The Barbarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,265
- Reaction score
- 277
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you why. Because we cut their burden, and cut the help we give people, more fell below that line. Taking more out of the taxing population. Cause and effect.
This puts more people on welfare, but with less services to move them out. We've done it your way, and for a long time now. This is the result.
Well no one has impressed with the brilliance of their plans. But partisanship aside, at least he knows enough to suggest a balanced approach.
Oh we have ??? show me one budget line where we have "cut" money going to that program to help the poor ... show it to me
Well no one has impressed with the brilliance of their plans. But partisanship aside, at least he knows enough to suggest a balanced approach.
Go to the polls forum or look up Stanford study gap between rich and poor. It's been going for a long time. I haven't quite figured out how link from the iPad.
You're missing badly. There is a context, a history. And if you read the NYT today, you'll find both sides think an agreement can be reached. Never pretend that a single sentence or even speech stands absolutely alone.
Yes, but all he has ever done is suggest.
It has been going up for quite some time because as the government grows the middle class shrinks. You cannot have a large government and a large middle class, at least not for very long.
And as long as the government spends over $1,000,000,000,000 each nine or 10 months with money that it doesn't have, with no budgets whatsoever, that trend has to continue until there is only the political class and the rich and powerful. There is no alternative.
Youre missing badly. Obamas context and history both show that he does not compromise or accept new ideas. There no need to read the New York Times today when I can read his exact speech where he offers no options but his own.
Anyone who believes that is drinking the koolaid.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...working-together-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts
When it comes to taxes, for example, there are two pathways available.
One says, if Congress fails to act by the end of the year, then everybody’s taxes automatically go up – including the 98% of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year. Our economy can’t afford that right now. You can’t afford that right now. And nobody wants that to happen.
The other path is for Congress to pass a law right away to prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of anyone’s income. That means all Americans – including the wealthiest Americans – get a tax cut. And 98 percent of Americans, and 97 percent of all small business owners, won’t see their income taxes go up a single dime.
He's not king. This isn't China.
Please use quote where I said Obama was king or that the USA was China.
Otherwise don't bother me with your juvenile lerftisms.
True compromise takes two to meet in the middle, not one side saying they want compromise, then double down on their plan, and not budge. I say let it go over the cliff, and hang it around Obama's neck.
Youre missing badly. Obamas context and history both show that he does not compromise or accept new ideas. There no need to read the New York Times today when I can read his exact speech where he offers no options but his own.
Why? Obama's not getting re-elected either way. I think most people will see if Republicans try to do that, and every one in the House has to run again in 2 years. That would be a heck of a gamble for Boehner to take for no real gain politically.
I think people deep down know what is fair, and to have Obama acting like he and the demo's won some kind of overwhelming mandate, and refusing to budge off of the same old song and dance he has been doing since Jan. '09, and then saying that repubs won't join him and give him everything he wants is somehow repub obstructionism is ridiculous, and they will see that.
Demo's talk a good game of representing everyone, when in truth, anyone that doesn't tow the party line, the Obama line, you couldn't care less about.
You're just complaining about political gamesmanship. If the parties were reversed, you'd just have a Republican bitching about Democrats. That's just the game.
Remember when Clinton let Gingrich have his little hissy fit and shut down the government? Backfired on Newt big time. Obama's got nothing to lose, he's not getting re-elected no matter what. Boehner on the other hand, has to run again in 2014 if he wants to keep his job. So I'd say that the ball is definitely in the GOPs court. They know it too, which is why they're suddenly "willing to talk" on revenue when they weren't last year.
Maybe it's not fair, but in terms of the political game Obama already won. Politics ain't fair.
He won the election to be President, not King....You obviously think that he should just dictate what he wants and everyone should kneel at his feet and say 'right away your highness'.... heh, heh...
Look it up, "ALL SPENDING BILLS ORIGINATE IN THE CONGRESS"...Period. It doesn't say that the President has the dictatorial power to just wave his hand and have the opposing party crumble.
Constructing strawmen again? I knew you would, but that's OK, I've come to expect it.
I don't think he should just dictate, but his victory is going to force Republicans to come more to the left than they'd like to. "All spending bills originate in the Congress" doesn't mean the President's just a rubber stamp either. Even if the bill originates in the House, it has to make it through the Senate too. You realize that, right?
You were saying that they should just stop anything unless it fits their dream world. That's not a realistic scenario for them anymore. If they think it'll just "hang on Obama" the way you think, they better be right or they'll be in BIG trouble in 2014.
Not what the Stanford study reports. Thing is, do you believe ideology or studies more?
It was the proper reply to what you said. To expect him to do what you want he would have to be one of those things. Don't get mad at others if the argument you present lacks logic.
The Stanford Study says that a government can get into debt to the tune of over $1,000,000,000,000 every ten months and there will be no consequences?
What ideology or study says you can spend that kind of money indefinitely without there being an eventual collapse?
No, it was not the proper reply. You did not understand at what was being said and therefore had a guess at how you should respond.
This is why Leftists must always use quotes. Guessing at what they think the proper reply might be never works for them.
Please use the actual quotes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?