Forum
44 days in...
|
Thraxle wrote
at 11:18 AM, Wednesday March 4, 2009 EST
...and there is no sign that Mr. Obama is any different from the past democrats that sat in the oval office. The only exception is that he has 100% compliance within his party and a majority in congress that will pass anything Mr. Obama supports.
How hypocritical is it that Mr. Obama continues to remind the general public of the deficit he inherited, but then spends so recklessly that the possibility of having a balanced budget anytime within his term is utterly impossible. How hypocritical is it that the libs called the recent spending bill that was passed a "stimulus package". How does $20 billion dollars towards food stamps stimulate the economy? What jobs will be created by increasing food stamp allowances? This is only one example of many within that spending bill, but I'll try to avoid making this post unneccisarily long. One of you left wingers need to help me understand what our President is attempting to do. The view from the cheap seats here in right field makes the picture look exactly like I thought it would look before the election took place; the liberal democrats want a socialist republic in place of our cherished capitalistic society. Let's continue to drain the rich to pay for the poor. Let's continue to increase taxes on large corporations that have been laying off employees at an enormous pace. Let's increase benefits to the unemployed instead of finding ways to provide jobs for them. I'm ranting a bit, but one thing is clear. Barack Obama scares the living shit out of me. JP, UGB, anybody, please help me feel better about the job he's doing. And someone explain to me how the fuck he has a 67% approval rating. They must have done the polling at a foreclosure seminar or a foodbank. |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 11:00 AM, Saturday August 8, 2009 EDT So my views aren't valid because I'm paranoid and don't have a time machine...
How eloquent. So I'll ask you your opinion UGB, even though it's invalid because you can't predict the future. Do you think Obama will raise taxes on the middle class? |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 11:31 AM, Saturday August 8, 2009 EDT Scare tactics were used just as aggresively by the dems while Bush was in office. Don't act like the Democratic party is full of squeaky clean individuals.
While I may sound straight ticket Republican I could really care less who leads the country as long as they make sound choices that don't fuck up my life or my income in any way. This usually leads me to the conservative side of the fence. Most things that I didn't like about Obama during his campaign have come to fruition in his first 6 months. He'll spend more than his predecessors and pay for it on the backs of the hardest working most educated people in the country. He's thrown money at food stamps, unemployed person's, and welfare, and it will eventually come out of my family's pocket one way or another. I think it's an awesome idea to increase taxes while many companies are on 4-day work weeks and the unemployment rate is near 10%. Let's strain everyone's pocket a little bit more so we can put forth a liberal agenda. I don't need a time machine to see it coming and it isn't paranoia. |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 12:09 PM, Saturday August 8, 2009 EDT > Their response has been promote massive amounts of fear to get back in power.
By saying this you are implying that only Republicans do it. On a random note, did you ever see the movie Bulworth? Pretty funny political parody with a good cast. Warren Beatty, Halle Berry, Oliver Platt, Sean Astin. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 12:37 PM, Saturday August 8, 2009 EDT UGB:
I don't know if there is a lot of deflation to undo. A VAT, if it is a consumption-based VAT, would be a good idea if it replaced the income tax, but the government, when given the power to tax income, is likely not going to give up the exercise of it. A consumption VAT would satisfy the leftist argument that rich people should pay more taxes because the government has to spend more to protect rich people from the envy of everybody else. Consumption is the target of envy; rich people who consume less (save more) will pay less in taxes because they are generating less envy. So there's something in it for rightists too. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 6:07 PM, Saturday August 8, 2009 EDT UGB:
National defense and police protection are not consumption and they are not counted in the consumption part of GDP. National defense and police protection are not taxed; they are funded by taxes. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:11 PM, Sunday August 9, 2009 EDT UGB:
I had to stop and look up the definition of "pendantic". You are the one who is being pedantic, being nitpicky about whether police protection is consumption or not. Rich people, on average, would pay more taxes in a VAT than poor people, on average, because rich people consume more, on average, than do poor people, on average. The VAT is opposed by some because it is regressive: the rich pay more, but what they pay is a lower percentage of their income, since, on average, they save more. |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 8:16 PM, Sunday August 9, 2009 EDT Good work skrum!
Sometimes you just gotta S-P-E-L-L it out for people. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:51 PM, Sunday August 9, 2009 EDT It is not nitpicky to say that police protection is not consumption when asked about it for the first time.
It is pedantic to keep up a topic that is not germane to this thread, which is about Obama's economic policy, not whether police protection is consumption. |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 10:40 PM, Sunday August 9, 2009 EDT I'm too drunk and lazy to read all this but
"#4 - getting the U.S. out of Iraq hasn't happened yet when it does happen, it's a short trek to Afghanistan - enjoy your stay" was just sad, Thrax. I expect better. btw move to norfolk complete next sunday. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 10:46 PM, Sunday August 9, 2009 EDT UGB:
Your pedantry does not make me full of crap. |