Not good for Obama

whygohome

cincybearcat wrote:

Honestly, I find it maddening to think we are now in a place where if you question how much money the government takes from you, you are being a petulant child.

Thank you Mr. Obama for this brave new world you have created and the war you have started at home.

This is obviously directed at Gimmiesometruth, but I have to point out that your statement in bold is incredibly erroneous.
Obama is starting a "war" by pointing out the fact that inequality exists in this society? That the top have seen dramatic gains in income over the past 3 decades while the middle class wages have been stagnant? That the middle-class is shrinking due to a trickle-down on steroids philosophy?

Here you go:

http://www.economist.com/node/21549944
http://www.epi.org/publication/income_i ... _this_way/
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-john ... et-richer/
http://milescorak.com/2012/03/04/over-9 ... the-top-1/

Moonpig

pandora wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

I must repeat myself here :fp:

There is no deflection but yours. You thought my comment was racist
and attempted to call me out on something I am not.

Again,... google away and you will see the black vote
and participation in celebration at record numbers in 2008.
It goes hand in hand with, of course, the party switch that takes place
after 8 years rule.

Do you agree? This a great effect on the vote?
If not, then agree to disagree as I have already stated.

In this election, the state of the economy and 50% of our population relying
on the government's money,
funny money,
certainly gets voters out for their slice of the pie. Will we see more of the same?

Will we see the working taxpayers and business owners,
get out to stop the entitlement trend our country is sieged in?
or will we continue to move towards Socialism like some European countries?


0% of the black vote...
One poll :? and some interesting stats here to add ...http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ort-romney

still waiting Pandora.... You made a massive over generalisation, I want facts please. 88% of african americans registered to vote, voted for Kerry in 04, Kerry was white. I don't know how many African Americans voted for Obama based on his color, but then, I didn't make the statement.

How many African Americans voted on Obama's policies or views?? These are the statistics I am looking for Pandora, plain and simple.

Please stick to just answering the question.

We can add this one as well

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/po ... .html?_r=0 thanks! :shh:

and there I was basing my comment on pure feeling

I guess pigs do fly Moonpig

What is it about my question you are not getting Pandora??

Thanks for the read, the article goes on about increased turnout and %'s of african americans who voted for Obama. None of this is being disputed.

You mentioned that the main reason these people voted was because Obama was black - not policy, not ideology, hell not even because they liked the guy - but because he was black.

Nowhere in these links does it provide stats to back up that claim that you have made. Sheesh, how hard is it to get a straight answer from you.

Anyway, forget it, I don't care anymore. You made an outlandish statement, and then post after post attempted to derail and deflect the earlier point. You've shown your ignorance on the topic, and your petiness in ability to debate. I have better things to do.

:wave:

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

These cry-babies are fucking garbage. Its times like these that I wish I was religious so I can tell them to burn in hell. But hey, they deserve their $10, 20, 30 million salaries. I mean, at least they're not moochers like those in our military, those who are risking their lives in the desert and making a whopping average salary of $50,000. Hmmm.....$20,000,000 to run a hedge fund vs. $50,000 to risk their lives in the desert for...oil, no freedom, no oil........"God" Bless America.

You seem to frame everything in terms of the tippy top folks. A few things about that:

1) Someone making $10 million will find plenty of places to hide their loot if you tax it at an extraordinary rate. You can call them what you want, but would you act any differently.
2) Taking money from those folks is not solving the economic problem. There's so few of them, and see item 1.

MOST IMPORTANTLY:
3) Barack Obama thinks a family making $250 K are millionaires.


Nobody's arguing about folks making 10's of millions of dollars. Obama has diverted your attention by saying nebulous words like rich.

Do you think a family making $250,000 that already pays $80,000+ in taxes should pay more into the current state of our government? Do you think that's fair?

pandora

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

We can add this one as well

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/po ... .html?_r=0 thanks! :shh:

and there I was basing my comment on pure feeling

I guess pigs do fly Moonpig

What is it about my question you are not getting Pandora??

Thanks for the read, the article goes on about increased turnout and %'s of african americans who voted for Obama. None of this is being disputed.

You mentioned that the main reason these people voted was because Obama was black - not policy, not ideology, hell not even because they liked the guy - but because he was black.

Nowhere in these links does it provide stats to back up that claim that you have made. Sheesh, how hard is it to get a straight answer from you.

Anyway, forget it, I don't care anymore. You made an outlandish statement, and then post after post attempted to derail and deflect the earlier point. You've shown your ignorance on the topic, and your petiness in ability to debate. I have better things to do.

:wave:

you forgot your question mark ...

I've noticed you have a keen sense of humor but can you put two and two together?

The stats clearly show and the article says 2 million more blacks turned out to vote for their man
then in previous election.
My opinion this is due to the fact he was also a black man. I put two and two together.
Would they have voted for a different black man ? ... yes I think so.

And did they not only vote but then record numbers went to celebrate
with him. This a unique response.

Yeah! Our first black President in the history of our Country!
hey I saw signs! It was a wonderful moment, it speaks volumes, it was good!
IT WAS HISTORY!!!

Not sure why you can not understand this but whatever, is that ignorance?
cause I think I'm grasping this situation quite well.
Perhaps as you said before to emotional for you.
Sorry it was, it was an emotional time. I cried.

I have a feeling are you hard to please?
Not me, I'm pleasy easy
So if you don't like Yoda AND if you don't like my debate form do us both a favor, Moonpig,
ignore...your insults only reflect on you.

gimmesometruth27

whygohome wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Honestly, I find it maddening to think we are now in a place where if you question how much money the government takes from you, you are being a petulant child.

Thank you Mr. Obama for this brave new world you have created and the war you have started at home.

This is obviously directed at Gimmiesometruth, but I have to point out that your statement in bold is incredibly erroneous.
Obama is starting a "war" by pointing out the fact that inequality exists in this society? That the top have seen dramatic gains in income over the past 3 decades while the middle class wages have been stagnant? That the middle-class is shrinking due to a trickle-down on steroids philosophy?

Here you go:

http://www.economist.com/node/21549944
http://www.epi.org/publication/income_i ... _this_way/
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-john ... et-richer/
http://milescorak.com/2012/03/04/over-9 ... the-top-1/

cincy can't resist. don't hold it against him...

no let's clarify. obama must have started a war at home by stating that trickle down economics is a failure and he is wanting to have a real conversation about income equality or the lack of income equality.

what i find maddening is the people bitching the most about deficits and the lack of a balanced budget refuse to give another dime to help the country that has made it possible for them to be so fortunate. it is selfish, ignorant, and childish.

watch, someone is going to have a childish go at me now instead of addressing my point....

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yes petulent children.

in most of your posts you keep bringing up "lowest labor participation rate in 30 years". why is that? it is not as if obama did not try. do you know how many votes were held on obama's jobs bill? ZERO. do you know how many votes were held on abortion this congress? a lot more than ZERO, that is for sure. these people blocked a jobs bill, when their first priority aside from making obama a one term president, was supposed to be jobs. these people are trying to sink the titanic just to make the captain look bad. reasonable people see that and they recognize that and they will vote accordingly. idealogues will not recognize that and vote accordingly.

and what is fair? clinton tax rates were fair and the middle and lower classes did better under those rate. the rich even did better under those rates.

It's always someone else's fault. :roll:

i am being totally serious here. if you refuse to admit that the republican controlled house and specifically john boehner were directly responsible for failing to bring the jobs bill to a vote, then there is no point in furthering this discussion with you.

if you don't want to believe me, then i am sure you can look it up.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more.

How much more? According to who? You get to decide who can afford to pay more?

Certainly taxes are required to pay for some things, but to take it for granted that they should be taken and that they should take more despite their record on spending is far more childish than one that cares about where the $ they make is going. Seems like a pretty lame argument.

how much more?

clinton rates.

we have a fundamentally different way of looking at taxation. you view it as being stolen from you. i view it as upholding my responsibilities as an american citizen. no matter how you try to frame it, that is the fundamental difference between my world view and yours.

pandora

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more.

How much more? According to who? You get to decide who can afford to pay more?

Certainly taxes are required to pay for some things, but to take it for granted that they should be taken and that they should take more despite their record on spending is far more childish than one that cares about where the $ they make is going. Seems like a pretty lame argument.

how much more?

clinton rates.

we have a fundamentally different way of looking at taxation. you view it as being stolen from you. i view it as upholding my responsibilities as an american citizen. no matter how you try to frame it, that is the fundamental difference between my world view and yours.

At what point do you become a sucker?

Godfather.

In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country's leaders "don't care about" New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to an unedited video uncovered by The Daily Caller.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... z28EeISe28

Godfather.

Godfather.

If President Barack Obama is given a second term, one vitally important group of taxpayers—small employers—will face five key tax increases:

1. Income tax increase. A pillar of President Obama’s re-election campaign is a hike in the top two marginal income tax rates. By and large, small employers pay their small business taxes using individual tax rates. If individual tax rates are raised, so are small business tax rates. The top income tax rate is scheduled to rise from 35 percent in 2012 to 39.6 percent in 2013. According to IRS data, a clear majority of all small business profits face taxation at this top marginal income tax rate. For all intents and purposes, the top income tax rate IS the small business tax rate in America today.

President Obama and congressional Democrats claim they are raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” but are actually targeting successful small companies. A new study by Ernst and Young projects that this tax rate hike will kill 710,000 small business jobs.

2. Death Tax Increase. The death tax in 2012 has a top rate of 35 percent, and a “standard deduction” of $5 million ($10 million in the case of a married couple or surviving spouse). President Obama’s plan proposes raising the rate to 45 percent and slashing the exemption to $3.5 million.

When a family business owner dies, it’s up to the surviving family members to pay the death tax to the government. Needless to say, many successful, job-creating small businesses simply won’t survive this process. Such families will have little choice but to sell the business (and lay off all the employees) in order to pay the IRS. Or they will have to pay a small fortune to lawyers, accountants, and the life insurance industry to avoid this fate.

3. ObamaCare self-employment tax rate increase. Currently, successful small business owners face a self-employment tax of 2.9 percent. Thanks to ObamaCare’s 2013 hike in this tax rate, this will rise to 3.8 percent. All told, the combination of the income tax hike and the self-employment tax hike will raise the marginal income tax rate on small business profits from about 38 percent today to about 43 percent in 2013. That extra five percentage points might not sound like a lot, but most small employers have very thin profit margins. A company with $1 million in profits facing a higher tax rate of 5 percentage points will be saddled with another $50,000 in taxes.

4. ObamaCare Medical Device Tax: Taking effect in 2013, this 2.3 percent tax on companies making devices such as prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, and operating tables is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales, even if the respective company doesn’t earn a profit in a given year. The industry employs 409,000 Americans in 12,000 plants across the country, and many incur a loss for several years as they pioneer the next generation of life-improving devices.

This looming $20 billion tax is already causing small business job loss and cuts to research and development budgets. Even liberal Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren knows the medical device tax is destructive to small business. She wrote an op-ed in opposition to the tax, saying: “When Congress taxes the sale of a specific product through an excise tax, as the Affordable Care Act does with medical devices, it too often disproportionately impacts the small companies with the narrowest financial margins and the broadest innovative potential. It also pushes companies of all sizes to cut back on research and development for life-saving product.”

Eighty percent of device companies have fewer than 50 employees, according to the Medical Device Manufacturers Association. Many of these small businesses are located in electoral swing states such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, and New Hampshire.

5. ObamaCare Investment Surtax: Also taking effect in 2013, this tax increase captures those few small business owners not covered by the self-employment tax hike: owners of Subchapter-S corporations and limited partners. These owners are currently exempt from self-employment tax, mostly because they are investors rather than proprietors. But ObamaCare sweeps them into the IRS net too, forcing them to pay the 3.8 percentage point tax as an “investor surtax.” This will make it far more difficult for investors to raise money to start up small firms. An investor is going to need to see even greater small business profit projections to overcome this higher “hurdle rate” of taxes. Not only does a small business owner have to give his investor a strong return on his investment, he now has to do it with a giant tax mill around his neck.

These five tax increases only begin to scratch the surface. Small employers are also facing the ObamaCare employer mandate tax penalty starting in 2014. This tax provision will force small businesses with more than 50 employees to purchase “qualifying” health insurance, or else face a tax of up to $2,000 per employee.

In taxes, a truism is that if you want less of something, you tax it more. Whether he realizes it or not, President Obama’s tax policies will result in fewer and less successful small businesses, fewer small business jobs, fewer family businesses that can be passed along from parents to children, fewer medical device manufacturing jobs, and much less investment in small employer start-ups



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/ ... z28EgrrXf7

Godfather.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what i find maddening is the people bitching the most about deficits and the lack of a balanced budget refuse to give another dime to help the country that has made it possible for them to be so fortunate. it is selfish, ignorant, and childish.

watch, someone is going to have a childish go at me now instead of addressing my point....

You are the one that made the childish remark, as usual. Why don't you make another go at my signature?

And you are boiling everything down to be so black and white. I am ok with an increase in taxes, just not in the manner they are proposed because it will do nothing to curb spending in the least. I'm for reduced defense spending, I'm for some sort of health care plan (including keeping Obama care in the short term as we figure out a better way).

You don;t pay down deficits by taking in more money and then spending even more. That;s the dems plan.
You don't pay down the deficit by not taking in any more money and not making meaningful defense spending cuts. That's the repubs plan.

We have no compromise in congress because that is exactly what most people truly want. They want their side to win and if they can't they take their ball and go home.

And yes, Obama is just as much to blame for this discourse as the republican leadership in Congress.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

we have a fundamentally different way of looking at taxation. you view it as being stolen from you. i view it as upholding my responsibilities as an american citizen. no matter how you try to frame it, that is the fundamental difference between my world view and yours.

Yes we do but not how you see it.

I view it as my money and demand more accountability. You look at it as their money to take when they want, how much they want.

gimmesometruth27

Godfather. wrote:

In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country's leaders "don't care about" New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to an unedited video uncovered by The Daily Caller.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... z28EeISe28

Godfather.

obama is not the only person who said this. search posts on this forum from 2007 and before. kanye west said that at an awards ceremony.

you republicans are getting desperate.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country's leaders "don't care about" New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to an unedited video uncovered by The Daily Caller.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... z28EeISe28

Godfather.

obama is not the only person who said this. search posts on this forum from 2007 and before. kanye west said that at an awards ceremony.

you republicans are getting desperate.

While I agree the repubs are getting desperate, what does it matter what Kanye West said? Ever? That seems like a weird defense of a politician and now president. "So what? Hell, an egomaniac musician said that too!!!"

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

how much more?

clinton rates.

we have a fundamentally different way of looking at taxation. you view it as being stolen from you. i view it as upholding my responsibilities as an american citizen. no matter how you try to frame it, that is the fundamental difference between my world view and yours.

two things...

what makes clinton rates special? how will a few extra billion coming in curb a trillion dollar deficit? how will 39% make a difference? Especially considering they aren't going to decrease spending. I have said it more than once, but if we double income tax revenue we will not balance the budget. Until someone is serious about CUTTING spending...not simply decreasing the base line increase, I will never support the federal gov't taking one more cent from anyone.

The fundamental difference has nothing to do with stolen vs upholding responsibilities for most logically sound people...it is that one side believes that gov't can solve the problems and one side believes people will better serve the economy if they have more money. And it really isn't that much of a difference, just different beliefs in how to get people more money.

I have no problem paying taxes, I have a problem when I am forced to follow the rules that don't seem to apply to the gov't. I do have a problem when people are incredibly gung ho about taking someone else's money simply because they have more of it, and I have an even bigger problem when people support candidates like President Obama and Mitt Romney simply because of the letter next to their name...Taxes...not a huge concern in the whole scheme of things...more concerned about what they do with the money.

gimmesometruth27

i understand the points that you are making Mike. the thing is, there are automatic, across the board cuts that are going to take effect in january if congress can not come to some sort of agreement when the debt ceiling debate comes up again. these cuts were agreed upon by the bipartisan supercommittee. this is the fiscal cliff that the media is all talking about. now the republicans are wanting to undo the automatic cuts because it takes money away from the military and the pentagon. this is my main gripe. why is it ok to cut programs that help the poor and deprive them of food and healthcare? why is it ok to cut education when our schools are failing and our kids are not getting the education that they need? why is it ok to cut funding for infrastructure that is in desperate need of repair? I just don't see why these things are the first to be cut while the military is suddenly unable to be cut. under a romney presidency he said that he would give the military and pentagon MORE money... :shock:

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i understand the points that you are making Mike. the thing is, there are automatic, across the board cuts that are going to take effect in january if congress can not come to some sort of agreement when the debt ceiling debate comes up again. these cuts were agreed upon by the bipartisan supercommittee. this is the fiscal cliff that the media is all talking about. now the republicans are wanting to undo the automatic cuts because it takes money away from the military and the pentagon. this is my main gripe. why is it ok to cut programs that help the poor and deprive them of food and healthcare? why is it ok to cut education when our schools are failing and our kids are not getting the education that they need? why is it ok to cut funding for infrastructure that is in desperate need of repair? I just don't see why these things are the first to be cut while the military is suddenly unable to be cut. under a romney presidency he said that he would give the military and pentagon MORE money... :shock:

agree with a lot of this.
The super-committee was never constitutional in the first place. It was a lazy out. Automatic cuts were the only way anything would ever get cut and everyone knew they needed cuts. I believe there were many of us on here who called this situation. We all knew they wouldn't come to an agreement so the automatic cuts that were agreed to in order to give the impression that they were serious would be the first thing that was challenged. Automatic cuts takes the blame off of anyone side or person...all the politicians can simply point to it and say...they were automatic I had nothing to do with them...in fact I tried to fight them...
Same old bullshit. Only care about re-election. Just once I would like a politician to admit that the only reason they do things is to get re-elected. Very few act on conviction, and those that do are called crazy. Senator Wellstone comes to mind.

pandora

The private sector can take care of itself and not rely on government
to provide for citizens. This we can do by requiring everyone to pitch in.
Local communities, charities, churches, businesses can work together.

The system we have now is promoting greed and fraud within.
Greed and fraud by those who truly do not need aid. Greed by those skimming huge profits
from charitable organizations. If all that went to where it was needed
we can feed the poor, house them, educate them without the federal government,
we can do this on local levels where people have a say, where people care.

If there was literally no federal taxation except what was needed to defend our
country, to help in natural catastrophes, to pay our representatives, without pensions
or life long salaries :wtf: that needs to stop,
people would have money to buy, to give, to help our economy flourish.


Of course military cuts should take place but so far the private sector can not
defend itself. Can not defend our country.
We need a military but can definitely weed out the greed and fraud
there as well.

redrock

pandora wrote:

This we can do by requiring everyone to pitch in..

Same as taxes, really... And this 'managed' by whom?

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country's leaders "don't care about" New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to an unedited video uncovered by The Daily Caller.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... z28EeISe28

Godfather.

obama is not the only person who said this. search posts on this forum from 2007 and before. kanye west said that at an awards ceremony.

you republicans are getting desperate.

Kane West ? fox news wouldn't even quote him