Obama Doubles Down...on being Obama - Page 2

That's funny. Instead of responding to the specific points being made, you find a quote from one person who's rich and supports your worldview.

And you think that somehow makes you right.
The left is hilariously deluded and unfit to govern a hot dog stand.

Yes, because raising taxes is the ONLY thing I'm saying we should do. We also need to slash the shit out of defense. There's NO reason to spend more than the rest of the world combined. None.

Also, remove the profit motivation from healthcare by going full single payer and we drive down costs there, too.

Legalize all drugs and tax them. Drug war ends plus we get tax revenue.

You and your BUT BUT BUT SOAK THE RICH WAAAAH argument holds no water.

Considerably less than that.

The aggregate taxable income of every US "millionaire and billionaire" equaled $625,399,107,000 in 2009 - the latest year for which IRS data exists.

The US Treasury runs an annual budget of approximately $3,800,000,000,000.

Take every penny earned by every "millionaire and billionaire", everything, leaving them exactly nothing, not a penny to themselves (or for the states in which they live for that matter), and you can operate the federal government... for exactly two months.


Clearly Obama's rhetoric calling for increased taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" means he doesn't, either.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab3.xls

According to the WSJ, McConnell is offering Obama a way out of the default danger. . .
but with a potentially high cost to incumbent Dems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...iAI_print.html

So, if they took everything all the millionaires and billionaires earned, aside from crashing hundreds of thousands of small businesses, scaring the shit out of the markets (and probably the rest of the people in the country), completely obliterating any remaining respect for people and their property, they would be able to reduce the annual deficit from about $1.6 trillion to $1 trillion.

Good. Let's do it.

The idea behind this is that all that military spending comes from fancy planes and spy satellites. In reality, one has to figure out how to: extricate 50,000 soldiers from the Korean border without starting a devastating war, abandon ships and oil tankers to naval pirates and terrorists, and make things like the nuclear arsenal just disappear without problems and leaving the continent safe.

Defense can be trimmed, but Obama's a Democrat and he hasn't been able to stop the F35 debacle. That might have been a good place to start. And if you bring all the soldiers home from bases around the world, what happens to the unemployment rate then? Goodbye Obama in 2012, that's what.


You do realize the "single-payer" in single-payer health care is the government right?

The government's going to pay more, not less. Now, single payer's a decent system and it does cut waste and duplication in the health care system. But that's because it cuts the other "payers" out (i.e. insurance companies). How's government spending going to fall under a single payer program? The nation's health care costs overall may go down, but the government's payments will absolutely go up. When the government has no money, this is a problem.

The only way to "remove the profit motivation" from health care is to absolutely ban private treatment like we do in Canada. In America? Good luck with that.


Again, more simplistic nonsense. Only idiots take drugs, so you can expect the rates of auto and personal accidents to skyrocket. Driving while high will require increased policing costs, as will the rates of other crimes from people with addictions. Remember, gambling's legal now and has an impact on personal and property crime. Heroin addicts aren't going to be nice and friendly when short on cash.

When health care costs are factored in, are we making any money from cigarette taxes? When the nicotine addiction treatment costs are factored in, are we any further ahead? When we factor the time and energy we put into legislating where and when people can legally smoke, is it worth the cost?

How many babies are going to be born from drug-using parents and who's going to pay for the expansion of neo-natal care across a nation of 300 million people?


You may now rethink your entire worldview. And please, do better this time.

The right is a bunch of liars that say one thing and mean another thing. No real transparency at all in the GOP Party.

1. Your government is spending too much money.
2. So we have to borrow more of it.
3. Which means you're going to pay more.
4. So we can continue to spend more of it.

This only makes sense in Washington.


here it comes...


bend over...


"Asking" "Contribution" ? Newspeak for taking it out of your hide, at the point of a gun.

Increase taxes on "Millionaires and Billionaires"... yet doing so will result in an insignificant revenue increase.

Which of these two is saying one thing, while meaning another?

What is wrong with these idiots? Want to reduce the debt as a percent of GDP? Increase GDP! But no, raise taxes on the middle class. Great way to increase GDP.



Morons.

Budget Solution: Squeeze the Middle

Raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" and they simply raise the prices of the products and services their businesses provide.

The middle class and the working poor are the ones who end up paying more.

Obama doubles-down on arrogance and power-intoxication:


So reminiscent of this classic:

"I Won, I'm The President"

One wonders whether Barack Obama thought that being president means being able to do whatever he wants. He certainly acts this way. This is the problem with the "imperial presidency" or "president kingness" that has evolved over decades.

I want him to go to the American people with it. Polls show that Obama's position on this matter is not the most popular option. This gets spun away as people "not paying attention."

The same thing happened when they rammed Obamacare through. They painted the American public as stupid and uninformed. As if all they needed to do was help us understand and we would suddenly support the monstrosity.

That's the problem. Obama's "image" is just that.

Image ≠ substance.

Anyone who read about Obama and his background was not fooled. His actions as President have been 100% consistent with his previous actions.