In your greed and worry about your wealth (I know, I know, you're all poor and barely getting by ) being yanked away you will not only drag us all down by refusing to work with our president but by also deciding to consciously work against him.
I'm sure plenty of you will deny this it true. Wake up people!
The latest example:
"Congress has rejected a bipartisan deficit commission that could have forced Congress to take painful steps on tax increases and entitlements.
The commission would have been modeled on one that makes military base-closing decisions, forcing Congress to take up or down votes. The Senate turned aside the legislation last month after some original Republican supporters jumped ship once Obama endorsed the plan."
So, as soon as the president endorsed an idea that had been put forth by Congress, several Republicans jumped ship?
Should I continue to post examples of how they will do anything possible to destroy or ruin this president?
I would say the politicians should be fired and we should start with a blank slate. Maybe there should be a draft - when you are born you should be assigned a number, like jury duty or the military - when your number comes up it is your turn to serve.
Conservatives (rich or poor, and I am the latter) belive that raising taxes hurts the economy by creating a reason for employers not to hire. Most of the people having their taxes raised are small business owners who will have to lay off help or avoid hiring if their taxes go up.
When the word "bi-partisan" is used of late it seems to mean "OK republicans, come along and sign on to our liberal ideas" and they won't do it.
I agree that most of the congress should be sent home and alot of them will be this fall. I'd like to see a return to the "citizen statesman" that was envisioned by the founding fathers. Too many of these men and women begin to feel like nobility once they get to Washington. I'd rather see people who are only a year or two away from their roots as a business owner facing the struggle to make payroll.
One year, my ex and I sat down and estimated how much we paid in taxes - income, FICA, sales, luxury, state, local and school - combined. It was in the neighborhood of 70% of our earnings!!! That is far too much in a free country. We were not "rich" by any stretch. You can only add some much to the tax burden of productive people before they stop producing.
Resident racing historian ~~~ Re-riders Clique
Founder of the Mighty Thoroughbred Clique
Ah to be liberal is nirvana...can't wait for November and a lot of the Dumbocrats are sent packing! You don't think the MAJORITY of the American public is not PISSED OFF at how the Dumbocrats are running things??? All you have to do is look at the most recent elections..DUH! There are a plethora of Repubs and Dums who need to be voted OUT. If they have been in for more than 10 yrs..vote them out regardless. None of them should be making a career out of being a senator or congress person.
Why do you need a commission to keep from spending money. Last time I checked the President still had the power to Veto bills he doesn't like. If he thinks the spending is getting out of hand then veto the bill.
Its pretty simple.
Of course, you'll notice that he has not vetoed a single bill this year.
Since when has the president supported bipartisanship? He sat by silently as Dems had closed door discussions about the health care bills while Republicans asked to be included in the discussions or at least have these discussions televised so that American could see what was being discussed. It wasn't until the Dems lost that one seat majority to the Republicans that they were suddenly ready to have bipartisan discussions and "transparency". It's all a ploy now that they know their bully agenda is screwed. And yes the Dems had control of Congress for several years prior to Obama being elected and nothing was accomplished. So no.... I don't want to hear any whining from the Democrats about the Republicans not wanting to play fair.
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field." --Dwight D Eisenhower
OP, sweetie, whatever field guide you're using to identify "Conservatives" has grossly mislead you. You could could scour the whole of DC and not find more than a handful of real Conservatives.
What you are mistaking for conservatives chirp somewhat like conservatives sometimes, but they're really just a subspecies of Liberals.
They squabble over territory and mates on occasion, but these pretenders want to take the country over the same cliff as the Liberals do, only they want to do so a slighter lower speed so as to enjoy the scenery and not scare themselves so much on the way down. Liberals just want to crash at the bottom as quickly as possible.
some comic relief, from a libertarian-moderate mix of ideals
freaking liberal politicians!
as you bum government money to buy yourself more cigarettes and booze, you sit around and ignore the idea of getting a job to support yourself, and waste away while you cheer on obama, and then complain that you aren't getting a hefty enough welfare check in the mail. your all faithful leader, your messiah, Mr. Obama, will solve all of your troubles if you pester him enough and jerk around the republicans enough, and keep them out of the business so you can pass all of your laws. hey! capitalism is EVILLLLL!
sorry, i had to (it is my hope that most of you are smart enough to understand that what has been said above is 100% SARCASMMMM. yes, there ARE people like that, but does it make up the majority of the democratic party? no. just like how the republican party is NOT all richie tax-lowering-obsessed snobs. get it right.)
again, sorry, but i think that to generalize an entire political party or group (as in the OP) of people like that is moronic, and shows you are very ill informed. i mean, it's no better than going around saying that all black people are criminals and all jews are rich snobs.
Y'know, these days, all I really wish is that everyone would just come out and say the truth about what they mean. If we all did that, then maybe we could have constructive discussions which would lead to compromise.
For example, raising taxes vs. cutting spending. Now, why can't the politicians INCLUDE in their rantings about those two issues the problem with reducing the deficit and helping the poor? Those ARE what drive each issue, right?
I jsut don't understand why politicians avoid BOTH. Democrats are utterly ridiculous, IMO, for failing to point out how much of the Obama administration's "social program" spending has involved extending unemployment and COBRA benefits for folks who have been unable to find employment long past the usual cut-off for unemployment assistance. Y'see, if that were honestly introduced into the conversation, then there'd have to be a discussion about what to do when people have no means to support themselves at all and/or no health care coverage. I believe that that conversation would serve us all well because more people would become educated about the complex issues we face.
It's the same with cutting the deficit. No one wants to raise taxes, but how can you address the deficit if you don't? It's not through social programs because, guess what? The deficit involved billions to trillions of dollars. Social programs (and other discretionary spending)? A few million to a couple billion. So if you nixed school lunches, food banks, public assistance to the poor, all funding for the arts...let's see, what else? List all of the social programs that you'd nix, add up how much would be saved and then... and then...how much would you have to pay down the debt? Does anyone really think that we spend as much on social programs as we do on defense, social security of medicare? Of course not.
So, clearly, eliminating "spending" can't by itself bring down the debt. What's left? Raising taxes. Why can't we just be honest about that!
It's the same with treating terrorists. Let's be honest: giving the panty bomber Miranda rights and a lawyer is problematic for some because it would prevent him from being tortured, right? I mean, think about it: What's the difference between being held in a regular prison and being held in a military one, like Guantanamo? Torture. Heck, Cheney came right out and admitted it today: He would have sent Pantybomber to Gitmo so that, if necessary, he could be waterboarded. Cheney thinks we're safer if we leave that option open--he believes it leads to more information than other means.
OK, that's one opinion...but what about the other--the one, again, dumbo Democrats (and I'm one!) simply seem incapable of articulating: Treating terrorists like criminals instead of soldiers belittles them. We win the psychological war by refusing to acknowledge them as soldiers. Moreover, we'll never win the "war" on terror by bombing them out of existance. But we can make progress by enlisting the people they rely on for support and for converts; hence, getting the families involved. And will the families (and their extended families and friends and so on and so on) cooperate with us in spreading good impressions and providing good intelligence if we torture their kinfolks and lock them up for life without even a trial? Maybe, maybe not. It's just another opinion.
Instead, though, we just say, "He's wrong!" "He's weak on terror!" "He wants to torture everyone!" National discourse has become little more than a shouting match. No substantive arguments even take place in the public arena. As a result, the general electorate jsut becomes more confused and frightened and depressed--perfect for being taken advantage of, in fact.
I never realized that somehow Obama, all by himself, caused the recession, all the social ills, lack of employment, health insurance problems and bank failures all by himself on the very first day he became President.
Wow, you would have thought these problems were ones he had inherited from a person who had created them over the last eight years, but from what I read here, apparently not.
It's all Obama's fault and why the HELL hasn't he fixed it yet?
Since you all are beer drinkers, maybe you can understand the logic
expressed by an ecconomics professor at University of GA.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20.'
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount. He then proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $ 7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savin gs).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued
to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20 we saved,'declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,'But he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back
when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.
'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.
The n ext night, the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
among all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who don't understand, no explanation is possible!
Were you so upset with the opposition to Bush for the last 8 years?
Yes. If you recall, Bush spent as fast and furious as any democrat. He is the one that passed on TARP and all that other crap that the conservatives now try and blame on Obama. He sucked us into a war that was not necessary. And the opposition to Bush built over time as he deserved and once people really realized what he was all about.
There is always opposition. But it's not typically the in-your-face-we're going-to-screw-you-over-every-chance-we-get. Regardless of the issue or how much sense something makes. Just to try and cause someone to fail because your panties are in a wad that your party no longer has the presidency ans that the gravy train for American corporations and special interests might slow down a bit. If that is even possible at this point - as the Bush administration spent 8 years giving corporate america an unprecedented amount of power.
I have plenty of reservations about the decisions of the current president and the money that has been used to bail out companies.
Bit I still believe Obama is trying to do the right thing despite concerted efforts to derail him - and despite plenty of sleaziness to go around from all sides I think he deserves a bit of a chance to get something accomplished.
We need Sarah Palin to solve all our problems. Get her in the White House, she'll turn the country around. Of course, she'll only serve until 2014. Seriously, the woman is a middle-aged Mean Girl. Sarah Barracuda indeed.
The Republicans have very wisely used social issues to make many Americans vote against their own economic interests. Are you better off than you were in 2000, the last year Bill Clinton was president? My favorite bumper sticker - Will somebody please give George Bush a blow job so we can impeach him?
While I respect others' right to hate the Republicans, and I am certainly glad McCain lost in 2008, I am far too distracted by hating the Democrats to waste time with the Tea Party folk. The Democrats have spent the entire year futzing around with health care, a worthy goal except for that rather large and sucking hole where the American economy used to be. It's like watching someone decoupage a lampshade inside a burning house.