Obama: I'm President; Where is My Cool Phone?

[bardia]

I'm surprise otherwise articulate people seriously believe that higher taxes = economic growth.

Obviously there are a lot of factors in economic growth that has nothing to do with taxes. But to claim that high tax rates don't slow economic growth is pretty much equivalent to being a flat earther.

 

[memadmax]

[citation][nom]bardia[/nom]I'm surprise otherwise articulate people seriously believe that higher taxes = economic growth.Obviously there are a lot of factors in economic growth that has nothing to do with taxes. But to claim that high tax rates don't slow economic growth is pretty much equivalent to being a flat earther.[/citation]

I couldn't have said it better. But there is a class warfare going on, and a belief from the left that 311,000 rich people out of a population 311 million are going to somehow save the country, which doesn't make sense.... even if you tax them at 100% you get a years worth of money to run the government.... but what then?

And that's the real crux of the lefts solution, the left has no answer for "what then".... I know what will happen: The rich go bye bye, the government spends the money, and we are back to square one, then they tax the "new" rich which is the middle class, and all hell breaks loose....

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]bardia[/nom]I'm surprise otherwise articulate people seriously believe that higher taxes = economic growth.Obviously there are a lot of factors in economic growth that has nothing to do with taxes. But to claim that high tax rates don't slow economic growth is pretty much equivalent to being a flat earther.[/citation]

A growing economy isn't everything: economic growth doesn't say how the wealth is divided. Would you really prefer 5% economic growth with large corporations make 10% profit but incomes for the common people going down 5% (like a third world country), over 3% economic growth with the large corporations making 3% profits and the incomes of the common people rising by 3%?

 

[christop]

The birth certificate thing is soooo old . You really think the other guy would have been better. People were all like Obama Change and all this but don't consider he has to fix what the Bush admin did for years.

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]I couldn't have said it better. But there is a class warfare going on, and a belief from the left that 311,000 rich people out of a population 311 million are going to somehow save the country, which doesn't make sense.... even if you tax them at 100% you get a years worth of money to run the government.... but what then?And that's the real crux of the lefts solution, the left has no answer for "what then".... I know what will happen: The rich go bye bye, the government spends the money, and we are back to square one, then they tax the "new" rich which is the middle class, and all hell breaks loose....[/citation]

Actually, it kinda does work that way: 1% of the American population ownes 38% of the wealth. A segment of 50% of the population that roughly corresponds to the middle class ownes only 13% of the wealth.

 

[memadmax]

[citation][nom]Gulli[/nom]Actually, it kinda does work that way: 1% of the American population ownes 38% of the wealth. A segment of 50% of the population that roughly corresponds to the middle class ownes only 13% of the wealth.[/citation]

Yea, so.....

WHO THE F CARES HOW MUCH WEALTH THEY HAVE?

The left's solution to the problem is to take all that money without curbing spending....

SO WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU TAKE THEIR MONEY???

HUH? HUH? HUH?

 

[datawrecker]

Give the man a cool phone. Security is not an issue with the President of the United States. The shenanigans that took place under George W. show that the POTUS is nothing more than a figure head with no power what so ever.

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Yea, so..... WHO THE F CARES HOW MUCH WEALTH THEY HAVE?The left's solution to the problem is to take all that money without curbing spending.... SO WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU TAKE THEIR MONEY???HUH? HUH? HUH?[/citation]

Well, it's pretty simple: if the rich don't want anyone to touch their money they can go create a small state of their own and go live there without any "lower" class people there to "leech" off their money. Of course they'd also have no one to defend their borders and property, enforce their laws, teach their children, cure their illnesses, fix their broken stuff, clean their houses, build their roads, put out their burning houses, grow their food, warn them for earthquakes and tornadoes or invent new technology for them, but I'm sure they'd be just fine. The point I'm trying to make is everyone is dependent on someone else for something so each society has a contract between the classes: one group works for the other, generating wealth for them. The other group in turn makes it worth their while by giving something back in the form of salaries and taxes to fund social programs when the salaries are not enough to pay for essential things like healthcare and education. Both groups pay taxes for services they share, like the protection of the military and the justice system. So the rich don't really have a choice: if the majority who work for them think they're getting ripped off then something has to give, to prevent rioting, or worse.

 

[Sabiancym]

How come every article about Obama get's turned in to a flame war by some lunatic right wingers? I've never seen a more liberal poster bring up politics, only conservatives.

You lost. Get over it.

 

[Gulli]

Earlier I pointed out that it's a mathematical impossibility for the federal income to increase spending through trickle down policy. I'd also like to point out the human cost of this, through an example given by Obama. During his speech on cutting the deficit he said it would be inexcusable to maintain tax breaks for the rich while slashing medicare. He pointed out that this would give him a tax break he didn't need while 200 senior citizens would each have to pay $6000 more in healthcare costs. So if that senior citizen gets a job because of the tax cuts he won't really know the difference because since he'll most likely get some low-paying menial job he won't have much left after that $6000 gets deducted. This is why it's stupid to focus on creating jobs alone, even if tax breaks were reliable job creators.

 

[jednx01]

[citation][nom]ct1615[/nom]obama didn't hear? we passed a law stating you need a USA birth certificate to get a new phone....one more year with this clown....one more year.....[/citation]
Seriously? He has a valid birth certificate. Besides, presidents have a high rate of being reelected. We could very easily have him as president for 5 more years... I may not agree with president Obama on all of his choices, but I don't see a lot of great candidates running against him. If Donal Trump becomes the next president, I'm moving to Canada. lol

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]ct1615[/nom]obama didn't hear? we passed a law stating you need a USA birth certificate to get a new phone....one more year with this clown....one more year.....[/citation]
He was born in Hawaii you idiot....that means he has a US birth certificate.

 

[Gulli]

In my last post I meant "Earlier I pointed out that it's a mathematical impossibility for the federal income to increase through trickle down policy."

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]Anomalyx[/nom]I will never cease to be amazed at the gross misunderstanding that people have. People blame Bush for the crap congress pulled while he was in office, and now that congress is starting to get better (still corrupt as heck, and still spending MORE despite lying about "cuts", but a step in the right direction) people are crediting Obama... he has done NOTHING. Not just nothing good, but nothing at all! For all we know, he's just sitting in the oval office playing Angry Birds all day.[/citation]

So congress pushed us into 2 extremely costly wars? What are you talking about? I didn't hear anyone else stand up saying they tried to kill my father other than GW Bush and the rest of the Neo-Conservatives, go read project for a new american century and the papers written by wolfowitz, Rumsfedl, and chaney, some 20 years earlier, when the plan has always been to try through force to dominate the middle east.

Also, the unfunded tax cuts, were in 2004 and 2006, something pushed for by Bush with a republican congress, also, adding to massive debt. 2004 was understandable with economy reeling from 2001 still. If you are going to make a statement defend it, what has passed since 2010 that was an initiative by "Republican HOuse"? That so magically improved anything? Remember the GOP has only had the house for 3 months so I don't know what you are talking about the dems had it from '06 - '10, this is basically what you were alluding that somehow some new initiatvies have been pushed. The GOP has spent the last 2 years trying to basically ensure Obama couldn't do anything, in order, to hope his presidency failed, and he still kick*d a** and took numbers.

The direction of the country under Bush was a direct policy of his agenda, from ultra friendly laissez-faire capitalism, to pre-emptive war,and ultra tax cuts for the rich, how were these congresses agenda?????? All of which hurl you towards debt and wall street running a muck, although the problem was probably 2 decades in the making.

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]dallaswits[/nom]I just hope that neither party even locks down the presidency and the white house at the same time again... We need the multi party system working like it is right now.. Where compromise and reasonable thought prevail.[/citation]

I fail to see how the GOP has compromised once yet? Either when the dems controlled both houses, or when the dems controlled the senate as now? Pease, name me one issue the GOP compromised on?

 

[maestintaolius]

[citation][nom]Sabiancym[/nom]How come every article about Obama get's turned in to a flame war by some lunatic right wingers? I've never seen a more liberal poster bring up politics, only conservatives.You lost. Get over it.[/citation]
Eh, plenty of left wingers foamed at the mouth for at any Bush mention too. Honestly, for me the problem is the "True Believers" on both sides that never admit to any of the faults of their own ideology. If you think all the country's problems are going to be solved by cutting spending and lowering taxes, you're just as ignorant as the folks who think the only solution is to raise taxes and increase spending. There's so much data, 'facts' and 'theory' out there that you can make a case for either side depending on how you choose to manipulate it.

All I know is that I miss the days of Clinton, the economy grew like gangbusters, the world was 'mostly' peaceful and where our seemingly biggest problem was where the Prez was putting his ding-a-ling and some shady real-estate dealings. I certainly didn't agree with all his policies, but I certainly know I was a lot happier back then.

My honest assessment of the situation is American's are destroying their own country. We continue to buy cheaply made Chinese/Indian/Mexican goods because we're basically taking advantage of slave labor at the expense of cutting US labor; we keep saying we have the best workers, minds and nation on the planet, we just don't want to pay for them. Furthermore, our idea nowadays of political compromise is essentially 'making the other guy give me 100% of what I want and 0% of what he wants'. Finally, there's the whole thing of us refusing to pay for our own wars, for some reason it seems perfectly OK to put that on the charge card... I mean, its only fair we make the young soldiers who are currently fighting it pay for it later too, right? They do get the privilege of getting to blow stuff up and that's pretty cool so that should make it just about even, in fact, I think it puts us civies ahead, so lets go and cut those VA benefits too; besides, the whole reason we have two arms is for a 50% margin for error.

 

[Guest]

I shake my head in shame at the fact that any American still comes to defend this joke of a president.

Allen West is everything Obama should have been and will never come remotely close to being.

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]1. Where are these tax cuts? If I remember correctly, which I do, he promised no tax increases on people earning under 250K a year, and one of the first things he did was to raise taxes on cigarettes, which affects more poor people than rich.2. What? He acknowledges things the public are concerned about? What about why Google stole data from wifi? Has he acknowledged that? He is smart? What???? Ha. you think Bush burned too many brain cells snorting coke, you do know Obama was a legit cokehead, right?3. Popular opinion is that he is LESS transparent than most regimes.4. Private industry can NEVER compete against a government over price when the government can print money or run in the red for any amount of time. Government doesn't need to make a profit.5. Makes no sense, and even then he has no intention of reducing the deficit. All smoke and mirrors.Stop drinking the coolaide and open your eyes to the lies.[/citation]

Prove it. STop talking in riddle and give concrete examples. Part of Obama's reduction plan was to let the unfunded bush era tax cuts expire for the top 2% of income earners, basically, millionaires, that in itself would cut $700 billion from deficit over 10 years, the vast majority of the nation 98% of it, the people who actually feel it when taxes go up and down, because, for them it's the difference between buying formula for the baby and say a family trip. The Republicans said no, instead, they want the richest people to be well millionaires as they are with or without the tax cuts. And they said basically either they get it or nobody get's anything including the middle class, that we won't do a deal, and we let it expire for everyone. So, they got their $700 billion dollar tax break to the wealthy, but then want to go after the center for endownment of arts which get's what $7 million from the government???? And you are going to tell me who's policies are more inlined with common sense debt reduction??? Let's get real here, go through history, and find out who reduced the debt. It ain't the GOP You keep on talking about Obama as though we are guessing , he's had 2 1/2 years, and guess what he's done a good job, hate to break it to you, the conomy is moving, people are getting back to work, things are looking up, so please tell me specifics, talk specific policy, because we can talk about policy now, that you take issue, otherwise

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]ct1615[/nom]obama didn't hear? we passed a law stating you need a USA birth certificate to get a new phone....one more year with this clown....one more year.....[/citation]

I don't really like or hate the guy but i know tons of people who use to say that about the last moron.. and he totally destroyed the country in every way possible and he went for two terms. So unless he literally blows up the sun there is always a chance.

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom] the reason he is so hush-hush about his birth certificate is because his religion is likely listed as Muslim.Anyway, Allen West 2012![/citation]

I'm hoping not something you would hold against someone.

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]Oigh, and I forgot to mention the insane amount of class warfare he has implemented. He does not believe in everyone improving their life, but rather sharing the pain/sacrifice of being poor. Listen to his speeches:- Rich evil- Poor taken advantage of- Everyone should be miserable.[/citation]

Nice idiot way of looking at it.

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]I couldn't have said it better. But there is a class warfare going on, and a belief from the left that 311,000 rich people out of a population 311 million are going to somehow save the country, which doesn't make sense.... even if you tax them at 100% you get a years worth of money to run the government.... but what then?And that's the real crux of the lefts solution, the left has no answer for "what then".... I know what will happen: The rich go bye bye, the government spends the money, and we are back to square one, then they tax the "new" rich which is the middle class, and all hell breaks loose....[/citation]

No one is saying higher taxes, people are saying the tax cut for the rich is unneccessary and continues to fuel the deficit just as it did in 2004 and 2006, why do you think they didn't simply repeal the tax rate all together and make the top bracket permenatnly 36%? The tax cuts were meant to expire in 2010, even under GW Bush's plan, that was the plan. The point is that unfunded tax cuts add huge debt, and they did, almost $1 trillion. HOw are you going to complain about debt and then extend tax cuts which add that kind of debt, are u going to find $1 trillion in the budget to counter act it? Obama said let them expire for the top 2% and everyone else 98% of you, and I'm sure none of you in this forum are in those top 2% would still keep the tax cut for another 2 years atleast, and it would only cost $200 billion. Which do you think is more sensible? How is this class warfare, you are trying to sure up debt, but you are proposing we should continue to give already rich people who will be rich with or without the expiration of htose tax breaks. Furthermore, it has already been shown, that giving cuts to the rich does stimulate the economy, so it made sense expire them as they were supposed to do for the top 2% , keep it in place for 98% of the people who have to spend and need disposable income that means you and I, and at the same time, you will start suring up the debt and budget shortfalls with the extra income. The point you guys don't realize is that the tax cuts were never meant to be permenant and they were never funded, meaning they were never factored in as part of the long term budget, hence you are just adding more debt. And that was a great compromise and solution, but nay, you have guys like you fighting to make sure that Dick Cheney has what an extra $5 million in his pocket, to add to his $3 billion??? How ignorant can you possibly be?

This has nothing to do with class warfare, I mean how much more can a person with $1 billion prosper, I mean, let me know? You think that 3% means diddly to his bank account.