What good has Obama done for the U.S.A.?

Page 6 of 7 First ... 4567 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by seccsi

    But my question is are they just saying that? It's much easier to say it and talk about how great it is than to make it happen. We can all talk about how we want smaler government, but the truth is it WOULD be painful for a period. To see a smaller unemployment check, to be close to retirement age and see it go up, to get less funding for college, etc. It's very easy to say you would take the cuts in programs. But in the last 30 years the size of the federal government has exploded, and look at the facts. We have had all Presidents but one serve both terms. We have career politicians in Congress. The same Presidents who let the debt explode, the same members of Congress, very little turnover. They certainly aren't supporting small government with their vote.
    No, they mean it, and do support small government with their votes. The problem comes from every bill going through confess having tons of addons to buy other votes. And it will be painful for a while, but the longer we put it off, the worse it will be when we are suddenly forced to face it immediately


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Rahl

    $40,000 a year to feed another person into the prison industrial complex. Cheaper to treat them but you know this country won't go for that. Now we have private prisons to feed.

    Now thats a jobs program!
    And only $2 for a bullet. Put in a 3 strikes and you are dead policy for all felonies as well as illegal immigration and it would save billions as well as (in the case of deporting or executing illegals) create jobs
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Most of the people I know are willing to see cuts in the programs they get value out of today to ensure that they continue, rather than have them go some unknown length of time forwards and then stop entirely.
    Did they say they would rather have their benefits cut over closing loop holes for Exxon and GE?

  4. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    And only $2 for a bullet. Put in a 3 strikes and you are dead policy for all felonies as well as illegal immigration and it would save billions as well as (in the case of deporting or executing illegals) create jobs
    Well if your solution to addiction is to kill someone then I see no sense in discussing anything. Hope none if your family ever goes down that road bro.

    We let child Molesters out of prison but 3 strikes rules have junkies in for life. Thats big government in my eyes.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76

    Did they say they would rather have their benefits cut over closing loop holes for Exxon and GE?
    It's funny how those are considered loopholes, but somehow the person making $25,000 a year and doesn't even pay his full social security 7.5% after all the tax breaks is carrying too much burden.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Rahl

    Well if your solution to addiction is to kill someone then I see no sense in discussing anything. Hope none if your family ever goes down that road bro.

    We let child Molesters out of prison but 3 strikes rules have junkies in for life. Thats big government in my eyes.
    For all felonies. Most drug possession is a misdemeanor or gets plead to misdemeanor anyhow unless its in distribution quantities

  7. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    No, they mean it, and do support small government with their votes. The problem comes from every bill going through confess having tons of addons to buy other votes. And it will be painful for a while, but the longer we put it off, the worse it will be when we are suddenly forced to face it immediately
    I just don't know if I buy a lot of people supporting small government with their votes. It's pretty obvious that since the 80's our leaders have exploded the size of government (well it started before that, but that's just been the time I've been alive). And we have largely put those same leaders back in power (only one President didn't serve both terms, numerous members in Congress serving then and now.) I'm not saying no one supports small government, but clearly the majority does not. I just don't see how else to explain the same Congress members and the same Presidents over and over. It just doesn't make sense (IMO) to say Americans are for small government when Bush 2 got two terms and quite frankly I think Obama will as well.

    And your second point is spot on, but we have known it would be painful for a long time and Americans have largely ignored it. Politicians don't want to do the things that will deal with it because they aren't politically popular and will likely cost them their jobs.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by seccsi

    I just don't know if I buy a lot of people supporting small government with their votes. It's pretty obvious that since the 80's our leaders have exploded the size of government (well it started before that, but that's just been the time I've been alive). And we have largely put those same leaders back in power (only one President didn't serve both terms, numerous members in Congress serving then and now.) I'm not saying no one supports small government, but clearly the majority does not. I just don't see how else to explain the same Congress members and the same Presidents over and over. It just doesn't make sense (IMO) to say Americans are for small government when Bush 2 got two terms and quite frankly I think Obama will as well.

    And your second point is spot on, but we have known it would be painful for a long time and Americans have largely ignored it. Politicians don't want to do the things that will deal with it because they aren't politically popular and will likely cost them their jobs.
    The issue is that you have the choice of a Republican or Democrat. That the tea party did so well should be proof that people are showing it with their vote.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by seccsi

    I just don't know if I buy a lot of people supporting small government with their votes. It's pretty obvious that since the 80's our leaders have exploded the size of government (well it started before that, but that's just been the time I've been alive). And we have largely put those same leaders back in power (only one President didn't serve both terms, numerous members in Congress serving then and now.) I'm not saying no one supports small government, but clearly the majority does not. I just don't see how else to explain the same Congress members and the same Presidents over and over. It just doesn't make sense (IMO) to say Americans are for small government when Bush 2 got two terms and quite frankly I think Obama will as well.

    And your second point is spot on, but we have known it would be painful for a long time and Americans have largely ignored it. Politicians don't want to do the things that will deal with it because they aren't politically popular and will likely cost them their jobs.
    That won't because the longer they are there the more powerful they become. It's not just about their job it's about WINNING the majority.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    The issue is that you have the choice of a Republican or Democrat. That the tea party did so well should be proof that people are showing it with their vote.
    Yes the two party system continually kills us. Sadly the tea party movement was dead before it could arise and has been absorbed by the religious right. If the tea party is small government with crazies like Michele Bachmann as a leader then I know longer support small government. These people want to outlaw a woman's right to choose, think you can pray yourself straight, think we should have prayer in schools etc. They despise America as much as they claim Obama does. They want 1950 back here again.

    The tea party movement stopped being libertarian a while back. And it was a sad day when it stopped.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    It's funny how those are considered loopholes, but somehow the person making $25,000 a year and doesn't even pay his full social security 7.5% after all the tax breaks is carrying too much burden.
    Are you saying someone that makes 25k a year gets a tax break on paying SS?
    And are your friends that are willing to see cuts in gov't benefits getting farm subsidies or are they in their 80s on a SS fixed income? I'm just asking because there's probably some people who could handle it more than others. (if you don't mind me asking of course)

  12. Quote Originally Posted by seccsi View Post
    Yes the two party system continually kills us. Sadly the tea party movement was dead before it could arise and has been absorbed by the religious right. If the tea party is small government with crazies like Michele Bachmann as a leader then I know longer support small government. These people want to outlaw a woman's right to choose, think you can pray yourself straight, think we should have prayer in schools etc. They despise America as much as they claim Obama does. They want 1950 back here again.

    The tea party movement stopped being libertarian a while back. And it was a sad day when it stopped.
    Two party system is indeed hurting us. Which is why I'm moving to Vermont

  13. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    For all felonies. Most drug possession is a misdemeanor or gets plead to misdemeanor anyhow unless its in distribution quantities
    Distribution packaged makes it a felony. Possession in a school zone is a felony offense. The drug war us a crime against the people. So you want small government but believe they should be able to tell you what to put into your own body? Not very libertarian.

    I'm all for executing murderers and rapist but I don't trust the government to decide what a felony offense should be. Especially if you're putting a death sentence on it.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Rahl View Post
    Distribution packaged makes it a felony. Possession in a school zone is a felony offense. The drug war us a crime against the people. So you want small government but believe they should be able to tell you what to put into your own body? Not very libertarian.

    I'm all for executing murderers and rapist but I don't trust the government to decide what a felony offense should be. Especially if you're putting a death sentence on it.
    Not to mention our justice system (fresh off letting Casey Anthony off) putting a lot of people to death should be enough to say no.

    And if you aren't still against the absurdity of the death penalty the case of Dewey Bozella out to make you reconsider. Innocent people go to jail as well. And you can't have a retrial after that bullet goes through you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Bozella

  15. Quote Originally Posted by seccsi

    Not to mention our justice system (fresh off letting Casey Anthony off) putting a lot of people to death should be enough to say no.

    And if you aren't still against the absurdity of the death penalty the case of Dewey Bozella out to make you reconsider. Innocent people go to jail as well. And you can't have a retrial after that bullet goes through you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Bozella
    I actually do support the death penalty. Just not the expansion of it as easy suggested.

    This is a place Obama has seriously come up short. The DEA has pursued even more enforcement against state legalized medical marijuana users than Bush did.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Rahl View Post
    I actually do support the death penalty. Just not the expansion of it as easy suggested.

    This is a place Obama has seriously come up short. The DEA has pursued even more enforcement against state legalized medical marijuana users than Bush did.
    While I think the death penalty is racist argument is not true, I think the worst possible thing a government can do is put an innocent man to death for something he did not do. Add in the fact that most criminologists don't think the death penalty deters criminals, and the higher cost for putting someone to death vs. life in prison and I can't support the death penalty.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76

    Are you saying someone that makes 25k a year gets a tax break on paying SS?
    And are your friends that are willing to see cuts in gov't benefits getting farm subsidies or are they in their 80s on a SS fixed income? I'm just asking because there's probably some people who could handle it more than others. (if you don't mind me asking of course)
    Yep, they get a break on it because between all the tax breaks and reliefs on their federal tax they receive a credit rather than pay anything which reduces what they pay into SS.

    and nope, no farm subsidy people or over 80

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Rahl

    Distribution packaged makes it a felony. Possession in a school zone is a felony offense. The drug war us a crime against the people. So you want small government but believe they should be able to tell you what to put into your own body? Not very libertarian.

    I'm all for executing murderers and rapist but I don't trust the government to decide what a felony offense should be. Especially if you're putting a death sentence on it.
    I think drug possession crimes should be dropped entirely, but don't mind hard time for distribution. Grow or make your own and do what you want.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by seccsi

    Not to mention our justice system (fresh off letting Casey Anthony off) putting a lot of people to death should be enough to say no.

    And if you aren't still against the absurdity of the death penalty the case of Dewey Bozella out to make you reconsider. Innocent people go to jail as well. And you can't have a retrial after that bullet goes through you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Bozella
    The Casey Anthony case should prove quite the reverse to you, just how much evidence you'd need to convict someone of a felony even once, much less 3 times.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    The Casey Anthony case should prove quite the reverse to you, just how much evidence you'd need to convict someone of a felony even once, much less 3 times.
    Well I thought she was guilty, but admittedly didn't follow it really close. Still doesn't change the fact that we have innocent people in jail and have put innocent people to death before. The system isn't perfect and never will be, so we really shouldn't increase the amount of people the state puts to death in my opinion.

    But I gotta let this thread go for now. I've said my pieces

  21. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    I think drug possession crimes should be dropped entirely, but don't mind hard time for distribution. Grow or make your own and do what you want.
    If you legalize possession without allowing for a legal form of distribution you leave the real criminal element in tact with full incentive to murder etc. Just look at what our drug policy has done to Mexico. Legal possession is a good first step but ultimately you still have prohibition in place. And we all know how that worked.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Rahl

    If you legalize possession without allowing for a legal form of distribution you leave the real criminal element in tact with full incentive to murder etc. Just look at what our drug policy has done to Mexico. Legal possession is a good first step but ultimately you still have prohibition in place. And we all know how that worked.
    No, you can license sales, and tax it as well. I don't see a problem with that either really, so long as we collect money on it's sale just like alcohol or tobacco who cares ?

    But I'm firmly for more death penalties and less appeal time.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    No, you can license sales, and tax it as well. I don't see a problem with that either really, so long as we collect money on it's sale just like alcohol or tobacco who cares ?

    But I'm firmly for more death penalties and less appeal time.
    We can agree on most of that. I don't really think we need more death penalties per say. We rarely kill those convicted now. I will say, it's crazy that it cost so much to put someone to death. Bring back the rope.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Yep, they get a break on it because between all the tax breaks and reliefs on their federal tax they receive a credit rather than pay anything which reduces what they pay into SS.

    and nope, no farm subsidy people or over 80
    So its worse for people who live on 25k a year to get a tax break rather than a corporation like GE who made 5.1 billion? I'm not gonna argue that tax benefits all around aren't draining on the economy but some poor fellow who works at walmart that got $1000 tax break last year because he made 25k is hardly even comparable to a 3.2 billion tax credit. I'm for cutting the walmart guy's tax break if Oil companies or General Electric have to give up theirs. We don't have to raise any tax, just everyone pay what they owe.

    Ok so they don't get subsidies for farming and they're not on social security. My point is that there's a number of situations that would allow one person to get benefits from the govornment and some might cut back on eating out while other Americans will cut back on blood thinner medications, or have to put off getting that mastectomy, pain medications, maybe food for the week or possibly rent.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76

    So its worse for people who live on 25k a year to get a tax break rather than a corporation like GE who made 5.1 billion? I'm not gonna argue that tax benefits all around aren't draining on the economy but some poor fellow who works at walmart that got $1000 tax break last year because he made 25k is hardly even comparable to a 3.2 billion tax credit. I'm for cutting the walmart guy's tax break if Oil companies or General Electric have to give up theirs. We don't have to raise any tax, just everyone pay what they owe.

    Ok so they don't get subsidies for farming and they're not on social security. My point is that there's a number of situations that would allow one person to get benefits from the govornment and some might cut back on eating out while other Americans will cut back on blood thinner medications, or have to put off getting that mastectomy, pain medications, maybe food for the week or possibly rent.
    That person that gets the $1000 tax break collects more from the government than he puts in. The large tax breaks corporations get sound big as a number but relative to what they pay, or relative to what they collect from the government it's peanuts. You are just falling prey to the same lame emotional arguments. Everyone should pay a flat percent of their income, the vast majority of the tax burden is already carried by the high income end and corporations. The fact that the Walmart employee struggles at his income is because he has no useful skills, no education, and has an expectation of a lifestyle greater than his skill and education deserves. That's not the fault of corporations, or people with skills and education.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Rahl

    We can agree on most of that. I don't really think we need more death penalties per say. We rarely kill those convicted now. I will say, it's crazy that it cost so much to put someone to death. Bring back the rope.
    I dunno, if you look at the level of repeat offenders for violent crimes, I think we could use more and faster death penalties. I was held up at gunpoint by a man doing probation concurrently for 12 prior armed robbery convictions. I don't know why he was still alive, much less walking the streets.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    I dunno, if you look at the level of repeat offenders for violent crimes, I think we could use more and faster death penalties. I was held up at gunpoint by a man doing probation concurrently for 12 prior armed robbery convictions. I don't know why he was still alive, much less walking the streets.
    I can see that. Very few prisoners rehabilitate. I think that's a sentencing issue though. He shouldn't be out.

    Now if he's an addict there's another reason for it. They never treated the addiction. Just like anyone whose had a problem with alcohol a drug addict always an addict. They get out they get back on. That's why it's more cost effective to treat than incarcerate.

    A guy like that though might just be a non user lost cause. I'm that case judges should have the leeway to step up the punishment.

    A firm supporter of the death penalty. I just don't see applying it except in the most needed cases.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    That person that gets the $1000 tax break collects more from the government than he puts in. The large tax breaks corporations get sound big as a number but relative to what they pay, or relative to what they collect from the government it's peanuts. You are just falling prey to the same lame emotional arguments. Everyone should pay a flat percent of their income, the vast majority of the tax burden is already carried by the high income end and corporations. The fact that the Walmart employee struggles at his income is because he has no useful skills, no education, and has an expectation of a lifestyle greater than his skill and education deserves. That's not the fault of corporations, or people with skills and education.
    I'm just trying to be clear on your previous comment. I mentioned tax loopholes and you brought up the guy making 25k paying no taxes so I thought maybe your point was they were the bigger offenders. " Everyone should pay a flat percent of their income" <---- I'm 100% with you. The "relative to what they pay, or relative to what they collect from the government it's peanuts" is where I'm confused again. Maybe both of us are over generalizing a bit. Some big corps do pay a lot and some don't pay a dollar. To me its not peanuts if you pay 0 in taxes when you were supposed to pay over 3 billion. I totally agree that the walmart guy (who may be uneducated and lacking in skills or he may live in an area where his master's degree doesn't afford him a better job in a weakening economy) has a responsibility to his own share like the rest of us. Ultimately the guy at walmart will most likely pay every dime next year because unlike big corporations, Joe Walmart doesn't have a lobyist in Washington.

    Not to be confused with the shareholders of walmart who I'm sure actually do have lobyists

  29. Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76 View Post
    I'm just trying to be clear on your previous comment. I mentioned tax loopholes and you brought up the guy making 25k paying no taxes so I thought maybe your point was they were the bigger offenders. " Everyone should pay a flat percent of their income" <---- I'm 100% with you. The "relative to what they pay, or relative to what they collect from the government it's peanuts" is where I'm confused again. Maybe both of us are over generalizing a bit. Some big corps do pay a lot and some don't pay a dollar. To me its not peanuts if you pay 0 in taxes when you were supposed to pay over 3 billion. I totally agree that the walmart guy (who may be uneducated and lacking in skills or he may live in an area where his master's degree doesn't afford him a better job in a weakening economy) has a responsibility to his own share like the rest of us. Ultimately the guy at walmart will most likely pay every dime next year because unlike big corporations, Joe Walmart doesn't have a lobyist in Washington.

    Not to be confused with the shareholders of walmart who I'm sure actually do have lobyists
    The corporations that don't pay taxes have designed the loopholes through lobbying and corruption in politics. It's a pretty slick system they have going. When you're big enough to make or change the rules people shouldn't be surprised when they don't effect the person with that power.

  30. Quote Originally Posted by seccsi View Post
    The corporations that don't pay taxes have designed the loopholes through lobbying and corruption in politics. It's a pretty slick system they have going. When you're big enough to make or change the rules people shouldn't be surprised when they don't effect the person with that power.
    I just don't understand why Obama is more worried about a default that would have had a "devastating effect on our economy", when the spending cuts will likely hurt us just as much. I'm certainly not an economist, so I don't know to what level of degree we'd be fckd if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, but an immediate 1 trillion in cuts doesn't sound like fun either. If tea partiers wanted to get rid of NPR they could have done that without kicking our disabled grandparents out of their homes.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Obama Win!!!
    By Vtaper in forum Politics
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 11:28 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-11-2010, 01:51 PM
  3. Replies: 153
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 09:15 AM
  4. Something obama is doing I can get behind
    By EasyEJL in forum Politics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 09:34 PM
  5. Obama won...
    By RenegadeRows in forum General Chat
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 12:02 PM
Log in
Log in