Presidential Address Last Night

[Vincent Vega]

No, I think St. Mike is right here. I don't think those days in the Psalm are days in office, but rather days on earth (considering the next verse talks about making his wife a widow and his children fatherless).

[Jesus_lol]

For once also agreed with st michael.


although, i hope a different democrat takes the presidency rather than a republican, but whatever.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1312736289' post='2282988']although, i hope a different democrat takes the presidency rather than a republican, but whatever.
[/quote]
That's not the way it works in the States though.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1312736561' post='2282990']
That's not the way it works in the States though.
[/quote]


yup, how unfortunate. Obama has truly dissapointed me, as a generally liberal dude.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1311819918' post='2277291']
Less than half of all US citizens pay taxes.[/quote]

This is one of those urban legends that gets repeated a lot. You mean, less than half of all US citizens pay federal income tax. State income tax, local income tax, social security tax, medicare tax and so forth are paid by most employed Americans. Virtually all Americans pay sales tax. The unemployed pay taxes on their unemployment benefits.

This idea that only rich people are paying any taxes just doesn't match reality.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1312747229' post='2283055']
yup, how unfortunate. Obama has truly dissapointed me, as a generally liberal dude.
[/quote]
I really don't know how he still has any fans.

[Socrates]

The bill that was passed was still close to worthless, and will do almost nothing to eliminate the problem of our unthinkably huge and growing 14 trillion dollar national debt, and the immense burden it places on future generations of Americans. This bill mostly merely cuts back on future increases in spending, rather than cutting what is actually being spent now. Much more actual federal government spending will have to be cut for any real dent in the problem to be made.

The problem with Republicans is not their opposition to the insanity proposed by Obama and the Democrats, but their weak and ineffective compromise, preferring to to cut a bad deal, rather than do what is right for this country. And raising the debt ceiling and going ever deeper into debt is not what is right for a America. It's like someone sunk deep in credit card debt getting another card and going deeper into debt to help pay off the original debt. It's a bad-aid solution which only compounds the original problem. All those who think that Obama's plan of continued big-spending will somehow save us are naive and sadly deluded.

Raising taxes on the rich will do very little to decrease the debt, either, and will have a negative impact on economic growth by discouraging investment and hiring by businesses. Only drastic cuts in government spending will be able to get us out of this mess, but while government is the problem, we shouldn't expect politicians in the government to be the solution. Of course, too many seem to have drank the statist Kool-Aid that says more federal spending is the solution to every ill.


[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1312736289' post='2282988']
For once also agreed with st michael.


although, i hope a different democrat takes the presidency rather than a republican, but whatever.
[/quote]
I hope a [i]conservative[/i] takes the presidency, rather than a tax-and-spend liberal of either party.

We need real conservative leadership, not more of the same big-spending big-gov which both parties have given us lately.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1312747229' post='2283055']


yup, how unfortunate. Obama has truly dissapointed me, as a generally liberal dude.
[/quote]
Generally, Obama has followed a very liberal agenda, on both economic and social issues.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how a number of left-leaning people on here have expressed disappointment with Obama, but seem to want someone else who essentially follows the same agenda (at least from what I can tell).

Do you really think a similarly leftist tax-and-spend agenda would work if only another man were at the helm?

Exactly what specifics about Obama's policies do you find disappointing?

I'm not trying to be snarky here; I'm genuinely curious.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1312747229' post='2283055']


yup, how unfortunate. Obama has truly dissapointed me, as a generally liberal dude.
[/quote]
Do you mean liberal in the classical sense or liberal in the "Government give permission" sense?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1312753744' post='2283102']
The bill that was passed was still close to worthless, and will do almost nothing to eliminate the problem of our unthinkably huge and growing 14 trillion dollar national debt, and the immense burden it places on future generations of Americans. This bill mostly merely cuts back on future increases in spending, rather than cutting what is actually being spent now. Much more actual federal government spending will have to be cut for any real dent in the problem to be made.

The problem with Republicans is not their opposition to the insanity proposed by Obama and the Democrats, but their weak and ineffective compromise, preferring to to cut a bad deal, rather than do what is right for this country. And raising the debt ceiling and going ever deeper into debt is not what is right for a America. It's like someone sunk deep in credit card debt getting another card and going deeper into debt to help pay off the original debt. It's a bad-aid solution which only compounds the original problem. All those who think that Obama's plan of continued big-spending will somehow save us are naive and sadly deluded.

Raising taxes on the rich will do very little to decrease the debt, either, and will have a negative impact on economic growth by discouraging investment and hiring by businesses. Only drastic cuts in government spending will be able to get us out of this mess, but while government is the problem, we shouldn't expect politicians in the government to be the solution. Of course, too many seem to have drank the statist Kool-Aid that says more federal spending is the solution to every ill.



I hope a [i]conservative[/i] takes the presidency, rather than a tax-and-spend liberal of either party.

We need real conservative leadership, not more of the same big-spending big-gov which both parties have given us lately.


Generally, Obama has followed a very liberal agenda, on both economic and social issues.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how a number of left-leaning people on here have expressed disappointment with Obama, but seem to want someone else who essentially follows the same agenda (at least from what I can tell).

Do you really think a similarly leftist tax-and-spend agenda would work if only another man were at the helm?

Exactly what specifics about Obama's policies do you find disappointing?

I'm not trying to be snarky here; I'm genuinely curious.
[/quote]


Read this today, it sums up a lot of what I and a lot of others feel about the guy. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

On paper, his original policies seemed mostly ok to me (with a few notable exceptions, such as Abortion). it has been his style of leadership and onesided compromise that i dislike.
He basically pulled a Gerald Ford (pardoning nixon), when he took office, in several ways. after all the rhetoric about cleaning house, starting with new blood etc, he proceeded to make it impossible for the people who really drove the nails into the economy to face prosecution. Not a single person went to jail for nosediving the american economy, and its doubtful anyone ever will. he then proceeded to put a lot of those same people in charge of the systems they screwed in the first place.

Then there was the torture issue. George Bush and Cheney have been conclusively connected to numerous illegal wartime actions and torture(including admitting it from their own mouths), and Obama decided not to really do anything about that. He then carried on and left guantanamo bay running, despite saying he wouldnt.

Despite campaign rhetoric against the Patriot Act(which btw is basically Osama's dream), it has continued to be extended and expanded under Obama.

In recent things, such as economy and healthcare, he starts with a fairly viable idea, and then bleeds it out to a pathetic shell of its former self in the name of bipartisanship, all trying to appease the Republicans, who wouldnt piss on him if he was on fire. Instead of fighting for something, treating the bully as an opponent, he slowly gives all of his lunch money away to them, and when that is all over, gets beaten up anyways.

I hate the modern republican crazyness, the refusal to debate/ deal or god forbid work with someone else for the good of the people, and i generally disagree with the policies they try and ram through, but i cant help but loathe the democratic president who lets it all go down.

Americans didnt elect a democratic president and a democratic majority because they thought Republicans were running the country just fine, but the weak liberal party doesnt have the gusto to confront them, and do what the public wants. The majority of the public does not want the republican solution to healthcare and debt, but that is what they are getting anyways.




to your earlier comments, im surprised you think the republicans were the ones compromising.they pretty much held out until they got nearly everything they wanted.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1312754188' post='2283107']
Do you mean liberal in the classical sense or liberal in the "Government give permission" sense?
[/quote]

if you wouldnt mind expanding on my two options, i would like to answer that.

from past discussions, i am kind of a libertarian/liberal.

[StMichael]

Maggie, this is not a myth. The issue at hand is Federal taxes, not local, sales, etc.

Federal Income Taxes have become so "progressive" they now ensure that more than 47% not only not pay anything to fund the Federal government, but actually get money given to them from those who do pay.

If you make under $50K, you will more than likely pay nothing to the Federal Government. But it doesn't stop there. Not only will you not have to contribute, you will get money sent to you. Depending on your situation you will also receive money for each child you have, free school lunches, utilities covered, etc. Again, this is not an attack on anyone in need, but we end up with creating a government dependency and who funds the government? We do.

One party gives it out for you vote. The other says it won't take as much away for your vote. Nicely constructed to ensure a division of the citizenry. We are a no class republic. Meaning no one is stuck in any income class. So-called upper class today can easily be lower class tomorrow and vice versa. That is what makes this nation so great. We can decide our own fate.

Back to the tax breakdown which is as follows:

- The top 1% of earners in America pay 38% of ALL income taxes collected by the government.
- The top 5% of earners in America pay 58.7% of ALL income taxes collected by the government.
- The top 25% of earners in America pay 86% of ALL income taxes collected by the government.
- The top 50% of earners in American pay 97% of ALL income taxes collected by the government.

We all pay sales taxes, local taxes, etc. Hard to get around that. One can move from NY to FL and not have to pay City & State taxes. Thankfully we are able to choose where we can go if it fits our needs. We can avoid sales taxes in NYC by buying clothes in NJ where they don't levy sales taxes on clothing, etc.

But to fund the EPA, DEA, ATF, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, studies on how shrimp can run on a treadmill, money from me to pave a road in another state I will never set foot in, etc. 47% of the US Citizens do not pay for that.

If every single person in this country had to pay something to the IRS, they would question and vote to ensure the Federal Government was unable to waste the money they seize from the citizenry, as it stands right now we are divided.

During the fall off 2009 there was audio and video that was simply horrifying. It was in Michigan and people were lining up to get money that they heard, not sure if it was ever confirmed or if they received anything, that the money was free and calling it Obama Money. They had no idea where the source of these funds were from and didn't care. All they knew was they were getting something for nothing.

Searched for a video and this is the best I was able to find:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/pIkksi344cM?rel=0&hd=1

I'm not even covering the twists and turns that is our tax code, because it is meant to confuse, it is meant to extract as much as possible from those who actually create. We hear about corporate loopholes. If you own a business you know that for these loopholes you have to live with double taxation. Money into the company. Taxed. Money distributed to the owners and employees. Taxed.

Bottom line, is that if we are created equal, then we all need to pay equally. It will only be at that point that all citizens of the US will look at DC and say, how dare you take $5 or $1,000 or 1,000,000 from me and use it to see if a clam can count to 5.

As it stands now our money leaves and it becomes theirs. And they do with it as they please without any care of any ill effect whatsoever.

I could go on, but I hope you see my point, whether you agree or not.

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1312750003' post='2283073']

This is one of those urban legends that gets repeated a lot. You mean, less than half of all US citizens pay federal income tax. State income tax, local income tax, social security tax, medicare tax and so forth are paid by most employed Americans. Virtually all Americans pay sales tax. The unemployed pay taxes on their unemployment benefits.

This idea that only rich people are paying any taxes just doesn't match reality.
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1312755228' post='2283114']


Read this today, it sums up a lot of what I and a lot of others feel about the guy. [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?_r=1&ref=opinion"]http://www.nytimes.c...r=1&ref=opinion[/url]
[/quote]
I'd rather discuss facts than feelings, but that's cool.

That NY Times opinionist seems to share the typical leftist delusion that our economic crisis was caused primarily by "the rich" not being taxed their "fair share," whilst disregarding the elephant in the room of runaway government spending. The government can "soak the rich" all they like, and still barely make a dent in our $14 trillion+ national debt. (Of course, that would also lead to further erosion of our economy, as firms would be disinclined to invest in growth or hire employees with higher taxation.)

[quote]On paper, his original policies seemed mostly ok to me (with a few notable exceptions, such as Abortion). it has been his style of leadership and onesided compromise that i dislike.

He basically pulled a Gerald Ford (pardoning nixon), when he took office, in several ways. after all the rhetoric about cleaning house, starting with new blood etc, he proceeded to make it impossible for the people who really drove the nails into the economy to face prosecution. Not a single person went to jail for nosediving the american economy, and its doubtful anyone ever will. he then proceeded to put a lot of those same people in charge of the systems they screwed in the first place.

Then there was the torture issue. George Bush and Cheney have been conclusively connected to numerous illegal wartime actions and torture(including admitting it from their own mouths), and Obama decided not to really do anything about that. He then carried on and left guantanamo bay running, despite saying he wouldnt.

Despite campaign rhetoric against the Patriot Act(which btw is basically Osama's dream), it has continued to be extended and expanded under Obama.[/quote]
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss . . .

Welcome to political reality, kid.

[quote]In recent things, such as economy and healthcare, he starts with a fairly viable idea, . . .[/quote]
I, of course, would strongly contest that his ideas were never viable to begin with.


[quote]and then bleeds it out to a pathetic shell of its former self in the name of bipartisanship, all trying to appease the Republicans, who wouldnt piss on him if he was on fire. Instead of fighting for something, treating the bully as an opponent, he slowly gives all of his lunch money away to them, and when that is all over, gets beaten up anyways.


I hate the modern republican crazyness, the refusal to debate/ deal or god forbid work with someone else for the good of the people, and i generally disagree with the policies they try and ram through, but i cant help but loathe the democratic president who lets it all go down.

Americans didnt elect a democratic president and a democratic majority because they thought Republicans were running the country just fine, but the weak liberal party doesnt have the gusto to confront them, and do what the public wants. The majority of the public does not want the republican solution to healthcare and debt, but that is what they are getting anyways.[/quote]
Substitute "Democrat" for "Republican," and "liberal" for "conservative," and "Congress" for "President," and so on and so forth, and I'll pretty much agree with you there.

Obama was trying to force a disastrous plan on the American people, and Republicans (and Democrats) were absolutely right to oppose it.

But instead of taking a strong course of action to seriously reduce the debt and runaway government spending, they made a last-minute weak half-assed compromise, which was largely symbolic and will please no one but the Washington politicians who get to sign a deal and slap each other on the backs for their "bipartisanship," and hopefully (for them) stay secure in their cozy Washington careers.

The truly pathetic part is that the Republican Congressmen allowed themselves to be bullied by a weakling.


[quote]to your earlier comments, im surprised you think the republicans were the ones compromising.they pretty much held out until they got nearly everything they wanted.[/quote]
Not really, at least not those with any principle about reducing government. Obama got his debt ceiling raise, and very little government programs were cut.

And going into more debt to get out of debt (especially debt of this mind-boggling magnitude) is absolutely stupid. But, hey, that's bipartisanship in action.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1311736554' post='2276605']
The credit rating of the US will be downgraded shortly regardless[/quote]oh my goodness (don't blasphemy) a prophet!

[Maggyie]

I see your point, but the fact is that there are three money-sucking areas burdening the United States right now: Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending. Almost every employed American is taxed to fund the first two, regardless of whether they pay federal income taxes. It's frustrating that the government funds studies about the mating habits of fruit flies and other useless croutons. Yes, it's a waste of money. But we are NOT going bankrupt because of the fruit fly studies.

We're going bankrupt because everybody's Grandma is surviving long enough to go on Medicare and Social Security at 65 and living for a decade or two beyond that, a scenario not envisioned when the funding systems were set up. To solve the problem, we have to either cut Grandma's benefits or raise the SS or Medicare tax rate (again this is a different and separate tax from the income tax). Or, some combination of cutting and raising, which is probably what we will have to end up doing.

The other thing is that cutting taxes for the wealthy DOES NOT create jobs. The rich are NOT required to reinvest that money in the United States and often, they don't. There have been plenty of jobs created in the economic recovery, it's just that most of them have been created overseas. We have to get away from this idea that business is a "friend" of the community. Businesses are out for themselves, which is only natural. You can't blame them. But it's wrong-headed to think that if only we were cozier and nicer and friendlier to business, they would reinvest in the American economy. The bottom line is what it's all about. If they are paying people $3.00/hour in India with no insurance benefits, they will not bring the work back to the US unless the American workers come equally cheap.

If you examine the data since the 1980s, you'll see that wages for American workers have stagnated. The average American worker makes the same now that he did 30 years ago, in fact he makes less due to inflation. At the same time, the wealthiest 1% have gotten richer and richer. Literally their wealth has increased by leaps and bounds. Are today's wealthy people smarter than their parents? Do they work harder? Does that account for why their assets have exploded at the same time the middle class is in decline? Or is it because the breaks they were granted beginning in the 80s never DID trickle down?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1312754188' post='2283107']
Do you mean liberal in the classical sense or liberal in the "Government give permission" sense?
[/quote]
The problem's those beaver dam right-wing fascist pigs restricting the government's liberty to spend your money as it sees fit.