parados
 
  2  
Sat 6 Feb, 2010 05:31 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
It wasnt meant to be any kind of argument, it was meant to be a question that was trying to make a point (but I guess I didnt).
My point was that if taxes go up enough to pay off the federal debt and the deficit, and to keep all of the social programs and govt spending going, it will eventually have to get to the point where people are restricted in how much they make.

That's a bit of nonsense MM, since the government has historically spent about 18-22% of GDP. Even this years, budget is only about 25% of GDP.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Sat 6 Feb, 2010 05:33 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
As I recall,Bush tried to do something about SS and the dems raised hell about it.
His idea about "privatizing" SS would have saved millions of dollars, because people would have relied on themselves.

That could have been true in the long run, 30 years or later.

In the short run it would have increased the deficits since SS would have been underfunded if you reduced its revenues.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 6 Feb, 2010 06:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
But if you raise taxes BEFORE you cut spending, the govt will just use that extra revenue for general spending.

So there MUST be spending cuts BEFORE there are tax increases.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Sat 6 Feb, 2010 06:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

What exactly has happened that makes it 'dumb?'

Or are you just scared? It sounds a lot like the second.

Cycloptichorn

All kinds of things. The reasons have been posted so many times, I don't frankly wish to waste time doing it over and over for the dense among us. And the very fact that even many staunch liberal Democrats are no longer even supporting the decision to try terrorists in civilian courts, that should tell you alot, cyclops.

It isn't a matter of being scared, its a matter of being sensible about national security. Why break precendence with 200 some odd years of history? It makes no sense whatsoever, it is just dumb, cyclops.
Irishk
 
  2  
Sun 7 Feb, 2010 12:04 am
The president needs to tell the truth on taxes, entitlements, and how to really reform health care"before it's too late.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Sun 7 Feb, 2010 03:36 pm
@ican711nm,
I posted:
[It has been alleged that this statement of mine is wrong:
US Inflation %Increase = 40.94%, or increased by a factor of 1.4094.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with my statement?
So far Parados says he will tell me what's wrong with it after I tell him how I got it.]

Yes, that statement is in error! But parados doesn't want to say what the correct value is!

Oh well, shame on me! The correct calculared values for 1981 to 1988 are:

US Inflation %Increase = 43.59%, or increased by a factor of 1.4359.

Product of annual 1981 to 1988 inflation factors (one added to each percentage after it is converted to a decimal value) = 1.4359, or a 43.59% increase over 8 years.

Notice that:
Fed Receipts %increase / Product of Inflation %increase factors = 75.84%/43.59%= 1.7398.

ican711nm
 
  0  
Sun 7 Feb, 2010 03:41 pm
Decreasing tax rates increased total Federal Receipts in Reagan's 8 years.

Reagan should have also cut federal spending to grow private spending and investment. That would have helped the economy grow even more.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Sun 7 Feb, 2010 04:50 pm
WHO THE HELL IS BRYAN FISCHER?
Quote:
January 23, 2010
It's Hillary in 2012, if Obama even makes it that far
By Bryan Fischer

There is virtually unanimous agreement that President Obama is toast. Mort Zuckerman says 'the air is out of the balloon', and even Der Spiegel is saying that, 'for German commentators, the hope is gone.' In my judgment, Obama is now a lame duck president with 75% of his first (and only) term remaining.

ObamaCare, his signature issue, is dead in the water and Democrats are floating belly up right next to it. Think Corzine, Deeds, Coakley, Dodd, Dorgan, Snyder, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. etc.

If the Democrats do not insist that Obama resign from office (politically unlikely to be sure) they are liable to be dessicated, withered and powerless by 2012. His coattails are just long enough to drag them all under unless they detach themselves immediately if not sooner.

The natives are restless. If I've observed any one thing over time in politics, it's that the only thing that matters to 95% of politicians is getting re-elected. They will sell their soul to anyone who will ensure re-election, and abandon any principle and any friend who serves as a drag on their electoral hopes.

The president is now dead weight, an albatross around the neck of every Democrat member of the House and the Senate. They simply cannot afford to be linked to him anymore. He is blindly pursuing policies that the great majority of Americans flatly reject, and yet he soldiers on, oblivious, perhaps through sheer hubris, to the fact that voters aren't buying the swill he is trying to sell as champagne. Congressional Democrats have got to get as far away from him as they can, and they will. Sheer self-interest will dictate separation.

Obama is a disastrous 0-5 on the campaign trail, in his first year after an inauguration attended by unmatched euphoria and expectation. Few in political history, apart from appalling scandal, have fallen so far so fast. He is the Tiger Woods of the political world. He got hosed in Copenhagen, trying to bag the Olympics for Chicago. He got hosed again in Copenhagen, trying to impose economy-destroying carbon caps on the entire world.

And he got hosed in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts when he tried to lend his now-vanished charisma to troubled candidates. He's now preparing to make it 0-6 by going to Nevada to prop up the dismal fortunes of the thoroughly unappealing Harry Reid.

Congressional Democrats now can safely ignore their own president, and in fact must do so to preserve any chance of survival. Dick Morris is surely correct when he says that the president will never be able to pass a significant piece of legislation ever again. The American people are watching, they know he cannot be trusted, and they will beat the daylights out of any politician who supports his disastrous agenda.

He has grossly misread the American public, perhaps again because in his insular and self-adulating world he believes he is the smartest person in the room and is sure that his brilliance will inevitably be recognized by the great unwashed. Ain't gonna happen. The American people are a lot smarter than he thinks, maybe even smarter than he is, and surely wiser when it comes to politics. They will never trust him again about anything.

The president is catastrophically weak and naive when it comes to our war against Islamofascism. He is indifferent, desultory, casual, and lacking in seriousness regarding the threat. The American people know this. He waited three days to say anything at all about the Tighty-Whitey Bomber of Christmas Day; his Pentagon whitewashed completely the jihadist attack on Ft. Hood by refusing to use either the word "Islam" or "Muslim" anywhere in its 86-page report; and he nominated a manifestly unqualified man (Erroll Southers) to head the TSA.

If there is another successful Islamic attack on the United States, and a planeload of innocent Americans gets blown up, I believe that will be the last straw for this vain and incompetent president. The American people will hound him out of office. He won't be able to show his face in public because the reaction will be so visceral and angry. He will become as isolated as Dick Nixon became in his last days in office.

He'll crank up the Oval Office thermostat to 72 degrees and hunker down in an effort to ride out the storm.

Hillary Clinton is of course watching, and I have been predicting for months now that she will launch a primary challenge to Obama in 2012. Rush Limbaugh said much the same thing this past week. The campaign of 2012 is her last realistic shot, and she is shrewd enough to see that he is finished as a politician and she'll just be too old in 2016.

Surely the Democrats in the party will see the same thing, and know that if they back Obama in 2012 they will be backing a loser. Believe me, there will be an underground movement among Democrats to plead with Hillary (or somebody) to save what shreds will remain of their party from The One in the next presidential election.

President Obama has no chance at a second term. And eroding chances of completing his first one.
--
THE NEW AMERICAN DREAM:
Advocate
 
  1  
Sun 7 Feb, 2010 05:13 pm
@ican711nm,
Increased revenue and increased debt under Reagan. What a loser!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Sun 7 Feb, 2010 10:41 pm
@ican711nm,
Laughing I'll go ahead and throw out an early prediction: Obama WILL win a second term (I’ll be withholding judgment on whether or not he’ll get my vote). If the GOP is dumb enough to run Sarah Palin; he'll win in the biggest landslide since Reagan (well, the only landslide since Reagan.) And like I said 4 years ago; Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry are all people who will never be President. (The last being one of VERY FEW Democrats who wouldn't have beaten Bush.)(None of them would have beaten McCain, either.)
okie
 
  0  
Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:05 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
The dumbest part of Sarah Palins brain is still twice as smart as the smartest part of Obama's. At least Sarah knows how many states there are, and that there were not 10,000 people living in Greensburg, KS, let alone that number dying there.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/top-10-obama-quotes.htm

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

"I've now been in 57 states " I think one left to go." "at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon, May 9, 2008 "
okie
 
  -1  
Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:14 pm
@okie,
This is worth watching. Pretty instructive! Did he get the United States mixed up with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference of 57 member states, ha ha?


How did this guy get elected?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:27 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Laughing I'll go ahead and throw out an early prediction: Obama WILL win a second term (I’ll be withholding judgment on whether or not he’ll get my vote).

Fooling people once is bad enough, but I frankly doubt enough people will be fooled again for him to gain a second term, that is my prediciton. It is certainly my hope at least, but I think the tide is turning against Obama, thankfully.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  3  
Mon 8 Feb, 2010 12:15 am
All politicians misspeak at one time or another. I'm frankly getting a little tired of all the attention that's being paid to it from both sides. The 57 states remark, along with the error regarding the tornado came on the campaign trail when everyone was probably worn to a frazzle and beyond exhaustion.

There are plenty of policy statements being made that are more deserving of close examination. The rest is just us being thin-skinned or taking PC language to a level that borders on the ridiculous.
okie
 
  0  
Mon 8 Feb, 2010 12:35 am
@Irishk,
Sure, politicians mis-speak from time to time, but few things have been as silly as some of Obama's remarks. I tend to think he is really that dumb. He may be sly or clever like a fox, but he is not very informed about the United States, I wonder if he actually knows how many states there are, without being coached or have a review. And the Greensburg Kansas remark also shows a total ignorance about Kansas specifically, and the heartland of America in general.

The reason I remind people of this stuff, is the fact that Obama was trumped up as one of the most intelligent and sharp presidents of all time, and I think that was a Media hyped myth from the very beginning, and so reminding people of these things is productive. After all, Obama's economic policy is just as dumb and clueless. The man really is not very smart on many things, he lacks both intelligence or knowledge, as well as judgement. Good judgement can only be possible by having the knowledge of an issue, as well as accept certain tried and true foundational principles. Otherwise, you end up with a guy that is trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, in regard to various things, such as the economy, national security, etc.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 8 Feb, 2010 01:02 am
@okie,
Shocked No way you just wrote that! Laughing Drunk
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  2  
Mon 8 Feb, 2010 02:06 am
@okie,
More concerning to me are remarks he made while addressing House members at the Republican retreat. I don't think I need point out what I consider to be disturbing about it; we've been told on numerous occasions by this president that our opposition to the bill is due to our lack of understanding. He even took responsibility for that by saying that he didn't 'explain it clearly enough' (although he made at least 29 or 30 speeches in the attempt).

Quote:
“The last thing I will say, though " let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented " and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your " if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.”


He thinks? Seems to me it is pretty clear what happened, but he was willing to pass it regardless. This could account for some of the mistrust we're seeing in the polls.

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Mon 8 Feb, 2010 02:13 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Laughing I'll go ahead and throw out an early prediction: Obama WILL win a second term (I’ll be withholding judgment on whether or not he’ll get my vote). If the GOP is dumb enough to run Sarah Palin; he'll win in the biggest landslide since Reagan (well, the only landslide since Reagan.) And like I said 4 years ago; Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry are all people who will never be President. (The last being one of VERY FEW Democrats who wouldn't have beaten Bush.)(None of them would have beaten McCain, either.)

You don't Hillary will ever get the endorsement, or don't think that if she got the endorsement that she'd win?

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Mon 8 Feb, 2010 02:17 am
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

More concerning to me are remarks he made while addressing House members at the Republican retreat. I don't think I need point out what I consider to be disturbing about it; we've been told on numerous occasions by this president that our opposition to the bill is due to our lack of understanding. He even took responsibility for that by saying that he didn't 'explain it clearly enough' (although he made at least 29 or 30 speeches in the attempt).

Quote:
“The last thing I will say, though " let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented " and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your " if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.”


He thinks? Seems to me it is pretty clear what happened, but he was willing to pass it regardless. This could account for some of the mistrust we're seeing in the polls.


We have a problem here. You're taking this out of context to imply the exact opposite of what he was saying.

He is not saying that he'd sign a bill with those provisions. Your quote ends before it gets to the part where he explains that that is the stuff that is being cleaned out of the bill.

Obama doesn't want those provisions in, and he was expressing to the GOP that he was unhappy with the wording because it would violate one of his promises.

Get it straight.

T
K
O
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 8 Feb, 2010 07:16 am
@Diest TKO,
Then how do you account for the Presidents recent statements reassuring Democrat legislators that he hasn't given up on passage of the legislation and urging them to go forward? All this (and more) fairly clearly indicates that, if the legislation were passed, he would sign it - even with the language (unfortunately not specified) to which he allegedly objects in it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1571
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 03:40:06