What the hell is Obama doing calling for a tax cut in the middle of a recession. :lol:
Since the one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama nationalized the student loan industry the taxpayer is on the hook for more than a trillion dollars in student loans. The default rates for student loans has always been very high.Few important distinctions to make, You have absolutely no way of knowing said individuals educational background or area of expertise, secondly what "great expense to the taxpayer?" Has there been an increase in the tax burden on the average American over the past few years in response to the usage of publicly funded collegiate entities?
Vague mutterings per usual.
Cat, it seems to me that you believe all wealth belongs to the government. That explains why you believe that someone keeping their wealth is a bad thing. It seems to me that you are a statist. You seem to believe that the government is essential and the people exist to support the government.Surprising how many keep falling over and over again for the same policies, as offered by Romney, tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation, like it is somehow going to magically produce different results than it has for the last decade.
So if I vote for Obama he will send me your trust fund payments?
Cat, it seems to me that you believe all wealth belongs to the government.
The one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama's policies have resulted in enormous pain and misery for millions of people. His policies have damaged the private sector and we do not need him. The Marxist has never been successful at creating wealth. He consumes wealth.
.
You are going to vote for Obama even if he was convicted of a crime similar to the Aurora massacre.
Is that how you saw the 1990s, one of the best economies in our history?
Explain please.Is that how you saw the 1990s, one of the best economies in our history?
Explain please.
How much wealth did the government consume then? Was it less than one-fifth of the total annual wealth creation of the nation? And what is it today? One-quarter?
Imagine how much better we could do if the government restrained itself to performing only those tasks that are Constitutional? We could probably get by with taking about a tenth from the makers.
For the purists: he spent his formative years influenced by Marxists, Communists, socialists, progressives, radicals, terrorists, and liberals. He grew up in Muslim Indonesia. His ideas are foreign to American ideals. he is a collectivist, a "Mastermind" who, although he has no accomplishments in the private sector, believes he knows how to solve every problem through greater government action. Think of "Marxist" as a shortcut."One term Marxist"- FALSE, Obama is neither Marxist or a one term president
Call him President Obama
Where should I begin? He nationalized the student loan program. He tossed out bankruptcy laws so his supporters in the auto unions were protected and enriched at taxpayer's and bond holder's expense. In essence he has nationalized about two-thirds of the American auto industry.Go ahead tell us his "policies".
That is an admirable goal. It is a shame that the Russians did not have that goal with Lenin, nor with Stalin. Despite the very reasonable opposition to the flexible president he spent two years in complete control of all of the instruments of federal power. He is a failure. He must be slowed, stopped, defeated, and relegated to the ash heap of history along side other would be tyrants.Also tell us all that has been failed to be enacted thanks to the party of NO-paraphrase-"our #1 goal is for Obama to be a one term president."
Americans will be on the path to winning the day after the next election once the Marxist has been defeated.Notice it does not say help the american people
This statement is nonsensical. I cannot answer you while it is in its present form.Tell me how Romney's appeal of Robomney care will help americans
Who is proposing cutting taxes on the rich? What I have heard is a plan to lower everybody's tax rates by 20%. Granted about half of the population does not pay the federal income tax. They don't pay so they won't see a cut in their tax rates.Tell me how Cutting taxes on the rich will somehow spur the economy rather than just add to their saving accounts
I am not surprised that you chose one of the few constitutional requirements for cutting. The kinds of cuts the Obama regime has set into motion are always dangerous to the nation. They promote a weak foreign policy, encourage our enemies and dispirit our friends. Those conditions pave the way to wars.Tell me how Expanding the military will lower our debt
Go ahead, tell me?
You think Romney is going to do something viable about this?
and you think President Obama will?
The federal govt. (President and Congress) do not live within reasonalbe income limits. They continue to spend way more than they take in. Until they show spending constraint and a balance budget. Why give them more money?
The budget will not / can not be balanced for years.... even the most optimistic view of the Paul Ryan budget has us 5 years away from balance....
Only if you want to flush the economy. What you're proposing would make the Great Depression look like a boom decade.Disagree, we could have a balanced budget for next fiscal year. Politicians refuse to do it.
Now paying off the debt will take years.
Only if you want to flush the economy. What you're proposing would make the Great Depression look like a boom decade.
And he took all eight years getting there.So a balanced budget would reck the economy? Thought Clinton had a balanced budget and the economy was not flushed.
Explain why you think so.
Only if you want to flush the economy. What you're proposing would make the Great Depression look like a boom decade.
And he took all eight years getting there.
ok, I won't change my mind but we can take a few years to balance the budget.
Now what has been the trend the last 4,8,12 years by Congress? Not balanced was it. Not a surplus. So when do you think our leaders will begin? Next year, two years from now?
We in the US still have a spending problem. It would be good to see some tax reform to help on the revenue side. Yet, there is so much wastefull spending, duplicate programs, that the Feds need to overhaul before asking for more money.
Much of the "liberal policies" you're talking about are damage control for a failed conservative trying to fight a two-front war while lowering taxes. If you've got a problem you should fix that conservative attitude first before blaming all your problems on someone else.Ok, lets go for it. If we continue supporting Liberal Policies, we are heading that way anyways, so lets get it done and over with. If that is what it takes to finally break people of the entitlement habit and rid us of all these socialistic policies and bs, I say go for it. In the end, we will be stronger and better for it.
Which is exactly what the post you responded to said:ok, I won't change my mind but we can take a few years to balance the budget.
:shrug:The budget will not / can not be balanced for years.... even the most optimistic view of the Paul Ryan budget has us 5 years away from balance....
Much of the "liberal policies" you're talking about are damage control for a failed conservative trying to fight a two-front war while lowering taxes. If you've got a problem you should fix that conservative attitude first before blaming all your problems on someone else.
As for letting it fail - that was the opinion of some people three years ago when the economy crashed. Europe took that route and reduced government spending and look at the backlash it got them. We made the right call including balling out the banks, much as I hated that decision.
You ignore reality with the bank "bailouts" for the mortgage mess, when not considering the only REAL alternmative which was that the banks would have legally USED the Freddie and Fannie backed mortgage "insurance" costing up to $5 TRILLION in tax money. The gov't PRETENDED to be bailing out the "private" banks but, in reality, was simply avoiding paying MANY TIMES more in gov't backed motgage insurance claims.
97% of All U.S. Mortgages are Backed by the Government | The Big Picture
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12032/12-23-fanniefreddie.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12032/12-23-fanniefreddie.pdfLacking an implicit federal guarantee, private-label issuers could not compete effectively with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for conforming mortgages. Instead, they concentrated on nonconforming mortgages—loans that generally were not eligible for guarantees by the GSEs because they were too large (jumbo mortgages) or too risky (Alt-A or subprime mortgages). By 1997, private-label securities accounted for nearly 25 percent of new MBSs issued, and by their peak, in 2005 and 2006, they made up 55 percent of new issues (see Figure 1-2).
Much of the "liberal policies" you're talking about are damage control for a failed conservative trying to fight a two-front war while lowering taxes. If you've got a problem you should fix that conservative attitude first before blaming all your problems on someone else.
As for letting it fail - that was the opinion of some people three years ago when the economy crashed. Europe took that route and reduced government spending and look at the backlash it got them. We made the right call including balling out the banks, much as I hated that decision.
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?