goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 24, 2012, 10:21:19 AM
-
Warren Buffett's secretary will join the First Lady in her box at tonight's speech (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/buffetts-secretary-to-join-obama-112046.html). Expect lots demagoguery over the rich "paying their fair share."
Flashback: Obama says he "would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE) even though increasing the capital gains rate would likely decrease government revenue.
Shameless, pandering, socialist...
Oh, and funny coincidence, but today marks the 1,000th day since the Democratic Senate last passed a full budget. I wonder if Obama will mention that tonight?
-
One more thing to keep in mind tonight. When Obama says, as he almost certianly will, that we need to reform our tax code so that the rich don't pay less than the middle class, please remember that 97% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate of 11.9% or less. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/24/beware-false-claims-romneys-tax-rate-below-most-wage-earning-american#ixzz1kO4fBBJz)
-
Are you saying you think taxes are too low?
-
One more thing to keep in mind tonight. When Obama says, as he almost certianly will, that we need to reform our tax code so that the rich don't pay less than the middle class, please remember that 97% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate of 11.9% or less. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/24/beware-false-claims-romneys-tax-rate-below-most-wage-earning-american#ixzz1kO4fBBJz)
I pay way more than this :curse:
-
One more thing to keep in mind tonight. When Obama says, as he almost certianly will, that we need to reform our tax code so that the rich don't pay less than the middle class, please remember that 97% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate of 11.9% or less. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/24/beware-false-claims-romneys-tax-rate-below-most-wage-earning-american#ixzz1kO4fBBJz)
I pay way more than this :curse:
Me too. I think I paid an effective federal rate of something like 18% last year. Wish I could live on capital gains instead of a salary. Someday though...
-
One more thing to keep in mind tonight. When Obama says, as he almost certianly will, that we need to reform our tax code so that the rich don't pay less than the middle class, please remember that 97% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate of 11.9% or less. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/24/beware-false-claims-romneys-tax-rate-below-most-wage-earning-american#ixzz1kO4fBBJz)
I pay way more than this :curse:
Me too. I think I paid an effective federal rate of something like 18% last year. Wish I could live on capital gains instead of a salary. Someday though...
You guys need a jumbo mortgage.
-
One more thing to keep in mind tonight. When Obama says, as he almost certianly will, that we need to reform our tax code so that the rich don't pay less than the middle class, please remember that 97% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate of 11.9% or less. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/24/beware-false-claims-romneys-tax-rate-below-most-wage-earning-american#ixzz1kO4fBBJz)
I pay way more than this :curse:
Me too. I think I paid an effective federal rate of something like 18% last year. Wish I could live on capital gains instead of a salary. Someday though...
You guys need a jumbo mortgage.
Please, tell me more.
-
One more thing to keep in mind tonight. When Obama says, as he almost certianly will, that we need to reform our tax code so that the rich don't pay less than the middle class, please remember that 97% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate of 11.9% or less. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/24/beware-false-claims-romneys-tax-rate-below-most-wage-earning-american#ixzz1kO4fBBJz)
I pay way more than this :curse:
Me too. I think I paid an effective federal rate of something like 18% last year. Wish I could live on capital gains instead of a salary. Someday though...
You guys need a jumbo mortgage.
Please, tell me more.
$50,000 in mortgage interest and property tax deductions!
-
The President has lost the way he never had. Meanwhile the country and its citizens become more and more divided. How much further can the general discourse degrade? This is what happens when adolescents are given power.
:flush:
-
A Debt Built to Last!
-
Glad he could recycle his inauguration speech. It's like the last three years never happened.
-
Seriously, eff this guy.
All party affiliations aside, how can anyone support this assclown of a leader?
-
Seriously, eff this guy.
All party affiliations aside, how can anyone support this assclown of a leader?
Have you seen who he is up against?
-
All party affiliations aside
Stop being disingenuous, you're not running for office. No one cares that you are a republican that doesn't like Obama. With party affiliation in mind I can't stand any of the remaining Republican candidates for president.
-
Seriously, eff this guy.
All party affiliations aside, how can anyone support this assclown of a leader?
Have you seen who he is up against?
I would rather vote an actual clown into office over this failed president. At least the clown is upfront.
-
Loved the, "bring me a bill that bans insider trading for members of congress and I will sign in into law tomorrow" gag.
What I really mean, "bring me a bill that looks like it bans insider trading from congress members, but also gives money to duck farmers in ohio to get more ducks, and to union members in nebraska to have better healthcare, and money to build a bridge in a town in Missouri that doesn't need bridges, and ......................................... :flush: shazbot! all of these guys. :curse:
I actually wonder what would happen if some dude proposed a bill that only said that members of congress can't trade on inside info. Seems pretty straightforward, but that duck farmer would probably be pissed so it can't happen.
-
Oh, and what I really really meant was, don't send me anything so I don't have to sign anything until November. Thanks.
-
Loved the, "bring me a bill that bans insider trading for members of congress and I will sign in into law tomorrow" gag.
What I really mean, "bring me a bill that looks like it bans insider trading from congress members, but also gives money to duck farmers in ohio to get more ducks, and to union members in nebraska to have better healthcare, and money to build a bridge in a town in Missouri that doesn't need bridges, and ......................................... :flush: shazbot! all of these guys. :curse:
I actually wonder what would happen if some dude proposed a bill that only said that members of congress can't trade on inside info. Seems pretty straightforward, but that duck farmer would probably be pissed so it can't happen.
Yes, they really need to pass a bill that forces other bills to be focused on a single issue. Of course this bill would also have about 10 other worthless projects tied to it, but it would be worth it.
-
Seriously, eff this guy.
All party affiliations aside, how can anyone support this assclown of a leader?
Have you seen who he is up against?
I would rather vote an actual clown into office over this failed president. At least the clown is upfront.
The only republican candidates that I would consider upfront are Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Santorum is homophobic and Islamophobic. We all know that Ron Paul will not be getting the nomination. Both Newt and Romney are slime balls. It's not hard at all to see why somebody might end up voting for Obama. The economy is important, but it's not everything.
-
Seriously, eff this guy.
All party affiliations aside, how can anyone support this assclown of a leader?
Have you seen who he is up against?
I would rather vote an actual clown into office over this failed president. At least the clown is upfront.
The only republican candidates that I would consider upfront are Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Santorum is homophobic and Islamophobic. We all know that Ron Paul will not be getting the nomination. Both Newt and Romney are slime balls. It's not hard at all to see why somebody might end up voting for Obama. The economy is important, but it's not everything.
Respectfully, the economy and our debt are indeed almost "everything" in 2012. We are adding something like $5 billion to our national debt per day. Per rough ridin' day. Any of the GOP candidates would be far better than Obama at stimulating our economy by reducing our deficit, reducing regulation, and reforming our tax code and entitlements.
Why would a Republican president be better than Obama? Three reasons: (1) he will be at least moderately conservative, (2) if he wins, it will be on a conservative mandate to do all of the above things, and (3) one party will have the necessary control of the executive and both houses of legislature to actually get these things accomplished. The Democrats certainly accomplished things in Obama's first 2 years. Ironically, they used their power to ram through a new entitlement program and a massive "stimulus" spending package, both of which took us in exactly the opposite direction fiscally of where we need to go.
What is the vision for another 4 more years of Obama? 4 more years of gridlock? 4 more years of the status quo? That is unacceptable.
And as for the "slime ball" comment, I find it interesting that you still apparently support Obama, who is as corrupt as the day is long. It seems like nearly every decision he makes is designed to reward one donor or another. Solyndra, Light Squared, Obamacare, the Stimulus, etc.
-
Seriously, eff this guy.
All party affiliations aside, how can anyone support this assclown of a leader?
Have you seen who he is up against?
I would rather vote an actual clown into office over this failed president. At least the clown is upfront.
The only republican candidates that I would consider upfront are Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Santorum is homophobic and Islamophobic. We all know that Ron Paul will not be getting the nomination. Both Newt and Romney are slime balls. It's not hard at all to see why somebody might end up voting for Obama. The economy is important, but it's not everything.
Respectfully, the economy and our debt are indeed almost "everything" in 2012. We are adding something like $5 billion to our national debt per day. Per rough ridin' day. Any of the GOP candidates would be far better than Obama at stimulating our economy by reducing our deficit, reducing regulation, and reforming our tax code and entitlements.
Why would a Republican president be better than Obama? Three reasons: (1) he will be at least moderately conservative, (2) if he wins, it will be on a conservative mandate to do all of the above things, and (3) one party will have the necessary control of the executive and both houses of legislature to actually get these things accomplished. The Democrats certainly accomplished things in Obama's first 2 years. Ironically, they used their power to ram through a new entitlement program and a massive "stimulus" spending package, both of which took us in exactly the opposite direction fiscally of where we need to go.
What is the vision for another 4 more years of Obama? 4 more years of gridlock? 4 more years of the status quo? That is unacceptable.
And as for the "slime ball" comment, I find it interesting that you still apparently support Obama, who is as corrupt as the day is long. It seems like nearly every decision he makes is designed to reward one donor or another. Solyndra, Light Squared, Obamacare, the Stimulus, etc.
Over the last 70 years, Obama is the only democratic president to increase deficit spending. Every republican president in that time frame has increased deficit spending. You are really playing against the odds if you think electing a republican will lead to reduced deficit spending. Granted, Obama is a poor president as well.
-
Seriously, eff this guy.
All party affiliations aside, how can anyone support this assclown of a leader?
Have you seen who he is up against?
I would rather vote an actual clown into office over this failed president. At least the clown is upfront.
The only republican candidates that I would consider upfront are Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Santorum is homophobic and Islamophobic. We all know that Ron Paul will not be getting the nomination. Both Newt and Romney are slime balls. It's not hard at all to see why somebody might end up voting for Obama. The economy is important, but it's not everything.
Respectfully, the economy and our debt are indeed almost "everything" in 2012. We are adding something like $5 billion to our national debt per day. Per rough ridin' day. Any of the GOP candidates would be far better than Obama at stimulating our economy by reducing our deficit, reducing regulation, and reforming our tax code and entitlements.
Why would a Republican president be better than Obama? Three reasons: (1) he will be at least moderately conservative, (2) if he wins, it will be on a conservative mandate to do all of the above things, and (3) one party will have the necessary control of the executive and both houses of legislature to actually get these things accomplished. The Democrats certainly accomplished things in Obama's first 2 years. Ironically, they used their power to ram through a new entitlement program and a massive "stimulus" spending package, both of which took us in exactly the opposite direction fiscally of where we need to go.
What is the vision for another 4 more years of Obama? 4 more years of gridlock? 4 more years of the status quo? That is unacceptable.
And as for the "slime ball" comment, I find it interesting that you still apparently support Obama, who is as corrupt as the day is long. It seems like nearly every decision he makes is designed to reward one donor or another. Solyndra, Light Squared, Obamacare, the Stimulus, etc.
Over the last 70 years, Obama is the only democratic president to increase deficit spending. Every republican president in that time frame has increased deficit spending. You are really playing against the odds if you think electing a republican will lead to reduced deficit spending. Granted, Obama is a poor president as well.
Irrelevant. First, times have changed. See post above. Second, while the executive can influence spending, this is more a function of legislature. The key is to get fiscal conservatives working together in both the executive and legislature to address this crisis.
-
One more thing to keep in mind tonight. When Obama says, as he almost certianly will, that we need to reform our tax code so that the rich don't pay less than the middle class, please remember that 97% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate of 11.9% or less. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/24/beware-false-claims-romneys-tax-rate-below-most-wage-earning-american#ixzz1kO4fBBJz)
Are you sure that's correct? I read on someone's facebook status that Kim Kardashian paid $41K on $12 million income.
-
One more thing to keep in mind tonight. When Obama says, as he almost certianly will, that we need to reform our tax code so that the rich don't pay less than the middle class, please remember that 97% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate of 11.9% or less. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/24/beware-false-claims-romneys-tax-rate-below-most-wage-earning-american#ixzz1kO4fBBJz)
Are you sure that's correct? I read on someone's facebook status that Kim Kardashian paid $41K on $12 million income.
Give this a read (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-truth-about-kim-kardashians-taxes-2012-01-06?pagenumber=2). I think it addresses your question, maybe. I don't know anything about Kim Kardashian's taxes.
Even super rich guys like Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney who get all their income from capital gains generally at least pay somewhere near the cap gains rate of 15% on their income. Romney's effective rate, for example, was about 14% the past two years. He also gave a big chunk to charity.
It may seem unfair that someone like Romney only pays around 15%, while someone like me, who earns a good income but gets it through wages, pays more like 18%, but I don't resent a lower tax on cap gains for three reasons. First, it encourages investment. Second, it comports with the risk/reward of investing. Third, someday I plan to be the guy who derives his primary income from investment.
-
Seriously, eff this guy.
All party affiliations aside, how can anyone support this assclown of a leader?
Have you seen who he is up against?
QFT.....this year's crop of Republicans is not a whole lot more appealing than McCain/Palin. And that was an absulute rough ridin' joke.
-
The economy isn't everything? It really is. It really is everything.
-
The economy isn't everything? It really is. It really is everything.
No, it's really not.
-
Idiot.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
Obama from last night:
And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow.
We have elected a monarch.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
I'm sure we'd have had a similar economic situation if McCain had been elected in 2008. No, wait, it might still be shitty but I'm sure he'd not have been gung ho for throwing money into a pit and hoping all went well.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
I'm sure we'd have had a similar economic situation if McCain had been elected in 2008. No, wait, it might still be shitty but I'm sure he'd not have been gung ho for throwing money into a pit and hoping all went well.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1110r.asp (http://www.fff.org/comment/com1110r.asp)
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.
It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.
I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.
It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.
I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.
Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.
It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.
I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.
Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.
Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.
It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.
I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.
Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.
Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.
You don't just need a majority, but a filibuster-proof majority. It's completely ridiculous, considering how similar the two parties really are.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.
It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.
I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.
Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.
Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.
You don't just need a majority, but a filibuster-proof majority. It's completely ridiculous, considering how similar the two parties really are.
Taxes are always the sticking point these days.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.
It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.
I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.
Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.
Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.
You don't just need a majority, but a filibuster-proof majority. It's completely ridiculous, considering how similar the two parties really are.
Taxes are always the sticking point these days.
Yes, one party wants to spend more and tax more to offset the spending. The other wants to spend more and just hope revenues increase due to an improved economy.
-
The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.
If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.
It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.
I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.
Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.
Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.
You don't just need a majority, but a filibuster-proof majority. It's completely ridiculous, considering how similar the two parties really are.
Taxes are always the sticking point these days.
Yes, one party wants to spend more and tax more to offset the spending. The other wants to spend more and just hope revenues increase due to an improved economy.
We are way beyond the point that simply increasing taxes will have much affect on the deficit. It has to be huge budget cuts first, then you might get some support from the people. Right now, government is just a black hole sucking up everything in sight. No sane person wants to throw THEIR money down that hole.