Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I know you're being a snark, but January 1. Should get slightly more takehome pay thanks to the lowered SSI withholding

Social Security has a funding problem, and we're lowering payroll taxes - yeah, that should work.

And outside of payroll taxes, most people pay very little to the federal government. That is why there is typically such widespread support for expanding social spending since tens of millions of people won't have to pay a *'ing dime to cover its cost.

All you have to do is divide the amount of money paid in federal income taxes by your gross income and multiply by 100 - that will tell you what your real federal tax rate is (as opposed to getting bogged down in the BS of marginal rates).

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Assuming your right...the GOP has been putting out social policy that's on the fringe of society and therefore, the more moderate 80% of society should prefer Dems regardless of the party's position. I'll take gridlock over another push to the right.

Not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're" is an indication of education level.

Anyway, I'd just like to point out how out of touch "you're" people are. Liberals are a small percentage of the population, about 20%. I didn't say it, Gallup did, argue with him. In fact, we are the single largest ideological group in these great States. 40% of us, 35% moderates, and 21% liberals. Gallup Polls said it, not me.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx

So your "moderate 80% of society" line is BS - even though you don't know the difference between your and you're, I'm sure you knew you were grossly exaggerating. Your whole post is a nonstarter anyway - Democrats always prefer gridlock over giving an inch to the majority of Americans, that's common knowledge.

The problem is that the Democrats are spineless. I don't know if it's a natural progression from being a party of more disparate interests, terror of what the talk radio media will say, or what, but all I need to see is that Bush regularly accomplished more of his agenda with a 50+VP Senate and threats from Republicans in Congress than Obama did with 59 Democratic Senators. I'm not sure he would have matched Bush's "accomplishments" with 70. The Republicans? Vote with us or get out of the way, and if you threaten a filibuster, we'll threaten a "nuclear option" and shut you down anyway.

Democrats are spineless? No way! Democrats did stand up to a foreign aggressor once.... back in 1963. (He was a CONSERVATIVE Democrat, but I'm just trying to throw a bone out there....)

Nuclear option? Hmmm, short memory? The "nuclear option" age was ushed in in the summer of 2009, by the Democrats to socialize health care.

Let me give you far left progressives a hint, which you will promptly and immediately dismiss: Middle class America doesn't have such a short memory anymore - they are noticing your trends....

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Social Security has a funding problem, and we're lowering payroll taxes - yeah, that should work.

Its unreal, isn't it? Whats the party line on this anyway, more money for people to spend on crap to stimulate the economy?

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Considering he signed the PATRIOT Act extension, has yet ot repeal don't ask dont tell, allowed the TSA's continued intrusion into passengers' privacy, still hasn't shut down Guantanimo, still hasn't pulled us out of Iraq or Afghanistan...yeah.

He may not have gotten us into any of that, but he sure as hell hasn't gotten us out of any of it yet, either.

I think it's fair to wonder why he couldn't have changed at least one of the above in 2 years with a Democratic congress at his back.

He said yesterday in his press conference there wasn't a thing he promised to do that he hasn't done yet or he is still trying to do them. How he says that stuff with a straight face is beyond me

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Just to be clear, I would have welcomed more liberal movement in specific policy.

But I don't think folks should confuse expectations and status quo by Obama...with false fiscal conservative promises and a reality of an aggressive social conservative push. Again, let's give a full 4 years before as liberals you decide to give the conservatives another monopoly.

Liberals aren't going to give conservatives a monopoly, but Obama has himself to blame if liberals stay home in 2012. The question is, as a prior post put it, does this buy enough from the center to offset the lack of support / risk of some measure of abandonment to a fringe campaign.

Everybody knew when Bush put the tax cuts into place that the "sunset" was just a strategy for the GOP to claim the Dems were "raising taxes" at expiration. Everybody knew the GOP would tie the middle class rate to the upper class rate and try to ram it through. They won both times -- with a GOP majority and with a Dem majority -- and they won it by muddying the waters, relying on a full court press from their media and the innumeracy of the general public, and changing the subject when anybody analyzed who the cuts go to by screaming "class warfare."

The worrying thing for the Dems is that the GOP won the second time, despite having no credible national leadership and just a couple years removed from having been brutally exposed as being charlatans. If the Dems can't win under those conditions, they're truly the Washington Generals. It's bad enough that one has to question whether they seriously opposed the extension of the tax cuts on the top margin or whether, since their elite benefits from this just as much as the GOP elite, they were perfectly ok seeing the rest of the country get hosed.

There is a point where if the peasantry is so fixated on cutting their own throats, we should let them.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Democrats are spineless? No way! Democrats did stand up to a foreign aggressor once.... back in 1963. (He was a CONSERVATIVE Democrat, but I'm just trying to throw a bone out there....)

Nuclear option? Hmmm, short memory? The "nuclear option" age was ushed in in the summer of 2009, by the Democrats to socialize health care.

Let me give you far left progressives a hint, which you will promptly and immediately dismiss: Middle class America doesn't have such a short memory anymore - they are noticing your trends....

Your memory still sputters and fails, apparently.

http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0305/23/m05.html

"I'm for the nuclear option, absolutely," Lott has said.

May 23, 2003

May 23, 2003

2003

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Its unreal, isn't it? Whats the party line on this anyway, more money for people to spend on crap to stimulate the economy?

Pretty much. The thinking is that the cut in payroll taxes acts as a "stealth stimulus", so people will crowd into the nearest WalMart or Target to buy the latest garbage produced in China or Mexico.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No the argument is that it benefits the rich more than the rest of us. Since with child/medical/education tax credits and home interest deductions etc... 50%? or so of the people don't pay any taxes anyways so the tax reduction (hike) is meaningless to them.

If you want to look at flat tax look at capital gains tax.
It doesn't matter if you make $1000 or $1billion it's taxed at the same rate.
It's the same reason why we should repeal the Bush capital gains tax rate back to whatever it was 28% or 35% instead of 15% that hedgefund managers pay. since it only benefits people with money to invest and the supposed benefit of capital pool (liquidity) is hogwash with our central bank creating titanic liquidity in the name of saving our economy.

That's swell. That's not what I'm saying though. For 10 years it was "Bush cut taxes for the rich!" And now all of sudden people are understanding there's a middle class componenent.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is such a worrisome post. It hints that the sheep in the herd of progressives do not have any ability to even have it occur to them that the left can have any bad intentions. If any worrisome actions should arise from the progressive leaders... put the kid gloves on and gingerly blame it on someone moving to the right side of the fence...

What's worriesome is that anyone who doesn't toe the GOP line on absoluetly everything is automatically considered a liberal progressive socialist commie hipster. For pete's sake, Ronald Reagan wouldn't make it through the primary in today's GOP.

You want to know how I know I'm a moderate (besides my voting record)? Because I have right wing nuts like yourself calling me a far left progressive, and yet at other times I have far left progressives calling me hitler. If I'm ****ing off both extremes, I must be doing something right.

Both parties suck. The Democrats are a spineless coalition of (pansies) that can't even use a majority to get anything accomplished. For better or worse, the GOP has far more unity and clarity of voice, although that voice is unifying at the extreme.

Frankly, my hope for 2012 at this point is a serious run by Bloomberg. Don't agree with him on everything, but at least he'd be able to stand up to the GOP and would make hte budget a priority.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That's swell. That's not what I'm saying though. For 10 years it was "Bush cut taxes for the rich!" And now all of sudden people are understanding there's a middle class componenent.

There is no middle class anymore. Anyone who thinks so is not paying attention.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

There is no middle class anymore. Anyone who thinks so is not paying attention.

So all of Bush's tax cuts were "for the rich"? That's your position?

 

[pardonme]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Frankly, my hope for 2012 at this point is a serious run by Bloomberg. Don't agree with him on everything, but at least he'd be able to stand up to the GOP and would make hte budget a priority.

A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you, but he has become way too authoritarian lately. I've lived in NYC through the ramming down the third term deal through the council after voters said no. He has done several other things that were not widely supported by the public but he said its OK b/c he knows better (for example picking a new schools chancellor who has zero experience in education). Although I guess even after all that he is probably better than Obama or any of the leading republican candidates.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So all of Bush's tax cuts were "for the rich"? That's your position?

No my position is the policies that are in place now are designed to create a two class system. Poor and rich. The middle class is shrinking and ALL of the data supports that premise. Read "The Two Income Trap" by Elizabeth Warren. You will disagree with her solutions and conclusions but she lays out the problem in very clear detail.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Wait, what? How do you figure? I'm actually curious about your reasoning behind this.

Read Elizabeth Warren's book. It lays it out very well.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Perception is for idiots who don't know what's going on around them. AKA most of the American voting public.

Thank you for confirming that you have no perception of what is going on.

Definition of perceive: "to become aware of through the senses"

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

What's worriesome is that anyone who doesn't toe the GOP line on absoluetly everything is automatically considered a liberal progressive socialist commie hipster. For pete's sake, Ronald Reagan wouldn't make it through the primary in today's GOP.

You want to know how I know I'm a moderate (besides my voting record)? Because I have right wing nuts like yourself calling me a far left progressive, and yet at other times I have far left progressives calling me hitler. If I'm ****ing off both extremes, I must be doing something right.

Both parties suck. The Democrats are a spineless coalition of (pansies) that can't even use a majority to get anything accomplished. For better or worse, the GOP has far more unity and clarity of voice, although that voice is unifying at the extreme.

Frankly, my hope for 2012 at this point is a serious run by Bloomberg. Don't agree with him on everything, but at least he'd be able to stand up to the GOP and would make hte budget a priority.

I don't see anyone on the left having any issue with you. I certainly can't imagine why they would. You parrot their line real good, while throwing in a little criticism of them here and there to try to look a little more balanced. But your sky-is-falling because of the GOP act is just silly.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Thank you for confirming that you have no perception of what is going on.

Definition of perceive: "to become aware of through the senses"

Yeah, but at least I know what context means.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Pretty much. The thinking is that the cut in payroll taxes acts as a "stealth stimulus", so people will crowd into the nearest WalMart or Target to buy the latest garbage produced in China or Mexico.

What a shambolic economic strategy. How embarrassing that our nation has come to this, rather than doing anything at all with a long term perspective.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yeah, but at least I know what context means.

I'm proud that you know the definition of one word. I'll try to stop using big words like perception.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'm proud that you know the definition of one word. I'll try to stop using big words like perception.

Ok. And I'll stop trying to think you understand context.