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

Page 7 of 7 First ... 567

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76

    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.
    But there isn't a $1 trillion in cuts immediately, you are hearing 2 separate things. The debt ceiling this year is being raised by 2.5 trillion in exchange for cuts over the next 10 years, much of which phase in over time. The real cuts talked about for this year are under $200 billion, which is less than we pay on interest on the debt now. And most of the "cuts" aren't cuts vs what we spend today but cuts vs how much they expected spending to grow. Freezing all spending at 2008 level for 4 years would have more effect.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76

    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
    But again, that Guy at Walmart wont even pay in his 7.5% to social security, a forced retirement savings plan which he will expect to collect from. Even if there are some corporations that pay no taxes, they also have no expectations of collecting money from the government or using government services
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    But there isn't a $1 trillion in cuts immediately,
    wars? wwII military bases? yeah I know they wont do whats right, they will just keep adding wars. Cut 1 trillion tomorrow we expand 2 trillion more in wars then screw vets out of health care.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  4. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    But there isn't a $1 trillion in cuts immediately, you are hearing 2 separate things. The debt ceiling this year is being raised by 2.5 trillion in exchange for cuts over the next 10 years, much of which phase in over time. The real cuts talked about for this year are under $200 billion, which is less than we pay on interest on the debt now. And most of the "cuts" aren't cuts vs what we spend today but cuts vs how much they expected spending to grow. Freezing all spending at 2008 level for 4 years would have more effect.
    What it (yahoo) stated in the news was the new proposal would cut 3.4 trillion over a decade with 1 trillion being cut immediately. Oddly enough going back to look for the statement it appears they've already changed numbers lol. I most certainly didn't see only 200 bil in immediate cuts, but I'm optomistic that you're right.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76 View Post
    What it (yahoo) stated in the news was the new proposal would cut 3.4 trillion over a decade with 1 trillion being cut immediately. Oddly enough going back to look for the statement it appears they've already changed numbers lol. I most certainly didn't see only 200 bil in immediate cuts, but I'm optomistic that you're right.
    That aint going to do crap unless you start changing policy. I dont care if they cut 3.4 trillion today, its not going to solve anything.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    That aint going to do crap unless you start changing policy. I dont care if they cut 3.4 trillion today, its not going to solve anything.
    Yes its not going to do much in the way of progress, but I'm more concerned with damage control at this point. Doing crap is exactly my point. I'm wondering how much of the lower class is going to be taking more of the burden than the domestic and multinational corporations.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76 View Post
    Yes its not going to do much in the way of progress, but I'm more concerned with damage control at this point. Doing crap is exactly my point. I'm wondering how much of the lower class is going to be taking more of the burden than the domestic and multinational corporations.
    Nobody wants the government to do crap, I certainly dont. What they are doing is adding cover up a pimple with makeup, not treating it with benzoil peroxide, lol
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  8. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Nobody wants the government to do crap, I certainly dont. What they are doing is adding cover up a pimple with makeup, not treating it with benzoil peroxide, lol
    Nice analogy Ok npr just reiterated an immediate 1 trillion. Something about defense might have been in there somewhere, but might not all be benefits for people. I'm sure we'll get all the low down today and tomorrow.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76 View Post
    What it (yahoo) stated in the news was the new proposal would cut 3.4 trillion over a decade with 1 trillion being cut immediately. Oddly enough going back to look for the statement it appears they've already changed numbers lol. I most certainly didn't see only 200 bil in immediate cuts, but I'm optomistic that you're right.
    even so, its basically stated as cuts vs the projected budget for next year, which was higher than the budget this year. So for many areas it may be not cut at all, just a smaller rise which is a joke. Its just like with statistics, you can make it sound like anything you want depending on what you start with for assumptions. If the current federal pension layout called for going from 900 billion this year to 980 billion next year then holding next year to 930 billion is a 50 billion "cut" to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessep76 View Post
    Yes its not going to do much in the way of progress, but I'm more concerned with damage control at this point. Doing crap is exactly my point. I'm wondering how much of the lower class is going to be taking more of the burden than the domestic and multinational corporations.
    None, the lower class already doesn't pay its fair share

  10. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    even so, its basically stated as cuts vs the projected budget for next year, which was higher than the budget this year. So for many areas it may be not cut at all, just a smaller rise which is a joke. Its just like with statistics, you can make it sound like anything you want depending on what you start with for assumptions. If the current federal pension layout called for going from 900 billion this year to 980 billion next year then holding next year to 930 billion is a 50 billion "cut" to them.

    None, the lower class already doesn't pay its fair share
    No they don't. But the middle class is beginning to take on More of the burden.

    You're right about not raising being a cut in Washington speak too. Lol. Wish that worked in reality.

  11. Donald Rumsfeld on 9/10/2001 announced to the public that they lost 2.3 trillion dollars. What happened to that?

    If we need a couple trillion why dont we start putting people responsible for the missing 2.3 trillion dolllars on the stand and start focusing on real issues and putting some crooks away.

    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  12. At the same time then we can water board Ben Bernanke (Thats what Dick Cheney would do when he want information right?) and find out where another 2.3 trillion dollars that we have no idea where it went. That right along with my previous post is 4.6 trillion dollars. This is just a start.

    Senator Sanders asks Bernanke WHERE IS THE MONEY!!!

    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Rahl View Post
    No they don't. But the middle class is beginning to take on More of the burden.
    Once I did the math, realizing that I make 2x as much as you (generically) but pay 4-5x as much in tax dollars as you really pisses me off

  14. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    At the same time then we can water board Ben Bernanke (Thats what Dick Cheney would do when he want information right?) and find out where another 2.3 trillion dollars that we have no idea where it went. That right along with my previous post is 4.6 trillion dollars. This is just a start.

    Senator Sanders asks Bernanke WHERE IS THE MONEY!!!

    How about asking why the fed has put an extra $700 billion in circulation in the last year and a half with nobody noticing? (and no inflation from raising the monetary base by 30% amazingly)

  15. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    How about asking why the fed has put an extra $700 billion in circulation in the last year and a half with nobody noticing? (and no inflation from raising the monetary base by 30% amazingly)
    Thats exactly what people need to understand...the debate should be many other bigger issues, simple cutting a trillion here a trillion there is meaningless.

    The Fed is one thing that Thomas Jefferson warned us about.

    Actually Thomas posted this quote on another board the other day. Why is it relevent? The Fed is a private bank.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  16. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Thats exactly what people need to understand...the debate should be many other bigger issues, simple cutting a trillion here a trillion there is meaningless.

    The Fed is one thing that Thomas Jefferson warned us about.

    Actually Thomas posted this quote on another board the other day. Why is it relevent? The Fed is a private bank.
    Its just an amazing sign of how bad the rest of the world is doing that we could print that much more with no inflation.

    Comically, that was one economist's answer if congress couldn't come to a decision to raise the debt ceiling, Obama could just order the fed to print $2 trillion in bills.

  17. Ha, couldn't help but see one of my favorite George Carlin bits at the bottom of that youtube link Easy. Greatest comedian ever!



    (Though I do vote )

  18. I recently had to do some work in a "privately owned" mental hospital funded by the government. There are some people there for rehab and others that will never be out on the streets. I also know someone who adopted 4 very retarded children and has had them for over 15 years. The government has paid her OVER 250k per year tax free. That doesn't include the free medical benefits and meds like Ritalin. They pay for a drug to give them at night so they're all asleep by 6.00pm. The kids also go to a psychiatrist once a week for counseling. One counselor convinced one of the kids that he should have been born a girl and is going through gender counseling to prepare him for Hormone therapy and to decide when/if there going to give him a sex change operation. Would anyone here do this to a kid with Down Syndrome? The more messed up a kid is, the more the government pays. Look at how much money in care, psychiatry and drugs the Government is spending on this one kid who will never contribute anything to society! It sounds cruel, but cut out all this spending for this program. I don't like the "idea" of abortion, or the way lepers were treated but, most of these kids and the people in mental hospitals shouldn't be here. I think the lives they live are cruel to watch. Ever see a baby grow up in a bed with tubes all over? Its a terrible way to be kept alive and worse when its done to collect a check.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by omni
    I recently had to do some work in a "privately owned" mental hospital funded by the government. There are some people there for rehab and others that will never be out on the streets. I also know someone who adopted 4 very retarded children and has had them for over 15 years. The government has paid her OVER 250k per year tax free. That doesn't include the free medical benefits and meds like Ritalin. They pay for a drug to give them at night so they're all asleep by 6.00pm. The kids also go to a psychiatrist once a week for counseling. One counselor convinced one of the kids that he should have been born a girl and is going through gender counseling to prepare him for Hormone therapy and to decide when/if there going to give him a sex change operation. Would anyone here do this to a kid with Down Syndrome? The more messed up a kid is, the more the government pays. Look at how much money in care, psychiatry and drugs the Government is spending on this one kid who will never contribute anything to society! It sounds cruel, but cut out all this spending for this program. I don't like the "idea" of abortion, or the way lepers were treated but, most of these kids and the people in mental hospitals shouldn't be here. I think the lives they live are cruel to watch. Ever see a baby grow up in a bed with tubes all over? Its a terrible way to be kept alive and worse when its done to collect a check.
    Jesus...that's just depressing man.
  •   

      
     

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