President Obama!
- Thread starter passerby
- Start date
moreluck
golden ticket member
Re: Obamabastic !!
The cuts have been talked about ad nauseum..........................tell the pres. to use his "exec. order" for something both sides could support........tax simplification!!!
Nimnim
The Nim
Re: Obamabastic !!
I'd agree if the democrats pushed through tax increases that could potentially affect, oh say, 70% of the population. We both know they weren't pushing for that. When a small minority will be affected and less than half are paying taxes anyways popularity isn't an issue.
As far as spending cuts, most will cringe at SS medicare and medicaid. While those are the biggest parts of the budget that would make a difference when cut they're the hardest to push through. How many other departments and bureaucracies are out there that can take a hit? No it probably won't solve the problem but it's a start, unlike increasing taxes that will fund the government for about 8 days with nothing committing that money to reducing debts.
I'd agree if the democrats pushed through tax increases that could potentially affect, oh say, 70% of the population. We both know they weren't pushing for that. When a small minority will be affected and less than half are paying taxes anyways popularity isn't an issue.
As far as spending cuts, most will cringe at SS medicare and medicaid. While those are the biggest parts of the budget that would make a difference when cut they're the hardest to push through. How many other departments and bureaucracies are out there that can take a hit? No it probably won't solve the problem but it's a start, unlike increasing taxes that will fund the government for about 8 days with nothing committing that money to reducing debts.
Nimnim
The Nim
Re: Obamabastic !!
I would really not object to a few % increase of taxes across the board if there was a stipulation that the increased revenue went solely to the debt and a balanced budget was accompanying it. If there was no balanced budget the taxes would drop, if there was a balanced budget the taxes would go up and the increased revenue went straight into the debt.
It's really a win win for everyone, a bit of a nightmare for tax prepares, but otherwise win win.
I would really not object to a few % increase of taxes across the board if there was a stipulation that the increased revenue went solely to the debt and a balanced budget was accompanying it. If there was no balanced budget the taxes would drop, if there was a balanced budget the taxes would go up and the increased revenue went straight into the debt.
It's really a win win for everyone, a bit of a nightmare for tax prepares, but otherwise win win.
texan
Well-Known Member
Re: Obamabastic !!
The federal government has borrowed all of the trust fund money from Social Security and spent it.
So why should we believe that any new revenue will be properly managed?
What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? - Forbes
Sure we can trust them with the extra revenue.
The federal government has borrowed all of the trust fund money from Social Security and spent it.
So why should we believe that any new revenue will be properly managed?
What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? - Forbes
Nimnim
The Nim
Re: Obamabastic !!
I didn't say I'd support it, but I wouldn't object. ^_^
We both know it wouldn't happen anyways.
I didn't say I'd support it, but I wouldn't object. ^_^
We both know it wouldn't happen anyways.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Re: Obamabastic !!
Walsh would rather make a jackass out of herself before she would criticize Chicago Jesus.
Via Mediaite:
Walsh would rather make a jackass out of herself before she would criticize Chicago Jesus.
Via Mediaite:
Since the New York Times printed a photo on Wednesday featuring the predominately white and male members of President Barack Obama’s inner circle, contributors and MSNBC guests have been simultaneously noting the problem this presents for the diversity movement and exonerating Obama for his failure to appoint more women and minorities to top posts.
Not one MSNBC contributor or progressive blogger, however, had been able to effectively tar the opposition party for Obama’s failure to live up to their ad hoc diversity standards – that was, however, until Salon.com editor Joan Walsh stepped up to the plate. [...]
Walsh took a more enterprising approach.
She discovered a subtle way to blame the GOP for Obama’s staffing decisions, noting that United Nations Amb. Susan Rice — both African-American and female herself — withdrew from consideration for a Cabinet post when it became clear she would face stiff opposition from Republicans in the Senate.
Not one MSNBC contributor or progressive blogger, however, had been able to effectively tar the opposition party for Obama’s failure to live up to their ad hoc diversity standards – that was, however, until Salon.com editor Joan Walsh stepped up to the plate. [...]
Walsh took a more enterprising approach.
She discovered a subtle way to blame the GOP for Obama’s staffing decisions, noting that United Nations Amb. Susan Rice — both African-American and female herself — withdrew from consideration for a Cabinet post when it became clear she would face stiff opposition from Republicans in the Senate.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Re: Obamanomics
Carney: “Deficit Reduction Is Not A Worthy Goal”… Our $16 trillion deficit begs to differ.
Carney: “Deficit Reduction Is Not A Worthy Goal”… Our $16 trillion deficit begs to differ.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Re: Obamanomics
This is some serious coinage!!!!
Legend of trillion-dollar coin grows as White House declines to rule it out | Fox News
If they do something like this....theyare all crazy mofos!!
This is some serious coinage!!!!
Legend of trillion-dollar coin grows as White House declines to rule it out | Fox News
If they do something like this....theyare all crazy mofos!!
Returntosender
Well-Known Member
Re: Obamanomics
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Re: Obamanomics
Professor Read becoming a meme sensation is an interesting read (no pun).
I've argued elsewhere in this forum that the food stamp program is not what most people make it appear to be but is something else entirely. People will typically look at the front end of the process in where the money originates to fund such a process and it begins with our expending of labor time converted to dollars and extracted in the form of forced taxation. This taxation is then placed into a gov't program from which a form of coupon is issued to program qualified persons who then use said coupons to purchase program qualified foods. Now most people (I use to do it myself too) stop at this point and only see the person using the coupon as the end user and thus the focal point of blame. And at some level there may be some blame there but most people stop at that point and never consider beyond that point in who really benefits.
In this forum I've spoken about Walmart having 26% of it's gross sales in food revenue coming from food stamps so let's use them understanding that Walmart is just one spoke (albeit a big one) in this wheel. Walmart makes a food sale and collecting in payment a food stamp coupon. Like all receipts, Walmart totals at the end of the day and takes said coupons and does what with them? They submit them to the Dept. of Agriculture who runs the food stamp program for redemption in real cash. And where did this cash come from in the first place? From you and I who labored in time converted to dollars and extracted from us by force as taxation.
The action in the middle was just for appearances only and to give us something to blame and to hide the fact that the real benefactor of this wealth redistribution was not the so-called welfare queen who acted only as an unwitting agent but was in fact the actual end recipient of the money itself. And then as payment, a bribe if you will to perpetuate the status quo, lobbyist money, perks and re-election funds are cut from the gross proceeds and paid back to the witting agents (elected officials and appointed agents) in order to keep them in power and also increase their own personal wealth. Ever looked at the wealth of people in gov't when they first enter and then when they get out? Very telling when you begin to look.
I remind the reader that food stamps since it's creation in 1964' is under the authority of the Dept. of Agriculture so why not start there and begin to connect the dots outward. From where does this agency get the people who head and run it in the first place and who are they thus connected too. The "who" of the question will then come into focus so that the "how" becomes self explanatory. Doing so one may realize that Professor Read may at some level have a valid point.
As the old saying goes, "follow the money!"
Professor Read becoming a meme sensation is an interesting read (no pun).
I've argued elsewhere in this forum that the food stamp program is not what most people make it appear to be but is something else entirely. People will typically look at the front end of the process in where the money originates to fund such a process and it begins with our expending of labor time converted to dollars and extracted in the form of forced taxation. This taxation is then placed into a gov't program from which a form of coupon is issued to program qualified persons who then use said coupons to purchase program qualified foods. Now most people (I use to do it myself too) stop at this point and only see the person using the coupon as the end user and thus the focal point of blame. And at some level there may be some blame there but most people stop at that point and never consider beyond that point in who really benefits.
In this forum I've spoken about Walmart having 26% of it's gross sales in food revenue coming from food stamps so let's use them understanding that Walmart is just one spoke (albeit a big one) in this wheel. Walmart makes a food sale and collecting in payment a food stamp coupon. Like all receipts, Walmart totals at the end of the day and takes said coupons and does what with them? They submit them to the Dept. of Agriculture who runs the food stamp program for redemption in real cash. And where did this cash come from in the first place? From you and I who labored in time converted to dollars and extracted from us by force as taxation.
The action in the middle was just for appearances only and to give us something to blame and to hide the fact that the real benefactor of this wealth redistribution was not the so-called welfare queen who acted only as an unwitting agent but was in fact the actual end recipient of the money itself. And then as payment, a bribe if you will to perpetuate the status quo, lobbyist money, perks and re-election funds are cut from the gross proceeds and paid back to the witting agents (elected officials and appointed agents) in order to keep them in power and also increase their own personal wealth. Ever looked at the wealth of people in gov't when they first enter and then when they get out? Very telling when you begin to look.
I remind the reader that food stamps since it's creation in 1964' is under the authority of the Dept. of Agriculture so why not start there and begin to connect the dots outward. From where does this agency get the people who head and run it in the first place and who are they thus connected too. The "who" of the question will then come into focus so that the "how" becomes self explanatory. Doing so one may realize that Professor Read may at some level have a valid point.
As the old saying goes, "follow the money!"
moreluck
golden ticket member
Re: Obamanation here today
Humans with guns have been knownnto be bought!!! That either makes Obama very brave or very stupid !!
No problem with the question that former presidents may need protection. Just a bit hypocritical that he is entitled to armed protection, but you are not. Some are more equal than others.
Via Yahoo News:
Humans with guns have been knownnto be bought!!! That either makes Obama very brave or very stupid !!
No problem with the question that former presidents may need protection. Just a bit hypocritical that he is entitled to armed protection, but you are not. Some are more equal than others.
Via Yahoo News:
Former presidents have to give up rides on Air Force One. But now they don’t have to give up being shadowed by the armed-and-earpieced bodyguards of the Secret Service.
President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.
The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.
At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).
The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents’ kids until age 16. But “protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.”
The Secret Service started protecting presidents in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. In 1965, Congress passed a law authorizing the agency, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to protect former presidents for life.
President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.
The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.
At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).
The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents’ kids until age 16. But “protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.”
The Secret Service started protecting presidents in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. In 1965, Congress passed a law authorizing the agency, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to protect former presidents for life.
moreluck
golden ticket member
moreluck
golden ticket member
Once a radical, always a radical.
Via WHD:
Via WHD:
As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.
Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support. [...]
The Illinois legislation was passed after a man who shot a burglar in his home was fined $750 by his town for disobeying its handgun ban. The absurdity and injustice of the situation doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression on Obama.
Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support. [...]
The Illinois legislation was passed after a man who shot a burglar in his home was fined $750 by his town for disobeying its handgun ban. The absurdity and injustice of the situation doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression on Obama.
moreluck
golden ticket member
The Gift that Keeps on Giving. Another happy consequence of Obamacare. Grin and bear it -if you are able to afford the braces, that is.
Via Fox Nation:
Via Fox Nation:
In 2013, the tax increases in Obamacare will increasingly conspire against kitchen-table family healthcare decisions.
As just one example, below are some of the taxes that will impact the purchase of dental braces:
Obamacare Medical Device Tax: As of Jan.1, Obamacare imposes a new tax of 2.3 percent on medical device manufacturers, including those who make dental braces. The tax is imposed on gross sales — even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. While the tax will be paid to the IRS by the manufacturer, the tax will be passed along as a higher cost of the product, ultimately to be borne by the parent buying the braces for their child.
With the cost of braces being as high as $7,625 this new tax could raise the cost of these braces by $175.
As just one example, below are some of the taxes that will impact the purchase of dental braces:
Obamacare Medical Device Tax: As of Jan.1, Obamacare imposes a new tax of 2.3 percent on medical device manufacturers, including those who make dental braces. The tax is imposed on gross sales — even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. While the tax will be paid to the IRS by the manufacturer, the tax will be passed along as a higher cost of the product, ultimately to be borne by the parent buying the braces for their child.
With the cost of braces being as high as $7,625 this new tax could raise the cost of these braces by $175.
Similar threads
