadelphia, where Obama got 100% of the votes in 59 districts. The 50 precincts in Cuyahoga Country, Ohio in which Romney got 2 or less votes. The 8,000 extra voters in Wood County Ohio.

he sure did get 100% in 59 wards... He did it against McCain too...

:cheers: no contest

[DonDadda59]

:oldlol: @ people still using the vague nonsense of Limbaugh and crew. Obama 'attacking/punishing success'. What the hell does that even mean?

[ShaqAttack3234]

FAIL.... You make no sense.... Now you arent a republican? :roll:

*shakes head*

A grown man who says "fail"? You're looking worse with every sentence. And I never claimed to be a Republican.

its not stupid to say in this environment where the rich get richer and people like YOU and Mitt romney seem to have trouble comprehending something that is very basic..


Sorry if I call you a republican... you gobble up and regurtitate their nonsense as if you are one..... I see no difference

let me guess... you're an idependent :oldlol:

& btw you brought up the "you didnt build this" nonsense.. I wanna hear someone truly explain the thought process behind that...

I didn't register for any party, including independent. I explained my thought process, if it wasn't good enough for you, that's your problem. I don't understand the mindset behind people who think that comment was ok.


You're what's funny in this thread... You brought it up.... Im asking you to elaborate and for some reason you cannot... :confusedshrug:

I already did.


I dont care what the job of a businessman is..... The rest of country is not bound to respect that anymore than you disrespect the idea of people taking responsibility for our society and paying their fair share of taxes..

Sayin "The job of a businessman is to make money, they don't become businessmen because they're humanitarians." Doesnt mean anything when we are talking about each citizen's responsibility to this nation.

A businessman's job (as a citizen of the United States) is also to pay his fair share of taxes and give back to the community that helped make it possible for him to become such a good businessman...

he didnt do it in vacuum al by himself......

I dont wanna hear this whining from a group that been cruising throughout this recession while other pay for the mistakes they made...

then you talk about people being responsible :oldlol: (as if the economy crashed itself without the help of alot of these same businessmen.)

GTOH

It's an American citizen's responsibility to get off their asses and work, or if not, at least not be a drain on people who do and be willing to take responsibility for their failures.


Taxing the wealthy will change that .... And I dont see how you figure they EARNED it....

When Corporate 'businessmen' (read: criminals) on wall street crashed the economy? we all lost alot and they gained by getting bailed out by the American public and the FED...

thats not EARNING it...


another thing...... Your philosophy of "mine is mine" is really clashing with the patriotic talk you was doing earlier....

j/s

You have yet to explain how taxing the wealthy more will get the economy back going. Just the amount of money that would generate alone(forget differing philosophies for a minute) wouldn't begin to solve the problem.


I hear that he is incompetent alot, but he seems alot more competent than the republican party....

You DO know there are 2 parties? right?

I hear alot of empty insults when I dont see anything better coming from the right (I know you arent a republican.. lol)

I see nothing to suggest Obama is more competent than any Republican.

Oh, and I'm not the one criticizing the Democratic party as a whole. I'm criticizing Obama because he's clearly failed so far, and to me, it looks like he'll continue to fail as president. He's a perfect example why I refuse to stick to either party, many who do(on both sides) will not acknowledge criticism and will insist their guy is good no matter what.


You obviously dont get it.. :oldlol:

its not robin hood to try and run a society... Taxes = robin hood now?

class war is real... regardless of you pretending its funny or somehow made up by Obama :confusedshrug:

Obama didnt create a class war, he just acknowledged it... You (& the GOP) still dont :confusedshrug: but Obama is the one who is incompetent ..... w/e

You don't get it, poor people blaming their problems on the rich is a cop out. It will get nothing done, it's just whining, and again, the attitude of a loser.


bolded part is BS.... The same old lame excuse that repub... (my bad you arent one of those..lol) people use when candidates lose.

You just continue to expose yourself. When you dispute something so obvious as a liberal bias in the media, you lose credibility.


what laughable is you daring to dispute it.. :oldlol: but still doing a poor job of disputing it...

According to the voting public? Obama is light years better than any of those clowns in the GOP...

Ok, so you think that a vote proves whose better? You think the guy who has won in every election was better for the job? The shit you say just gets worse and worse, it's really piling up.


Imma say it straight up right here.... The REPUBLICANS ARE CRAZY!!!

If they arent talking building electrified fences, and legitimate rape? then they are proposing voter suppression and trans-******l utlrasounds to women against their will...

They got Rush, and hannity, Trump..... Newt, Bachmann, Palin, Louie Gomert...


Need I continue? :oldlol:

The GOP is crazy and Obama is the only choice under this circumstance..

The GOP has been getting away with this type of stuff for 30 years since Reagan was lying about welfare queens and bush was using willy horton to win his election...

Now? the well is dried up... Too much crazy and not enough electorate willing to buy it anymore...Now there is a price to pay at the voting booth for being CRAZY and the GOP needs to pay up from now on.

Mitt Romney thought he could do right wing crazy and then etch a sktech his way to other positions in the general (which is an insulting idea to think the public has that short of a memory span)...

Mitt was wrong and he couldnt run from the crazysh*t he was saying in the primary to win over his crazy ass party..

This only demonstrates what a biased puppet you are. It's sad, the first time we had a discussion, I thought you were pretty reasonable, but this part especially highlights all I needed to know. I wish you would have said this from the start.

[MMM]

Taxing the rich more is not going to save the economy but can address the deficit. I believe everyone probably needs to pay more in taxes over the medium term. However, across the board tax increases will hurt a fragile economy. In the short term the rich can absorb a tax increase without it killing the economy.

I personally would like to see tax loopholes address
and maybe new taxes to replace some obscure or ineffective ones
maybe even off setting them with cuts in income taxes

To fix the economy, it is going to take stimulus because the private sector is not going to create jobs when demand is low. So instead of cutting taxes which would create more dead money. We should invest in infrastructure that reduces future costs.

[DonDadda59]

Taxing the rich more is not going to save the economy but can address the deficit. I believe everyone probably needs to pay more in taxes over the medium term. However, across the board tax increases will hurt a fragile economy. In the short term the rich can absorb a tax increase without it killing the economy.

I personally would like to see tax loopholes address
and maybe new taxes to replace some obscure or ineffective ones
maybe even off setting them with cuts in income taxes

To fix the economy, it is going to take stimulus because the private sector is not going to create jobs when demand is low. So instead of cutting taxes which would create more dead money. We should invest in infrastructure that reduces future costs.

:applause:

Also, I just realized for the first time that your avy blinks :eek:

[Rasheed1]

A grown man who says "fail"? You're looking worse with every sentence. And I never claimed to be a Republican.

Yeah a grown man said FAIL.... you FAILED... dont try and put it on me... :roll:






I didn't register for any party, including independent. I explained my thought process, if it wasn't good enough for you, that's your problem. I don't understand the mindset behind people who think that comment was ok.

whatever... you sound like an idiot spewing republican talking points when you arent one...







It's an American citizen's responsibility to get off their asses and work, or if not, at least not be a drain on people who do and be willing to take responsibility for their failures.

Who said anything about working or not working???

you are a real clueless pal if you dont know how most people work 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet...


you sound alot like a crazy republican again..... assuming people who need help are lazy....




You have yet to explain how taxing the wealthy more will get the economy back going. Just the amount of money that would generate alone(forget differing philosophies for a minute) wouldn't begin to solve the problem.

Didnt know you were so clueless that I needed to explain how taxes work :rolleyes:

since you wanna play dummy (I hope you are playing), I'll explain...

Once the Bush tax cut (for example) get lifted, those people can start putting that money back into the economy. those taxes cuts leave big holes when it comes to tax revenue.. The rich could help out more without it killing them as opposed to people who need services other programs losing them to sustain tax cuts for rich people... its backwards. When wall street crashed the economy, the american public bailed them out... But now people forget what taxes do, and why they are necessary in this monetary system. pfft.




I see nothing to suggest Obama is more competent than any Republican.

----> 332 - 206

thats means he is more competent and you forget to mention less CRAZY...


Oh, and I'm not the one criticizing the Democratic party as a whole. I'm criticizing Obama because he's clearly failed so far, and to me, it looks like he'll continue to fail as president. He's a perfect example why I refuse to stick to either party, many who do(on both sides) will not acknowledge criticism and will insist their guy is good no matter what.

:facepalm oh please.... spare me the bs

you dont even make any sense...


If Obama failed anyone, it was his base. He spent most of first term trying to work with republicans whose only stated goal was to 'make him a 1 term president" He was fool for doing that... hopefully he has smartened up and will have spine this time around.....




You don't get it, poor people blaming their problems on the rich is a cop out. It will get nothing done, it's just whining, and again, the attitude of a loser.

That's why the losers just won the election right? :oldlol: ....


nah, actually you sound like the loser, whining incoherently about Obama but having nothing else real to say besides "I'm not republican tho"




You just continue to expose yourself. When you dispute something so obvious as a liberal bias in the media, you lose credibility.

Lose credibility with who? YOU? :roll: I dont need your credibility on this.... I dont see where you ever had any...



Ok, so you think that a vote proves whose better? You think the guy who has won in every election was better for the job? The shit you say just gets worse and worse, it's really piling up.

Yeah he's better... by miles and you cant dispute it can you?

No you cant, so stop asking dumb questions pal :oldlol:




This only demonstrates what a biased puppet you are. It's sad, the first time we had a discussion, I thought you were pretty reasonable, but this part especially highlights all I needed to know. I wish you would have said this from the start.


if you dont agree with what I said? dispute it!!! or STFU

its really that simple...

all your side talk around the issues mean nothing....

if these ideas are so laughable, and everything is so sad? dispute it


tell me why all those GOP clowns I mentioned dont belong in a circus....:confusedshrug:

you can spin all you want but the fact remains that GOP lost because they are crazy and if they continue to act crazy they wont be winning sh*t for a while.

[MMM]

:applause:

Also, I just realized for the first time that your avy blinks :eek:

BallPhunk hooked me up with that a few years ago, not sure if he is still around though

[Rasheed1]

BallPhunk hooked me up with that a few years ago, not sure if he is still around though


:biggums: the f*cking eyes just blinked... :lol that scared me for a second

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah a grown said FAIL.... you FAILED... dont try and put it on me... :roll:

As soon as you start speaking like an adult, I'll listen a little more.



whatever... you like an idiot spewing republican talking points when you arent one...

After seeing what you have to say, I'd be worried if you had positive things to say about me. And which "idiot" do I like who spews Republican talking points.


Who said anything about working or not working???

you are a real clueless pal if you dont know how most people work 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet...


you sound alot like a crazy republican again.....

I don't take issue with hardworking people, I admire them.


Didnt know you were so clueless that I needed to explain how taxes work :rolleyes:

since you wanna play dummy (I hope you are playing), I'll explain...

Once the Bush tax cut (for example) get lifted, those people can start putting that money back into the economy. When

Congratulations for once again missing my point.



----> 332 - 206

thats means he is more competent and you forget to mention less CRAZY...

No it doesn't. Again, do you think everyone who has been elected was the best man for the job? Answer that, don't hide behind election results while dodging my points.


:facepalm oh please.... spare me the bs

you dont even make any sense...


If Obama failed anyone, it was his base. He spent most of first term trying to work with republicans whose only stated goal was to 'make him a 1 term president" He was fool for doing that... hopefully he has smartened up and will have spine this time around.....

This is a flat out lie, Obama did not make a genuine attempt to reach across the aisle like he claimed.


That's the losers just won the election right? :oldlol: ....

Nah, but many losers voted for him. I wouldn't call Obama a loser, I think he's a terrible president, but he's succeeded in his own life.


nah, actually you sound like the loser, whining incoherently about Obama but having nothing else real to say besides "I'm not republican tho"

No, that's just because as Math2 proved and I stated earlier, you have a problem reading.



Lose credibility with who? YOU? :roll: I dont need your credibility on this.... I dont see where you ever had any...

Then you shouldn't try to convince me of anything.


Yeah he's better... by miles and you cant dispute it can you?

No you cant, so stop asking dumb questions pal :oldlol:

You need to look up the definitions of "subjective" and "proof". Your "proof" he's better are the election results and "Republicans are crazy... :cry: "


if you dont agree with what I said? dispute it!!! or STFU

its really that simple...

all your side talk around the issues mean nothing....

if these ideas are so laughable, and everything is so sad? dispute it


tell me why all those GOP clowns I mentioned dont belong in a circus....:confusedshrug:

you can spin all you want but the fact remains that GOP lost because they are crazy and if they continue to act crazy they wont be winning sh*t for a while.

What's there to dispute? Your a clown who calls an entire party crazy. You handpick individuals you don't like and give them that label. I don't like many of the individuals you named, btw. Do you really expect me to pick apart every person you mentioned and analyze their sanity? Do you think those individuals are the best Republicans. Either way, you're pathetic.

But I'll lower myself to your level. The Democrats were crazy in 2000 and 2004, the Democrats were crazy in 1980, 1984 and 1988 as well. That explains everything, doesn't it?

People who call an entire party crazy are simply not worth discussing anything with. It's laughable, people like that on either side are simple-minded fools.

I want a good economy, period. And here's something you can't refute. Through one term, Obama has proven he's incapable of providing it.

[boozehound]

Your points are laughable. You fail to read in addition. He has said in almost every other post that he isn't a Republican. Every post.

Taxes do mean Robin Hood when you take from one group and redistribute to another. Unless you have no idea who Robin Hood is....

So if I say that Obama is a lying, incompetent president, then it's laughable that I try to dispute your word that he is God?

Yes, the voting public. The voting public in Philadelphia, where Obama got 100% of the votes in 59 districts. The 50 precincts in Cuyahoga Country, Ohio in which Romney got 2 or less votes. The 8,000 extra voters in Wood County Ohio.
hey dumb****, you need to go back and re-read robin hood. robin hood stole the taxes taken by the govt to redistribute to the people who earned them. Robin hood has nothing to do with taxes. If anything, hes a rovian neo-con. Taxes are the foundation of every ****ing state level society that has ever existed. Get the **** over it.

The tax burden for the wealthy in the US is laughable, when compared to our own tax history or current taxes in any other developed country. Acting like raising taxes back to a rate that is still one of the lowest in 60+ years will cripple business is a patent falsehood.


Funny that you get your panties in a bunch for people calling cockattack a repub (he clearly is, whether he likes the label or not. If you are a guy and like sucking dick, you are gay, whether you label yourself that or not), but its ok to tell sheed he thinks obama is a god, despite his many posts over the years about his disappointment in obama.

[falc39]

I dont care what the job of a businessman is..... The rest of country is not bound to respect that anymore than you disrespect the idea of people taking responsibility for our society and paying their fair share of taxes..

Sayin "The job of a businessman is to make money, they don't become businessmen because they're humanitarians." Doesnt mean anything when we are talking about each citizen's responsibility to this nation.

A businessman's job (as a citizen of the United States) is also to pay his fair share of taxes and give back to the community that helped make it possible for him to become such a good businessman...

he didnt do it in vacuum al by himself......

I dont wanna hear this whining from a group that been cruising throughout this recession while other pay for the mistakes they made...

then you talk about people being responsible :oldlol: (as if the economy crashed itself without the help of alot of these same businessmen.)


You are talking out of your ass just like Elizabeth Warren was. There is no forced obligation for a business to give more back to the community than it already is doing legally through taxes and providing good, services, and jobs. This is an imaginary contract concocted straight out of some kind of "eat the rich" fantasy. It may sound great and makes you feel good when you say it, but has no basis in reality, especially when businesses already contribute to improving infrastructure and generating revenue.

[boozehound]

As soon as you start speaking like an adult, I'll listen a little more.




After seeing what you have to say, I'd be worried if you had positive things to say about me. And which "idiot" do I like who spews Republican talking points.



I don't take issue with hardworking people, I admire them.



Congratulations for once again missing my point.




No it doesn't. Again, do you think everyone who has been elected was the best man for the job? Answer that, don't hide behind election results while dodging my points.



This is a flat out lie, Obama did not make a genuine attempt to reach across the aisle like he claimed.



Nah, but many losers voted for him. I wouldn't call Obama a loser, I think he's a terrible president, but he's succeeded in his own life.



No, that's just because as Math2 proved and I stated earlier, you have a problem reading.




Then you shouldn't try to convince me of anything.



You need to look up the definitions of "subjective" and "proof". Your "proof" he's better are the election results and "Republicans are crazy... :cry: "



What's there to dispute? Your a clown who calls an entire party crazy. You handpick individuals you don't like and give them that label. I don't like many of the individuals you named, btw. Do you really expect me to pick apart every person you mentioned and analyze their sanity? Do you think those individuals are the best Republicans. Either way, you're pathetic.

But I'll lower myself to your level. The Democrats were crazy in 2000 and 2004, the Democrats were crazy in 1980, 1984 and 1988 as well. That explains everything, doesn't it?

People who call an entire party crazy are simply not worth discussing anything with. It's laughable, people like that on either side are simple-minded fools.

I want a good economy, period. And here's something you can't refute. Through one term, Obama has proven he's incapable of providing it.
Also, idiot, for you to deny the impact of the massive infrastructural costs the US govt pays to support business shows just how out of touch you are. Shipping companies make trillions off of the use of publicly funded roads. Even a shitty company like papa johns is fundamentally dependent on the roads maintained by our govt to deliver their pizzas. Governmental support is vital for almost every industry in the US. Where would cattle ranching be in the US west without free grazing on public lands? Where would US crop production be without massive subsidies? The US economy collapses without the govt providing important services in every sector.

[MMM]

I want a good economy, period. And here's something you can't refute. Through one term, Obama has proven he's incapable of providing it.

Almost every western economy is weak or fragile at the moment. America's economy is in relatively better shape in comparison despite great challenges it faces. I think people take for granted how bad the last few years could of been if it wasn't for stimulus measures. Yea, as a result we have huge deficits/debt loads in many countries around the world. However, the alternative would of been much more disastrous. At least with a deficit/debt if we are serious about addressing them we can incrementally solve the problem.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Funny that you get your panties in a bunch for people calling cockattack a repub (he clearly is, whether he likes the label or not. If you are a guy and like sucking dick, you are gay, whether you label yourself that or not), but its ok to tell sheed he thinks obama is a god, despite his many posts over the years about his disappointment in obama.

Again, the lack of maturity with these clowns is hilarious. Name calling, much less using a male body part? If you are going to be that juvenile, at least be clever, at least make it rhyme or something. I'm beginning to understand how Obama got re-elected.

And the problem with labeling me a Republican is that you're basing it off a few issues. I'd be slammed for some of my views on other issues by true Republicans. The analogy doesn't work because it's not as obvious and easy to label as a gay man(which can be summed up in one sentence. A man who has sex with other men.)

[boozehound]

Again, the lack of maturity with these clowns is hilarious. Name calling, much less using a male body part? If you are going to be that juvenile, at least be clever, at least make it rhyme or something. I'm beginning to understand how Obama got re-elected.

And the problem with labeling me a Republican is that you're basing it off a few issues. I'd be slammed for some of my views on other issues by true Republicans. The analogy doesn't work because it's not as obvious and easy to label as a gay man(which can be summed up in one sentence. A man who has sex with other men.)
no person has monolithic agreement with any political party. doesnt mean that you arent clearly a repub, whether or not you choose to call yourself that.

[boozehound]

Again, the lack of maturity with these clowns is hilarious. Name calling, much less using a male body part? If you are going to be that juvenile, at least be clever, at least make it rhyme or something. I'm beginning to understand how Obama got re-elected.

And the problem with labeling me a Republican is that you're basing it off a few issues. I'd be slammed for some of my views on other issues by true Republicans. The analogy doesn't work because it's not as obvious and easy to label as a gay man(which can be summed up in one sentence. A man who has sex with other men.)
also, a little namecalling is nothing compared to the sheer idiocy demonstrated by you in this thread. Acting like govt infrastructure, small business support, etc have had no impact on economic success of private business? Private business is so successful in this country explicitly because of governmental support.

[Rasheed1]

As soon as you start speaking like an adult, I'll listen a little more.



ooh im hurt



After seeing what you have to say, I'd be worried if you had positive things to say about me. And which "idiot" do I like who spews Republican talking points.

you're drifting further and further away from you non-existant point :lol

basically you sound dumb... pick a republican




I don't take issue with hardworking people, I admire them.


whatever..... you just was talking about people getting off their asses as if thats the problem with poor people...


you simply dont get it....








No it doesn't. Again, do you think everyone who has been elected was the best man for the job? Answer that, don't hide behind election results while dodging my points.

you dont have a real point :oldlol:

Nobody ever said "the best man for the job"... Thats some bs you threw in there to try and qualify a dumb statement you made earlier :confusedshrug:

the judging factor of who is better ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW is who won the election.

thats the real point....


The American people have spoken on that question. Accept it or do what you've been doing this thread (try to spin it into something else )




This is a flat out lie, Obama did not make a genuine attempt to reach across the aisle like he claimed.

you need to elaborate..... How are you certain he didnt really try? Ive seen him give 3xs the effort the house GOP gave...

you need to be specific on this




Nah, but many losers voted for him. I wouldn't call Obama a loser, I think he's a terrible president, but he's succeeded in his own life.

sorry to break it to you, but the losers voted Romney......




No, that's just because as Math2 proved and I stated earlier, you have a problem reading.

I do have a problem reading your nonsense... but other than that, I have great comprehension...

:cheers: glad we got that cleared up





Then you shouldn't try to convince me of anything.

I couldnt care less about convincing you of anything. :oldlol: dont flatter yourself..

Im speaking for perspective. Plenty of people read this board, not just you..




You need to look up the definitions of "subjective" and "proof". Your "proof" he's better are the election results and "Republicans are crazy... :cry: "

and you need to start saying something actually means something and stop wasting time.

I say they are crazy.... dispute it or shut up...




What's there to dispute? Your a clown who calls an entire party crazy. You handpick individuals you don't like and give them that label. I don't like many of the individuals you named, btw. Do you really expect me to pick apart every person you mentioned and analyze their sanity? Do you think those individuals are the best Republicans. Either way, you're pathetic.


:applause: I love it.... You cant do it....

You cant actually respond to my claims about the republican party.





But I'll lower myself to your level. The Democrats were crazy in 2000 and 2004, the Democrats were crazy in 1980, 1984 and 1988 as well. That explains everything, doesn't it?


No ... That isnt how it works....

The democrats were indeed crazy in the 70s right before the rise of Reagan.. They over reached and turned off the electorate with all the leftist radical sh*t they doing, and they needed some time in the wilderness to get their act together...

but now?

Its the GOP's turn to do some soul searchin and get their heads outta their asses.

If they are smart? they'll do it..

but I doubt they are smart enough... They are still whining (like you) and talking about lazy moochers, and traditional America, and succession.

:facepalm they'll never learn, and I'll never stop laughing at them for it



People who call an entire party crazy are simply not worth discussing anything with. It's laughable, people like that on either side are simple-minded fools.

they are crazy... cry all you want about it :confusedshrug:

not my problem





I want a good economy, period. And here's something you can't refute. Through one term, Obama has proven he's incapable of providing it.

I would agree that he hasnt provided a good economy, he pisses me off with alot things he does ....


But at least he isnt CRAZY :oldlol:


and thats what this election was about....

[Rasheed1]

Funny that you get your panties in a bunch for people calling cockattack a repub (he clearly is, whether he likes the label or not. If you are a guy and like sucking dick, you are gay, whether you label yourself that or not), but its ok to tell sheed he thinks obama is a god, despite his many posts over the years about his disappointment in obama.

:oldlol: wow that was tough man

[Scoooter]

*I had to excise a lot of what I quoted from you to get under the word limit.

I do get angry thinking about that quote, and at the very least, it's a poor choice of words...I don't believe he has promoted the importance of hard work well, and I also think he has excused those who haven't worked hard.
You get angry over what by your own admission is "a poor choice of words". Think about that. He made a grammatical error, his political opponents jumped all over it, and you're being played like a fiddle. And you're acknowledging it! That's insane. And I've seen enough of your posts to surmise that you're not insane. At least when it comes to basketball.

And it's such a technicality, it's really ridiculous. Yeah, somebody else built the roads? So? Who thinks like that? Is your average person of any class thinking after a day of work "man, I'm so thankful somebody built those roads so I can get to work?" Of course not.
It's a technicality that fundamentally changes the meaning of the quote. And who really thinks about all that? That's the whole point! We need to think about that stuff. We're so callous and isolated as people, we forget that we're a society. My entire existence, and your entire existence, and all of ours entire existence is owed to other people. He's not attacking hard work, he's acknowledging, and hoping we'll acknowledge, all the hard work that was done by others that we enjoy today. So much of the world is amazing right now, and you and I, at best, contribute but a fraction of it. We're all in this together, whether we like to admit it or not.


Obama was really grasping at straws with that one...
We know why you're offended, but the reason you're offended doesn't make any sense. What highway systems have you built? What communications infrastructures have you routed? He was not attacking anybody's business, or the hard work they put into it. You know this. You've said as much. And yet, for reasons at fundamental odds with your obviously working brain, you're still outraged...and frankly, Rush Limbaugh, and Roger Ailes, and everyone else who has convinced you to throw out reason and the truth in favor of baseless emotional venting is laughing all the way to the bank at your expense.


Again, Obama's analogy was grasping at straws, it was poorly worded, and imo, combined with his actions, sends a very bad message.
He's not making an analogy, and he's not grasping at straws, because what he's saying is fundamentally, obviously true. Yeah, he skipped the word "all", or he used "that" instead of "those". But you're acknowledging that he misspoke, acknowledging that the entire meaning of the speech was at odds with what you're so apoplectic about, and still, still you're enraged. It's a mind boggling exercise in cognitive dissonance.


World War 2 era was a different time...I don't expect the average person to do that, but to see such abuse of government assistance really doesn't give me much hope for the future of the country.
You're talking about "abuse of government assistance" like it's the barest, most damaging scourge to our society. And that may be true, but I'd need to see some numbers before supporting a claim like that. I'd need to see how much it was costing us, and how it was more damaging than the ongoing, systemic economic destabilization we've seen coming from rampant corporate greed, a widening-wealth gap, the assault on the middle class, the assault on unions, unchecked climate change, religious fundamentalism and the eroding of the separation of church and state, corporate interests buying government, post-truth media, post-truth politics, and a raft of other problems that have a much farther, much more damaging reach than Joe Redneck spending his food stamps on meth.


I'm not saying they need help. I'm not going to cry for someone who makes good money having a bit less of it. But I also don't think it's fair to penalize people for their success and give it to people who for the most part have less money because they didn't position themselves for it, or their parents/grandparents didn't vs those who did.
But it does make good economic sense. Fair or not, money in the hands of the broader consumer base, mass spending power, is what drives and ultimately grows our economy, which is good for everyone.

Everyone is responsible for themselves and their own families. I believe that for the most part, you earn what you deserve.
You earn what you deserve, really? So the Hostess executives who spent a decade running that company into the ground deserve the millions in bonuses they got? The bakers, who bent over backwards in conceding pay and benefits, until finally they couldn't take it anymore, got what they deserved? The system is skewed, and I don't care about the morals of it - I care about instability, and that's a big part of the problem. Economic practices like that, systems that reward stuff like that, are not stable. And we have history to tell us that.

And again, I don't see this helping the economy, and if anything, making it worse. I don't think it does THAT much either way, but I definitely don't think it does anything to solve the problem.
You don't see it helping, but recent American history demonstrates just the opposite. Why is right now so fundamentally different, in terms of economic policy, or economic theory, from any other decade in the past century?


I don't believe over-regulation and focusing on taxing the wealthy are practical either.
What is over regulation, and why isn't shoring up an inadequate revenue base practical? This is the most interesting part of the post, and I hope you'll respond.


How exactly is taking away from the rich going to help the economy?
There are a number of reasons why it's a good idea, and most them boil down to useless capital. Supply doesn't make a market, demand does. If you make 100 widgets that no one wants to buy, your screwed. And that's the fundamental, intuitively obvious flaw of the supply-side, trickle-down economics theories espoused by the right for the past 40 years. And that's Republican policies haven't worked (the economy didn't get better under Reagan until he embraced the one of the great Democratic bogey-men of the right: tax and spend)

If you give a middle class family, or a poor person, say, $100, what do they do with it? The spend it. They buy stuff. They have too, to survive. That's consumerism. That's what drives our still product-based economy. But like I said earlier, the rich have the luxury of hanging onto their money at time when we need spending. And borrowing. That's why government stimulus helps, and why we need more of it. Again, we've seen this throughout history, and we're seeing right now, in Europe, how the opposite, austerity, doesn't work.

Now, obviously it's not quite as simple as my model, and we don't take rich people's tax money and give it directly to working-class people. But the fundamental redistribution (I love how something we've been doing in every organized society since the inception of money is now some horrible dirty word) of a progressive tax code is the best way to grow a stable, broadly prosperous economy.


It is true, Obama simply isn't willing to negotiate and cut spending.
You say that, but the record shows that he offered something like $3 dollars in spending cuts for every $1 dollar in revenue increases during the first round of negotiations. Not to mention the fact that he's overseen the fastest deficit reduction in generations (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/21/15340295-the-fastest-deficit-reduction-in-generations?lite).Hardcore liberals are actually freaking out about how much he might capitulate to Republican economic sabotage. So you say something that isn't true, demonstrably, and and are outraged about it. The entire foundations of a cogent debate are eroded when you have your own set of facts.


No.
Wow. Please explain why. That's way too big to just leave at "no".


You don't think businesses look to cut costs? It's extremely common, and a common and popular way to do that is to look for people to lay off.
There are many variable, complicated and numerous, that drive the business cycle, and all logistical nuance therein. I'll come back tot this later, because I think it's basically a book unto itself.


I read the article, and after reading it, my opinion hasn't changed. There's still nothing to suggest raising taxes will help, and there's still the question of why should people be penalized for being successful?...I also happen to think it's the wrong way of going about it from a moral standpoint. That's not going to change with me.
Okay... Let me just ask then, why didn't it hurt the economy in the eighties when Reagan did it, but it will now? Why didn't it hurt the economy in the 90's, when Clinton did it? Why, during the '40's, '50's, and '60's, when marginal tax rates were much higher then they are now, was America not hindered in building the biggest, wealthiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever seen? Why, throughout our history, from the Gilded Age to the Tech Boom, have higher taxes correlated to the exact opposite of what you're worried they'll do right now? Why is now so fundamentally different as to drive a complete reversal of economic precedent?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Also, idiot, for you to deny the impact of the massive infrastructural costs the US govt pays to support business shows just how out of touch you are. Shipping companies make trillions off of the use of publicly funded roads. Even a shitty company like papa johns is fundamentally dependent on the roads maintained by our govt to deliver their pizzas. Governmental support is vital for almost every industry in the US. Where would cattle ranching be in the US west without free grazing on public lands? Where would US crop production be without massive subsidies? The US economy collapses without the govt providing important services in every sector.

I know damn well that this shit is paid for with taxes, nowhere did I say do away with all taxes, I said I don't agree that penalizing the rich more is the way to go about. I don't think it's particularly fair(no, not that I worry about them financially), I don't think it's the reason for our problems and I don't think it's going to solve them. Is that so difficult to understand. I think cracking down on welfare and entitlement programs and trying better to limit it to those who need it is better and more fair. Look at how much spending on welfare has gone up in recent years. Is that right?

[Scoooter]

:applause:

Also, I just realized for the first time that your avy blinks :eek:
:eek:

[Scoooter]

I know damn well that this shit is paid for with taxes, nowhere did I say do away with all taxes, I said I don't agree that penalizing the rich more is the way to go about.
You don't think penalizing the rich is the way to go, but how do you feel about coddling them? Because that's what we're doing right now. Any issues of fairness aside, do think that it's good economic policy to make it easier for increasingly severe concentrations of wealth and stagnant social mobility? In other words, is it a good idea for the system as a whole for the 1% to hoard all the treasure and slam the gates shut behind them?

I don't think it's particularly fair(no, not that I worry about them financially), I don't think it's the reason for our problems and I don't think it's going to solve them. Is that so difficult to understand. I think cracking down on welfare and entitlement programs and trying better to limit it to those who need it is better and more fair. Look at how much spending on welfare has gone up in recent years. Is that right?
I absolutely agree here. We need to end welfare to people who don't need it. Ergo, we need to end preferential treatment to the rich and wealthy, and we can do that with tax reform.

[Math2]

Taxing the rich more is not going to save the economy but can address the deficit. I believe everyone probably needs to pay more in taxes over the medium term. However, across the board tax increases will hurt a fragile economy. In the short term the rich can absorb a tax increase without it killing the economy.

I personally would like to see tax loopholes address
and maybe new taxes to replace some obscure or ineffective ones
maybe even off setting them with cuts in income taxes

To fix the economy, it is going to take stimulus because the private sector is not going to create jobs when demand is low. So instead of cutting taxes which would create more dead money. We should invest in infrastructure that reduces future costs.

Taxing the rich (at proposed levels) does NOT fix the deficit. You have OK ideas, but you don't understand that Obama's plan is hilariously bad. It's basically to **** over the Republicans, then do what they want in addition to it. Extravagant spending got us here, so it only makes sense that cut spending will fix it (at least partially).

[Math2]

Once the Bush tax cut (for example) get lifted, those people can start putting that money back into the economy. those taxes cuts leave big holes when it comes to tax revenue.. The rich could help out more without it killing them as opposed to people who need services other programs losing them to sustain tax cuts for rich people... its backwards. When wall street crashed the economy, the american public bailed them out... But now people forget what taxes do, and why they are necessary in this monetary system. pfft.

----> 332 - 206

thats means he is more competent and you forget to mention less CRAZY...



Your bust tax cut makes absolutely no sense. They have to pay more taxes so they can put more money into the economy?

You are a complete idiot. Why does who won the election matter? There isn't one uniform solution that everyone thinks is right. If you're "claims" (if you can even call them that) are true, then you should stop blaming Bush for making this mess because there is no other person in the world that is more competent than he was because he won the election.

[Math2]

Taxes are robin hood now? :roll: Has this always been the case or only since Obama began proposing them?

how do you run a society with no taxes?



didnt say he was God.... Just that he might as well be when compared against GOP :oldlol:



he sure did get 100% in 59 wards... He did it against McCain too...

:cheers: no contest

And 100% in such a big region is statistically probable?

[Math2]

No ... That isnt how it works....

The democrats were indeed crazy in the 70s right before the rise of Reagan.. They over reached and turned off the electorate with all the leftist radical sh*t they doing, and they needed some time in the wilderness to get their act together...

but now?

Its the GOP's turn to do some soul searchin and get their heads outta their asses.

If they are smart? they'll do it..

but I doubt they are smart enough... They are still whining (like you) and talking about lazy moochers, and traditional America, and succession.

:facepalm they'll never learn, and I'll never stop laughing at them for it



How does your logic work then? "Ummm...He's a Democrat, thus more competent during this decade until the second coming of George Washington comes in the 30's and then the Republicans will not be crazy..."

[Rasheed1]

Your bust tax cut makes absolutely no sense. They have to pay more taxes so they can put more money into the economy?

You are a complete idiot. Why does who won the election matter? There isn't one uniform solution that everyone thinks is right. If you're "claims" (if you can even call them that) are true, then you should stop blaming Bush for making this mess because there is no other person in the world that is more competent than he was because he won the election.

*tax cuts for the rich means less taxes paid, and a hole that has to be filled some other way (presumably cuts in programs that poor and working class need more than the rich need tax cuts)

*Who won the election matters because it is the answer to who's policies are best to take the country into the future

*Obama didn't run against every other person 'in the world'. Thats the point you fail to understand. He ran against Mitt Romney and the ideas of the current republican party.

Thats why he won.. When Republicans accept that and fix it? then they'll be a legitimate party again.

Im not telling you this as someone who loves Obama... Im telling you this because Im a person who wouldnt hesitate to vote republican if they figured who they really were, and drop the hateful "ugly american" demeanor.

Republican ideas can be sold to blacks & hispanics & women if republicans drop the social conservatism, which is outdated and very erratic.

Republicans fell hard and yeah they are getting laughed at, but this is their opportunity to transform themselves into a much better party.. they dont have to lose their principles, they just have to make their minds up... Are they going to the social conservative party? which will fight abortion, push to have creationism taught in schools? Or maybe they can the fiscal conservatives... Maybe they can focus on a real plan to help get this nation's finances in order (because that is a real problem).. But they cant play this game where they say they love free capitalism but play the Keynesian game at the same time. That wont work... They'll need to be consistent. The neo-cons just work at all...period. The wars and militarism has to stop (Obama included).

So Im saying, if the republicans take the opportunity to reform themselves and stop playing the role of crazy hypocrites? they need to take this opportunity and drop the fox entertainment mentality, and the craziness..

people wouldnt hesitate to vote for them if they did... the democrats dont have a monopoly on anything

[boozehound]

*tax cuts for the rich means less taxes paid, and a hole that has to be filled some other way (presumably cuts in programs that poor and working class need more than the rich need tax cuts)

*Who won the election matters because it is the answer to who's policies are best to take the country into the future

*Obama didn't run against every other person 'in the world'. Thats the point you fail to understand. He ran against Mitt Romney and the ideas of the current republican party.

Thats why he won.. When Republicans accept that and fix it? then they'll be a legitimate party again.

Im not telling you this as someone who loves Obama... Im telling you this because Im a person who wouldnt hesitate to vote republican if they figured who they really were, and drop the hateful "ugly american" demeanor.

Republican ideas can be sold to blacks & hispanics & women if republicans drop the social conservatism, which is outdated and very erratic.

Republicans fell hard and yeah they are getting laughed at, but this is their opportunity to transform themselves into a much better party.. they dont have to lose their principles, they just have to make their minds up... Are they going to the social conservative party? which will fight abortion, push to have creationism taught in schools? Or maybe they can the fiscal conservatives... Maybe they can focus on a real plan to help get this nation's finances in order (because that is a real problem).. But they cant play this game where they say they love free capitalism but play the Keynesian game at the same time. That wont work... They'll need to be consistent. The neo-cons just work at all...period. The wars and militarism has to stop (Obama included).

So Im saying, if the republicans take the opportunity to reform themselves and stop playing the role of crazy hypocrites? they need to take this opportunity and drop the fox entertainment mentality, and the craziness..

people wouldnt hesitate to vote for them if they did... the democrats dont have a monopoly on anything
the issue is that the fiscal conservatism is all lip service. Any review of the data of the last 30 years will show you that. The biggest debts and deficits (and rates of growth) have all been under "fiscally conservative" repubs. Social conservatism is the one strand that unites many under their umbrella. Too bad they have taken it to such an extreme that moderate and reasonable people (like David Brooks, who really isnt even that moderate) are telling them they are way down the wrong track.

[Rasheed1]

And 100% in such a big region is statistically probable?


Yes it is very possible.. probable is the better word.. :oldlol:


I mean think about it..... who the hell living west philly, north philly... some other parts... Who hell would voting for Mitt Romney? :oldlol:

I live in Overbrook Park, which is good black neighborhood... People work out here, this aint a slum.. Its like the suburbs, only inside the city limits.

I can be certain in telling that NO-ONE in this neighborhood voted for Mitt Romney.. NO-ONE..

its not hard for me to believe at all... Im surprised more wards didnt go 100%

its because the GOP message is soo thoroughly laced with ideas and a tone that unacceptable.. totally unacceptable

[Rasheed1]

You are talking out of your ass just like Elizabeth Warren was. There is no forced obligation for a business to give more back to the community than it already is doing legally through taxes and providing good, services, and jobs. This is an imaginary contract concocted straight out of some kind of "eat the rich" fantasy. It may sound great and makes you feel good when you say it, but has no basis in reality, especially when businesses already contribute to improving infrastructure and generating revenue.

meh.. If you think elizabeth warren is 'talking out her ass' then I wont bother to argue..

[ShaqAttack3234]

Scooter, for now I'll just say that I applaud your effort that you put into your post as well as your class in arguing your point of view without getting personal or childish. I have the utmost respect for that. I will respond tomorrow to the best of my ability, but for now, earlier in the day, I had enough of responding because it will simply take up too much of day. And honestly, I've already drank a lot today and will be better suited to reply tomorrow, earlier in the day and focus on your post rather than respond to 2-3 others, especially since I'm not nearly done with my drinking for the night. But just to let you know, in the meantime, it isn't a matter of disrespect or ignoring your post. Expect a response, because I'm saying publicly that I feel an obligation to answer any questions you have that will help you have a better understanding of my point of view.

[Math2]

Yes it is very possible.. probable is the better word.. :oldlol:


I mean think about it..... who the hell living west philly, north philly... some other parts... Who hell would voting for Mitt Romney? :oldlol:

I live in Overbrook Park, which is good black neighborhood... People work out here, this aint a slum.. Its like the suburbs, only inside the city limits.

I can be certain in telling that NO-ONE in this neighborhood voted for Mitt Romney.. NO-ONE..

its not hard for me to believe at all... Im surprised more wards didnt go 100%

its because the GOP message is soo thoroughly laced with ideas and a tone that unacceptable.. totally unacceptable

No, it's not at all probable. It's funny that you actually think it is though.

[Rasheed1]

No, it's not at all probable. It's funny that you actually think it is though.


it is probable... I live here.. I would know...

:cheers: It makes sense... im telling you

[Sarcastic]

Paying taxes shouldn't be thought of as a penalty. They should be thought of as a civic duty, and patriotic.

[Math2]

it is probable... I live here.. I would know...

:cheers: It makes sense... im telling you

Not 100%. It doesn't. Your neighborhood doesn't represent 59 wards.

[Rasheed1]

Not 100%. It doesn't. Your neighborhood doesn't represent 59 wards.


Im telling you that it doesnt surprise me that nobody in all of west and north philly voted for mitt Romney... thats a big area, Im just using my neighborhood as an example.. I seriously doubt anybody voted for him.

Who would live in west philly (different than center city or I can see people voting for him in south and northeast philly). who in west and north philly would be voting for Mitt Romney? nobody, thats who

it doesnt surprise me at all.

[Balla_Status]

Paying taxes shouldn't be thought of as a penalty. They should be thought of as a civic duty, and patriotic.

As long as it's not constantly wasted on BS wars, dropping bombs on innocent civilians, giving foreign aid to countries (and then bomb them), bailing out failing companies, trust funds etc.

All this BS about, "you didn't build that" in regards to people needing roads and infrastructure to make a business. You also need oil and gas...just want to make sure that these same people in this thread thank them as well.

[DonDadda59]

Almost every western economy is weak or fragile at the moment. America's economy is in relatively better shape in comparison despite great challenges it faces. I think people take for granted how bad the last few years could of been if it wasn't for stimulus measures. Yea, as a result we have huge deficits/debt loads in many countries around the world. However, the alternative would of been much more disastrous. At least with a deficit/debt if we are serious about addressing them we can incrementally solve the problem.

You have been on point in this thread my friend.

The EU is about to go into another recession and the US' prospects for 2013 are rosy for the most part. This was due to the bailouts and stimulus, which were necessary evils. If Obama had listened to the Mitt Romney's of the world and allowed the banking and auto industries to go under, we would've experienced a depression instead of a recession. Now that the banking, auto, housing, etc industries are stabilized, we have to focus on balancing our national checkbook with a mixture of revenue creation and spending cuts. If we can deal with the cliff, the economy should continue on an upward trajectory. The only thing that could possibly stop that is Grover Norquist's servants dragging us into another deep recession for the sole reason of preserving the tax holiday for the only people who wouldn't be affected.

[boozehound]

As long as it's not constantly wasted on BS wars, dropping bombs on innocent civilians, giving foreign aid to countries (and then bomb them), bailing out failing companies, trust funds etc.

All this BS about, "you didn't build that" in regards to people needing roads and infrastructure to make a business. You also need oil and gas...just want to make sure that these same people in this thread thank them as well.
wait, the oil and gas you drill off of public lands? oh yeah......

[Balla_Status]

wait, the oil and gas you drill off of public lands? oh yeah......

Yeah...public land. "Our" land...owned by the people of America. Not the government. Lot of private land being drilled as well.

Takes energy to build infrastructure.

[boozehound]

Yeah...public land. "Our" land...owned by the people of America. Not the government. Lot of private land being drilled as well.

Takes energy to build infrastructure.
oh really? Do you negotiate your criminally cheap leases with the "people"? or with the USDA and DOI's land management agencies?

[Balla_Status]

oh really? Do you negotiate your criminally cheap leases with the "people"? or with the USDA and DOI's land management agencies?

The BLM is just the governing body...which is funded with the people's tax dollars. They don't own the land. The land was there before the federal government was even around...they didn't give any land.

The government takes zero credit for the oil companies success. Zero.

The Bakken Shale is not federal land...which is in North Dakota. Some of it is indian though. And it's cheaper to drill on state/private lands than it is on federal lands. Less bullshit too...BLM acts like they own the land but they don't. They're just the governing body. Either way, there's no arguing what I said.

[boozehound]

The BLM is just the governing body...which is funded with the people's tax dollars. They don't own the land. The land was there before the federal government was even around...they didn't give any land.

The government takes zero credit for the oil companies success. Zero.

The Bakken Shale is not federal land...which is in North Dakota. Some of it is indian though. And it's cheaper to drill on state/private lands than it is on federal lands. Less bullshit too...BLM acts like they own the land but they don't. They're just the governing body. Either way, there's no arguing what I said.
so, in the end of your first paragraph, you are basically saying that no one can own land? Because that land has always been controlled (at least in name) by the federal govt as long as it has "belonged" to the US. Before that it was French/Spanish/Russian property and before that all the peoples who were violently displaced. So, never has that land (under US claim) belonged to anyone but the federal govt (for the people, haha) until they cede the rights through homesteading, sale, etc.

Regardless of whether they own (and again, I think your open minded perspective that land cant really be owned since it exists before and after any and all human endeavors), who do you pay to access the mineral rights? the feds.

Federal land may be more of a pain, but it hasnt stopped the development of the Uintah Basin for the dirt cheap, oversupplied natural gas market (along with shittons of other federal lands across the west - whose land are you drilling around farmington?). That whole basin looks like a computer chip from an aerial viewpoint. Why is it in the best public interest to allow massive impacts across fairly fragile desert landscapes for an oversupplied product? Shouldnt we wait and develop it more strategically, regardless of its abundance? Very shortsighted management of public lands if you ask me.


Also, any thoughts on this? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121130110518.htm

I also think its pretty funny that you dont think the govt (dont forget those local and state govs are all sucking hard on the federal teat) plays a role in helping you develop public lands. or an any aspect of energy development. like responding to disasters, for example, the beautiful kalamazoo river. http://chicagoist.com/2012/07/26/two_years_after_massive_oil_spill_t.php

who pays those costliest spill costs? Who pays for superfund site cleanup? Who pays for the cleanup associated with EPA violations and their paltry fines (not just an energy industry issue)?

Heres a recent one from my neck of the woods
http://www.sunad.com/index.php?tier=1&article_id=26535

This explosion occurred in a place called Nine Mile Canyon, sometimes glossed as the worlds longest art gallery. This canyon has an incredible abundance (perhaps the greatest concentration in the world) of rock art (petroglyphs and pictographs), with a conservatively estimated 10,000 panels along its 40 mile length. It is incomparable to anywhere else in the entire US or the world. The explosion occurred a few hundred yards from the only large rockshelter site in the entire canyon and one of the denser area of panels, Daddy Canyon. Why are we developing these areas while the value of NG is cheap? There are other public interests beside energy development. Let people shale themselves out and jump in to develop this area later. But you all read the writing on the wall. You see where energy production is going in spain and indonesia and germany and are trying to squeeze out all the milk you can before its too late.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coinslab/5914530344/
http://www.petroglyphs.us/NM-07_nine_mile_canyon_family_panel.jpg

http://www.castlecountry.com/media/Media-Nine-Mile-Canyon-896519260407-800x600.jpg
http://www.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/707685/707685.jpg


What possible impact could development have on rock art? The massive amount of truck traffic has led to an incredible amount of airborne sediment (and caustic chemicals known to eat concrete used as dust suppressant) that has caused undeniable abrasion to many of these panels in this narrow canyon. So, what happens now? Oh, the road gets paved, at great expense to the county and feds (as well as developing companies).

[MMM]

Taxing the rich (at proposed levels) does NOT fix the deficit. You have OK ideas, but you don't understand that Obama's plan is hilariously bad. It's basically to **** over the Republicans, then do what they want in addition to it. Extravagant spending got us here, so it only makes sense that cut spending will fix it (at least partially).

To address the deficit it is going to take a multi-pronged attack; Increasing revenue, getting entitlements under control and sustainable, and fixing the economy. Fixing the economy is the most important part to the equation because without it there is no hope in addressing the deficit debt issue. While revenue and entitlements can be dealt in a longer term view.

As I've said before everyone should pay more taxes. There is a lot of blame to go around for what happened in 08. Overall I'm disgusted by the class warfare that I see in the US and around the world. At the DNC signs of middle class first disturbed me but the republicans are just as guilty of inspiring the sentiment. Correct me if i'm but in the Romney plan wouldn't taxes gone up on middle class/low income families while the rich continue to get breaks??? If what I read is true then it seems obvious who has a superior tax policy even though I disagree with both sides on the issue.

Yes Extravagant spending was the problem; unnecessary tax cuts and give a ways, an unnecessary war(Iraq, Afghanistan was justifiable just executed horribly), unnecessary subsidies, etc.

As for some of the most recent spending initiatives, do people forget how weak the global economy was. Even Canada, which probably had the strongest budgetary track record in the developed world went into a massive deficit, so what would you expect to happen in the US when previous governments left entitlement programs a mess, while spending like drunken sailors and on top of all that cut revenue???

Cutting spending now will hurt the economy and make the deficit worse. The government should start cutting back when the private sector takes up more of the room. Heck, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to cut corporate rates right now if it meant businesses invested via debt and has the extra money as some sort of insurance. However, I have to look into that more because I'm not sure if it would just create more dead money in the economy.

Overall it seems obvious that the economy needs stimulating because the private sector is not picking up slack. Corporations are about creating profit and not necessarily jobs and in the current climate it is understandable why we are not seeing job creation. With that being said if the economy needs stimulating then it would make sense to spend in areas that would cut future costs and create future revenue. For example, if the stimulus spending went to the local level to upgrade transportation infrastructure and into the soft infrastructure that would support the future jobs created, then that is an example where the government would get more in return for what they put in. I don't see how cutting spending now would help the economy.

[KevinNYC]

And 100% in such a big region is statistically probable?

Yes. And they were several precincts were Obama got zero votes as well.

There were 120 million votes cast nationwide. That's the number to keep in mind when thinking of the probability.

[Math2]

Yes. And they were several precincts were Obama got zero votes as well.

There were 120 million votes cast nationwide. That's the number to keep in mind when thinking of the probability.

20,000 votes, and not one for Romney?

[Math2]

To address the deficit it is going to take a multi-pronged attack; Increasing revenue, getting entitlements under control and sustainable, and fixing the economy. Fixing the economy is the most important part to the equation because without it there is no hope in addressing the deficit debt issue. While revenue and entitlements can be dealt in a longer term view.

As I've said before everyone should pay more taxes. There is a lot of blame to go around for what happened in 08. Overall I'm disgusted by the class warfare that I see in the US and around the world. At the DNC signs of middle class first disturbed me but the republicans are just as guilty of inspiring the sentiment. Correct me if i'm but in the Romney plan wouldn't taxes gone up on middle class/low income families while the rich continue to get breaks??? If what I read is true then it seems obvious who has a superior tax policy even though I disagree with both sides on the issue.

Yes Extravagant spending was the problem; unnecessary tax cuts and give a ways, an unnecessary war(Iraq, Afghanistan was justifiable just executed horribly), unnecessary subsidies, etc.

As for some of the most recent spending initiatives, do people forget how weak the global economy was. Even Canada, which probably had the strongest budgetary track record in the developed world went into a massive deficit, so what would you expect to happen in the US when previous governments left entitlement programs a mess, while spending like drunken sailors and on top of all that cut revenue???

Cutting spending now will hurt the economy and make the deficit worse. The government should start cutting back when the private sector takes up more of the room. Heck, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to cut corporate rates right now if it meant businesses invested via debt and has the extra money as some sort of insurance. However, I have to look into that more because I'm not sure if it would just create more dead money in the economy.

Overall it seems obvious that the economy needs stimulating because the private sector is not picking up slack. Corporations are about creating profit and not necessarily jobs and in the current climate it is understandable why we are not seeing job creation. With that being said if the economy needs stimulating then it would make sense to spend in areas that would cut future costs and create future revenue. For example, if the stimulus spending went to the local level to upgrade transportation infrastructure and into the soft infrastructure that would support the future jobs created, then that is an example where the government would get more in return for what they put in. I don't see how cutting spending now would help the economy.


Romney's plan didn't favor the wealthy. That's just Obama's campaign bullshit. Spending doesn't help the economy. Money in the hands of consumers is what helps the economy.

[MMM]

Romney's plan didn't favor the wealthy. That's just Obama's campaign bullshit. Spending doesn't help the economy. Money in the hands of consumers is what helps the economy.

Agreed, but when the private sector is not hiring people then government spending can come in. However, maybe it is time America made serious reforms in their lifestyle/economy. Maybe being such a consumerist economy isn't all that is crack up to be. Maybe it is time to seriously re-balance the American economy as it will continue to face challenges globally into the future.

[MMM]

Romney's plan didn't favor the wealthy. That's just Obama's campaign bullshit. Spending doesn't help the economy. Money in the hands of consumers is what helps the economy.

There are many ways spending helps the economy but I want to get you view on what should of been done in 08/09 when the world economy was nearing collapse??? Is you view that the stimulus didn't help and that tax cuts(putting money in the hands of consumers) was the right strategy.

[Math2]

There are many ways spending helps the economy but I want to get you view on what should of been done in 08/09 when the world economy was nearing collapse??? Is you view that the stimulus didn't help and that tax cuts(putting money in the hands of consumers) was the right strategy.

While it would have been devastating for the workers (and the economy), I understand that. But it doesn't fix the problem of WHY GM was going bankrupt. In essence, they get a get out of jail free card and likely haven't changed much in way of product.

[ShaqAttack3234]

You're talking about "abuse of government assistance" like it's the barest, most damaging scourge to our society. And that may be true, but I'd need to see some numbers before supporting a claim like that. I'd need to see how much it was costing us, and how it was more damaging than the ongoing, systemic economic destabilization we've seen coming from rampant corporate greed, a widening-wealth gap, the assault on the middle class, the assault on unions, unchecked climate change, religious fundamentalism and the eroding of the separation of church and state, corporate interests buying government, post-truth media, post-truth politics, and a raft of other problems that have a much farther, much more damaging reach than Joe Redneck spending his food stamps on meth.

Look at how spending on welfare has increased by over 30% during Obama's first term and topped a trillion dollars last year. And it's not just about the money actually spent, but a trend like this has to be discouraged. It also hurts the people who actually need it.


But it does make good economic sense. Fair or not, money in the hands of the broader consumer base, mass spending power, is what drives and ultimately grows our economy, which is good for everyone.

Not really, because people have to be employed in the first place to have money to spend.


You earn what you deserve, really? So the Hostess executives who spent a decade running that company into the ground deserve the millions in bonuses they got? The bakers, who bent over backwards in conceding pay and benefits, until finally they couldn't take it anymore, got what they deserved? The system is skewed, and I don't care about the morals of it - I care about instability, and that's a big part of the problem. Economic practices like that, systems that reward stuff like that, are not stable. And we have history to tell us that.

It was a generalization on my part, so I'll concede that. But if you have a way to fix that without other problems as a result then I'm all ears.


You don't see it helping, but recent American history demonstrates just the opposite. Why is right now so fundamentally different, in terms of economic policy, or economic theory, from any other decade in the past century?

Because there are so many problems now and these taxes pay for about 8 days, which simply doesn't make much of a dent.


What is over regulation, and why isn't shoring up an inadequate revenue base practical? This is the most interesting part of the post, and I hope you'll respond.

Over-regulation puts too many barriers in place for a business to succeed. You're assuming what will happen from taxing the wealthy. I'm saying that the way Obama has gone about it by phrasing it as if the wealthy are responsible for our troubles alienates people. I do believe there's a risk of some laying off more people in an attempt to sabotage Obama so 4 years down the road they have a better chance of getting what they want. I couldn't condone actions like that at all, but in the real world, we can't expect these people to look out for anyone but themselves. Will that happen on a large scale? Probably not, but that combined with the fact that if businesses are seeing less money they'll look to cut costs could negate the positives. We can thrive with tax increases as proven during the Clinton administration, but there will be many other things that have to be done because these taxes won't make or break the economy. That's why I don't think you can look to a time period and credit the prosperity with taxes. I think there's been too much of a focus on that. If you do increase taxes, but also look to welfare then I'd have no problem.


There are a number of reasons why it's a good idea, and most them boil down to useless capital. Supply doesn't make a market, demand does. If you make 100 widgets that no one wants to buy, your screwed. And that's the fundamental, intuitively obvious flaw of the supply-side, trickle-down economics theories espoused by the right for the past 40 years. And that's Republican policies haven't worked (the economy didn't get better under Reagan until he embraced the one of the great Democratic bogey-men of the right: tax and spend)

If you give a middle class family, or a poor person, say, $100, what do they do with it? The spend it. They buy stuff. They have too, to survive. That's consumerism. That's what drives our still product-based economy. But like I said earlier, the rich have the luxury of hanging onto their money at time when we need spending. And borrowing. That's why government stimulus helps, and why we need more of it. Again, we've seen this throughout history, and we're seeing right now, in Europe, how the opposite, austerity, doesn't work.

Now, obviously it's not quite as simple as my model, and we don't take rich people's tax money and give it directly to working-class people. But the fundamental redistribution (I love how something we've been doing in every organized society since the inception of money is now some horrible dirty word) of a progressive tax code is the best way to grow a stable, broadly prosperous economy.

But again, these people have to be working in the first place, these taxes won't solve that problem. I don't think the solution to the economy lies in taxes.


You say that, but the record shows that he offered something like $3 dollars in spending cuts for every $1 dollar in revenue increases during the first round of negotiations. Not to mention the fact that he's overseen the fastest deficit reduction in generations (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/21/15340295-the-fastest-deficit-reduction-in-generations?lite).Hardcore liberals are actually freaking out about how much he might capitulate to Republican economic sabotage. So you say something that isn't true, demonstrably, and and are outraged about it. The entire foundations of a cogent debate are eroded when you have your own set of facts.

Well, what I've heard from Republicans is that his offers have been jokes, and that he's really not willing to negotiate with them, and has a "my way or the highway" approach to this.


Wow. Please explain why. That's way too big to just leave at "no".

Well, first of all, I think the problem is so much bigger than that, and I don't think you can just look at it from one perspective. I don't think we need a more progressive tax code, and I don't think enough thought goes into what incentive businesses have to make money if it's going to the government?


Okay... Let me just ask then, why didn't it hurt the economy in the eighties when Reagan did it, but it will now? Why didn't it hurt the economy in the 90's, when Clinton did it? Why, during the '40's, '50's, and '60's, when marginal tax rates were much higher then they are now, was America not hindered in building the biggest, wealthiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever seen? Why, throughout our history, from the Gilded Age to the Tech Boom, have higher taxes correlated to the exact opposite of what you're worried they'll do right now? Why is now so fundamentally different as to drive a complete reversal of economic precedent?

You can't look at the overall state of the economy in different administrations and credit it all to taxes without looking at other factors. And to simplify Reagan and taxes and put him in the same group is deceptive.

[Scoooter]

Look at how spending on welfare has increased by over 30% during Obama's first term and topped a trillion dollars last year. And it's not just about the money actually spent, but a trend like this has to be discouraged. It also hurts the people who actually need it.
What does that have to do with Obama? He didn't make it easier to get welfare, he didn't change the means by which people qualify. More people went on welfare because of the worldwide economic disaster that started right before his first term. More people fell into the existing net. A lot of the reforms we've been talking about in this thread are designed to prevent something like that from happening again. The parallels with the Great Depression are really fascinating, and it's disconcerting that we basically made all the same mistakes again.


Not really, because people have to be employed in the first place to have money to spend.
No they don't. That would be ideal (at least in the near term), but it isn't strictly necessary. We can just give them money. That's what welfare is. It's money for people who don't have jobs.


It was a generalization on my part, so I'll concede that. But if you have a way to fix that without other problems as a result then I'm all ears.
It's far too complicated to get into hear, but a big part of the problem is the ongoing, Republican-backed, Fox News-espoused war on unions and organized labor we've been waging for the last 40 years. The decline of the middle class has moved in lockstep with the decline in union labor. I don't know if it's entirely fixable consider the changes that are coming up rapidly for our society and our civilization, but it's worth looking into in the near term.


Because there are so many problems now and these taxes pay for about 8 days, which simply doesn't make much of a dent.
But you admit that it does make a dent.


Over-regulation puts too many barriers in place for a business to succeed. You're assuming what will happen from taxing the wealthy.
I don't see how one follows from the other, but you didn't answer my question. You've fallen into a trap of political obfuscation. The rightful dichotomy is not "over" or "under" regulation, that's a just a rhetorical trick to more easily define the opposition. What we need to be looking at is better regulation. For instance, The Glass-Steagal banking act was "more" regulation that was good for the economy, whereas the FDA breakthrough medicines program is an example of a strategic loosening of regulations in order to keep pace with the acceleration of medical research.

And I'm going to come back to this later, probably with something akin to an essay (which you won't have to read if you don't want to) because, like I said, it's an interesting topic.


I'm saying that the way Obama has gone about it by phrasing it as if the wealthy are responsible for our troubles alienates people.
Well, it obviously didn't alienate too many people, because he got reelected by a pretty sizeable margin. Ditto Elizabeth Warren, who is even more overt about it.


I do believe there's a risk of some laying off more people in an attempt to sabotage Obama so 4 years down the road they have a better chance of getting what they want. I couldn't condone actions like that at all, but in the real world, we can't expect these people to look out for anyone but themselves. Will that happen on a large scale? Probably not, but that combined with the fact that if businesses are seeing less money they'll look to cut costs could negate the positives. We can thrive with tax increases as proven during the Clinton administration, but there will be many other things that have to be done because these taxes won't make or break the economy. That's why I don't think you can look to a time period and credit the prosperity with taxes. I think there's been too much of a focus on that. If you do increase taxes, but also look to welfare then I'd have no problem.
I wasn't crediting the taxes, I was simply trying to demonstrate a correlation that is fundamentally at odds with what you're worried about. As in, moved in the opposite direction, if at all. And again, I think your focus on "welfare", whichever specific programs you're talking about, is misplaced, and has less to do with economic reasons than personal ones.


But again, these people have to be working in the first place, these taxes won't solve that problem. I don't think the solution to the economy lies in taxes.
No one does, that's why the proposed increases are so modest. But we have to repair some of the damage to our revenue base created by the what-were-supposed-to-be-temporary Bush tax cuts. Tax cuts that didn't work. Think of the a tax hike as less of an assault on American free enterprise (lol) as the culling of a failed, costly government program.


Well, what I've heard from Republicans is that his offers have been jokes, and that he's really not willing to negotiate with them, and has a "my way or the highway" approach to this.
Come on man. That's like Shaq telling you that Dwight Howard is a shitty center. Consider the source.


Well, first of all, I think the problem is so much bigger than that, and I don't think you can just look at it from one perspective. I don't think we need a more progressive tax code, and I don't think enough thought goes into what incentive businesses have to make money if it's going to the government?
Because not all of their money goes to the government? Do you think that someone is proposing a 100% corporate tax or something? You really don't get the incentive to make more money?


You can't look at the overall state of the economy in different administrations and credit it all to taxes without looking at other factors. And to simplify Reagan and taxes and put him in the same group is deceptive.
Reagan is actually a great example. He tried lowering taxes in his first year, and the economy stalled out out. So he raised taxes 6 out of his 8 years, and spent a fortune, mostly on the military. "Tax and spend". The same label modern Republicans, who so lionize a distorted, fictionalized version of Reagan use to smear Democrats.

And again, I wasn't crediting it all to taxes. I was simply demonstrating an historical, empirical correlation that sits completely at odds with your worries that increasing taxes will hurt the economy.

[falc39]

It seems that many people who are suddenly pushing for more stimulus seem to forget that these past couple of years outside of some fringe economist and Krugman, all economists including the ones at the federal reserve looked over the data and agreed that the stimulus programs were experiencing diminishing returns and the idea of just doing more of it would not solve anything.


There are a number of reasons why it's a good idea, and most them boil down to useless capital. Supply doesn't make a market, demand does. If you make 100 widgets that no one wants to buy, your screwed. And that's the fundamental, intuitively obvious flaw of the supply-side, trickle-down economics theories espoused by the right for the past 40 years. And that's Republican policies haven't worked (the economy didn't get better under Reagan until he embraced the one of the great Democratic bogey-men of the right: tax and spend)

If you give a middle class family, or a poor person, say, $100, what do they do with it? The spend it. They buy stuff. They have too, to survive. That's consumerism. That's what drives our still product-based economy. But like I said earlier, the rich have the luxury of hanging onto their money at time when we need spending. And borrowing. That's why government stimulus helps, and why we need more of it. Again, we've seen this throughout history, and we're seeing right now, in Europe, how the opposite, austerity, doesn't work.

Now, obviously it's not quite as simple as my model, and we don't take rich people's tax money and give it directly to working-class people. But the fundamental redistribution (I love how something we've been doing in every organized society since the inception of money is now some horrible dirty word) of a progressive tax code is the best way to grow a stable, broadly prosperous economy.

If you make 100 widgets of something no one wants, then you are just stupid and your business will probably fail like 9 out of 10 of them, but it doesn't disprove the supply argument. China, with its government stimulus injections built cities that are empty and infrastructure that goes unused. So it can go both ways. Supply enables demand to be realized through consumption because you can't consume something that hasn't been produced. The important thing to ask though is what makes supply? It isn't demand. I can sit here and demand things. But until someone out there figures out a way to provide it to me in a way that is also economically beneficial for him to do so then my demand wont be realized. Sometimes governments can economically spend money in a beneficial way, but they also waste just as much too. The real key to sustained and significant economic growth is productivity. Increases in productivity leads to increases in supply. Without gains in productivity, an economy can't grow, it will only able to support what it is currently supporting or the max of what it can produce, even if people are demanding more and have more cash to spend. If you look at the whole world as a closed system, which it is, economically speaking, then this is the case. The big difference between gains in productivity and gains by giving every poor person, say $100 dollars, is that through gains in productivity, the country/world gains in real terms. Injecting a bunch of cash does not usually bring or guarantee any real gains. We've seen it has given us nominal gains, but from a standard of living perspective it hasn't done much.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with austerity. It is brought about by the market and occurs after over-expansive policies, which clearly the whole world has been milking and basking in for a while. By avoiding it now with even more expansive policies... that doesn't mean we beat austerity, it will just come back in the form of more painful austerity down the road. The real selfish part is that one generation is trying to hold it off long enough so it becomes the other generation's problem. People talk about gender, class, and race warfare these days. But I'm actually predicting the real one will be generational and will be about age. At some point, the young people will realize they will have to work their whole lives for the older generation and get so fed up shit will go down. They will stop working, reject society, and work for themselves... maybe... interesting stuff to think about...

[Scoooter]

If you make 100 widgets of something no one wants, then you are just stupid and your business will probably fail like 9 out of 10 of them, but it doesn't disprove the supply argument. China, with its government stimulus injections built cities that are empty and infrastructure that goes unused.
Exactly. There was no demand for those cities, but they were supplied anyway. You're conflating issues.

So it can go both ways. Supply enables demand to be realized through consumption because you can't consume something that hasn't been produced. The important thing to ask though is what makes supply? It isn't demand. I can sit here and demand things. But until someone out there figures out a way to provide it to me in a way that is also economically beneficial for him to do so then my demand wont be realized. Sometimes governments can economically spend money in a beneficial way, but they also waste just as much too. The real key to sustained and significant economic growth is productivity. Increases in productivity leads to increases in supply. Without gains in productivity, an economy can't grow, it will only able to support what it is currently supporting or the max of what it can produce, even if people are demanding more and have more cash to spend. If you look at the whole world as a closed system, which it is, economically speaking, then this is the case. The big difference between gains in productivity and gains by giving every poor person, say $100 dollars, is that through gains in productivity, the country/world gains in real terms. Injecting a bunch of cash does not usually bring or guarantee any real gains. We've seen it has given us nominal gains, but from a standard of living perspective it hasn't done much.
This is mostly just garbled nonsense. It's like you just skimmed the glossary of an econ 1 textbook.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with austerity.
By itself, no, it's a tool like many others. But there's a time and a place for it, and as we've seen throughout the last one hundred years of centralized banks, and as we're seeing in Europe right now, the time for austerity is not in a recovery phase.

It is brought about by the market and occurs after over-expansive policies, which clearly the whole world has been milking and basking in for a while.
We're not talking about private sector austerity (sustained debt reduction and a lack of borrowing) we're talking about government austerity. That's not brought on by the market, it's political. They can reverse or avoid it as simply as signing legislation to do so.

By avoiding it now with even more expansive policies... that doesn't mean we beat austerity, it will just come back in the form of more painful austerity down the road.
I'd like to see some examples of this.

The real selfish part is that one generation is trying to hold it off long enough so it becomes the other generation's problem. People talk about gender, class, and race warfare these days. But I'm actually predicting the real one will be generational and will be about age. At some point, the young people will realize they will have to work their whole lives for the older generation and get so fed up shit will go down. They will stop working, reject society, and work for themselves... maybe... interesting stuff to think about...
I doubt it. Abundance is in our future. We just have to hang on a few more decades.

[falc39]

Exactly. There was no demand for those cities, but they were supplied anyway. You're conflating issues.

No, I'm not. Demand itself doesn't bring about supply. I was showing that if the government tries to step in, it can make the same exact mistake as your example, except even on a massive scale with taxpayer labor/funds on the line. Your example didn't disprove supply side economics, nor did it make a good argument for government stimulus. That's what I was showing. When businesses do that they fail and go out of business, which is what is supposed to happen.


This is mostly just garbled nonsense. It's like you just skimmed the glossary of an econ 1 textbook.

LOL, It's sunday night so it's cool if you don't want to reply.

[RoseCity07]

I don't even want to argue anymore, but damn ShaqAttack has written a lot of responses.

[Droid101]

Scooter providing the ether here. Love it.

[Scoooter]

No, I'm not. Demand itself doesn't bring about supply.
So, in order to demonstrate that, you gave an example of supply not creating demand. :hammerhead:

I was showing that if the government tries to step in, it can make the same exact mistake as your example, except even on a massive scale with taxpayer labor/funds on the line.
Okay, now I'm starting to see your point. Your argument is, essentially, that government can make the same mistakes as the private sector, for example in unwarranted supply of a good or service (like building a city that no one wants). So, essentially, if I can parse through to your conclusion, it's better to let the private sector make those mistakes, because a) the ramifications aren't as sweeping, b) they aren't using other peoples's money. Have you ever heard of the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses"? The notions that private sector failures don't occur on massive scales, and that they don't involve other people's money are laughably, obviously false. Anyone who's been living above rocks for the last decade can see that. That's where we derive the term "too big to fail".


Your example didn't disprove supply side economics, nor did it make a good argument for government stimulus. That's what I was showing. When businesses do that they fail and go out of business, which is what is supposed to happen.
I didn't make that example. You mentioned the Chinese ghost cities.


LOL, It's sunday night so it's cool if you don't want to reply.
I might do it tomorrow, but I've read through it, like, two or three times now, and it really looks like I'd have to address it sentence by sentence. That can't have been what you were going for.

[falc39]

So, in order to demonstrate that, you gave an example of supply not creating demand. :hammerhead:

You claimed demand makes a market. I explained why that was wrong. Demand means nothing without production and the ability to supply it. My example about China's cities was an argument against more govt stimulus. I'm differentiating between artificial growth and real growth through productivity. It's a lot to cram in one paragraph but they are related in a way.


Okay, now I'm starting to see your point. Your argument is, essentially, that government can make the same mistakes as the private sector, for example in unwarranted supply of a good or service (like building a city that no one wants). So, essentially, if I can parse through to your conclusion, it's better to let the private sector make those mistakes, because a) the ramifications aren't as sweeping, b) they aren't using other peoples's money. Have you ever heard of the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses"? The notions that private sector failures don't occur on massive scales, and that they don't involve other people's money are laughably, obviously false. Anyone who's been living above rocks for the last decade can see that. That's where we derive the term "too big to fail".

I don't want the government throwing dice and taking the business risks that the private sector does and I don't feel it's competent enough to do so either. Just so you know, I am not entirely against the government investing in infrastructure. Especially if people are willing to responsibly pay/fund it and see real economic benefit, especially on the local level. What I am against is the idea that you should stimulate for the heck of it to try and bring about the larger goal of economic recovery. There's a huge difference between the two.


I didn't make that example. You mentioned the Chinese ghost cities.

I was talking about your example of making a 100 bad widgets, which you cited as the fundamental reason for supply not making an economy or something like that. If you make 100 bad widgets or dig and refill a hole, it doesn't mean supply doesn't drive an economy, it just means you made a dumb decision. Saying demand makes a economy is like saying hunger is the reason why people don't starve and live on.


I might do it tomorrow, but I've read through it, like, two or three times now, and it really looks like I'd have to address it sentence by sentence. That can't have been what you were going for.

Honestly, I don't really expect much when I post here anymore... but kudos if you do. In general on this forum, if someone responds thoughtfully I will likewise try to do so (but I'll admit it's hard to do on weekdays). If I get one sentence responses... I rather not waste my time.

[KevinNYC]

20,000 votes, and not one for Romney?

Yes. As I said there were several precincts in Utah, Wyoming, Louisiana and Mississippi that had zero for Obama. These tended to be rural and than the smaller than the urban precincts that shut out Romney, but they also had something in common, incredibly non-diverse populations.

The ones that voted for Obama were known to be overwhelmingly Democratic and overwhelmingly black and the ones that voted for Romney tended to be overwhelmingly Republican and overwhelmingly white. Romney did 10 points better than McCain in Utah even though he lost the election. Is this suspicious? No. It's not a stretch to figure out why Utah would really back a Mormon candidate.

In 2004, Bush got shut out in a small number of these precincts and he
a. Won the election
b. Was a war-time president
C. Was running against a candidate who was successfully portrayed by his opponent as a rich, out-of-touch elitist. (And not without reason: as an educated white voter who at the time was working with one of his relatives, his lack of the populist touch often made me cringe. I can imagine how he came across to poor inner-city voters.)

So two elections later when the candidates were the history-making first black president who spoke to their issues and an even, more out of touch, even richer, elitist who spoke of them with contempt it really doesn't surprise me that the handful (literally just a couple of) of republican votes from previous elections would flip or those republicans might sit this election out? You're thinking statically wrong if you are starting with zero and you need to get to 20,000. If you look at previous elections, you are probably starting with something like 19,800 and you need to get to 20,000.

These are literally areas where voter registration records show like a dozen registered republicans. Secondly, you are cherry picking the numbers. The whole city of Philadelphia voting went for Obama 85 to 14. The elections in Philly are organized by wards. There are 66 wards with each ward then broken down into divisions. There are 1687 divisions. The 59 divisions we are talking about are in Wards, that are overwhelmingly Democratic to begin with.
In the entire 28th Ward, Romney received only 34 votes to Obama's 5,920. No wards turned up zero Romney votes, it was the divisions that did. So to get to the 20,000 number, you are cherry picking all the micro areas where Romney got zero votes. Given those numbers, you can now look at the data and see if you have any anomalies. If in the whole you only get 14% of the total voters, is it unusual that in 3.5% of the 1687 slices of whole, you get zero? If you run that on random number generator where 85% of numbers means Obama and 14% means Romney, I bet that you can often make 3.5% of the slices end up to zero for Romney.

The Philly paper actually tried to find one of these registered Repubilcans andf find out if they voted for Romney and they couldn't turn one up. (http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-13/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-voter-id-law/3)


Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the ward's third division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes.

Four of the registered Republicans no longer lived there; four others didn't answer their doors. City Board of Elections registration data say a registered Republican used to live at 25th and York Streets, but none of the neighbors across the street Friday knew him. Cathy Santos, 56, founder of the National Alliance of Women Veterans, had one theory: "We ran him out of town!" she said and laughed.

James Norris, 19, who lives down the street, is listed as a Republican in city data. But he said he's a Democrat and voted for Obama because he thinks the president will help the middle class.

A few blocks away, Eric Sapp, a 42-year-old chef, looked skeptical when told that city data had him listed as a registered Republican. "I got to check on that," said Sapp, who voted for Obama.

Eighteen Republicans reportedly live in the nearby 15th Division, according to city registration records. The 15th has the distinction of pitching two straight Republican shutouts - zero votes for McCain in 2008, zero for Romney on Tuesday. Oh, and 13 other city divisions did the same thing in 2008 and 2012.

Three of the 15th's registered Republicans were listed as living in the same apartment, but the tenant there said he had never heard of them. The addresses of several others could not be found.

On West Albert Street, Duke Dunston says he knows he's a registered Republican, but he's never voted for one.

Question for the Stat folks: Do you see any flaws in this reasoning?

[Scoooter]

You claimed demand makes a market. I explained why that was wrong. Demand means nothing without production and the ability to supply it. My example about China's cities was an argument against more govt stimulus.
See, here was the issue I had with it as a non sequitur. You jumped right from one to the other, and I had assumed you were going for the if/then. You can see how the idea of using a needlessly built city would be a poor way of arguing against the importance of demand.

I'm differentiating between artificial growth and real growth through productivity. It's a lot to cram in one paragraph but they are related in a way.
I think it's probably best to use more than one paragraph if among your goals is making sense.


I don't want the government throwing dice and taking the business risks that the private sector does and I don't feel it's competent enough to do so either.
I don't necessarily want JP Morgan doing it either. Repealing Glass-Steagal made some sense in the early 90's but I think Elizabeth Warren is on the right track (not that she'll get anything like that done) in seeking regulation that I think would actually be a boon for everyone involved.

Just so you know, I am not entirely against the government investing in infrastructure. Especially if people are willing to responsibly pay/fund it and see real economic benefit, especially on the local level. What I am against is the idea that you should stimulate for the heck of it to try and bring about the larger goal of economic recovery. There's a huge difference between the two.
Well, what would you define as "stimulating for the heck of it"? I don't really see money being thrown around frivolously, at least outside of what we spend on the military.


I was talking about your example of making a 100 bad widgets, which you cited as the fundamental reason for supply not making an economy or something like that. If you make 100 bad widgets or dig and refill a hole, it doesn't mean supply doesn't drive an economy, it just means you made a dumb decision. Saying demand makes a economy is like saying hunger is the reason why people don't starve and live on.
Right, so bad analogies aside, it's a truism that both supply and demand - and the means to facilitate the two - are needed for a functioning market. But "supply-side economics" generally refers to governmental policy - the same types of governmental policies that have been tried and that haven't worked, and worse, can be said to have negatively impacted the economy.


Honestly, I don't really expect much when I post here anymore... but kudos if you do. In general on this forum, if someone responds thoughtfully I will likewise try to do so (but I'll admit it's hard to do on weekdays). If I get one sentence responses... I rather not waste my time.
Well then I won't waste your time responding to your waste of time. :rockon:

[KevinNYC]

Another way to look this is there were about 656,000 total votes in Philadelphia.


Candidate Name Votes % of Total Votes
ROMNEY, MITT 91953 14.01 %
OBAMA, BARACK 559180 85.21 %
STEIN, JILL 2022 0.31 %
JOHNSON, GARY 2725 0.42 %
Write In 383 0.06 %


If all the divisions were the same size that means each division would have about 390 votes. If you arraigned the votes not randomly, if you had each division be as uniform as possible, you could have 1433 of them with no Romney votes. The actual election results had 59 with no Romney votes. This represents 4% of the theoretical optimal uniformity. That doesn't seem like a crazy result to me.

[raiderfan19]

There's nothing statistically out of whack with that. The thing to remember is that votes aren't a random thing. They are a result of conditions in a region and the people living in those regions are themselves there at least partially based on a choice by the people who live there. For that reason they aren't subject to true randomness but even if they were, random distribution still results in clusters

[Balla_Status]

A town full of black people =/= diverse.

hth

[Math2]

Yes. As I said there were several precincts in Utah, Wyoming, Louisiana and Mississippi that had zero for Obama. These tended to be rural and than the smaller than the urban precincts that shut out Romney, but they also had something in common, incredibly non-diverse populations.

The ones that voted for Obama were known to be overwhelmingly Democratic and overwhelmingly black and the ones that voted for Romney tended to be overwhelmingly Republican and overwhelmingly white. Romney did 10 points better than McCain in Utah even though he lost the election. Is this suspicious? No. It's not a stretch to figure out why Utah would really back a Mormon candidate.

In 2004, Bush got shut out in a small number of these precincts and he
a. Won the election
b. Was a war-time president
C. Was running against a candidate who was successfully portrayed by his opponent as a rich, out-of-touch elitist. (And not without reason: as an educated white voter who at the time was working with one of his relatives, his lack of the populist touch often made me cringe. I can imagine how he came across to poor inner-city voters.)

So two elections later when the candidates were the history-making first black president who spoke to their issues and an even, more out of touch, even richer, elitist who spoke of them with contempt it really doesn't surprise me that the handful (literally just a couple of) of republican votes from previous elections would flip or those republicans might sit this election out? You're thinking statically wrong if you are starting with zero and you need to get to 20,000. If you look at previous elections, you are probably starting with something like 19,800 and you need to get to 20,000.

These are literally areas where voter registration records show like a dozen registered republicans. Secondly, you are cherry picking the numbers. The whole city of Philadelphia voting went for Obama 85 to 14. The elections in Philly are organized by wards. There are 66 wards with each ward then broken down into divisions. There are 1687 divisions. The 59 divisions we are talking about are in Wards, that are overwhelmingly Democratic to begin with. No wards turned up zero Romney votes, it was the divisions that did. So to get to the 20,000 number, you are cherry picking all the micro areas where Romney got zero votes. Given those numbers, you can now look at the data and see if you have any anomalies. If in the whole you only get 14% of the total voters, is it unusual that in 3.5% of the 1687 slices of whole, you get zero? If you run that on random number generator where 85% of numbers means Obama and 14% means Romney, I bet that you can often make 3.5% of the slices end up to zero for Romney.

The Philly paper actually tried to find one of these registered Repubilcans andf find out if they voted for Romney and they couldn't turn one up. (http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-13/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-voter-id-law/3)



Question for the Stat folks: Do you see any flaws in this reasoning?

I may have misread or understood what I read.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-13/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-voter-id-law


That's still 20,000 to nothing.

[Math2]

Okay, now I'm starting to see your point. Your argument is, essentially, that government can make the same mistakes as the private sector, for example in unwarranted supply of a good or service (like building a city that no one wants). So, essentially, if I can parse through to your conclusion, it's better to let the private sector make those mistakes, because a) the ramifications aren't as sweeping, b) they aren't using other peoples's money. Have you ever heard of the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses"? The notions that private sector failures don't occur on massive scales, and that they don't involve other people's money are laughably, obviously false. Anyone who's been living above rocks for the last decade can see that. That's where we derive the term "too big to fail".


That may not be his point, but it's an important one. The government is not a buisness. Therefore, it should have no right to take your money ffrom you and invest it elsewhere. If it makes a mistake, you have no say in the matter whether they can continue wasting your money or not. Whereas with a company, you CHOSE to put your money there, therefore it's your responsibility to put it somewhere responsible. If they make stupid mistakes, it's your fault for investing with them.

[Scoooter]

That may not be his point, but it's an important one. The government is not a buisness. Therefore, it should have no right to take your money ffrom you and invest it elsewhere. If it makes a mistake, you have no say in the matter whether they can continue wasting your money or not. Whereas with a company, you CHOSE to put your money there, therefore it's your responsibility to put it somewhere responsible. If they make stupid mistakes, it's your fault for investing with them.
That's not true at all. You're not a prisoner here in the United States, you can leave (unless you actually are a prisoner, which we do have a lot of) and find a new country to live in. There are countries on this planet that hardly have functioning governments at all. I hear the dollar goes a long way in Somalia, for instance.

Or, more practically, you have a vote. If you don't like the way things are being done, vote in new doers. It's not perfect, and you may not get exactly what you want, but the idea that you have no say in the workings of our government is wrong.

Now, obviously, the extent to which an individual citizen actually matters in motivating politicians is debatable, and certainly comprehensive campaign finance reform is a worthwhile goal. And again, that issue still casts the people versus larger corporations, as that's the source of the campaign finance the serves to drown out the voice of the people with stacks of cash.

Furthermore, the idea that private business is any less corrosive and domineering than government is absurd. In many ways they're even more insidious.

And it should be noted that I trend more towards libertarianism (at the least on social issues) and limited government and personal autonomy and free-market capitalism and even elements of anarcho-capitalism...at least when I'm projecting to the future. 20-40 years from now when most of the most dramatic social upheavals should be well underway. But none of that is too relevant right now, and as it stands the right and the far right are increasingly running out of legs to stand on.

[Math2]

That's not true at all. You're not a prisoner here in the United States, you can leave (unless you actually are a prisoner, which we do have a lot of) and find a new country to live in. There are countries on this planet that hardly have functioning governments at all. I hear the dollar goes a long way in Somalia, for instance.

Or, more practically, you have a vote. If you don't like the way things are being done, vote in new doers. It's not perfect, and you may not get exactly what you want, but the idea that you have no say in the workings of our government is wrong.

Now, obviously, the extent to which an individual citizen actually matters in motivating politicians is debatable, and certainly comprehensive campaign finance reform is a worthwhile goal. And again, that issue still casts the people versus larger corporations, as that's the source of the campaign finance the serves to drown out the voice of the people with stacks of cash.

Furthermore, the idea that private business is any less corrosive and domineering than government is absurd. In many ways they're even more insidious.

And it should be noted that I trend more towards libertarianism (at the least on social issues) and limited government and personal autonomy and free-market capitalism and even elements of anarcho-capitalism...at least when I'm projecting to the future. 20-40 years from now when most of the most dramatic social upheavals should be well underway. But none of that is too relevant right now, and as it stands the right and the far right are increasingly running out of legs to stand on.

Just because you can move out of the country, or vote doesn't stop you from not having a choice whether to invest your money with the government or not.

What's your reasoning for big government now, but capitalism later?

[MMM]

Just because you can move out of the country, or vote doesn't stop you from not having a choice whether to invest your money with the government or not.

What's your reasoning for big government now, but capitalism later?

Republicans have been for big government as well, there really isn't a party that believes in less government intervention.

[Sarcastic]

Just because you can move out of the country, or vote doesn't stop you from not having a choice whether to invest your money with the government or not.

What's your reasoning for big government now, but capitalism later?


Who says we don't have capitalism now? Companies are free to put out any product on the market that they want, as long as their is no risk to the public.

[Math2]

Republicans have been for big government as well, there really isn't a party that believes in less government intervention.

That is true. The Republicans are evolving into the Democrats-Lite, just with taxes being their issue rather than entitlements. For me, it's the lesser of two evils.

[Math2]

Who says we don't have capitalism now? Companies are free to put out any product on the market that they want, as long as their is no risk to the public.

Big government isn't real capitalism. We're moving farther and farther left on the economic spectrum.

[Scoooter]

Just because you can move out of the country, or vote doesn't stop you from not having a choice whether to invest your money with the government or not.
What? If you leave the country, presumably you'd stop paying taxes in that country. Ergo, you're no longer "investing" your money in that country. As far as I'm aware, the Swedish government isn't getting any of my money.


What's your reasoning for big government now, but capitalism later?
On what issue? You realize we currently have both, don't you?

[Math2]

What? If you leave the country, presumably you'd stop paying taxes in that country. Ergo, you're no longer "investing" your money in that country. As far as I'm aware, the Swedish government isn't getting any of my money.


On what issue? You realize we currently have both, don't you?

Sorry, that was bad phrasing. What I meant was that if you leave a country, you've already been paying for them to spend your money on whatever investments you made, and you can't get it back. Why should you have to pay into a system that you don't want to?

I realize that they have both, again, that was bad phrasing on my part. I was trying to say, why do you want big government now, but purer capitalism later?

[Scoooter]

Sorry, that was bad phrasing. What I meant was that if you leave a country, you've already been paying for them to spend your money on whatever investments you made, and you can't get it back. Why should you have to pay into a system that you don't want to?
If I have an account with Edward Jones and they lose 80% of my money before I take my business elsewhere, I don't get that back either. And if I decide to stick with them, I don't get the chance to vote the CEO out after four years.


I realize that they have both, again, that was bad phrasing on my part. I was trying to say, why do you want big government now, but purer capitalism later?
I want a hybrid of what we've been successfully doing for the past 100 years, which is a combination of the two. But I also want it run more efficiently, and, where applicable, more cheaply. And sometimes that means spending more money in the near term. I like free market capitalism, and I also like safety nets to keep people happy and productive and free.

Your question here is really just to vague and broad and bordering on a straw-man.

[KevinNYC]

I may have misread or understood what I read.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-13/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-voter-id-law


That's still 20,000 to nothing.

I may have misread or understood what I read.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-13/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-voter-id-law


That's still 20,000 to nothing.

No. I think you read it correctly. There's been a ton written on this, mostly by folks who jumped to a predetermined conclusion.

Again it's 20,000 to nothing by cherry picking the slices of the larger pie where almost 8 out of ever 9 votes was against Romney.