Obama got Pwned. Again.

[AlBell]

Raise taxes. We are at a 50 year low. And we are only talking about those making over $250,000.

If you beleive that I have a nice bridge for sale. Interested?

But it's funny that after all this time we draw a line in the sand now.

Yeah, enough Tea Party types (actual conservatives) finally got elected, and were handed an issue to use thanks to Democrats who didn't do their Budget shenanigans when they controlled everything.

Why did we throw away all that mony in Iraq? Why didn't we (GOP) tell Bush we just couldn't afford it. No, we kept our mouths shut and waited for a Democrat to be president to do anything.

What exactly is he doing different than Bush? Well, other than starting another war, and drone bombing all over the place.

For the 8 years Bush was president we spent like drunken sailors and then all of a sudden we're making cutesy home budget analogies as if WE get it.

Chickens finally coming home to roost. But sure wasting a couple years on "health reform" as unempolyment skyrocketed (and tax revenue fell) must have been the best choice.

 

[Dayan81]

If you beleive that I have a nice bridge for sale. Interested?...

Are you suggesting that maximum FIT rates are not at their lowest in decades?

Except for a short 5-year period during the first Bush-regime, this is the lowest maximum FIT rates have been since 1930.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

 

[AlBell]

No. I'm suggesting increased taxes only for those making $250,000 or more (is that gross, or taxable?) is a meaningless joke.

 

[RandFan]

If you beleive that I have a nice bridge for sale. Interested?

We've done it before with great success. We can do it again. Your rhetoric isn't apropos here given a long history of taxes far higher than they are now.

Yeah, enough Tea Party types (actual conservatives) finally got elected, and were handed an issue to use thanks to Democrats who didn't do their Budget shenanigans when they controlled everything.

The Budget shenanigans were almost always done by Republicans.

What exactly is he doing different than Bush? Well, other than starting another war, and drone bombing all over the place.

Yep. Two wrongs make a right. Thank you.

Chickens finally coming home to roost. But sure wasting a couple years on "health reform" as unempolyment skyrocketed (and tax revenue fell) must have been the best choice.

Raising taxes would have been the best choice.

 

[RandFan]

No. I'm suggesting increased taxes only for those making $250,000 or more (is that gross, or taxable?) is a meaningless joke.

Which is to say nothing. A bit of rhetoric without substance.

 

[RandFan]

I have said for years now that this nonsense about never raising taxes is a religious dogma. It's nonsense.

Deficits: The Battle Over Taxing The Rich

One Republican brave enough to go public is David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director. He says all the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated - even those on the middle class.

And he says his own Republican Party has gone too far with its anti-tax religion.

"Tax cutting is a religion. What do you mean by that?" correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Stockman.

"Well it's become in a sense an absolute. Something that can't be questioned, something that's gospel, something that's sort of embedded into the catechism and so scratch the average Republican today and he'll say 'Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts,'" he explained.

"It's rank demagoguery," he added. "We should call it for what it is. If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So, to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves."

 

[Dayan81]

No. I'm suggesting increased taxes only for those making $250,000 or more (is that gross, or taxable?) is a meaningless joke.

No, its not a joke because they are the ones who can most afford to pay a little more in taxes.

Putting all the burden on the poor & middle-class is a moral crime.

Not only have we now bailed out the banks that put us into the Great Recession without bailing out the all the mortgage holders that were going to lose their homes, but we have now cut spending on the poor & middle-class as well.

Where is Eugene V. Debs when we need him?

 

[RandFan]

No, its not a joke because they are the ones who can most afford to pay a little more in taxes.

Putting all the burden on the poor & middle-class is a moral crime.

Not only have we now bailed out the banks that put us into the Great Recession without bailing out the all the mortgage holders that were going to lose their homes, but we have now cut spending on the poor & middle-class as well.

Where is Eugene V. Debs when we need him?

Where is Teddy Roosevelt? Hell, where is Ike? Damn we could men like that now. Someone who doesn't bend over and take it up the backside for corporations.

Govt of the people... sure.

 

[Skeptic]

Barack Obama is a very nice man who has great intentions, inspiring ideas & has approved some great legislation. But when it comes to the really important things he has failed the American people.

(Sigh)

But we told you so in 2008: that the man might have the best intentions in the world but he is simply far too inexperienced and lightweight, economics-experience-wise and politics-wise, to be president. It wasn't exactly a huge secret.

Mind you, I'm not blaming Obama for not being what he isn't, and being what everybody should have known he is from the very start -- his lack of experience was hardly some sort of secret, and that "hope'n'change" was an empty slogan was also quite obvious.

I am, however, blaming the folks who screamed from the rooftops in 2008 that anybody who points this out is an evil raaaaaaaaaaaaacist troglodyte knuckle-dragger, and that they'll be damned if they let the opportunity to elect the first ever Black president go to waste -- even if a blind man can see he simply isn't fit for the job.

So the results are in: you elected an obviously well-meaning but equally obviously inexperienced lightweight as president, much like Carter, with the expected results. Duh.

Why are you surprised? Obama never had to face hardball-playing, serious political opposition on the national level in his life, let alone defeat it. Why did you expect he would do anything else but cave in?

I sure as hell would, too -- but of course, I am not running for president, and the fact that I would cave in would be one of the many reasons nobody should elect me to the job.

Well, things might still change -- Obama might still surprise us all -- but I doubt it. And frankly, I am not impressed by the "it's all the fault of the evil Republicans" whining. Gee, the opposition party actually opposes the president! Who would have guessed?

 

[RandFan]

(Sigh)

But we told you so in 2008: that the man might have the best intentions in the world but he is simply far too inexperienced and lightweight, economics-experience-wise and politics-wise, to be president. It wasn't exactly a huge secret.

Mind you, I'm not blaming Obama for not being what he isn't, and being what everybody should have known he is from the very start -- his lack of experience was hardly some sort of secret, and that "hope'n'change" was an empty slogan was also quite obvious.

I am, however, blaming the folks who screamed from the rooftops in 2008 that anybody who points this out is an evil raaaaaaaaaaaaacist troglodyte knuckle-dragger, and that they'll be damned if they let the opportunity to elect the first ever Black president go to waste -- even if a blind man can see he simply isn't fit for the job.

So the results are in: you elected an obviously well-meaning but equally obviously inexperienced lightweight as president, much like Carter, with the expected results. Duh.

Why are you surprised? Obama never had to face hardball-playing, serious political opposition on the national level in his life, let alone defeat it. Why did you expect he would do anything else but cave in?

I sure as hell would, too -- but of course, I am not running for president, and the fact that I would cave in would be one of the many reasons nobody should elect me to the job.

Well, things might still change -- Obama might still surprise us all -- but I doubt it. And frankly, I am not impressed by the "it's all the fault of the evil Republicans" whining. Gee, the opposition party actually opposes the president! Who would have guessed?

I don't understand your argument. If McCain had been elected the results would have likely been much worse for Dems. Obama has accomplished much. He has failed this challenge with republicans but it's not as if things would have been ever so much better with McCain.

They sure as hell were much worse with an inefective big spender Bush. So clarify this for me? I don't buy this kind of na na na na na. I'm truly sick of us vs them BS.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But we told you so in 2008: that the man might have the best intentions in the world but he is simply far too inexperienced and lightweight, economics-experience-wise and politics-wise, to be president. It wasn't exactly a huge secret.

Back to my earlier point: I'm not at all comfortable with a President who is a shrewd political manipulator. I'm less uncomfortable with one fulfilling his promise to do his best to achieve bipartisan compromise in a climate of extreme partisanship.

And frankly aren't the very experienced people "economics-experience-wise and politics-wise" the very people who mostly caused the problems we're dealing with?

For that matter, Obama is generally more economics-experienced than the freshman Tea Party Caucus members of the House. And McCain lost the "more experienced" argument when he named Sarah Palin as his running mate. (Remember, the entire state of Alaska has a population less than half --actually closer to a third-- that of the city of Chicago.)

 

[RandFan]

...even if a blind man can see he simply isn't fit for the job.

Since we are going there. Why in 8 years of Bush's presidency was the economy in the toilet? Why did the housing market tank? Why did banks bend us over a sofa and then after a screw they then took more money, promised to use the money to help Americans, foreclosed on homes anyway and paid big bonuses to managers? Where was the WMD? Why did we spend 1,000,000,000,000 on wars that have lasted longer than WWII? Why did he appoint a loser like Brown to head FEMA? Why did he fabricate science data? Why did he start Faith Based Initiatives.

I voted for the guy twice. I defended him for years on this forum. I couldn't honestly accuse Obama of being a Jimmy Carter with a straight face knowing that Bush drove this country into a ditch. That doesn't excuse anything Obama has done but let's be intellectually honest here.

 

[leftysergeant]

So the results are in: you elected an obviously well-meaning but equally obviously inexperienced lightweight as president, much like Carter, with the expected results. Duh.

You could say the same about Bush the lesser, and throw in the fact that he was a brain-damaged alcoholic, whose main concern was the well-being of the already-well-off.

Well, things might still change -- Obama might still surprise us all -- but I doubt it. And frankly, I am not impressed by the "it's all the fault of the evil Republicans" whining. Gee, the opposition party actually opposes the president! Who would have guessed?

They oppose everything that helped build the American middle class, and they oppose Obama on the basis of pure visceral partisanship, overwhelming their patriotism. They are willing to let the country fall into ruin to be rid of him and have been from January of 2009. Punks, the lot of them.

 

[Mike!]

You could say the same about Bush the lesser, and throw in the fact that he was a brain-damaged alcoholic, whose main concern was the well-being of the already-well-off.


They oppose everything that helped build the American middle class, and they oppose Obama on the basis of pure visceral partisanship, overwhelming their patriotism. They are willing to let the country fall into ruin to be rid of him and have been from January of 2009. Punks, the lot of them.

I have to ask, when Bush the lesser was in office for eight years, did you activly support him and his presidency, regardless of his actions, no matter how far removed from your own political perspective they may be, or did you openly, verbaly, rail against him at every possible opportunity you were presented with?

 

[Mike!]

Since we are going there. Why in 8 years of Bush's presidency was the economy in the toilet? Why did the housing market tank? Why did banks bend us over a sofa and then after a screw they then took more money, promised to use the money to help Americans, foreclosed on homes anyway and paid big bonuses to managers? Where was the WMD? Why did we spend 1,000,000,000,000 on wars that have lasted longer than WWII? Why did he appoint a loser like Brown to head FEMA? Why did he fabricate science data? Why did he start Faith Based Initiatives.

I voted for the guy twice. I defended him for years on this forum. I couldn't honestly accuse Obama of being a Jimmy Carter with a straight face knowing that Bush drove this country into a ditch. That doesn't excuse anything Obama has done but let's be intellectually honest here.

Looks like Obama may have drove it off a cliff with his efforts to get it out of the ditch...
A ditch isn't looking so bad these days.

 

[Juniversal]

I don't understand your argument. If McCain had been elected the results would have likely been much worse for Dems. Obama has accomplished much. He has failed this challenge with republicans but it's not as if things would have been ever so much better with McCain.

They sure as hell were much worse with an inefective big spender Bush. So clarify this for me? I don't buy this kind of na na na na na. I'm truly sick of us vs them BS.

Took the words out of my mouth. Well my response was going to be, "regardless of the validity of your opinion, Obama is likely far better than the alternative".

 

[eeyore1954]

When President Bush took over in office the country was already firmly headed towards the ditch. The country entered a recession a few months after he took office and then a grenade (called 9/11) was thrown into the ditch. The dreaded Bush tax cuts were passed to stimulate the economy and the country did recover pretty well from 9/11, until the banking debacle although it was already heading into problems near the end of his term.
I am sure it will open me up to derision and ridicule but considering what happened I don't think he did too poorly.

 

[RandFan]

When President Bush took over in office the country was already firmly headed towards the ditch. The country entered a recession a few months after he took office and then a grenade (called 9/11) was thrown into the ditch. The dreaded Bush tax cuts were passed to stimulate the economy and the country did recover pretty well from 9/11, until the banking debacle although it was already heading into problems near the end of his term.
I am sure it will open me up to derision and ridicule but considering what happened I don't think he did too poorly.

What year did those tax cuts pay off? What year did the job market get better? Housing market? Hell anything other than rich getting richer? Or, is that what you mean by "recover"? What would Bush have to do to be considered to have done well? And what about all of my other questions about WMD and faking science reports and faithbased initiatives?

 

[RandFan]

Looks like Obama may have drove it off a cliff with his efforts to get it out of the ditch...
A ditch isn't looking so bad these days.

What as employment at the end of Bush's presidency? Now?
What was the housing market at the end of Bush's presidency? Now?
You are going to have to clarify to me what you mean by worse?

 

[Ziggurat]

How about we go back to Clinton's spending when we attain Clinton's economic growth and unemployment rates?

And if we never get there? What then?

One way or another, we will have to cut spending. The question is, will we do it now, or will we wait? Because if we wait, and the hoped for recovery doesn't get here, well, we're seriously screwed.

And will the hoped-for recovery get here? Well, the people who advocated increased spending in the hopes of ushering it in thought it would already be here by now. So I don't trust claims about its imminent arrival.