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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

balister

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
74
0
18,580
[citation][nom]eatmeimadanish[/nom]Majority in Congress: Stock MarketDemocrats 1971-1981 (10years) Dow: 822 – 972 (growth 18%)Republicans 1981-1987 (6 years) Dow: 972 – 1930 (growth 98%) Democrats 1987-1995 (8 years) Dow: 1930 – 3834 (growth 102%)Republican 1995-2001 (6 years) Dow: 3834 – 10662 (growth 169.3%)Democrats 2001-2003 (2 years) Dow: 10662 – 8600 (loss 16.54%)Republicans 2003-2007 (4 years) Dow: 8600 – 12400 (growth 41.13%)Democrats 2007-2009 (2 years) Dow: 12400 – 8579.19 (low of 6626) (loss 30.49%)Republicans/Democrats 20010-present Dow: 8579.19 - 12482 (growth of 32%)Analysis: Every time there was a republican lead congress there was a spike in economic growth, often in a shorter period of time. In the last 8 years every time democrats took power we suffered massive losses. How about those FACTS.[/citation]


You should check your own facts.

81 to 87 - Democrats completely overwhelmed Republicans in the House typically without almost 100 more Democrats than Republicans during this time period where as the Senate showed a maximum swing of 10 (435 HoR to 100 Senators means that, as a percentage, Democrats had more control in Congress).

You also, conviently forget to mention, that in the 2003 to 2007 time frame, the DowJones capped out over 14,000, so the loss was already starting during the 2003 to 2007 time frame with Republicans in control, likewise, the Democrats weren't going to turn around policy quick enough to stop the slide in the 2007 to 2009 time frame.

If you're going to spout facts, make sure you have them correct before doing so.
 

figgus

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2010
233
0
18,830
[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]with the mods for Kinect, soon the Presidents could be able to have the Minority Report interface. haha[/citation]

Dayumn... Was that a (terrible) racist joke, or just an unfortunate double meaning?
 

fball922

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2008
46
0
18,580
[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]1. My taxes have gone down and unless you make over $250,000 a year yours went down too but I'm sure you didn't give him credit for that.
2. This man uses technology and acknowledges the public on topics america is concerned about. He has even commented on this birth certificate controversy. Also, he is much smarter than our last president. I think our last president killed too many brain cells snorting cocaine.
3. He has made changes that force the government to have more transperency by posting what they are spending online.
4. He has forced the healthcare industry to compete. This means that if you don't have a job. You can get your own health care coverage for about $100 a month, this is a change that has already happened. Look it up, I've already seen the rates I could get if I wasn't employed but since I am employed my coverage is a lot better for roughly the same price.
5. He is trying to reduce our deficit with a new plan that I think is simply genuis. Here's how it works. Every person in this country will be taxed at lower rates (ok, stop for a second and read that sentance again). Yep, with his plan I would go from owing 28% income tax down to 14% and he would still be able to cut back 1 trillion dollars a year. How would that be possible? By overhauling the tax code and either eliminating or reducing to a bare minimum the number of tax write offs. One plan says 0 writeoffs for everyone (What you owe is what you owe no execptions). A slightly different plan would keep only the most popular writeoffs like the childtax credit and student loan interest write-off. Including those would only increase the tax rate 1% for each tax bracket. Lower tax rates that lead to us paying back our debt as a country is something everyone can agree on. Which is why this plan (with slight alterations will likely pass). It was written a in bi-partison way meaning that both sides can agree to it. Some republicans won't like it because it a big change and republicans as a rule of thumb appose all changes. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't know that.[/citation]
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.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
85
0
18,580
[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]
Facts:1. 45% of Americans pay no taxes2. European countries have enormous taxes and weaker economies. They have entitlement programs that Obama can only dream of, but many are cutting them because they are not possible to achieve in reality.[/citation]

No, European countries are cutting welfare because of a) the financial crisis caused by banks and traders and b) because of their aging populations. Welfare still remains well above the American level however. America could be a paradise if it had European style welfare because America's population is younger and aging slower than Europe's. But what the hell do I know, I'm just a European indoctrinated by the socialism of universal healthcare that does evil things like keeping total medical costs much lower than in America and ensuring I don't have to file for bankruptcy when I get sick. Wake up: all those thousands you spend on healthcare insurance is more than we Europeans pay in extra taxes for our "socialism" and it your thousands don't even go towards better healthcare. No, they go straight to the pockets of insurance company CEOs.
 

Jprobes

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2011
20
0
18,560
[citation][nom]figgus[/nom]Bzzt... Obama's FIRST failed stimulus package cost more than the entire Iraq war had to date when it was issued. His subsequent spending has dwarfed the costs of both wars you mention. Look at costofwar.org if you want to check, they are anti-war so probably inflated their numbers to boot.Second, not collecting taxes is not an expense item in the budget, letting people keep their money doesn't COST anything. Maybe start collecting some money from the ~50% of households that don't pay a dime and chopping out the handout programs that only support people who don't even try to take care of themselves, THEN you can look at tax hikes on anyone.Obama's policies are to reward failure and punish success, is it really so hard to see why that is such a horrible idea when you look at the future prospects of the country?[/citation]

I highly doubt you see the erroneously flawed logic in your statement so I will do you a favor.

Almost a 1/3rd of the Obama Stimulus was in the form of Tax cuts. Cuts you claim cannot be added onto the deficit or can be labeled as spending because "not collecting taxes is not an expense item in the budget, letting people keep their money doesn't COST anything."

That being said, 80% of the US Budget goes towards 3 things. Defense, Social Security and Medicare. Without raising revenue from the only block of people who can legitimately pay more, the top 20% (who own 80% of the net worth and 93% of the financial wealth), you cannot balance the budget and cut the deficit without cutting into these programs.

That is the problem, Cutting Social Security and Medicare would be a death sentence to the elderly now, along with our aging population who for the past 30-40 have been promised this once they hit a certain age, same goes for Medicare.

Asking the 50% of the households who do not pay taxes because they do not earn enough will do nothing but put more money into the pockets of the greedy who live in lavish excess at the expense of others.

Why is it that the ultra wealthy can exploit the poor without any consequences, but when the rich are exploited for the benefit of the poor its a fucking absolute injustice?

Do you think that if you as a citizen didn't have to pay taxes, that you would make as much as you do now? Or that things would be cheaper and safer?

The wealthy want to shrink the size of government so that they can drag in into the bathroom and drowned it in the tub so they can pick up the pieces financially and do everything the government does, for profit.


 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
774
0
18,940
[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]Oh the irony I never really understood how people could even think Obama wasn't born in the US when his birth certificate clearly identifies him as a Hawaii native...Besides, I never got the point of having to be born in the US. Basically, a person who moved to the US when he was, say, 6 can never become president, no matter how competent he is? Seems a bit strange for a nation that apart from 1% natives is made entirely from immigrants...[/citation]
ya i'm sure the great leader would have sent every sincle one of his children to the usa to get elected, hell he could have immigrated himself and we'd be calling it the communist states of america or peoples republic of america. personally i think the democratic peoples republic of america has a nice ring to it. if only Hitler could have been allowed! we could all be non existant or facist or communist!
i don't deny obama being born american. but come one he could shut up all these fools just by waving his birth certificate at a press conference. i've got mine right here in my desk i'll show him mine if he'll show us his just because i want to silence the idiocracy. oh wait any press is good press. guess he's trying to pick up the illegals vote! or wait reagan legalized most of them to save social communist progamme' social security and medicare and medicaid and pick up more votes.
how's that for tip of the iceberg irony?
[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]Religion is listed on birth certificates? How do they know what religion I will choose when I am born?[/citation]
it's listed on mine from back in the 70's, idk about now days but birth used to be pretty dangerous for both the mother and the child and 1-25 used to die and for children born with complications it used to be common to perform what ever religious rites were deemed fit, like catholisism deems a child had to be babtized to get into heaven and last rites were also given and hospitals had their own preists, that's how common complications and death from birthing was. in large cities in effort to speed up the process to release bodies to coroners or to the right officials records were the only thing used rather then to call the surviving husband or parents grieving. look in the phone book, there's alot of steve smiths, john johnsons and eric ericksons. sometimes they had to be sorted out by religious denominations, much like dr's now days mark the spot your going to have surgery on.
murphys law.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
774
0
18,940
obama:" damn this bat phone it's got the blue screen of death! how am i ever going to call of that nuclear attack on libiya? i know i'll use my iphone...why is therea picture of mao laughing at me on the screen & drm to make a wifi call to our outsourced nuclear launch facilities i moved to china? why does it sound like there's a rocket landing at the white house?"
secret service agent: " it's not ours mr president, that's a chinese smart bomb with signal tracking guidance system"
 

fball922

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2008
46
0
18,580
[citation][nom]Gulli[/nom]No, European countries are cutting welfare because of a) the financial crisis caused by banks and traders and b) because of their aging populations. Welfare still remains well above the American level however. America could be a paradise if it had European style welfare because America's population is younger and aging slower than Europe's. But what the hell do I know, I'm just a European indoctrinated by the socialism of universal healthcare that does evil things like keeping total medical costs much lower than in America and ensuring I don't have to file for bankruptcy when I get sick. Wake up: all those thousands you spend on healthcare insurance is more than we Europeans pay in extra taxes for our "socialism" and it your thousands don't even go towards better healthcare. No, they go straight to the pockets of insurance company CEOs.[/citation]

False, we have an AGING population. That's the whole problem with Social Security, the population is aging with the Baby Boomers about to retire and there are not enough people to pay into the pyramid scam.

A large portion of our medical issues could be solved by fixing our flawed malpractice system. Yes, only a small portion of healthcare costs go toward the result of malpractice lawsuits or insuring against them, but a huge number of unnecessary procedures are done because every move a doctor makes is under scrutiny, so they take all kinds of precautions to safeguard against mistakes (even in the most obvious of cases). These additional steps cost money. We are also a fat country. We also spend more on our old than any other nation (although that would end with the review boards for the new healthcare laws).

If you're in Europe, stay there. I don't want anyone who begrudges someone for making a profit here anyway. I'm sick of this class warfare.
 

fball922

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2008
46
0
18,580
Forgot to mention that for the case of European malpractice suits, often times the person bringing the suit to court has to pay the other sides' attorney and court fees if they lose, so fewer cases are brought to court (I believe that is how it works).
 

acadia11

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2010
415
0
18,930
[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]
He is extremely smart, for sure. He knows exactly what to do to DESTROY this country. He hates what the USA stands for (not to say he hates the USA), and he believes we need to be cut down to European size.Facts:1. 45% of Americans pay no taxes2. European countries have enormous taxes and weaker economies. They have entitlement programs that Obama can only dream of, but many are cutting them because they are not possible to achieve in reality.3. There is a reason tax cuts don't need to necessarily be funded. Reagan proved that when you cut taxes, government receipts GO UP. Increasing taxes on the wealthy only forces them to sit on their money and/or find more ways to avoid paying taxes (there are very legal ways of doing this). Taxing businesses is stupid to begin because you cannot tax a business at all... the cost is just passed on to consumers anyway. That's why the Fair tax makes so much sense, but people like Obama would never give up the punitive power in our 17,000 page tax code.4. Given the ramifications of raising/lowering taxes in 3, Obama has implemented spending programs with no hopes of paying for them.5. Obama didn't get us in to a "protracted war"? He has had no plan on how to handle it from the beginning. The great leader who got the Nobel Peace Prize is out bombing a sovereign nation. GASP. Do you realize that with both Iraq and Afghanistan, there were coalitions and UN statements in support of it? 6. Obama certainly has added jobs to the economy, the majority in the form of Federal government jobs. He has done very little for the private sector, but what does he care about that?7. Obama certainly has decreased unemployment, but have you ever heard of UNDERemployment? Look it up and see where we stand. The economy is getting WORSE.8. Obama is intentionally choking our energy supply. The EPA has forced Shell (I think) to stop drilling in Alaska and arbitrarily stopped all drilling activity in the Gulf following the accident, without plausible cause. This cost the region a number of jobs and economic activity. They have given ONE new drilling permit off the coast (I think...), yet complains about how GREED and PEOPLE WORKING THE SYSTEM are to blame for high oil prices... HA. The silly idea of green energy being a viable solution now is a complete sham, and he knows it.9. As for the national debt, here's a nice little analogy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc[/citation]

1) Point number 1, 70% of corporations pay no taxes, 2, to pay no taxes at all you have to have such little income that it's trivial for those poor you think are leaching off of you, which they aren't, they have so little income they make no difference, as I explained a 3% increase for in taxes on the top 2% equates to $700 billion in additional taxes, increase of 3% on other 98% amounts to $200 billion, why because the average joe including yourself don't make squat, compared to the wealthy. In addition, you are another ignorant American, The European Union is now the world's largest economy, ahead of the US, and if your so confident their economies are worse, well, check out the dollar vs the Euro, or the dollar vs the Pound, it's much weaker than both. Obama's point was common sense math, it's just dumb to raise taxes on the middle or even uppper middle class, however, it's sond business to raise it on that top 2% because they can easily afford and absorb the cost, also, if you want to talk about where your tax dollars are spent, 4 things account for almost 70% , #1 military which is well over 30% in times of peace and pproaches 50% of $3 trillion budget during the last 10 years of war, think about that, we spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. And guess what we ain't found Osama, that nuclear sub didn't tell us where he was at. #2 Social Security, ... no who get's social security old white people and anyone else who has worked and paid into the system, #3 Medicaid and Medicare, again you had to have worked and paid into Medicaid and Medicare. #4 Debt on interest, so, .... what do you think I care the person who makes $5000 a year isn't taxed heavily, let's see they pay taxes on goods and anything they buy, so no one get's off scott free. And bottom line it's 98% of the people that drive the economy by consuming, 1 rich person, can't buy that many rolls of toilet paper. Our economy is driven by consumption, and that's been proven, trickle down economics is a complete disaster, not my opinion, but a proven failure. Furthermore, you aren't anywhere near the top 2% why do you care? And your stat is complete farse, because, we on' thave 45% unemployment, we have good job Obama down to 9% from 14% at it's peak, so, it's impossible that 45% of the country doesn't pay taxes, you got a job, it's taxed period.

2) See point 1, again, wrong actually the European Union has the largest economy in the world, there are countries that have faltered I.e. Greece, Ireland, and Spain, and much of it can be traced to buying bad securities from US firms like Goldman Sach's during the "Wall Street Let's ***k everyone cause people like you believe corporations are here to help you." era. While many European countries have high income taxes,relative, the US has comparable taxes when we factor in all of our taxation, there economies have much more stringent rules on lending and banking and policing of corporations, who ultimately are the ones that tear down an economy, WAR and corporations, 1930's it was the banking industry, 1980's S&L crisis again the banking industry, 2000's mortgage backed securties and credit swaps, again the banking industry it's a recurring theme. Go learn something and then talk to me.

3) Incorrect, on Reagan, again, go learn your history, Reagan started his a presidency with a recession, and ended his presidency with a recession, and in fact, his trickle down economics were a complete disaster, and why he raised taxes 6 times after that first disaster cut, and why GW Bush Sr, had to again raise taxes, and low and behold we get an economic boom under clinton, oh ... and the 40's, 50's,60's,taxes were much much much higher than they are to today the top income bracket was 90% of course, actually everyones taxes are the same, it's just different amounts are taxed and different rates, whether you are you are amillionaire or the average joe, your first $100,000 is all taxed the same, it's the millionaires income above say >$10 million which would incur that 90% tax bracket during the 50's,, so, the point everyone actually pays the same it's not as though all your income is taxed at a higher rate. Finally, using facts and not my opinion, tax cuts for the wealthy has proven to do absolutely nothing, it's tax cuts for the average and poor which makes the difference because then they have more disposable income to buy goods, not my opinion, but fact.

4) Obama has not introduced any spending programs another fallacy or just straight up lie, Mr. Beck, Obama used both Bailut funds that were seeded under Bush, and a 2nd round of "bailout" funds, to fund "tax cuts" to the middle class in fact the largest in history, as well as procur contracts for tangible things like road construction , building construction, etc ... that goes to businesses why do you think the economy has added jobs 13 months straight and ended the recession in 9 months under him. That's where the funds went, to grow the economy, this non-sense about programs to spend is just dumb, no new programs have been introduced under Obama, now, if you want to argue about say the Endowment for the national ARts, which recieves approximately .00005% I mean 5e-10 of the budget, it's not a new program it's been around decades.

5) I could care less about whether Iraq and Afghanistan were "coalitions", Libya is a coallition, Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of the day were funded by the US, period. I don't see US troops on the ground in Libya I do see the french, british, and others. That's a coalition.I mean telling Botswana if you don't send 5 troops or we will stop funding you, doesn't ccount as a coalition.

6) YOu are just wrong here, I don't want to even bother responding.

7) Irrelevant, given the toughest economic task in the last 90 years, much worse than Reagan, he did wonderful, and he turned it around in less time than it took Reagan, what's your point?

8) Talk to me about facts, don't talk to me, about your opinion. Give me facts, hard facts, numbers, like we produce less energy today than we did under Bush or something, give me a real fact. Otherwise, you are just talking to hear yourself talk.

9) Yawn, again, the GOP strategy of just making non-sensical comments. Give me facts, scare tactics, dooms day, etc ... all that ....t don't work with me, I have mind.

Dude, if you want to come debate me, do me a favor, and come armed with common sense, some reading materials, some history, and alot of time, otherwise, step to left of the stage and go deal with the other people who believe that Obama is not American. I mean if this your biggest strategy to try and discredit him, he's done his job. Good luck.
 

memadmax

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2011
538
0
18,940
I don't care when/where/how the man was born. I don't have a problem with the man himself... I have a problem with what he is doing *now*. And for what he is doing now, I say he needs to be ***FIRED***

What has happened in the past doesn't matter, what we can do *now* and in the future is all that matters.....
 

acadia11

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2010
415
0
18,930
[citation][nom]UFB[/nom]I am so sick and tired of this manchild. At least McCain would have been an unremarkable President. This idiot is trying to crash the U.S. economy. And if I hear about how great China is one more time...The man is well credentialed, not intelligent! Finally, you birthers need to get a life. Attack him on his stupid policies and lies. The reason he doesn't want to release his long form birth certificate is obvious. A certificate of live birth doesn't contain information like HIS RELIGION!!![/citation]

How, pelase, STFU, give me a fact of how the economy has crashed or even come close to it under Obama, WTF, do you people jsut see what you want to see? The economy has grown every qurter since Obama's 3 quarter in office, every month for more than year, 13 months to be exact, the US has added jobs. Yes, we have debt, but guess what 80% of that, not my optinion of he last 10 years came from GW Bush JR, the bailout for wall street, GW Bush Jr, the 2009 Budget GW Bush Jr, Obama only additional spend was a 2nd round of funding to the bailout, which actually was mostly for the tax cut that went to the middle class which in fact was the largest in history. Why it's not talke about is the way he did it, the government took a little bit less out of every check for employment taxes, I mean he could have went with the Bush stratgey of show of sending people a check in the mail, but he did the smart thing, he gave everyone a little more each pay check, if the economy faltered the less taxes were taken out, as it improved the government would get more taxes as more people became employed. Anyway, I'm done talking to people who jsut talk opinion instead of facts.
 

acadia11

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2010
415
0
18,930
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]I don't care when/where/how the man was born. I don't have a problem with the man himself... I have a problem with what he is doing *now*. And for what he is doing now, I say he needs to be ***FIRED***What has happened in the past doesn't matter, what we can do *now* and in the future is all that matters.....[/citation]


jWhat is he doing now. Please explain, what he is doing now. Don't give me your opinion, and don't give me a generalization, give me facts, give me a policy choice, don't generalize, be specific, because, I'm telling you now facts will far outweigh your opinion, as the country in terms of economy, jobs, etc ... has improved significantly under him. Not my opnion, but actual facts, when you look at things like GDP, unemployment numbers, wealth index, etc ... real numbers not opinions.
 

robochump

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
350
0
18,930
Most likely Prez will not get the latest and greatest due to security (smart phones have security holes and imagine someone getting info from Obama's iPhone, Droid, or W7!). Only tried and true tech that has been out for a long time is acceptable as well as very secure! But a button that activates a hidden screen to pop out is a MUST!!!

Another aspect is that most Presidents probably didn't even know their stuff was old school since they are mostly out of touch with normal day to day life.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
85
0
18,580
[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]
There is a reason tax cuts don't need to necessarily be funded. Reagan proved that when you cut taxes, government receipts GO UP. Increasing taxes on the wealthy only forces them to sit on their money and/or find more ways to avoid paying taxes (there are very legal ways of doing this). Taxing businesses is stupid to begin because you cannot tax a business at all... the cost is just passed on to consumers anyway. That's why the Fair tax makes so much sense, but people like Obama would never give up the punitive power in our 17,000 page tax code.[/citation]

So you think the rich and corporations are holding back on tax evasion now because they're nice but they'll stop being so nice once they have to pay a few more percent in taxes? That's just stupid. Trickle down doesn't work, at least not anymore. The reason for this is that so much wealth is concentrated at the top that they would have to give massive amounts of people jobs to make up for a tax break. The current federal tax break for incomes above $250.000 costs the federal government $70 billion a year, there are approximately 13.5 million people seeking employment in the United States right now. So even if unemployment in the US was completely eliminated by the current tax break, meaning employers would have to hire 13.5 million people, the first $5200 in federal income tax every one of these new employees pay would go to just compensating the tax break. If employers manage to halve the uneployment rate (which would already almost lead to a historic low) then the average amount needed to compensate for the tax break becomes $10.400 (which is about the amount of federal tax someone earning $40.000 pays). So I'd reckon the tax break doesn't create much new income for the government. Maybe things were different in Reagan's time if the rich owned less of the total wealth back then, but nowadays increasing the federal income through trickle down policy is a mathematical impossiblility. Besides, the tax breaks for the rich have been around for years now and unemployment has only gone up. Apparently the rich are content with the number of butlers and cleaning ladies they already had and decided to put their money in a savings acoount, invest it or spend it abroad.
 

memadmax

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2011
538
0
18,940
Well, lets start off with the dollar.... Something he has complete power to control with monetary policy with his lapdog ben bernake and his little b***** Turbo Tax geithner....

At any time, he can direct these men to "save" the dollar from being trashed... Instead, he does nothing.... Meanwhile, me and you pay the price in higher gas, food, bills, because the dollar is worthless. Also now we are in very real danger of *Everyone* dumping the dollar as a world currency and buying our debt..... which is the only thing keeping us alive right now.....

These are FACTS. This is what he is doing NOW. Trashing the Dollar, and us along with it...
You want numbers, i'll post numbers....
You want more? Just ask, acadia, I can do this all day....
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
85
0
18,580
[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]False, we have an AGING population.[/citation]

I never said you didn't, just that the aging is slower, I specifically mentioned that.

I don't begrudge people for making a profit, unless they do it through scams (like having you pay insurance premiums and then not paying for treatment) or at the expense of human lives (making insurance so expensive that the working class cannot pay for it anymore and thus become second class citizens that are expected to work and pay taxes but are left to die when they get sick). And yes, I'm sure malpractice cases contribute to defensive medicine but stopping that alone won't do anything about the core of the problem: it's profitable to deny coverage.
 

fball922

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2008
46
0
18,580
[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]1) Point number 1, 70% of corporations pay no taxes, 2, to pay no taxes at all you have to have such little income that it's trivial for those poor you think are leaching off of you, which they aren't, they have so little income they make no difference, as I explained a 3% increase for in taxes on the top 2% equates to $700 billion in additional taxes, increase of 3% on other 98% amounts to $200 billion, why because the average joe including yourself don't make squat, compared to the wealthy. In addition, you are another ignorant American, The European Union is now the world's largest economy, ahead of the US, and if your so confident their economies are worse, well, check out the dollar vs the Euro, or the dollar vs the Pound, it's much weaker than both. Obama's point was common sense math, it's just dumb to raise taxes on the middle or even uppper middle class, however, it's sond business to raise it on that top 2% because they can easily afford and absorb the cost, also, if you want to talk about where your tax dollars are spent, 4 things account for almost 70% , #1 military which is well over 30% in times of peace and pproaches 50% of $3 trillion budget during the last 10 years of war, think about that, we spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. And guess what we ain't found Osama, that nuclear sub didn't tell us where he was at. #2 Social Security, ... no who get's social security old white people and anyone else who has worked and paid into the system, #3 Medicaid and Medicare, again you had to have worked and paid into Medicaid and Medicare. #4 Debt on interest, so, .... what do you think I care the person who makes $5000 a year isn't taxed heavily, let's see they pay taxes on goods and anything they buy, so no one get's off scott free. And bottom line it's 98% of the people that drive the economy by consuming, 1 rich person, can't buy that many rolls of toilet paper. Our economy is driven by consumption, and that's been proven, trickle down economics is a complete disaster, not my opinion, but a proven failure. Furthermore, you aren't anywhere near the top 2% why do you care? And your stat is complete farse, because, we on' thave 45% unemployment, we have good job Obama down to 9% from 14% at it's peak, so, it's impossible that 45% of the country doesn't pay taxes, you got a job, it's taxed period.2) See point 1, again, wrong actually the European Union has the largest economy in the world, there are countries that have faltered I.e. Greece, Ireland, and Spain, and much of it can be traced to buying bad securities from US firms like Goldman Sach's during the "Wall Street Let's ***k everyone cause people like you believe corporations are here to help you." era. While many European countries have high income taxes,relative, the US has comparable taxes when we factor in all of our taxation, there economies have much more stringent rules on lending and banking and policing of corporations, who ultimately are the ones that tear down an economy, WAR and corporations, 1930's it was the banking industry, 1980's S&L crisis again the banking industry, 2000's mortgage backed securties and credit swaps, again the banking industry it's a recurring theme. Go learn something and then talk to me.3) Incorrect, on Reagan, again, go learn your history, Reagan started his a presidency with a recession, and ended his presidency with a recession, and in fact, his trickle down economics were a complete disaster, and why he raised taxes 6 times after that first disaster cut, and why GW Bush Sr, had to again raise taxes, and low and behold we get an economic boom under clinton, oh ... and the 40's, 50's,60's,taxes were much much much higher than they are to today the top income bracket was 90% of course, actually everyones taxes are the same, it's just different amounts are taxed and different rates, whether you are you are amillionaire or the average joe, your first $100,000 is all taxed the same, it's the millionaires income above say >$10 million which would incur that 90% tax bracket during the 50's,, so, the point everyone actually pays the same it's not as though all your income is taxed at a higher rate. Finally, using facts and not my opinion, tax cuts for the wealthy has proven to do absolutely nothing, it's tax cuts for the average and poor which makes the difference because then they have more disposable income to buy goods, not my opinion, but fact.4) Obama has not introduced any spending programs another fallacy or just straight up lie, Mr. Beck, Obama used both Bailut funds that were seeded under Bush, and a 2nd round of "bailout" funds, to fund "tax cuts" to the middle class in fact the largest in history, as well as procur contracts for tangible things like road construction , building construction, etc ... that goes to businesses why do you think the economy has added jobs 13 months straight and ended the recession in 9 months under him. That's where the funds went, to grow the economy, this non-sense about programs to spend is just dumb, no new programs have been introduced under Obama, now, if you want to argue about say the Endowment for the national ARts, which recieves approximately .00005% I mean 5e-10 of the budget, it's not a new program it's been around decades.5) I could care less about whether Iraq and Afghanistan were "coalitions", Libya is a coallition, Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of the day were funded by the US, period. I don't see US troops on the ground in Libya I do see the french, british, and others. That's a coalition.I mean telling Botswana if you don't send 5 troops or we will stop funding you, doesn't ccount as a coalition.6) YOu are just wrong here, I don't want to even bother responding.7) Irrelevant, given the toughest economic task in the last 90 years, much worse than Reagan, he did wonderful, and he turned it around in less time than it took Reagan, what's your point? 8) Talk to me about facts, don't talk to me, about your opinion. Give me facts, hard facts, numbers, like we produce less energy today than we did under Bush or something, give me a real fact. Otherwise, you are just talking to hear yourself talk.9) Yawn, again, the GOP strategy of just making non-sensical comments. Give me facts, scare tactics, dooms day, etc ... all that ....t don't work with me, I have mind.Dude, if you want to come debate me, do me a favor, and come armed with common sense, some reading materials, some history, and alot of time, otherwise, step to left of the stage and go deal with the other people who believe that Obama is not American. I mean if this your biggest strategy to try and discredit him, he's done his job. Good luck.[/citation]
1. I agree its driven by consumption, so tax that way with the Fair Tax.
2. European Union is not a country, dumbass. A coalition of nations had to offer something comparable to the US. Additionally, "CORPORatiONS ARE EVUL" is not a valid argument to describe what caused the economic meltdown. You point at corporations, I point at the rules those corporations were forced to abide by with a lack of oversight to begin with.
3. It makes no sense to say the poor and middle class have more disposable income to spend with. Do you know what disposable income is?
4. Has not introduced any spending programs? What about the new healthcare program? Am I not understanding you, or are you just thick?
5. I don't really get what you are saying, but what I am saying is that Obama is a hypocritic who took the Nobel Peace Prize then bombed a sovereign nation. That's all. Its indicative of his character.
6. Read it and weep: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/22/federal-workforce-continues-to-grow-under-obama-budget/
7. You cannot just dismiss this as irrelevant because it goes against you, its the whole point! Unemployment goes down in part because the WORKFORCE IS SHRINKING. "I have mind" too, and that is how math works. Under employment occurs when people stop looking for work because there is none to be had. So, if unemployment falls because under employment increases, that is not improving the economy at all...
8. Fine, you explain to me Obama's logic to shut down all oil drilling off the coast arbitrarily. There was nothing to suggest the other drilling platforms had the same safety issues the BP Deep Horizon did. When a court dismissed the moritorium for lack of cause, his administration issued another. Why? We need every bit of oil we can get to keep supply up and subsequently prices down, why inhibit that? Why keep thousands of people out of work on those platforms? If that region was hurt from the spill, why take even more dollars away by keeping people from being employed on them and spending money in that region? WHY? Give me a valid reason other than to create a greater need for government intervention???
9. Oh, yeah, GOP scare tactics... How about "OOOOOOOO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!" which has since been proven a complete scam. How about "OOOOOOOO WITHOUT THE STIMULOUS NOW THE WORLD WILL MELTDOWN!!!@!#" and it did anyway. Liberals are the epitome of alarmists and asshats.

For the record I think Obama is an American, never said to the contrary. I'm done here, I don't know why I bother with libs as they clearly live in a fantasy world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.