or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies? - Page 18

post #681 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Misleading headlines and statements are fun aren't they:

Misleading headlines and statements are fun aren't they:
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #682 of 753
Barack Obama proposes to cut 0.6% of the federal deficit.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #683 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Barack Obama proposes to cut 0.6% of the federal deficit.

Safe bet considering it will never pass and it allows him to seem to be standing up to his union handlers.
post #684 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Safe bet considering it will never pass and it allows him to seem to be standing up to his union handlers.

Possibly. This idea actually originally came from Eric Cantor. It might actually pass. But the Democrats were pretty widely opposed to it. They wanted "real" deficit reduction measures...like spending $800B on "stimulus" programs.

While I'd love to see this happen and I'm all in favor of nearly any government spending reduction. This is a barely a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, from what I've read, there are so many ways around this that its unlikely to even have the projected impact.

Real deficit reduction will have to involve going after the welfare/warfare state with an ax. There's really no other long-term solution. The numbers tell the story. You could eliminate all so-called "discretionary" spending (which includes 100% of the defense budget) and you'd still be in deficit. I mean I'm all for cutting all of the bullshit stuff government does and I'm all for laying off government employees and freezing or cutting their pay. But these things are merely fingers in the hole in the dike.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #685 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Possibly. This idea actually originally came from Eric Cantor. It might actually pass. But the Democrats were pretty widely opposed to it. They wanted "real" deficit reduction measures...like spending $800B on "stimulus" programs.

While I'd love to see this happen and I'm all in favor of nearly any government spending reduction. This is a barely a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, from what I've read, there are so many ways around this that its unlikely to even have the projected impact.

Real deficit reduction will have to involve going after the welfare/warfare state with an ax. There's really no other long-term solution. The numbers tell the story. You could eliminate all so-called "discretionary" spending (which includes 100% of the defense budget) and you'd still be in deficit. I mean I'm all for cutting all of the bullshit stuff government does and I'm all for laying off government employees and freezing or cutting their pay. But these things are merely fingers in the hole in the dike.

Agreed. We need massive reform in spending. "Deficit reduction" is a boondoggle anyway, because the deficit is fluid. It's a function of spending and income, which change rapidly. The latter of which is of course affected by the state of the overall economy. I always cringe when I hear "this initiative will reduce the deficit by X over Y number of years." No one knows what it will do, because no one knows that revenue will look like, and what other programs will increase/decrease spending.

To really combat the deficit, we need to do as you said: Take an axe to the welfare state. Completely reform Social Security system, for one. We also need a MASSIVE reduction in the size and scope of federal government. Entire departments and agencies with thousands of employees need to be cut. The IRS. The Education Department. Hundreds of others.

In conjunction, we need real tax reform. I'm not talking about tax cuts. I'm talking about a whole new, simplified system. Take the tax code and burn it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #686 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Agreed. We need massive reform in spending. "Deficit reduction" is a boondoggle anyway, because the deficit is fluid. It's a function of spending and income, which change rapidly. The latter of which is of course affected by the state of the overall economy. I always cringe when I hear "this initiative will reduce the deficit by X over Y number of years." No one knows what it will do, because no one knows that revenue will look like, and what other programs will increase/decrease spending.

To really combat the deficit, we need to do as you said: Take an axe to the welfare state. Completely reform Social Security system, for one. We also need a MASSIVE reduction in the size and scope of federal government. Entire departments and agencies with thousands of employees need to be cut. The IRS. The Education Department. Hundreds of others.

In conjunction, we need real tax reform. I'm not talking about tax cuts. I'm talking about a whole new, simplified system. Take the tax code and burn it.

I would amend this a bit.

I do think we ultimately do need tax cuts (as well as tax simplification). My vote for for the complete elimination of the income tax (personal and corporate) and institution of a single national sales tax. Frankly if you ended the welfare/warfare state this tax would likely be rather modest and hardly worthy of complaint.

I would also point out that I said we need to end the welfare (including corporate welfare) and warfare state. I'm not talking about ending defense (this is a constitutional duty of the federal government) but true, real defense (as opposed to what the US government has been doing for 40-60 years) would certainly cost us substantially less that the current "defense" budget does.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #687 of 753
What's disturbing about Washington is that there exists two camps with opposing beliefs. Some espouse an amalgam of both, but none of these ideas will be beneficial.

One camp advocates spending cuts, which are obviously required for all the obvious reasons. However, the painful reality is that such cuts will necessarily slaughter herds of sacred cows for which their advocates will unleash hell on Earth.

The other camp advocates tax increases, generally in the form of income, capital gains and estate tax increases that are anticipated next month. This is a chimera for many reasons, not the least of which is that such tax increases never, ever result in the revenues anticipated. IF they are to expire, we'll be reading for months on end how Treasury revenues aren't appearing "as expected". How many times in the last four years have we heard how "economists" both inside and outside of Washington are surprised by economic reports month after month?

If I am threatened with tax increases I will do everything I can to avoid it. I won't pay one extra penny in taxes. Not one. I will transfer my wealth to the smallest possible paper denominations and burn it in one big bonfire before I'll give it to the government. I'll invite my friends and we'll have a big party. If the estate tax comes back I guarantee you the last obligation paid by my estate will be to the IRS - and it will bounce.

Why? I refuse to support the principles that have contributed to this country's economic destruction. Will everyone do this? No, but I assure you - I'm not the only one. Estate tax revenue is an illusion. As for the income tax, it's created a different kind of hell on Earth - the misery we're living with now, which will certainly worsen until it's eliminated.

I'm all for spending cuts, but the most draconian cuts imaginable won't address the deficit. Forget about tax increases too. History has proven they don't work.

So it would appear a dilemma exists - neither spending cuts nor tax increases will address an unsustainable deficit. That which is unsustainable cannot be sustained - look at the housing market for one recent example.

No one in Washington understands, but nearly everyone in business does - what's needed is to grow the economy. Increased GDP is the only solution. If I were only permitted to keep the money I earn, rest assured I'd have no interest in burning it. I'd spend it, invest it, or give it away to charitable causes I deem worthy. I'll be damned if I let some government bureaucrat decide what to do with my money. If it weren't so difficult and expensive to do business in the United States, who knows how successful we could be.

Cut taxes. Kill the income tax. It is no damn business to anyone what I earn. Find another way to raise Treasury revenue - there are many - and then the government damn well better use it responsibly. You will see economic growth and wealth creation like never before in history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

.. Take the tax code and burn it.

That would quite a bonfire too. Take the heat and use it for "green energy"
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #688 of 753
This guy gets it: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law: Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19%, whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to cut rates and get 19% of a larger pie.

Quote:
The Obama administration's budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues. ...

Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs.

I think I just said that.

Quote:
The target of the Obama tax hike is the top 2% of taxpayers, but the burden of the tax is likely to fall on the remaining 98%.

Perhaps that's you...?

Quote:
The top 2% of income earners do not live in a vacuum. Our economy and society are interwoven. Employees and employers, providers and users, consumers and savers and investors are all interdependent. The wealthy have the highest propensity to save and invest. The wealthy also run the lion's share of small businesses.

Why is this not obvious? Obama and his legions of economic advisers seem to think wealth is some kind of natural resource to be tapped and showered upon society. Wealth doesn't merely exist; it must be created. It is not created by government. It is not created by fiat. It can only be created by Man, acting in his own self-interest. It is not created in a vacuum, and does not exist there.

History shows that reductions in marginal income and business tax rates results in the same 18 to 19% of GDP collected by the Treasury. It's been that way for decades. If GDP grows, they'll still collect the same 19%, but that 19% represents a whole lot more dollars. You'd think big-government advocates would like that idea... so why don't they? Personally, I think they're just dumb as fence posts. Isn't grammar school algebra a prerequisite for a degree in economics?

What about capital gains, the type of wealth created as a result of placing one's capital at risk, the kind that other use to grow their businesses, hire people, create products and services for the benefit of mankind?

Quote:
In 1987 the capital gains tax rate was raised to 28% from 20%. Capital gains realizations as a percent of GDP fell to 3% in 1987 from about 8% of GDP in 1986 and continued to fall to below 2% over the next several years. Conversely, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 1997, to 20% from 28% and, at the time, the forecasts were for lower revenues over the ensuing two years.

In fact, tax revenues were about $84 billion above forecast and above the level collected at the higher and earlier rate. Similarly, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 2003 to 15% from 20%. The lower rate produced a higher level of revenue than in 2002 and twice the forecasted revenue in 2005.

You think they'd learn by now, but no...

Quote:
The president's economic team has launched a three-pronged attack on capital: They are attacking the income group that is the most responsible for capital formation and jobs in the private sector, and then attacking the investment returns on capital formation in the form of dividends and capital gains. The out-year projections on revenues from these tax increases will prove to be phantom.

I think I just said that.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #689 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

What's disturbing about Washington is that there exists two camps with opposing beliefs. Some espouse an amalgam of both, but none of these ideas will be beneficial.

One camp advocates spending cuts, which are obviously required for all the obvious reasons. However, the painful reality is that such cuts will necessarily slaughter herds of sacred cows for which their advocates will unleash hell on Earth.

The other camp advocates tax increases, generally in the form of income, capital gains and estate tax increases that are anticipated next month. This is a chimera for many reasons, not the least of which is that such tax increases never, ever result in the revenues anticipated. IF they are to expire, we'll be reading for months on end how Treasury revenues aren't appearing "as expected". How many times in the last four years have we heard how "economists" both inside and outside of Washington are surprised by economic reports month after month?

If I am threatened with tax increases I will do everything I can to avoid it. I won't pay one extra penny in taxes. Not one. I will transfer my wealth to the smallest possible paper denominations and burn it in one big bonfire before I'll give it to the government. I'll invite my friends and we'll have a big party. If the estate tax comes back I guarantee you the last obligation paid by my estate will be to the IRS - and it will bounce.

Why? I refuse to support the principles that have contributed to this country's economic destruction. Will everyone do this? No, but I assure you - I'm not the only one. Estate tax revenue is an illusion. As for the income tax, it's created a different kind of hell on Earth - the misery we're living with now, which will certainly worsen until it's eliminated.

I'm all for spending cuts, but the most draconian cuts imaginable won't address the deficit. Forget about tax increases too. History has proven they don't work.

So it would appear a dilemma exists - neither spending cuts nor tax increases will address an unsustainable deficit. That which is unsustainable cannot be sustained - look at the housing market for one recent example.

No one in Washington understands, but nearly everyone in business does - what's needed is to grow the economy. Increased GDP is the only solution. If I were only permitted to keep the money I earn, rest assured I'd have no interest in burning it. I'd spend it, invest it, or give it away to charitable causes I deem worthy. I'll be damned if I let some government bureaucrat decide what to do with my money. If it weren't so difficult and expensive to do business in the United States, who knows how successful we could be.

Cut taxes. Kill the income tax. It is no damn business to anyone what I earn. Find another way to raise Treasury revenue - there are many - and then the government damn well better use it responsibly. You will see economic growth and wealth creation like never before in history.



That would quite a bonfire too. Take the heat and use it for "green energy"

I completely agree.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #690 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

This guy gets it: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law: Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19%, whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to cut rates and get 19% of a larger pie.



I think I just said that.



Perhaps that's you...?



Why is this not obvious? Obama and his legions of economic advisers seem to think wealth is some kind of natural resource to be tapped and showered upon society. Wealth doesn't merely exist; it must be created. It is not created by government. It is not created by fiat. It can only be created by Man, acting in his own self-interest. It is not created in a vacuum, and does not exist there.

History shows that reductions in marginal income and business tax rates results in the same 18 to 19% of GDP collected by the Treasury. It's been that way for decades. If GDP grows, they'll still collect the same 19%, but that 19% represents a whole lot more dollars. You'd think big-government advocates would like that idea... so why don't they? Personally, I think they're just dumb as fence posts. Isn't grammar school algebra a prerequisite for a degree in economics?

What about capital gains, the type of wealth created as a result of placing one's capital at risk, the kind that other use to grow their businesses, hire people, create products and services for the benefit of mankind?



You think they'd learn by now, but no...



I think I just said that.


Ding. Ding. Ding. Please, let these retards in Washington read and comprehend.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #691 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ding. Ding. Ding. Please, let these retards in Washington read and comprehend.

Wrong thread, retards is in the IQ thread....
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #692 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ding. Ding. Ding. Please, let these retards in Washington read and comprehend.

Not bloody likely. They're still in full speed ahead, Thelma and Louise mode:

The Dead Enders: Even after their defeat, Democrats keep insisting on a tax increase

Quote:
The U.S. corporate tax rate of 39% (a combination of state average and federal rates) is already about 15 percentage points above the international average, and for the first time in a generation the personal rate of 41% would rise above the average of our overseas rivals. That's all before the 3.8% surtax on investment income arrives in 2013, courtesy of ObamaCare. ...

Because most nations tax their companies at a business rate lower than the personal rate, the Tax Foundation says the Obama plan would mean that many Subchapter S corporations in the U.S. would pay "virtually the highest tax rates in the world on their business income." In other words, the after-tax rate of return on investment in the U.S. would fall relative to investing in Europe or Asia. This is an invitation to outsource more jobs.

Just what we need.

Quote:
Even in this lame duck liberal Congress, there is a bipartisan majority in both houses to prevent this tax increase. The only obstacles are a defeated, willful liberal minority that wants to extract one more pound of flesh from the private economy, and a President who still fails to comprehend that jobs and wealth are created outside of government and politics.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #693 of 753

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #694 of 753
I think we should tax the shit out of this guy. That will make America a better place.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #695 of 753

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #696 of 753
Obama hasn't been able to implement all the policies he wanted to try to address the economic crisis because of the obstructionism of the Republican party. And every time new unemployment numbers come out that aren't real improvements, those same Republicans sound almost giddy.

Could there...be...some...weird...connection?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #697 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Obama hasn't been able to implement all the policies he wanted to try to address the economic crisis because of the obstructionism of the Republican party.

Barack Obama has had a Congress which had a filibuster-proof majority in both houses by his own party for two years and implemented the key aspects of his economic recovery plan including an $800 billion "stimulus" program, a "Cash for Clunkers" program as well as mortgage assistance programs and continual extensions of unemployment payments.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #698 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Obama hasn't been able to implement all the policies he wanted to try to address the economic crisis because of the obstructionism of the Republican party.

Barack Obama has had a Congress which had a filibuster-proof majority in both houses by his own party for two years and implemented the key aspects of his economic recovery plan including an $800 billion "stimulus" program, a "Cash for Clunkers" program as well as mortgage assistance programs and continual extensions of unemployment payments.

BHO could have passed whatever legislation he wanted without a single Republican vote. Oh wait a minute - he did.

Question: When was the last time Congress enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority? Who was President?

Extra credit: When was the last time Republicans held such a majority?
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #699 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

BHO could have passed whatever legislation he wanted without a single Republican vote. Oh wait a minute - he did.

Question: When was the last time Congress enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority? Who was President?

Extra credit: When was the last time Republicans held such a majority?

Yes that part is the lack of heavy handedness that the GOP accuse him of.

And before you start why did it take so long to approve Healthcare?

Why are we now almost faced with higher taxes for everyone?

If he was such a steamroller how could this happen?

He could have but he didn't.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #700 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And before you start why did it take so long to approve Healthcare?

Because even some Democrats had to be bribed, threatened, extorted and bludgeoned into voting for it. And that took a while.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Why are we now almost faced with higher taxes for everyone?

Because they chose to avoid the controversial Bush tax cuts to try and get elected in November.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #701 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Because even some Democrats had to be bribed, threatened, extorted and bludgeoned into voting for it. And that took a while.




Because they chose to avoid the controversial Bush tax cuts to try and get elected in November.

Quote:
Because even some Democrats had to be bribed, threatened, extorted and bludgeoned into voting for it. And that took a while.


Funny that wasn't my take on the situation.

Quote:
Because they chose to avoid the controversial Bush tax cuts to try and get elected in November

It's December. That was over a month ago. So what about now?

Why are you defending them?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #702 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Funny that wasn't my take on the situation.

Of course not. What is your take on the situation? It will be interesting to see how it compares to the reality that I summarized for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's December. That was over a month ago. So what about now?

Yes it was and now they are trying to pass something. They could pass what they want because they are still in power (though lame duck sessions don't usually work that way for a lot of reasons.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Why are you defending them?

Defending who?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #703 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Of course not. What is your take on the situation? It will be interesting to see how it compares to the reality that I summarized for you.




Yes it was and now they are trying to pass something. They could pass what they want because they are still in power (though lame duck sessions don't usually work that way for a lot of reasons.)




Defending who?

The GOP.

Quote:
Yes it was and now they are trying to pass something. They could pass what they want because they are still in power (though lame duck sessions don't usually work that way for a lot of reasons.)

Yes and they almost had it in the bag until the Republicans said " No TM. "

Quote:
interesting to see how it compares to the reality that I summarized for you.


With an attitude like that why bother?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #704 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The GOP.

I'm not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes and they almost had it in the bag until the Republicans said " No TM. "

But they still have the majorities. What's the problem?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

With an attitude like that why bother?

You always have a cop-out to avoid answering direct and tough questions.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #705 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm not.




You always have a cop-out to avoid answering direct and tough questions.

As I've said your tone says you've already made up your mind so why bother?

Quote:
I'm not.

Not from where I'm standing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #706 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As I've said your tone says you've already made up your mind so why bother?

So you don't have an answer. Got it. \


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Not from where I'm standing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #707 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So you don't have an answer. Got it. \





Quote:
So you don't have an answer. Got it. \

Please show me where I said that? See what I mean about you always think you know everything abouit everyone you talk to. Wow! Just wow!

I'm just saying there's no point as I could never convince someone who thinks like that so why bother? I read news article after news article that clearly showed the GOP dragging their heels on everything concerning healthcare. I think if iot wasn't for them we'd have had a public option. But the original bill had to be changed so much to get passed.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #708 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please show me where I said that? See what I mean about you always think you know everything abouit everyone you talk to. Wow! Just wow!

Well you seem unwilling to provide an answer and more willing to continue making posts to avoid giving an answer...so...\

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #709 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm not.




But they still have the majorities. What's the problem?




You always have a cop-out to avoid answering direct and tough questions.

Quote:
But they still have the majorities. What's the problem?

Like I've already said where's the heavy handedness he's been accused of? Where's the Steam roller?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #710 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Like I've already said where's the heavy handedness he's been accused of? Where's the Steam roller?

Two huge examples: Stimulus. Healthcare.

I suspect he's a bit more conciliatory now after having been "shellacked" in November.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #711 of 753
Steamrolling would have been implementing single payer.

Implementing the 1994 Conservative Republican plan is not steamrolling in the least.

Fuck, I wish he DID steamroll us some universal healthcare. The conservatives would still be bitching and crying and moaning just like they are now, except we'd actually have something REALLY REALLY good in return. You guys are crucifying Obama for having your views circa 1994.

So
FUCKING
stupid.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #712 of 753
Get a grip. In 1994 I was 13 years old and more concerned about what merit badges I would work on at the next scout camp than what was going on in the political arena.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #713 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Two huge examples: Stimulus. Healthcare.

I suspect he's a bit more conciliatory now after having been "shellacked" in November.

But you've stated he could have passed anything since they have that majority. What's up with that? And no I don't think it was dissenting Democrats. I did hear a great deal about dissenting Repuiblicans however.


Quote:
"shellacked" in November.

[/QUOTE]

Very Republican sounding. If that were actually true thay would have gotten the Senate as well.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #714 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Get a grip. In 1994 I was 13 years old and more concerned about what merit badges I would work on at the next scout camp than what was going on in the political arena.

This has always been my point with SDW about the S & L crisis in the early 80's. Not an insult just there's a difference between experiencing things and reading about them in a book. I'm sure people who lived through WWII or the Great Depression would tell me the same thing.

However he's right about the fact that their agenda hasn't changed.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #715 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But you've stated he could have passed anything since they have that majority. What's up with that? And no I don't think it was dissenting Democrats. I did hear a great deal about dissenting Repuiblicans however.

What is your explanation for the fact that they haven't pass their version of the Bush tax cut extension?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Very Republican sounding.

Or very Obama sounding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If that were actually true thay would have gotten the Senate as well.

Not my word...Obama's.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #716 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What is your explanation for the fact that they haven't pass their version of the Bush tax cut extension?




Or very Obama sounding.




Not my word...Obama's.

Whatever.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #717 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Whatever.



What? You don't agree with your President's analysis?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #718 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post



What? You don't agree with your President's analysis?

He's yours also. But as I've said I don't always agree with Obama.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #719 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

He's yours also.

Nope.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But as I've said I don't always agree with Obama.

So you disagree with his assessment of a "shellacking?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #720 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Question: When was the last time Congress enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority? Who was President?

Extra credit: When was the last time Republicans held such a majority?

Anyone?

It's not a difficult question (unless you're a product of our glorious public education system that is).
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?