Relatives can make it tough on a candidate; imagine the publicity over Carter's presidency and Billy Carter if they were involved in politics today.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Excellent. Also, people who would actually make good candidates don't want anything to do with running for office for the most part.
LOL did you read the details? Said he was sitting in his parked truck just revving the engine and being rowdy, then BAM! LOL what a clown.
Well I learned something new today. The 53% of Americans that voted for Obama are composed of young underemployed or unemployed diptsits and minorities, and if only a Republcian would take the Whitehouse then everything would get better again. Also even though I'm 15 years younger than Ronald Reagan when he left office, I'm too old to know anything, and I live in a fantasy world.
Oh by the way the federal deficit has gone down every year of the Obama presidency despite being handed the worse economy in 50 years on day one. Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law which the by Republican estimates will reduce the deficit by $600 Billion.
LOL you've got to be kidding bringing up the budget deficit as a badge of honor for Obama.
You are joking, right? Is your little picture from Obama's first term?
You live in a fantasy world. Regardless of your age. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe it was just an old mind slipping and not just complete idiocy.
Yes, Obama crushed the young dipshit and minority vote. So yeah, his biggest supporters are young idiots and people voting (for the most part) solely based on race.
And no, just because someone has an R next to their name doesn't mean they're going to fix anything. You should learn the same thing about the letter D.
You are joking, right? Is your little picture from Obama's first term?
You live in a fantasy world. Regardless of your age. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe it was just an old mind slipping and not just complete idiocy.
Yes, Obama crushed the young dipshit and minority vote. So yeah, his biggest supporters are young idiots and people voting (for the most part) solely based on race.
And no, just because someone has an R next to their name doesn't mean they're going to fix anything. You should learn the same thing about the letter D.
Well I learned something new today. The 53% of Americans that voted for Obama are composed of young underemployed or unemployed diptsits and minorities, and if only a Republcian would take the Whitehouse then everything would get better again. Also even though I'm 15 years younger than Ronald Reagan when he left office, I'm too old to know anything, and I live in a fantasy world.
Oh by the way the federal deficit has gone down every year of the Obama presidency despite being handed the worse economy in 50 years on day one. Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law which the by Republican estimates will reduce the deficit by $600 Billion.
Dude are you still high from 4/20? You really mean to tell all of us that the deficit has gone down?
The budget deficit was what, $1.4 TRILLION when Obama took office? And it was artificially pegged that high due to the bailouts and TARP no conservative wanted?
Then Obama kept it at over a TRILLION for how many years?
But he's lowered the deficit. While taking in record amounts of tax dollars year after year.
He's doubled the national debt.
The man has earned his crown.
Edit: Was the stimulus in the budget deficit we're starting with too?
Then Obama kept it at over a TRILLION for how many years?
But he's lowered the deficit. While taking in record amounts of tax dollars year after year.
He's doubled the national debt.
The man has earned his crown.
Edit: Was the stimulus in the budget deficit we're starting with too?
The mistake seems to have been made a couple of times over the past few days.
The deficit has gone down. That's the yearly budget deficit.
The national debt has been doubled. That's the amount of money we owe China and others.
The left brings up the deficit going down because it distracts people from the fact that Obama has doubled the national debt.
It's the same shit they pull with spending. To the left, if we increase spending, but increase it by less than we originally said we were going to increase it, we've actually cut spending.
I'm going to spend $100 more next year than I spent this year. You know what, maybe I'll just spend $50 more than I spent this year. I'm spending more money than this year, but that's actually me cutting spending.
Basically, the left has the same grasp on finance as your wife you is proud of herself because she bought the purse she doesn't need and can't afford, "but it was on sale."
The deficit has gone down. That's the yearly budget deficit.
The national debt has been doubled. That's the amount of money we owe China and others.
The left brings up the deficit going down because it distracts people from the fact that Obama has doubled the national debt.
It's the same shit they pull with spending. To the left, if we increase spending, but increase it by less than we originally said we were going to increase it, we've actually cut spending.
I'm going to spend $100 more next year than I spent this year. You know what, maybe I'll just spend $50 more than I spent this year. I'm spending more money than this year, but that's actually me cutting spending.
Basically, the left has the same grasp on finance as your wife you is proud of herself because she bought the purse she doesn't need and can't afford, "but it was on sale."
Well yes, I'm sorry to have to bring facts to the table again to dispell the misinformation you may have been feed from the unrealizable news sources you follow, but here it is:
Man too bad old American Warren Weinstein wasn't a deserter and traitor. Obama would have traded a bunch of top level terrorists for him instead of killing him with a drone.
Actually those pesky Japanese now own more of our debt than China. But we Americans still hold a majority of the U.S Debt. But apparently the National debt is going down. Went down from 10 trillion to 20 trillion under Obama.
=====================================================================
TARP money was not a grant, or an expense of any kind it was loans most all of which was repaid., it does not effect deficit or debt numbers.
To answer your question the deficit was over a Trillion for 3 years primarily due to lost tax revenue, and the economic stimulus which helped bring up out of the great recession. Deficits continued to decline to around $600 B in 2013 and even lower to $483 B in 2014.
We did not take in "records amount of tax revenue during this period as you assert. IN fact from 2008 when the economic meltdown started and 2009 we lost $419 Billion of tax revenue. 2010 only saw a $57 B rise in revenue, still way short of the 2008 level, and it wasn't until 2013 that we exceeded the 2008 level That is the biggest factor that effected the increase in the deficit.
The national debt did not double during the Obama administration as you assert. It did increase from about $12 To $17 T through 2014 however the debt as a percentage of GDP leveled off in 2011 and has not risen since then. That's not as good as a decline but it's a lot better than a continual rise like we have seen for years previous.
Refer to the link for the revenue numbers I cited and the chart to illustrate the debt levels.
Yes, where we've seen a meaningful yearly deficit decrease it's only due to record tax revenue. We're still pissing mine, my kids and my grandkids money away. Thanks for that Defense.
Nationa debt was $10.6 Trillion when Obama took office and is currently over $18 Trillion. So 70% not 100%.
I'll admit, I had double on my mind because I looked up the national debt the other day from the day I started posting. We've now basically double the national debt since May 1, 2008. I was just thinking that was the amount of money you've supported Obama taking from my children without double checking. It's just the amount you supported Bush and Obama taking.
Nationa debt was $10.6 Trillion when Obama took office and is currently over $18 Trillion. So 70% not 100%.
I'll admit, I had double on my mind because I looked up the national debt the other day from the day I started posting. We've now basically double the national debt since May 1, 2008. I was just thinking that was the amount of money you've supported Obama taking from my children without double checking. It's just the amount you supported Bush and Obama taking.
You nonsensical accusations hardly merit a serious response, but I'll give this one last try. We have two choices when we go to the ballot box, the guy that ran against Obama last time posted a proposed economic plan which includes CUTTING taxes, INCREASING defense spending $100 Billion and making token cuts to discretionary spending. Tell me how that's going to cut the deficit? The tax cutting is more of that trickle down crap that your guy Bush tried. It resulted in 33 cents worth of revenue for every dollar cut. IOW for every dollar of taxes he cut, the deficit was increased by 67 cents. I'm sorry but I'm not voting for that. The first time you had your choice between Obama and a 67 year old 3 time cancer survivor who was clueless on the economy, and would have almost certainly defaulted to more of the trickle down guys he would have chosen for his cabinet plus a functional illiterate running mate one heart beat away from the presidency. You can think I made a bad choice, I don't think so.
No Obama is not a fiscal conservative, but he has on balance done a decent job of bring the economy back to a reasonable level and I do not see him as the personification of the "tax and spend" label that the right has put on him. Spending on welfare and social service has gone down, not up, defense spending has gone down, not up, what has gone up is the so-called unfunded mandates of social security, medicare and medicaid. Those are non-discretionary expenditures, which means, congress and the president cannot "budget" cuts in them.
I support a balanced budget amendment. I also support a common sense approach to making social security and medicare economically stable for you and your children. Social security can be accomplished by simply adding a year or two to the eligibility age, and raising the cap on payroll taxes by $10-$15K - that's a combination of what each party wants. Medicare can be solved by putting a cap on benefits the way it's done in other industrialized counties. I advocate a cap and I also advocate euthanasia as a constitutional right. Give us those two things and medicare will also be solvent for you and your children.
I would like to see us have a president and a congress that would work to achieve these things. This President and the last congress did strike a budget reduction deal. It was way short of what was needed but it was a step in the right direction. You just can't make up a lot of the national debt in the middle of an economic downturn. First things first, solve the immediate crisis, then work on getting the debt and deficit to a lower numbers.
Put a candidate on the ballet that support those things, and also takes a serious attitude toward the other catastrophic problem facing you and your children, Global Climate Change, and they will have 100% of my support, and I don't give a flip if they have a D, and R or a I by their name.
BTW I send more money to the Federal government every year than 90% of the people on here earn in a year.
Last edited:
A little too long winded so, I will keep my response short. By your own admission we are being taxed more. Also, Our debt has risen faster under Obama than it has under any other president in history. All of the rambling in the world cannot change the bottom line. Tax and spend. Yes.
A lot of questions that need to be answered but probably never will from Bill or Hillary about donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Ok semantics. The debt has gone up trillions. I'd grasp on to the deceptive term deficit as well if I was in love with Obama.
You don't think that, in general, the annual deficit is a better reflection of a president's habits rather than the total debt (much of which is inherited)?
We are being taxed more so I don't see that as a positive as spending has increased on par with that. If you want to tax more, whatever, but stop spending money to reduce the deficit. It's tax more and spend more and to me that's not a positive thing. Obama has added 70% of the national debt in 6 years. I do not believe and I don't think you believe that he inherited that from Bush. Some? Yes. Every president inherits the disasters of the former president. Republicans like to cut taxes and not spending. Democrats like to tax more and spend more. Both suck in my opinion but at least cutting taxes allows the little people to try to build things, companies, businesses and maybe put some money on the bank. I am not an Obama hater because I love the republicans. I wasn't a fan of Bush at all. I like to point that out so people don't think I loved Bush.
Look at actions and cause/effect rather than blanket numbers.
Bipartisan committee recommended 4/1 cuts to taxes ratio
WH scoffed at the 3% sequestration cuts and have worked to cancel all of them
Despite the recommendations of Bowels/Simpson and his own campaign promises of a "balanced" approach to debt, his first course in the 2nd term was a large tax increase with zero cuts. The GOP asked for a 1/1 ratio. This is when deee and blueboy ran away...I challenged them about their own declarations that Obama needed to cut spending to keep their support.
CBO is projected the deficits to start rising in 2016: The federal budget deficit, which has fallen sharply during the past few years, is projected to hold steady relative to the size of the economy through 2018. Beyond that point, however, the gap between spending and revenues is projected to grow, further increasing federal debt relative to the size of the economy—which is already historically high. - CBO
Benchmarking against the low point of a historic recession is disingenuous at best, not surprised to see a campaign operative using that approach
Obama's 2016 budget proposal had numerous proposals for new and higher taxes and no clear spending cuts. And they did not include the carbon taxes that the left is working diligently behind the scenes to move toward. And let's not forget the upcoming cadillac healthcare taxes.
Bipartisan committee recommended 4/1 cuts to taxes ratio
WH scoffed at the 3% sequestration cuts and have worked to cancel all of them
Despite the recommendations of Bowels/Simpson and his own campaign promises of a "balanced" approach to debt, his first course in the 2nd term was a large tax increase with zero cuts. The GOP asked for a 1/1 ratio. This is when deee and blueboy ran away...I challenged them about their own declarations that Obama needed to cut spending to keep their support.
CBO is projected the deficits to start rising in 2016: The federal budget deficit, which has fallen sharply during the past few years, is projected to hold steady relative to the size of the economy through 2018. Beyond that point, however, the gap between spending and revenues is projected to grow, further increasing federal debt relative to the size of the economy—which is already historically high. - CBO
Benchmarking against the low point of a historic recession is disingenuous at best, not surprised to see a campaign operative using that approach
Obama's 2016 budget proposal had numerous proposals for new and higher taxes and no clear spending cuts. And they did not include the carbon taxes that the left is working diligently behind the scenes to move toward. And let's not forget the upcoming cadillac healthcare taxes.
Not as much as some try to make us believe. Also, debt is a reflection of spending habits.
Carbon taxes, health plan taxes, inheritance taxes, etc are all just deck chairs on the Titanic. Theyre political tools rather than serious fiscal initiatives.
The upcoming debt explosion is only going to be controlled through reforms in Medicare and SS (and that's assuming nobody tries to expand defense spending), but nobody currently in power has the intestinal fortitude to tackle that. Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter.
The upcoming debt explosion is only going to be controlled through reforms in Medicare and SS (and that's assuming nobody tries to expand defense spending), but nobody currently in power has the intestinal fortitude to tackle that. Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter.
Absolutely correct Jam. The pseudo Conservatives talk about cutting welfare etc. which will not make a dent in the deficit and ignore the enormous problems of the mandated entitlement programs. I outlined my solutions to these above. I think social security could get a fix along those lines but you're right in that elected politicians do not have the political courage to make the hard choices on medicare - caps, not an unlimited supply of expensive procedures, drugs and machines to keep 85 year old people artificially alive for 6 more months at a cost of thousands per day to the US tax payer
Health care is an easy fix. Tax credits for being healthy. Being healthy means less likely develop lifestyle disease and more money in people's and the gov't pocket. Less lifestyle diseases increases independence from the health field.
Problem is that the last time a Congress person submitted a bill like this it didn't even make it to the floor. Well because of lobbyists. This issue isn't getting fixed. Nothings getting fixed. Nothing. I've lost faith in my fellow Americans and I've lost faith in the American political system. It's a scam.
WTF....is deee actually making an argument about mandated entitlements after hundreds of braggard posts of the zillions of new UCA enrollees, the vast majority of which are being added to medicaid?? In 2014 less than 1m were added via insurance while over 8m were via medicaid.
More hilarious than his argument last week that he supported Perot due to his views of limited govt. Psych-o-path.
BTW, he ravaged Ryan's plan referenced in BC's video.
More hilarious than his argument last week that he supported Perot due to his views of limited govt. Psych-o-path.
BTW, he ravaged Ryan's plan referenced in BC's video.
Funny how you key on the conservatives when that is not exactly what he said. Way to twist his words.
You misunderstood what I said or choose to distort it. I maintain that the main solution to making Medicare solvent for future generations is to mandate a cap on benefits after a certain dollar amount. 80% of Medicare payments are paid out in the last 2 years of life, often to simply keep people artificially alive, some against their own will. A great arrangement for providers and drug companies, a bad deal for the tax payer.
Medicaid is a different animal. It provides supplemental insurance to impoverished people or in the case of the ACA expansion to people that work for companies that do not offer health care or cannot afford it. It services people across all age groups. Medicaid keeps people out of emergency rooms where we wind up with an enormously larger price down the road.
Having said that Medicaid should also have caps, as well as the ACA. The biggest problem with the ACA is caps are not allowed. But as Jamo points out the last thing in the world any politician of either party will propose is a REDUCTION in benefits.
We as a national can have something close to universal health care and still be fiscally responsible about it if we do it the smart way - the way France Canada and other countries do it.
I was not addressing anyone in particular just some conservatives in general. I watch Fox and hear it frequently.
You still missed the point. Jamo basically pointed out the problems both sides have with spending but you can only see what conservatives do.
There is nothing psychopathic about leaning liberal or progressive on social and environmental issues and leaning conservative on fiscal matter. An enormous number of American including myself define ourselves that way and if you have read my posts over the last 12 years you would know that.. BTW contrary to the way the media portrayed us The Reform Pasrty was composed almost exactly of 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans.
Regarding Paul Ryan's medicare plan, he put his finger on the right problem or at least the biggest one, but he had the wrong solution. He wanted to make up for the shortfall by requiring people to buy private insurance and requiring them to pay the balance past a fixed subsidy from Medicare. That would have resulted in many people not being able to afford to buy the private plans and winding up in ERs at the tax payers expense. What he should have done was propose caps and a federal law to allow euthanasia based on the successful Oregon law. That's the only way this program will ever stay solvent without creating a worse problem
Missed this gem. Humans release FAR more CO2 on an annual basis than all the world's volcanoes combined. Like, 3 orders of magnitude (0.1-0.4 vs 35 gigatons) more.
We're creating an artificial Age of Volcanism just like what warmed the planet in past epochs. Except we're doing it far faster.
LOL
Believe us, we've all read your dumbass posts over the years defining yourself as a moderate. However we've also read all you other posts and know that's completely false.
My goodness, what a spectacle. Annoying yet mesmerizing. Obama has passed significant new taxes and has opposed every attempt at spending cuts. Deeee has universally supported both stances.
And since he referenced ER visits in two different posts.....pssst they aren't going down with UCA. And with both topics he has fully supported the "get in without getting caught and you are a citizen" stance of his party which drives up those costs.
Re spending cuts: False. The President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law which specified 917 Billion in spending reductions of a 10 year period. Defense and discretionary spending has gone down not up under PBO.
Re taxes: Mostly False: Unless you are making over $400K per year or you inherited over $5,340,000, your taxes did not go up, in fact there was quite a bit of temporary tax relieve under Obama's first term, including a federal income tax rebate in year one, and a roll back of payroll taxes.
At any rate, I didn't say I advocated wholesale tax cuts, I said I advocate a policy of fiscal conservatism. The best example of that is the bi-partisan Simpson Bowles Plan for a balanced budget. It stated quite clearly that the budget could not be balanced on cuts alone, but rather cuts along with revenue increases. You're conflating a Tea Party Position of tax cuts as a fix to everything, with a true workable conservative fiscal plan. You're entitled to that opinion and many share it but that's not what I'm advocating.
The tax reform act of 2014 was bipartisan with 40 Republican Senators and 85 Republican Congressmen voting for it. From Politifact"
- The top income tax rate went back up to 39.6 percent over a year ago — for singles making more than $400,000 a year or couples making more than $450,000. The increase was part of the “fiscal cliff” package that Congress passed on New Year’s Day of 2013.
- Capital gains rates also increased in 2013 under the same “fiscal cliff” deal — but not nearly as much as this email claims. For long-term gains (on assets held more than one year) the top rate went from 15 percent to 20 percent (not 28 percent), and also applied to individuals making more than $400,000 and couples earning more than $450,000.
- The top rate for dividends also went up to 20 percent (not 39.6 percent) in 2013 as part of the same fiscal cliff package, and also only for those with more than $400,000 individual or $450,000 joint taxable income.
- It’s true that the estate tax was once effectively zero percent — but only for people who died in 2010, not last year. The top rate went back up to 35 percent for those who died the following year, and (under the fiscal cliff deal) to 40 percent for those who died in 2012 and thereafter. Furthermore, the rate is still zero percent for any individual who dies this year and whose estate is valued at less than $5,340,000. The threshold for filing an estate-tax return was set at $5 million in 2011, and is indexed for inflation each year.
- The claim that the fiscal-cliff tax increases were “passed with only Democratic votes” is false. The deal passed by a vote of 89-8 in the Senate (including 40 Republican votes in favor) and by a vote of 257-167 in the House (with 85 Republican votes in favor). The package made permanent the 2001 Bush tax cuts for all but very high-income earners, avoiding tax increases that otherwise would have taken effect Jan. 1, 2013, when the “temporary” Bush tax cuts were scheduled to expire.
Keeps getting better.
UCA was not a tax increase? As Gruber best described, they backloaded it so they would be out of office before most of those taxes hit. You wanna address the dozen or so new taxes he proposed in his 2016 budget?
Bowles Simpson was a 4/1 ratio, Obama's ratio has been something like 1/2000. Again when he got the tax increases in 2012 he demanded no cuts. And you and blueboy were right here supporting the whole way. The real cuts were coming you argued. Many were mad that any from the GOP voting for that bill but they got the best they probably could get ($400k threshold vs. $250k).
And are you seriously using the sequestration as a 'brag" of how they have cut spending? Perfect example of why you are ridiculed. They were dragged kicking and screaming into ANY cuts via the debt ceiling showdown. Lew then craft the sequestration idea and got McConnell and Biden to push it, they then lied that it was their idea.....and from the very moment it was passed they have done everything they can to repeal those cuts, selling all sorts of doomsday and trashing the GOP as causing it. But yeah "The President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law"....presented in your very typical disingenous cheerleading way.
From The Hill in Jan 2015: TOMORROW STARTS TONIGHT: BUH-BYE SEQUESTER? "President Obama said Thursday that he's asking Congress to fully reverse the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration in his annual budget proposal, set to be released next week. The sequestration cuts, triggered in 2013 when lawmakers were unable to strike an overall budget deal, have slashed federal military and domestic budgets. The White House argues that the cuts have held back economic growth and hurt the middle class."
quick, go to c/p some propaganda for us..
UCA was not a tax increase? As Gruber best described, they backloaded it so they would be out of office before most of those taxes hit. You wanna address the dozen or so new taxes he proposed in his 2016 budget?
Bowles Simpson was a 4/1 ratio, Obama's ratio has been something like 1/2000. Again when he got the tax increases in 2012 he demanded no cuts. And you and blueboy were right here supporting the whole way. The real cuts were coming you argued. Many were mad that any from the GOP voting for that bill but they got the best they probably could get ($400k threshold vs. $250k).
And are you seriously using the sequestration as a 'brag" of how they have cut spending? Perfect example of why you are ridiculed. They were dragged kicking and screaming into ANY cuts via the debt ceiling showdown. Lew then craft the sequestration idea and got McConnell and Biden to push it, they then lied that it was their idea.....and from the very moment it was passed they have done everything they can to repeal those cuts, selling all sorts of doomsday and trashing the GOP as causing it. But yeah "The President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law"....presented in your very typical disingenous cheerleading way.
From The Hill in Jan 2015: TOMORROW STARTS TONIGHT: BUH-BYE SEQUESTER? "President Obama said Thursday that he's asking Congress to fully reverse the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration in his annual budget proposal, set to be released next week. The sequestration cuts, triggered in 2013 when lawmakers were unable to strike an overall budget deal, have slashed federal military and domestic budgets. The White House argues that the cuts have held back economic growth and hurt the middle class."
quick, go to c/p some propaganda for us..
Deee you are completely ignorant to what is happening or you agree with the course set by Obama. Since Obama has taken over the middle class taken home is over $5,000.00 less a year. You can use as your argument liberal/democrat talking points but the truth is that we are taking home less because of more taxes. Just can't get past that bottom line.
Similar threads
