Taetsch Z-24 wrote:how long was he holding office as a senator?There is a bit of a difference between running a presidential campaign and playing golf.
how many time did he show up?
Chris
bk3k wrote:Aside from that, your use of the old "teach a man to fish" analogy, I really can't see where it fits here. So you're saying that giving money to average people is "giving them a fish," but giving that money to corporations instead is "teaching them(I assume you mean the average person) how to fish?" Perhaps you could explain that one a bit? Because when you give money to poorer people, they will spend 100% of what you give them anyways, and through their spending, the money ends up with those corporations anyways. But simply giving money to corporations for nothing is not gonna create jobs, why would it? Companies don't create as many jobs as they can afford, they create only as many as they need to in order to pull in money from consumers. If consumers have more money out there waiting for them, they must create jobs(manufacturing, transportations, retail sales) to get that money.
And either way, either with traditional welfare or the corporate welfare you suggest, its still welfare. A better approach IMO, is to invest most of this money in infrastructure, which directly creates jobs for those involved. And creating jobs, creates income, stimulating the economy. Handing out money, probably isn't the most ideal solution. On the other hand, Obama is currently taking his advise on what to do with the economy from a "who's who dream team" of professionals in that area, and they likely know something I don't. So we'll see...
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I read here about how you all bitch the "sky will fall" about him "redistributing the wealth." And how how much he is a "socialist." How he eats babies for a breakfast and how he squeezes toothpaste from the middle and all the idiocy that sore loosers will say.
Mt.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:My question is: What the FU-CK are you doing in a Cavalier site? Shouldn't you be in Rolls-Royce site or a Bugatti site bitching that all your millions and billions of dollars will now be be affected under Obama? Seriously you numb-skulls bitch as if you're Ted-Turner or Bill Gates or some some oil tycoon and that Robin Hood will steal from you and give to the poor.
Mt.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I guess since you are so f-ing wealthy it was ok when Ronald Reagan's new tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% for the folks making $360K+ while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% (- the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased together). In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income. I guess it is ok when you have tax incentives when you build out side of the US and get taxed more when build in-house. I guess it is ok when we subsidize a failed banking system with tax payer's money (no capitalist mentality here). It is ok when oil companies get tax money for "exploring" when they are making record profits. I guess it is just fine when we went to occupy Iraq with tax-payer's money and did a no bid contract and put ex-CEO Dick Chaney's Haliburton to control Iraq's oil was just right thing to do. I guess it is ok that tax-payer's $9 Billions in cash was lost in Iraq for cash "transactions and restructuring" in the beginning in Iraq. I guess it is ok when Reagan decided to go Jumbo Jet and Nancy Reagan spend an ungodly amount of tax-payer's money in re-decorating the White House, or when Bush doubled his salary as soon as he stepped in office. It is justifiable to give corporate welfare, but just plain wrong to get needy welfare, correct?
Do I need to go on?
Mt.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:You all bitch on the socialist and all the BS, but it's clear you don't have a grasp on what it is. If you went to a public school... you used socialism, you driven a paved road or highway or crossed a bridge you used socialism. You like or need to get protection from police that is socialism. You like it when you got the "stimulus check" again socialism. You want to get some money when you retire in a form of social security, hell.... there goes that sinful word "(Social)-ism..." RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do I need to go on?
Socialism is ALL over the freaking world and it is there because of the imbalance between the rich and poor or CEO or workers as they try to maximize profits the immoral way. Top rank people want to keep it all, lower rank people has a tough time getting by, who do you call? If there was a balance in wages there would be no Welfare at least for bottom rank folks. Corporations don't need welfare, that is if you run your business correct like true Capitalist. I'll give you Costco, Ben and Jerry's and Enterprise rent a car as prime examples.
And here is the kicker for religious folks... Socialism is in tune with Christian values... Help you fellow brother/sister out.
Lastly it is ridiculous to crucify pre-maturely Obama for something that he has not been sworn in yet. The other guys... criticize all you want... it is now done and in the history book.
mitdr774 wrote:With all the attempts to save teh economy they are only going to delay the downfall. The longer it is delayed teh worse it will be when it does happen. They need to just back away and let the economy finish its downward trend. There is a natural cycle of an economy and artificially keeping it up will only make it fall harder.
Rodimus Prime wrote:...You can't blame the media for him doing a lousy job....
Rodimus Prime wrote:A president is not necessarily judged by history in what he specifically does, it has to do with the country during that time. He took over with the best financial situation in history and left with one of the worst. Theres been more money spent in Iraq than what Clinton spent in 8 years, and for what? So a bunch of ungrateful towelheads that hate our guts and will stab us in the back at first chance can have elections? Not worth putting our country in Financial ruin and wasting military power.
Quiklilcav wrote:
Rodimus Prime wrote:A president is not necessarily judged by history in what he specifically does, .
He did not take over during the best time. It's documented, as I said above, that the economy started to decline in the last year of Clinton. And the war did not put us into financial ruin. Wake the hell up. Seriously.
Quote:
LOL. Typical liberal exageration. What you have read here is debate on policies. If you can't accept that his policies are socialist, and there are plenty of people who don't want to see them put in place, you've got the problem, not the people who disagree with you.
Quote:
Because increasing the taxes on those brackets, and on businesses, will hurt the economy, which will result in less jobs. Simple economics that you refuse to accept because you've had so much liberal kool-aide that you can't see straight. And because I want the opportunity to increase my income without being punished for it if/when I do.
Quote:
LMFAO. How about a $150M innauguration? It's OK because it's a liberal, but everyone jumped all over Bush for $40M in 2005.
And if you've paid attention, I'm not for the corporate welfare either. I don't think it was the right thing to do to throw money at the problem. And everyone screams that we can't afford a tax cut because of the defecit, but where the hell are we getting the money to hand out? It's worse on that side because they're giving out more money. At least with a tax cut, they're just taking less from people.
Quote:
No one is crucifying him. You want to see crucifying, listen to what the MSM is doing to Bush, even though he's done.
However, when you see something being proposed that you strongly disagree with, what are you supposed to do? STFU and watch it happen? No, you speak out about it, and try to get others to understand the point.
Bottom line is that while you love to claim we're fear mongering, it's Obama and his administration that are fear mongering, to try and get everyone on board with their plan. "If we don't act now, the economy will continue to decline and more jobs will be lost. If we don't pass this plan now, 3,000,000 jobs will be lost. (or for 3,000,000 jobs to be created, we must pass it-take your pick which version of the rhetoric you listen to)
This is bullsh!t. The best thing he could do is to lower taxes for everyone. Nothing stimulates an economy more. Lowering taxes on the bottom bracket, or the zero bracket, will not get anything moving. This isn't negativity, this is proposing a plan that has a better chance, but because people don't get behind the golden boy, they're being negative. The new term is "Obama Nay-sayers". Fine. I'm a proud Obama Nay-Sayer if that's the case. Go ahead and put me on that list.
Quote:
Rodimus, clearly you, like Goodwrench and many others, simply listen to all of the liberal rhetoric, and the MSM's. Half of what you posted is complete bullsh!t. And how can you possibly say that the worst attack on US soil was even close to his fault? He was in office for just over 7 months. I would argue that could be blamed on Clinton's softness on defense.
Open your eyes and look at facts. As I've said before, I don't believe he was one of our best, but he was certainly far from our worst. And lets not forget that he achieved in his first term, the highest approval rating that any president has ever achieved, and that was after doing things. It's amazing that the incoming president has huge approval ratings and he hasn't done a fking thing but give tons of speaches.
People simply have the wool pulled over their eyes by the media, who is absolutely biased for the left, which can be proven by looking at coverage of similar events and actions between Bush and Obama. Things Bush was crucified for in the media are some of the very same things Obama is being praised or excused for.
Stop falling for it, people!
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
LOL. Typical liberal exageration. What you have read here is debate on policies. If you can't accept that his policies are socialist, and there are plenty of people who don't want to see them put in place, you've got the problem, not the people who disagree with you.
When you learn what "socialist" and "liberal" is and put it in coherent thought, then you can talk... type. Until then....
Quote:
Quote:
Because increasing the taxes on those brackets, and on businesses, will hurt the economy, which will result in less jobs. Simple economics that you refuse to accept because you've had so much liberal kool-aide that you can't see straight. And because I want the opportunity to increase my income without being punished for it if/when I do.
Lower the tax on wealthy folks who make $360K+ and raise on the low to middle class as if it will not "hurt the economy, which will result in less jobs."
I can't believe I read that, then again it is you that wrote it.
Quote:
Quote:
LMFAO. How about a $150M innauguration? It's OK because it's a liberal, but everyone jumped all over Bush for $40M in 2005.
And if you've paid attention, I'm not for the corporate welfare either. I don't think it was the right thing to do to throw money at the problem. And everyone screams that we can't afford a tax cut because of the defecit, but where the hell are we getting the money to hand out? It's worse on that side because they're giving out more money. At least with a tax cut, they're just taking less from people.
No, it is ok for spending that. Mostly for security reasons because there are people like you who despise the thought for black man to be a US president (after reading topics on black folks as if you have unsolved issues with them... lol daughter dating one?), some lunatics go the extra step and threatened, and god forbid some loon goes for the next step. But yhea it was for security reasons and keep watch of all the millions of people. It is sad when you have to have more security in your own home then when you visit another country.
Bush's $40 million heh, if that is true... just remember how much less of a crowd showed up. Who was it? Family members, religious folks, oil tycoons, CEOs and Texas.
Take food for thought... Michelle Obama's ball room dress cost $600, Nancy Reagan's in 1981 $12,000. Did roles switched on "conservative spending?" If so, I didn't get the memo.
Quote:
LMAO. You, as the rest of the liberals, can continue to wish that people like me would STFU, but it's not going to happen. Although the media may get their way if the "fairness doctrine" (read "attempt to silence conservatism in media") gets passed.
Quote:
LMAO. You have your head firmly planted in your @ss still. I was refering to what you suggest is the correct way to go, and which this administration suggest we should do (and is going to do if no one in congress stands up to them), which is to raise the taxes on businesses, as well as people making over $150K (last I checked: they keep lowering the bracket that was originally $250K). I was NOT talking about the 80's, where this country saw the most consistant, long term decline in the unemployment rate, because of tax cuts!
Quote:
And hey, guess what? (this one should get you scrambling for some bullsh!t chart about deficit again-LMAO): There was recently a study done on the Bush tax cuts of 2003, where the GDP was declining for over a year and a half prior to them going into effect, and by a year and a half later, it was increasing dramaticly. There were many statistics that measure the economy that had the same result. I'm sure you'll claim some BS reason why the study is wrong, but the bottom line is that statistics don't lie.
Quote:
LOL. You fail again. The inauguration was not $110M more expensive because of security. Granted there was more security, but a huge part of the money spent was strictly in making it such a huge event, because of how "historic" it was. And look up Bush 2005 inauguration on youtube. You will see a huge croud filling the mall at that time, as well. Of course it's not 2 million, but that number has more to do with the hype of the first black president, and on the media hype, than on true policies. And to make it even better, the media was already trying to crucify Bush in 2005, but it still drew a huge crowd. Even more funny, but even with all the media hype, the number of people tuning in to the inauguration this year did not touch the number that tuned into Reagan's. LOL.
Quote:
Just keep drinking up that kool-aide. Don't mind the funny aftertaste.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
LMAO. You, as the rest of the liberals, can continue to wish that people like me would STFU, but it's not going to happen. Although the media may get their way if the "fairness doctrine" (read "attempt to silence conservatism in media") gets passed.
Still not willing to pick up a history book and learn about words you don't even know about, in fact avoiding the topic altogether. Congratulations, you just escaladed from ignorant to stupid. Loosing more credibility on the issues you defend.
Quote:
Quote:
LMAO. You have your head firmly planted in your @ss still. I was refering to what you suggest is the correct way to go, and which this administration suggest we should do (and is going to do if no one in congress stands up to them), which is to raise the taxes on businesses, as well as people making over $150K (last I checked: they keep lowering the bracket that was originally $250K). I was NOT talking about the 80's, where this country saw the most consistant, long term decline in the unemployment rate, because of tax cuts!
I talked initially on the 80's and you responded, now you are skewing.
You laud the decline? During that time the average for the 80s was to what we have today; near 8%. You do realize during your hero's term there was a near 11% unemployment rate? With the rich tax cuts also came many factories going overseas as the upper sections didn't have to pay US wages anymore and a nice tax break came about when they did so. Nice triple combo.
But there is no wrong with that.
Oh and here is stats in which you can shove the figures up your rectum, maybe there you can input info to your memory instead of opening a book and read.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248
Quote:
Quote:
And hey, guess what? (this one should get you scrambling for some bullsh!t chart about deficit again-LMAO): There was recently a study done on the Bush tax cuts of 2003, where the GDP was declining for over a year and a half prior to them going into effect, and by a year and a half later, it was increasing dramaticly. There were many statistics that measure the economy that had the same result. I'm sure you'll claim some BS reason why the study is wrong, but the bottom line is that statistics don't lie.
lol Oh this is good... I would like to get a insight on that.
Quote:
As for Reagan getting more "tuned-in." Doesn't surprise me, everybody was at home and unemployed... so nothing else was on TV.
Quote:
Quote:
Just keep drinking up that kool-aide. Don't mind the funny aftertaste.
Sorry, I don't get your infantile quote
spoiler wrote:is a stereotype to low income african americans.