Obama '08?

If he would tax the money people at the rate that was in effect when Ragun took office I would be happy to forgo my tax decrease in order to have health care and soc. sec. and a balanced budget. Banks still dont have the oversight that Obama and the congress claimed they would impose on them. Big money still talks louder than votes.

Obama has given many of us hard working citizens the privilege of paying the
mortgage for less productive citizens that can't or won't make their payments.

LOL!

Obamanomics is reducing the total number of "the money people" by the hour.
Obamanomics is destroying every single incentive for citizens to be money people.
Who would you have him tax when "the money people" are all gone?

Do you figure the Reps would have done a better job, and why?

It's possible that the republicans would have spent much less that Obama and they would
have cut taxes, but their recent track record is only slightly better than the democrats.

I believe the republicans would have also done a much better job of protecting our
constitutional republic and not tear it to sheds as Obama and the democrats hove done.

I'm inclined to think you have a valid point but I'm more inclined to dismiss it because you're such a dumbfuck troll.

That's all you had to say

yeah and it would have been valid, but you can't stop yourself at valid points and continue on with the dumbfuck posts.

I see that you are still suffering from projectile vomiting... some things never change.

At least you recognize a valid point when it's presented

Obama never promised single payor health insurance. He explicitly rejected it throughout the campaign. No Democratic primary candidate except Kucinich endorsed single payor.

There's several things I share your disappointment in Obama on, eg shutting down the "black sites". He's announced closing Guantanamo - and has promptly been betrayed on it by the Congressional Dems. But he never even broached Baghram [sp?] etc.

Most of the things you mention aren't very good examples, though - single payor being the obvious one. But also pulling out of Iraq, for example. "[W]hat has happened to .. removal of our troops from Iraq," which he has "reniged on"? You make it sound like he promised to get them out already by now. He didn't: even back in the campaign Obama said it would take 16 months, and those are far from over. And while he may not make that deadline, today the US forces withdrew from the Iraqi cities, which is a pretty major step.

I mean, if you're going to call the man a fraud for not living up to his promises, you have to get the promises right. Cant call him a fraud for reneging on promises he never made.tt

Cutting taxes has not been successful in creating jobs. People put the money in savings or pay off bills. Should some use it to buy goods, the bulk of the money goes to foreign manufacturers.

Stimulus money given to states saves or creates jobs. Bailing out GM may end up saving about 2,000,000 jobs. (Moreover, the loss of that many jobs could tip off a new Great Depression.)

I don't see where O has violated the constitution.

You are confusing tax cuts will stimulus checks.

Cutting taxes stimulates spending and growth, growth equals jobs.
Stimulus checks are meaningless handouts that are spent on items made in China, put into savings or used pay down one of many debts.
Stimulus money creates no long term employment for anyone, but government employees.

I see that you got your Repuglican meme email today.

Impossible.

What you see is the liberal application of my personal common sense.

Money is fungible, and it is unimportant how the people get it. I suggest you look up the term "tax expenditure."

Really?

You have no problem accepting other peoples hard earned money that you yourself did nothing to earn ?

Under McCain it would have been about 15 %.

We have an ability-to-pay tax system, which is only fair. Under your system, you would be licking up the crumbs dropped by the oligarchs.

My system?

What would that be?