Obama unappreciation

[fede dpt]

"I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)


Yup, very UNAPPRECIATED.

well Obama has suggested Fema Camps......

Absurd.... He also has requested the complete Genocide of a certain set of people...

..... He has tried to create a master race...

.... He's hell bent on world domination

..... He tries to eliminate all those who oppose or speak out against him

....

The more the people who hate Obama talk the more those on the fence like him because they see 1 semi rational side and one side who is just driving down a closed street at 100 mph that leads to driving off a cliff.


You think that the Holocaust and world domination were his only policies? Hitler was a Fascist and a Socialist. If you read about his economic policies he hadin Germany they will look eerily similar .



And before people start saying "How can you say Obama is a Fascist? He didn't kill people!". Fascism was Fascism before Hitler, Mussolini is thefather of Fascism and wasnt a genocidal maniac.

 

[49ers650]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

4. Guantanamo Bay / Rendition - He closed Guantanamo bay with out any plan on where the terrorist will be moved to. By closing it he will probably have to house these terroists on American soil. He also didn't repeal bush era rendition polices which sanctions kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries so they can be tortured by foreign governments.

This doesn't mean it they will be your neighbor. They will be in our prisons where we can be more certaintorture will not occur. And innocent until proven guilty is still our philosophy right?

 

[essential1]

1. Pork barrel projects is literally the same thing as getting infrastructure in your town... What is done is when a bill comes through Congress people putcertain amount of money for their district, town and state... I would like a specific example though.

2. NAFTA he said NAFTA renegociation has to wait.. While I do not particularly believe him, in politics somethings have to be put on the back burner, youcannot do everything at once.

3. Yeah let's allow tax cheats to cheat more Americans out of money.. There are 18,000 corporations in 1 building the Camden Islands... It is not only themoral thing to do.. It is the right thing to do. Also many of these companies are ones that received bailouts, or have government lobbyists. So blame Obama foractually doing the right thing..

4. The first WTC bomber is on U.S. soil, as was the OK City Bomber, Zacarias Moussaoui, Shoe Bomber, Unabomber .. Your point.... They don't go to a countryprison. They go to a supermax prison which is 100x more secure than we know.. Also the renditions have always been performed by U.S. and all of our allies..The difference under Obama is there will actually be warrants, based on the plans.

5.I disagree with Obama on the wiretappings and think it should stop.. I am all for warrant wiretapping... But if he was allowed to have however many peoplewere wiretapped to sue, it would go terribly and would have bad consequences.


for your unappreciation, there are many actions that are appreciated.

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by Essential1

1. Pork barrel projects is literally the same thing as getting infrastructure in your town... What is done is when a bill comes through Congress people put certain amount of money for their district, town and state... I would like a specific example though.

1) Green golf carts. Ever rode a "neighborhood electric vehicle?" Well, you might want to now. The stimulus includes a tax credit toward the purchase of NEVs, which closely resemble golf carts in appearance. They are considered green vehicles because they use an electric battery instead of gasoline. You fill it up with juice by plugging it into a home electrical outlet. Don't expect to be able to take your NEV far outside of your neighborhood, though. Federal regulations limit their top speed to between 20 and 25 miles per hour. Freeway cruising is out. Those aren't the only green vehicles getting stimulus subsidies. There is also $300 million to buy "green" cars for federal employees.

2) Closing the ice-breaking gap. The U.S. Coast Guard is getting a shot in the arm from the stimulus, thanks to $98 million for a "polar icebreaker." That's not a new gum flavor, but a ship. The service currently has three ice-breaking ships able to sail through the frozen Arctic Ocean, but it wants a new and improved one to upgrade the aging fleet. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard, testified before a House panel last summer that icebreakers are needed for national security reasons. "Russia, Germany, China, Sweden and Canada are all investing and maintaining and expanding their national ice-breaking capacity," he said.

How are these projects rebuilding American infrastructure? How many jobs did these projects save/create?


2. NAFTA he said NAFTA renegociation has to wait.. While I do not particularly believe him, in politics somethings have to be put on the back burner, you cannot do everything at once.

I guess only time will tell on this one. I do agree that nothing will probably be done.

3. Yeah let's allow tax cheats to cheat more Americans out of money.. There are 18,000 corporations in 1 building the Camden Islands... It is not only the moral thing to do.. It is the right thing to do. Also many of these companies are ones that received bailouts, or have government lobbyists. So blame Obama for actually doing the right thing..

As I said I agree that these tax holes should be closed but increasing corporate taxes will drive American jobs away. Lets not generalize corporate America either. Besides the auto and financial industry who have received bailouts, corporate America is hurting right now and hemorrhaging jobs at record rates. Let the economy fix itself before we start raising taxes on companies that provide America with millions of jobs.

4. The first WTC bomber is on U.S. soil, as was the OK City Bomber, Zacarias Moussaoui, Shoe Bomber, Unabomber .. Your point.... They don't go to a country prison. They go to a supermax prison which is 100x more secure than we know.. Also the renditions have always been performed by U.S. and all of our allies.. The difference under Obama is there will actually be warrants, based on the plans.

They will be releasing some of them into American cities and providing them with government assistance(all of our tax money). Care to find an article about the Obama issuing warrants for rendition? I couldnt find any.

5.I disagree with Obama on the wiretappings and think it should stop.. I am all for warrant wiretapping... But if he was allowed to have however many people were wiretapped to sue, it would go terribly and would have bad consequences.

So your saying that people who have their rights violated by the United States government shouldnt be allowed to use the proper channels to gain justice for the actions taken against them?

for your unappreciation, there are many actions that are appreciated.

Quality over quantity my man

 

[fede dpt]

1. Pork barrel projects is literally the same thing as getting infrastructure in your town... What is done is when a bill comes through Congress people put certain amount of money for their district, town and state... I would like a specific example though.


How's that stimulus working out?

Yeah let's allow tax cheats to cheat more Americans out of money


Like people in his own cabinet?

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by Fede DPT

Yeah let's allow tax cheats to cheat more Americans out of money

Like people in his own cabinet?

 

[essential1]

The central economic idea of all forms of fascism is corporatism. Corporatism is government control of the economy by cartelizing it, that is, by selectingfavored firms in an industry. These favoured firms fix prices and create barriers to entry and obstacles for competitors, and by controlling which firms havecorporate rights. The government thereby maintains a level of power over the economy.


Let's see with the banks he had all of them take bailouts, same with the car industry. So he is playing favorites? What Obama is doing with the economy hasbeen done before and will be done again... Let's continue lassiez faire, free market, no regulation, market corrects itself policy because that has alwaysserved us right..

There is a good saying where it goes "History always repeats itself" that statement is untrue it is "Idiots allow history to repeatitself." Let's allow bankers to go crazy and not re regulate them like should be done and then see if they bring us to our knees again. I'm infavor of capitalism but someone needs to watch the shop..


And oh no Obama wants to help the poor.. That socialist... Let them become something without the opportunity... Helping less privileged people howUn-American..

 

[mateen cleaves]

smh

 

[ob89]

obama sucks, end of story.

 

[essential1]

the Stimulus wasn't all infrastructure..

Also are you an idiot Fede? unemployment was going to go up for months no matter what president came in and no matter what policy they enacted...


Also I hate Geithner so who cares.... But 250k to a proposed $210 billion that the corporations should have been paying taxes on...


I am a business admin major believe me they are not taxed to much.


And quality I disagree...

 

[th3ownly]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by duerr

Obama's policies are closest to Hitlers than any leader since Hitler walked the earth.

you're an idiot.

do you even know what Hitler's policies were?

Hell, do you know what OBAMA'S policies are??

yes they both are socialism to make the government as big as possible and that is what obama is trying to do

 

[fede dpt]

Originally Posted by Essential1

The central economic idea of all forms of fascism is corporatism. Corporatism is government control of the economy by cartelizing it, that is, by selecting favored firms in an industry. These favoured firms fix prices and create barriers to entry and obstacles for competitors, and by controlling which firms have corporate rights. The government thereby maintains a level of power over the economy.


Let's see with the banks he had all of them take bailouts, same with the car industry. So he is playing favorites? What Obama is doing with the economy has been done before and will be done again... Let's continue lassiez faire, free market, no regulation, market corrects itself policy because that has always served us right..

There is a good saying where it goes "History always repeats itself" that statement is untrue it is "Idiots allow history to repeat itself." Let's allow bankers to go crazy and not re regulate them like should be done and then see if they bring us to our knees again. I'm in favor of capitalism but someone needs to watch the shop..


And oh no Obama wants to help the poor.. That socialist... Let them become something without the opportunity... Helping less privileged people how Un-American..

Who is he playing favorites to? Are you serious? Why does the UAW now hold 55% of the shares? That was the whole point.


The reason we are in this in the first place is because of REGULATION. You know, Bill Clinton in 1994 signed the legislation basically strong-arming banks andmaking them lend money out to people who could not afford it?



Ben Franklin and Samuel Adams were against Federal Gov't helping the poor? Why? Because they knew having a "Welfare State" that Gov't and thepeople they try to help become corrupt. We have spent TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS on Welfare and there is STILL poor people.


Welfare and the Federal Gov't helping the poor is Unconstitutional. The intentions are good, but the results aren't.

 

[sputnik]

 

[justscoreda100]

Trying to deflect the topic of the debate... I'll still play anyway

Originally Posted by Essential1

The central economic idea of all forms of fascism is corporatism. Corporatism is government control of the economy by cartelizing it, that is, by selecting favored firms in an industry. These favoured firms fix prices and create barriers to entry and obstacles for competitors, and by controlling which firms have corporate rights. The government thereby maintains a level of power over the economy.

Do you not understand what your quoting? Your basically saying that the United States should use ideologies that the likes of Hitler and Mussolini used. I think I'll stick with what has made this country into a great nation for the past 200+ years.

Let's see with the banks he had all of them take bailouts, same with the car industry. So he is playing favorites? What Obama is doing with the economy has been done before and will be done again... Let's continue lassiez faire, free market, no regulation, market corrects itself policy because that has always served us right..

Well I never said he was picking favorites so I don't know where that is coming from.Lets be real, the United States hasn't been a true free market economy in decades. With organizations like the federal reserve and special interests who lobby interests detrimental to the public good the free market has been lost in this country for quite some time. In order to fix this we need to return to the core values that made America great.

There is a good saying where it goes "History always repeats itself" that statement is untrue it is "Idiots allow history to repeat itself." Let's allow bankers to go crazy and not re regulate them like should be done and then see if they bring us to our knees again. I'm in favor of capitalism but someone needs to watch the shop..

Well economic recessions occur about every 8 years and the same points are brought up. I agree completely that the bankers need to be reigned but completely changing the core of Americas economic fabric is not the answer. I mean, look at Europe they've installed almost every one of the policies that Barack Obama is trying to install here and none of them have worked quite as well as they were drawn up to be. Be real Europe stay losing

why borrow ideals from them?


And oh no Obama wants to help the poor.. That socialist... Let them become something without the opportunity... Helping less privileged people how Un-American..

Quite the opposite actually. i just come from a train of thought that believes that the best way to help people overcome there economic situation is to provide incentive for them to overcome it by themselves.

 

[80jerryrice80]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by KICKINHEADZ1010

Were you deprived of attention as a child?

Yup cause no one on NT wants their thread to be read and discusses.....I'm sorry. Tell me what issues and topic you're interested in and I'll make a thread about it, okay friend. Maybe I'll do some research for some new black female celeb sex tapes. Will that get you on my side? Typical NT behavior. I don't like what you have to say, you must be seeking attention. Get outta here with all that.

I think he simply said that because there was no elaboration in ur op, and therefore it seemed like a crude, anti obama rant.

 

[fede dpt]

Also are you an idiot Fede? unemployment was going to go up for months no matter what president came in and no matter what policy they enacted...

Cutting the Top marginal rate to the 20's would have put people back to work IMMEDIATELY, cutting payroll taxes would put people back to work IMMEDIATELY.Cutting Corporate Taxes would bring back US businesses back to this country.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Trying to deflect the topic of the debate... I'll still play anyway

Originally Posted by Essential1

The central economic idea of all forms of fascism is corporatism. Corporatism is government control of the economy by cartelizing it, that is, by selecting favored firms in an industry. These favoured firms fix prices and create barriers to entry and obstacles for competitors, and by controlling which firms have corporate rights. The government thereby maintains a level of power over the economy.

Do you not understand what your quoting? Your basically saying that the United States should use ideologies that the likes of Hitler and Mussolini used. I think I'll stick with what has made this country into a great nation for the past 200+ years.

I wasn't saying we should go to fascism. That is crazy talk... I was kindly pointing Fede to the definition Economic Fascism and why Obama isn't evenclose.

Also what is the incentive? and how do they overcome it... You guys live in a dream world.

 

[superantigen]

1. The Stimulus Bill - Its main focus should have been spending focused on rebuilding infrastructure and manufacturing in the United States. It has instead in some cases, gone into a bunch of pork barrel projects due to a lack of adequate government oversight.
I love how people always state that the stimulus bill should have gone to use for THIS or THAT because that what the country needs, when inreality, the problems plaguing this country run far deeper than anything this so called stimulus package can fix.

Realize that your solution is also very facile in nature and your accusations are highly unwarranted if not stupid, to say the least, simply because everysingle government that has come into power, has devoted time to and wasted taxpayer money on these "pork barrel projects" as you so put it...Beforeyou criticize the new guy in office, research just how much money, taxpayer money, that his predecessor wasted in IRAQ: http://www.cbsnews.com/st...inutes/main1302378.shtml

2. NAFTA - He promised to renegotiate NAFTA in way that would benefit American workers. Since he was elected he pretty much dismissed renegotiating NAFTA.

How long has the guy been in office now...ohh that's right--less than 5 months now...

He has 3 years and 7 months to do this--I know people like to think that he is some kind of "savior" or "superman" but he's not...

Everyone is quick to point out what he hasn't done even though he only recently became president...

3. He wants to increase federal taxes on corporations and close tax loopholes - while I believe that closing tax loopholes is the moral thing to do, it could result with more companies moving over seas to escape higher taxes. In a recessionary economy I don't think chasing companies and American jobs is the right thing to do.
Personally, I think taxes need to be increased in general. I say this because I'm thinking of the future, and because, that is what Bushshould've done when he initiated the two wars that are currently raging in Afghanistan and Iraq...

The thing is "War requires financing and that money needs to come from somewhere. There are two options. You can raise taxes, to the temporary displeasureof citizens, or you can burrow money (which in the case of the US = print more of it) to finance the war. The former option is the best because it's neverpermanent. After a war, you just re-adjust the rates of taxation back to their pre-war time and everything is good. The latter option is the worse of the two,and significantly so, because you either increase the national debt of your nation as a consequence of burrowing, or you increase inflation by printing.

Relative to today's economy, the Bush years were economically more stable--at least, when the War began (Thanks to Clinton's surplus). So in thatregard, raising taxes to finance the war would have been the best option. The key point is that, taxation in a good/ok economy is something the U.Scould've handled. But did he raise taxes, no! WHY--because he knew raising taxes would affect his wealthy comrades the most...and we certainly cannot havethe rich folk pay for the War...

Now Obama's economy is clearly different. He inherited a War and a faltering economy. He has the same 2 options as Bush, but in reality, he stands to loseby executing either one.

On the matter of the War, he can raise taxes in an attempt to finance the War (as should be the case) but by doing so, he risks dealing a damaging blow to analready writhing economy. His second option would be to burrow more money (as Bush did) but, we already know how that situation paly out--increased nationaldebt and flagrant inflation...

This is why Obama will lose regardless of what he does. His cards were already in play way before he entered the game. The worst part is that, Republicans knowdamn well that his options are awful in either case, they know the cards he was dealt, and they know the inheritance he was given. And yet, they attack the manfor matters he didn't even put into play himself."

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

4. Guantanamo Bay / Rendition - He closed Guantanamo bay with out any plan on where the terrorist will be moved to. By closing it he will probably have to house these terroists on American soil. He also didn't repeal bush era rendition polices which sanctions kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries so they can be tortured by foreign governments.

This doesn't mean it they will be your neighbor. They will be in our prisons where we can be more certain torture will not occur. And innocent until proven guilty is still our philosophy right?

What he said...

5. Warrant less Wiretapping - He directly went against his words when he said he would end warrant less wiretapping in America before he was elected. He even took it a step further than the bush administration by asserting that the government can not be sued by people who wiretapped.
Proof of this...

...

 

[essential1]

Fede DPT wrote:

---

Also are you an idiot Fede? unemployment was going to go up for months no matter what president came in and no matter what policy they enacted...

Cutting the Top marginal rate to the 20's would have put people back to work IMMEDIATELY, cutting payroll taxes would put people back to work IMMEDIATELY. Cutting Corporate Taxes would bring back US businesses back to this country.




Like in the early to lae 1920's when it was 20% that was good... Or 88,89,90 when Bush tried to balance the deficit while cutting their taxesit didn't work... Compared to where the top marginal tax rate is at now to where it has been at times Obama is being generous... Also that tax ratedoesn't create jobs fyi.. The small amount of money they save is not put through some vaccuum of jobs it is pocketed. Also if we cut the tax rate to the20s where do we go with lower tax brackets? 0%? 39% is pretty damn fair when you consider the loopholes they can use that normal people never find and all andall goes like we never had a tax increase.

Cutting payroll tax to the extent I assume you want in half would seem to hinder some very important programs in the U.S.

Cutting corporate taxes hardly do +#+%... We literally bought certain companies twice and they still evade taxes. If a coporation wants to avoid taxes theywill.. If they want to lower taxes stop hiding all the money and maybe it will be dropped a few points.. But the real reason companies leave the U.S. is lessto do with taxes which are not unfair but more to do with there are cheaper employees in other countries... So how about we lower minimum wage to $2 and bringback the companies?

What has taxes ever brought us anyways?

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

1. The Stimulus Bill - Its main focus should have been spending focused on rebuilding infrastructure and manufacturing in the United States. It has instead in some cases, gone into a bunch of pork barrel projects due to a lack of adequate government oversight.

I love how people always state that the stimulus bill should have gone to use for THIS or THAT because that what the country needs, when in reality, the problems plaguing this country run far deeper than anything this so called stimulus package can fix.

Realize that your solution is also very facile in nature and your accusations are highly unwarranted if not stupid, to say the least, simply because every single government that has come into power, has devoted time to and wasted taxpayer money on these "pork barrel projects" as you so put it...Before you criticize the new guy in office, research just how much money, taxpayer money, that his predecessor wasted in IRAQ: http://www.cbsnews.com/st...inutes/main1302378.shtml

I also love how people automatically bring up the past administration when defending the current one

. Let me put this out there : I dont agree with almost ANY of the policies George Bush put into motion. And just because every government has done it does not mean that it is a sound decision in times of adversity or prosperity.

2. NAFTA - He promised to renegotiate NAFTA in way that would benefit American workers. Since he was elected he pretty much dismissed renegotiating NAFTA.

How long has the guy been in office now...ohh that's right--less than 5 months now...

He has 3 years and 7 months to do this--I know people like to think that he is some kind of "savior" or "superman" but he's not...

Everyone is quick to point out what he hasn't done even though he only recently became president...

I mean hes putting so much stuff on his plate at the moment. Why not focus more on the promises he made on the campaign trail? You telling me he couldn't of brought that up during his overseas tour? Sounds like perfect timing to me.

3. He wants to increase federal taxes on corporations and close tax loopholes - while I believe that closing tax loopholes is the moral thing to do, it could result with more companies moving over seas to escape higher taxes. In a recessionary economy I don't think chasing companies and American jobs is the right thing to do.
Personally, I think taxes need to be increased in general. I say this because I'm thinking of the future, and because, that is what Bush should've done when he initiated the two wars that are currently raging in Afghanistan and Iraq...

The thing is "War requires financing and that money needs to come from somewhere. There are two options. You can raise taxes, to the temporary displeasure of citizens, or you can burrow money (which in the case of the US = print more of it) to finance the war. The former option is the best because it's never permanent. After a war, you just re-adjust the rates of taxation back to their pre-war time and everything is good. The latter option is the worse of the two, and significantly so, because you either increase the national debt of your nation as a consequence of burrowing, or you increase inflation by printing.

Relative to today's economy, the Bush years were economically more stable--at least, when the War began (Thanks to Clinton's surplus). So in that regard, raising taxes to finance the war would have been the best option. The key point is that, taxation in a good/ok economy is something the U.S could've handled. But did he raise taxes, no! WHY--because he knew raising taxes would affect his wealthy comrades the most...and we certainly cannot have the rich folk pay for the War...

Now Obama's economy is clearly different. He inherited a War and a faltering economy. He has the same 2 options as Bush, but in reality, he stands to lose by executing either one.

On the matter of the War, he can raise taxes in an attempt to finance the War (as should be the case) but by doing so, he risks dealing a damaging blow to an already writhing economy. His second option would be to burrow more money (as Bush did) but, we already know how that situation paly out--increased national debt and flagrant inflation...

This is why Obama will lose regardless of what he does. His cards were already in play way before he entered the game. The worst part is that, Republicans know damn well that his options are awful in either case, they know the cards he was dealt, and they know the inheritance he was given. And yet, they attack the man for matters he didn't even put into play himself."

Obama is raising taxes but the income gained by these tax increases is being offset by the humongous government programs hes putting into movement. I believe that taxes should be cut in order to promote corpate growth in a period of economic recession. If you want to cut the national debt cut some of those unneccesary government programs. And again lets keep this debate as nonpartisan as possible. I really see no difference between the democratic or republican party besides their social leanings.

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

4. Guantanamo Bay / Rendition - He closed Guantanamo bay with out any plan on where the terrorist will be moved to. By closing it he will probably have to house these terroists on American soil. He also didn't repeal bush era rendition polices which sanctions kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries so they can be tortured by foreign governments.

This doesn't mean it they will be your neighbor. They will be in our prisons where we can be more certain torture will not occur. And innocent until proven guilty is still our philosophy right?

What he said...

Refer to my response...

5. Warrant less Wiretapping - He directly went against his words when he said he would end warrant less wiretapping in America before he was elected. He even took it a step further than the bush administration by asserting that the government can not be sued by people who wiretapped.
Proof of this...

"In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts. In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush. Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by "sovereign immunity" from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act. The government's legal filing can be read here (PDF). For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar. "

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Fede DPT wrote:

---

Also are you an idiot Fede? unemployment was going to go up for months no matter what president came in and no matter what policy they enacted...

Cutting the Top marginal rate to the 20's would have put people back to work IMMEDIATELY, cutting payroll taxes would put people back to work IMMEDIATELY. Cutting Corporate Taxes would bring back US businesses back to this country.




Like in the early to lae 1920's when it was 20% that was good... Or 88,89,90 when Bush tried to balance the deficit while cutting their taxes it didn't work... Compared to where the top marginal tax rate is at now to where it has been at times Obama is being generous... Also that tax rate doesn't create jobs fyi.. The small amount of money they save is not put through some vaccuum of jobs it is pocketed. Also if we cut the tax rate to the 20s where do we go with lower tax brackets? 0%? 39% is pretty damn fair when you consider the loopholes they can use that normal people never find and all and all goes like we never had a tax increase.

Cutting payroll tax to the extent I assume you want in half would seem to hinder some very important programs in the U.S.

Cutting corporate taxes hardly do +#+%... We literally bought certain companies twice and they still evade taxes. If a coporation wants to avoid taxes they will.. If they want to lower taxes stop hiding all the money and maybe it will be dropped a few points.. But the real reason companies leave the U.S. is less to do with taxes which are not unfair but more to do with there are cheaper employees in other countries... So how about we lower minimum wage to $2 and bring back the companies?

What has taxes ever brought us anyways?


Early in his term, Bush faced the problem of what to do with leftover deficits spawned by the Reaganyears. At $220 billion in 1990, the deficit had grown to three times its size since 1980. Bush was dedicated to curbing the deficit, believing that Americacould not continue to be a leader in the world without doing so. He began an effort to persuade the Democratic controlled Congress to act on the budget; withRepublicans believing that the best way was to cut government spending, and Democrats convinced that the only way would be to raise taxes, Bush faced problemswhen it came to consensus building. In the wake of a struggle with Congress, Bush was forced by the Democratic majority to raise tax revenues; as a result,many Republicans felt betrayed because Bush had promised "no new taxes" in his 1988 campaign. Perceiving a means of revenge, Republican congressmendefeated Bush's proposal which would enact spending cuts and tax increases that would reduce the deficit by $500 billion over five years. Scrambling, Bushaccepted the Democrats' demands for higher taxes and more spending, which alienated him from Republicans and gave way to a sharp decrease in popularity.Bush would later say that he wished he had never signed the bill. Near the end of the 101st Congress, the president and congressional members reached acompromise on a budget package that increased the marginal tax rate and phased out exemptions for high-income taxpayers. Despite demands for a reduction in thecapital gains tax, Bush relented on this issue as well. This agreement with the Democratic leadership in Congress proved to be a turning point in the Bushpresidency; his popularity among Republicans never fully recovered.

Straight from wikipedia

[sup][/sup]

 

[dacityslanga]

 

[tbone95860]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Fede DPT

Yeah let's allow tax cheats to cheat more Americans out of money

Like people in his own cabinet?

Got em

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

1. The Stimulus Bill - Its main focus should have been spending focused on rebuilding infrastructure and manufacturing in the United States. It has instead in some cases, gone into a bunch of pork barrel projects due to a lack of adequate government oversight.

I love how people always state that the stimulus bill should have gone to use for THIS or THAT because that what the country needs, when in reality, the problems plaguing this country run far deeper than anything this so called stimulus package can fix.

Realize that your solution is also very facile in nature and your accusations are highly unwarranted if not stupid, to say the least, simply because every single government that has come into power, has devoted time to and wasted taxpayer money on these "pork barrel projects" as you so put it...Before you criticize the new guy in office, research just how much money, taxpayer money, that his predecessor wasted in IRAQ: http://www.cbsnews.com/st...inutes/main1302378.shtml

I also love how people automatically bring up the past administration when defending the current one

. Let me put this out there : I dont agree with almost ANY of the policies George Bush put into motion. And just because every government has done it does not mean that it is a sound decision in times of adversity or prosperity.

2. NAFTA - He promised to renegotiate NAFTA in way that would benefit American workers. Since he was elected he pretty much dismissed renegotiating NAFTA.

How long has the guy been in office now...ohh that's right--less than 5 months now...

He has 3 years and 7 months to do this--I know people like to think that he is some kind of "savior" or "superman" but he's not...

Everyone is quick to point out what he hasn't done even though he only recently became president...

I mean hes putting so much stuff on his plate at the moment. Why not focus more on the promises he made on the campaign trail? You telling me he couldn't of brought that up during his overseas tour? Sounds like perfect timing to me.

3. He wants to increase federal taxes on corporations and close tax loopholes - while I believe that closing tax loopholes is the moral thing to do, it could result with more companies moving over seas to escape higher taxes. In a recessionary economy I don't think chasing companies and American jobs is the right thing to do.
Personally, I think taxes need to be increased in general. I say this because I'm thinking of the future, and because, that is what Bush should've done when he initiated the two wars that are currently raging in Afghanistan and Iraq...

The thing is "War requires financing and that money needs to come from somewhere. There are two options. You can raise taxes, to the temporary displeasure of citizens, or you can burrow money (which in the case of the US = print more of it) to finance the war. The former option is the best because it's never permanent. After a war, you just re-adjust the rates of taxation back to their pre-war time and everything is good. The latter option is the worse of the two, and significantly so, because you either increase the national debt of your nation as a consequence of burrowing, or you increase inflation by printing.

Relative to today's economy, the Bush years were economically more stable--at least, when the War began (Thanks to Clinton's surplus). So in that regard, raising taxes to finance the war would have been the best option. The key point is that, taxation in a good/ok economy is something the U.S could've handled. But did he raise taxes, no! WHY--because he knew raising taxes would affect his wealthy comrades the most...and we certainly cannot have the rich folk pay for the War...

Now Obama's economy is clearly different. He inherited a War and a faltering economy. He has the same 2 options as Bush, but in reality, he stands to lose by executing either one.

On the matter of the War, he can raise taxes in an attempt to finance the War (as should be the case) but by doing so, he risks dealing a damaging blow to an already writhing economy. His second option would be to burrow more money (as Bush did) but, we already know how that situation paly out--increased national debt and flagrant inflation...

This is why Obama will lose regardless of what he does. His cards were already in play way before he entered the game. The worst part is that, Republicans know damn well that his options are awful in either case, they know the cards he was dealt, and they know the inheritance he was given. And yet, they attack the man for matters he didn't even put into play himself."

Obama is raising taxes but the income gained by these tax increases is being offset by the humongous government programs hes putting into movement. I believe that taxes should be cut in order to promote corpate growth in a period of economic recession. If you want to cut the national debt cut some of those unneccesary government programs. And again lets keep this debate as nonpartisan as possible. I really see no difference between the democratic or republican party besides their social leanings.

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

4. Guantanamo Bay / Rendition - He closed Guantanamo bay with out any plan on where the terrorist will be moved to. By closing it he will probably have to house these terroists on American soil. He also didn't repeal bush era rendition polices which sanctions kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries so they can be tortured by foreign governments.

This doesn't mean it they will be your neighbor. They will be in our prisons where we can be more certain torture will not occur. And innocent until proven guilty is still our philosophy right?

What he said...

Refer to my response...

5. Warrant less Wiretapping - He directly went against his words when he said he would end warrant less wiretapping in America before he was elected. He even took it a step further than the bush administration by asserting that the government can not be sued by people who wiretapped.
Proof of this...

"In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts. In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush. Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by "sovereign immunity" from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act. The government's legal filing can be read here (PDF). For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar. "








Ahhh...a quoted excerpt from an unbiased source...

Anyway, I bring up the past administration when talking about the current one simply because the former administrations policies and actions, or lack thereof,have greatly impacted the current one...I mean, I only brought up the bush administration because you make it seem as though Obama's administration iscompletely inept when the truth is, the past couple of administrations have been flawed when it comes to gov't projects and spending. The snenario you evenpresent is worse when one realizes that Obama has only been in office for less than 5 months...and already, he's supposedly failed...comon...get of yourhigh-horse...i'd like to see you try to "fix" this country in 5 months...

...

 

[justscoreda100]

SuperAntigen wrote:

Ahhh...a quoted excerpt from an unbiased source...

Anyway, I bring up the past administration when talking about the current one simply because the former administrations policies and actions, or lack thereof, have greatly impacted the current one...I mean, I only brought up the bush administration because you make it seem as though Obama's administration is completely inept when the truth is, the past couple of administrations have been flawed when it comes to gov't projects and spending. The snenario you even present is worse when one realizes that Obama has only been in office for less than 5 months...and already, he's supposedly failed...comon...get of your high-horse...i'd like to see you try to "fix" this country in 5 months...

...



"Critics contend that the Bush administration, and nowthe Obama administration, are wielding the privilege to dismiss entire cases based solely on the assertion by the executive branch that the informationdisclosed would damage national security, thereby turning what had been an evidentiary privilege into a justiciability privilege."

That unbiased enough for you?

or maybe you need good ol' Keith to tell you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30116228



I mean we could go on and on about how presidents inherit other presidents problems. For example, George Bush was handed the .Com bust in 2000. But that'sbesides the point and its not addressing the problem at its root. Its basically beating around the bush.

All's I'm sayin' is that if massive overspending was one of the reasons why the previous administration was a failure, why continue touching a hotstove? And don't give me that "at least were spending money on things that help America" defense. Its common sense that the best way to not getburned by a hot stove is not to touch it. I never once said that the current administration was inept, all I did was list reasons why it wasn'tappreciated.

And trust me, Id love to apply some Austrian principles to this economy but I wasn't electedto. When you run for public office you open your self up to criticism for the actions / policies that you make.

And again he has only been in office for less than 5 months and he is already changing the core values that have brought America to where it is today.Socialism / Fascism has failed in the past so why try it here?